Sitting of 12 December 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
WAYS AND MEANS

  SESSIONAL RETURNS
  Ordered,
  That Returns be laid before the House for Session 1999–2000 of information and statistics relating to—

  (1) Business of the House;

  (2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions);

  (3) Sittings of the House;

  (4) Private Bills and Private Business;

  (5) Public Bills;

  (6) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Orders;

  (7) European Legislation;

  (8) Grand Committees;

  (9) Chairmen's Panel; and

  (10) Select Committees.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means].

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East Peace Process
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on restarting the middle east peace process. [141960]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): At Nice, European Foreign Ministers met for two hours to review the distressing situation in the middle east. We expressed our concern at the violence in the occupied territories and at the impact of the tension on the wider region. I regret to inform the House that over the weekend there was more violence, as a result of which 10 Palestinians and three Israelis were killed.
    There will be no winners so long as the violence continues. We urge both sides to fulfil their commitments at Sharm el-Sheikh to halt the violence. They can thereby create the environment in which negotiations can be resumed on the peace settlement that both Israel and Palestine desperately need.
    Dr. Iddon: I welcome the declaration on the middle east made by the European Council at Nice. Among
    462
    other issues, the declaration flagged up the settlements. Israel has promised to face that question before, but clearly has not done so. Is my right hon. Friend surprised that that part of the declaration has caused so much reaction among Israeli diplomats and the Israeli press, to the extent that they are suggesting that it is a Palestinian incitement to violence?
    Mr. Cook: It was a common theme of the discussion that the settlements were part of the problem. Anybody who has been to the middle east knows that settlements are one of the issues that have caused great tension and resentment in the Palestinian community. Since Oslo, during the many long years of engagement in the peace process, there has been a constant and substantial increase in the population of settlements—an increase that may be inconsistent with the final agreement. I regret that the statement was condemned in Israel as unbalanced because of that. I think that it is a carefully crafted and well-balanced statement that calls on both sides to fulfil their commitments to Sharm el-Sheikh and to cease violence. We will not get out of the spiral of violence if only one side acts; both sides must do so.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Accepting the careful words of the Foreign Secretary, is not it none the less a sad fact that the Palestinian leadership is encouraging the escalation of violence? That was demonstrated last Friday, the day of rage, during which 10 people were killed. I echo the right hon. Gentleman's view that the two sides should sit down. That message that must go to the Palestinian leadership, especially during the next two months. Will he applaud Prime Minister Barak's decision to bring forward the Israeli general election by two months? That will help to create the correct conditions for more talks.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman began by congratulating me on my careful words, but finished by inviting me to step into a deep pit. If he will forgive me, I shall not comment on the Israeli general election, which is a matter for the Israeli people.
    On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, we have appealed to the leadership of both sides, including that of the Palestinians, for an end to the violence. We must understand, however, that the Palestinian leadership cannot turn off violence as if it were a military general commanding troops. The serious issue must be addressed of ensuring that the Palestinian people see the prospect of hope and progress. That is why we have called repeatedly for confidence-building measures.
    I believe that relaxation of internal closures would enable the Palestinian leadership to command more support among the people. I read with concern the statement by an Israeli non-governmental organisation, Physicians for Human Rights, that medicine and food were now in short supply in large parts of the west bank because of those internal closures. Relaxing the closures, which play no part in security, could help to create the confidence within which violence can diminish.
    Mr. David Winnick: Should not the Israelis, of all people, understand the anger and injustice felt by almost all Palestinians in the occupied territories? Should not those of us who have always taken the view that Israel has a right to exist—that has been my position

    463
    since 1948, when it came into existence—tell the Israelis bluntly that the line that they have pursued, especially since 1967, will never lead to peace? The Israelis should understand that. In my view, it is our responsibility to tell them so as clearly and as sharply as possible.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend speaks with particular authority because he has long been a friend of Israel. I hope that the Government and people of Israel are aware of the deep concerns about the present situation among all those who are their friends in the outside world. It is also true that nobody else stands to gain as much from a peace settlement as the Israeli people themselves. Indeed, whenever they are given the chance, they consistently vote for peace. I desperately want a few days free from any funerals, so that we can get back to pursuing the peace settlement.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it not a matter of some dismay for those of us who wish the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a lasting and just settlement that ceasefires come and go with almost depressing frequency? In view of the antipathy of the Israelis to any monitoring force drawn from the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary consider the possibility of such a force being drawn from the European Union or from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, so that the next time a ceasefire is declared it will have some chance of succeeding?
    Mr. Cook: I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the failure of ceasefires to stay in being and I am particularly appalled and distressed at the level of last weekend's violence.
    I believe that an observer force could play a valuable part in confidence building and in ensuring that agreements are honoured on the ground by both sides. I therefore regret that we have as yet been unable to reach agreement on the deployment of observers. They need not be static, they need not freeze present borders, they could be mobile and would not even need to be a military force that could intervene; they would be there to observe and to report. I am glad that the fact-finding mission is now starting its work this week in the middle east, and I hope it will be possible to build on that to provide a corps of observers.
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for us to achieve a period that is free from violence and to create the prospect of returning to the negotiating table and the peace process, it is up to leaders on all sides to urge an end to violence? Is it not therefore time that the Palestinian leadership stopped its official media whipping up and orchestrating violence on the streets in the Palestinian Authority? The Palestinian leadership has control over that. Will my right hon. Friend stop the Palestinians from using the media in that way?
    Mr. Cook: I fully endorse my hon. Friend's appeal to the Palestinian leadership not to say or do anything involving incitement. At the same time, we in this House are committed to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and we cannot prevent the Palestinian media from reporting views that are widely expressed in Palestine. I agree that there is a special responsibility on leadership figures, but both sides have to refrain from
    464
    violence if we are to get a ceasefire lasting more than a day or two. I particularly regret the fact that last weekend 10 Palestinians were killed out of a total of 13 deaths. Both sides must back off from violence if we are to have an end to violence.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If the Palestinian people are to be convinced that there is an alternative to violence in their efforts to meet their legitimate aspirations to peace and freedom, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the international community must display its willingness to put effective pressure on the Israeli Government to end their illegal occupation? In that context, what discussions did he have with colleagues at the Nice summit about the economic measures that might be taken against Israel if progress towards peace is not achieved in the near future?
    Mr. Cook: I say to the hon. Gentleman in all candour—I appreciate the sincerity and good will behind his question—that our present objective is to try to encourage both sides to come back to the negotiating table and to ensure that they understand that Europe, the United States, the United Nations and Kofi Annan are willing to mediate and help. It does not currently assist in that objective to drive Israel increasingly into retreat and to make it feel under pressure from those who may be seen to be undermining its economy. Moreover, it is impossible to take economic measures against Israel without also damaging Palestine. One should remember that the Palestinians require Israel, more than any other country, to secure the opportunity for economic progress.

    Iran
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: When he last raised the case of the Iranian Jews imprisoned for espionage with the Iranian ambassador. [141961]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We and our European Union partners have taken every appropriate opportunity to raise our concerns about the unsatisfactory nature of the case, which I last raised with the Iranian ambassador when I met him on 19 October. While noting the reductions in sentence of between two and six years on appeal, we hope that the Iranian judiciary will now show clemency.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply and for his hard work on this issue. Does he recall that those people have been in prison since March last year on what most, if not all, independent observers recognise were trumped-up charges, and that the only reason for their imprisonment is that they are Jewish? Does he also recall the series of assurances we had from representatives of the Iranian authorities, who said that there would be a fair and open trail? In fact, there was little more than a show trial. Will he continue to press directly and through our allies for the sentences to be commuted and for the early release of those innocent people?
    Mr. Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in this case. That is right and proper, because it has caused widespread distress among his constituents and throughout Britain. This case does Iran no credit.

    465
    The sooner the judiciary is able to review the situation and move towards clemency, the better for everyone concerned. The persecution of Jews in Iran, of which this case is an example—although some Muslims were also prosecuted—is something that Iran must put behind it as it moves into the international family of nations.
    Mr. John Bercow: What intelligence can the Minister offer the House about the treatment of those prisoners while they are incarcerated? Does he accept that in calling for justice and clemency, he is much strengthened by the knowledge that public opinion in Iran strongly favours reform of that country's political system?
    Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point, because it highlights one of the central problems for progress on this matter. The Government have sought to engage constructively with the Government of President Khatami, who are reforming Iran with the mass support of the people. The Iranian Government are facing resistance not least among the judiciary, which is under the control of reactionary forces. These persecuted Jewish residents of Iran have found themselves stuck in the middle. That has prevented a satisfactory resolution to the problem, but we are still hopeful that the Iranian Government will understand international concern and act accordingly.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is extremely helpful to have a clear statement from the Minister, and we welcome his constant support. Does he accept that only pressure will make it clear to the Iranian authorities that if they want to be accepted internationally, this is not the way to go, and that the sooner these people are either tried honestly and openly or released the better it will be for the Iranian people?
    Mr. Hain: I hope that the Iranian ambassador, with whom I have discussed this case recently, listens to my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has consistently raised the issue at the highest level, as I have. It is in Iran's interest, and certainly in the Iranian Government's interest, for clemency to be shown in this case, which is an appalling stain on Iran's recent record at a time when much progress is being made that we should support.

    RAXEN Programme
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement about the discussions he has had with European Union Ministers about the RAXEN programme. [141962]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): RAXEN, the European racism and xenophobia information network, is an information-sharing network established by the European Union's monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia. European Union Ministers agreed the programme in 1997. The Government are committed to combating racism and promoting diversity in Britain and across Europe. We will continue to support RAXEN and the European monitoring centre in any way that we can.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the whole House shares the Government's
    466
    desire to stamp out racism and xenophobia, but is not that organisation trying to stamp out the undesirable emotions that the European Union itself is creating? The creation of a European army and other moves that take us towards a European superstate, such as economic and monetary union, are likely to foster xenophobia and racism. Is not the real way to combat those undesirable emotions to allow each independent nation state to remain exactly that, independent?
    Mr. Vaz: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Freedom Association, but I thought that his views might have matured since he joined the House of Commons. RAXEN and the monitoring centre do excellent work. He may have prepared his supplementary question before he realised that this was not a question about the rapid reaction force. It is about an effective organisation that is doing very good work. It is right that we should celebrate the diversity of cultures in the European Union. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members do not support that work. I suggest that he uses one of his visits as a Member of Parliament to go to Austria and see those people, and then he will know what excellent work they do.

    Nice Summit
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: If he will make a statement on the recent EU summit in Nice. [141963]
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Council meeting in Nice. [141966]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement to the House yesterday on the Nice European Council.
    The outcome secured Britain's strategic objectives. It opens the door to enlargement by agreeing the necessary reforms to the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. It provides Britain with the first-ever increase in its vote. It removes the veto of other countries in some areas where Britain wants progress, such as tougher management of the Community budget, but it respects Britain's red lines by preserving unanimity on both tax and social security. It is a good deal for Britain. It is also a good deal for the candidate countries, which have widely welcomed agreement to the treaty and want to see it ratified.
    Mrs. Campbell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent success in Nice. Does he recall who said this?
    Considerable progress has been made … and qualified majority voting has enabled us to get some liberalising measures through against protectionist resistance by some of our partners.—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 103.]

    467
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that those sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) are still appropriate, and does he wonder, as I do, why the shadow Secretary of State has done a complete U-turn?
    Mr. Cook: I really think that that is a question for the Opposition, not the Government.
    Mr. Illsley: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success at Nice.
    Despite the Opposition's scaremongering about, for instance, increasing qualified majority voting, the reweighting of votes, the possible loss of vetoes and possible further integration, is it not a fact that the British Government negotiated successfully? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the outcome of the Nice summit paves the way for further enlargement? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Cook: I am sorry that the Opposition find such a good outcome for Britain a subject for mirth.
    Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and many others tried to claim that we had never been under any pressure on tax. I hope that this morning they heard the statement by President Chirac and Pierre Moscovici, the French European Minister, stressing how hard they had worked and how much they regretted the fact that we had not moved. We were only able to maintain those red lines because we remained firm over four days, and because of the brilliant case put by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The Prime Minister told us yesterday that he had—as indeed he has—increased the United Kingdom's voting share in the Council of Ministers; but will the Foreign Secretary now tell us exactly what the percentage increase is? According to figures that I have been given, it has risen from 11.49 per cent. to 12.4 per cent. Is that the greatest diplomatic triumph since the treaty of Berlin?
    Mr. Cook: Yes—it is much better than anything we got under 18 years of Conservative government. As a matter of fact, our share steadily shrank: with every additional enlargement, the British share of the vote went down. We have now secured a significant increase, which will see us through the joining of the first six countries. During that time, we shall see no net reduction of any significance in the current British share.
    We have protected Britain's strength. We have a stronger Britain, in what can now become a wider Europe. I would expect the Opposition—who keep saying that they believe in Britain, and believe in standing up for Britain—to welcome Britain's obtaining more clout in Europe.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us in how many areas it was agreed that the national veto should be given up? Was it 23, as the Commission has said, or 39, as the right hon. Gentleman's own officials have apparently said? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with us that the mainstream majority of the public here want to see a real process of
    468
    decentralisation in the European Union, not this relentless march towards political union? That would make enlargement easier to accomplish, not more difficult.
    Mr. Cook: I am not quite sure to what extent the Opposition have been observing what happened at Nice. For four hours over Sunday night and Monday, we argued with one particular country. That is not evidence of a superstate; that is evidence of substantial—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. It is evidence of the way in which the European Union pays respect to the views of one country.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: How many?
    Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman is quiet, I will answer the question. How can I answer it if I am constantly interrupted?
    The treaty of Nice provides for qualified majority voting in 31 articles. Ten are articles from which Britain is already exempt because we are not part of Schengen. Three relate to the appointment and pensions of officials, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday. The remainder are substantial changes. I do not diminish them. They are substantial changes that we wanted because we wanted to get rid of the veto of other countries on tougher management of the Community budget; because we wanted to ensure that we have tight rules on structural funds, so that they cannot be mismanaged; and because we wanted to ensure that we can change the rules and procedure of the European Court of Justice, so that Britain can get its cases heard faster and more fairly. Those are gains for Britain.
    The treaty is also a gain for Europe. Every hon. Member, including the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), has received a letter from the Federation of Poles in Great Britain urging—[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman has received it. The letter asks the House to be the first to ratify a treaty in the interests of central Europe. I would like to know what answer the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give the federation.
    Mr. Maude: I will give the answer now—we would ratify tomorrow a treaty that was genuinely about enlargement. We would agree tomorrow the matters in the treaty that were genuinely about enlargement, reweighting of votes and the size of the Commission. We will not agree to ratify the relentless march towards full political union to which the Foreign Secretary has agreed.
    On the defence initiative, will the Foreign Secretary answer the questions that were put to him yesterday? Does he understand that, at Nice, he and the Prime Minister signed up to establishing
    the Military Committee of the European Union
    and
    the Military Staff of the European Union … ?
    Does he finally understand that that is precisely what Defence Secretary Cohen and the other Americans are so concerned about? How can he ensure that NATO does not become a "relic of the past", in Secretary Cohen's own phrase, which he predicts will happen if the current arrangements are put into effect?
    Mr. Cook: At Nice, we approved eight separate documents. They set out in great detail how, at every stage

    469
    of any European security initiative, it will be firmly anchored in joint decision-making with NATO. Moreover, any decision by us to take part will be a sovereign national decision.
    The point was put to the right hon. Gentleman by Jonathan Dimbleby on Sunday. He said that it would be a sovereign decision by Britain and added:
    That's not European control.
    The right hon. Gentleman replied:
    I regard us as being a European country.
    The truth is that there is nothing but scare in what the Opposition are trying to peddle.
    I return to the question that we put to the right hon. Gentleman. He is plainly saying that he will say no to the Polish federation; to the Polish Prime Minister, who described the decision at Nice as "exceptionally favourable"; to the Foreign Minister of Estonia, who said that the agreement was "historic"; and to the Foreign Minister of Lithuania, who said:
    The doors of the EU institutions are open.
    The right hon. Gentleman should reflect that, when the Opposition are the only force in the whole of Europe that is taking a view of negativity, it is just possible that they are wrong and the rest of Europe is right.
    Mr. Maude: Will the Foreign Secretary answer the question that he has been asked? Does he believe that Secretary Cohen is fundamentally dishonest, to use his casual phrase? Secretary Cohen said that the arrangements should be put together, so that there was no separate operational planning, and that:
    The European Union will erode NATO and US security ties with Europe if it insists on separate operational planning for its new rapid reaction force.
    Does the Foreign Secretary understand that that is precisely what he and the Prime Minister signed up to on Friday in Nice? Does he realise just how dangerous that is—all for the sake of one man's vanity, the Prime Minister's moment in the sunlight as a leader in Europe? If the harvest of that vanity is permanent damage to the most successful security alliance in history, which has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years, he will never be forgiven.
    Mr. Cook: There is no operational planning capacity in the proposals for European security. What the documents say is that we have a guaranteed permanent access to NATO's operational planning capacity. It is that which we will use in any exercise.
    Mr. Maude: Read the document.
    Mr. Cook: I have indeed read all the documents. That is why I know that there is no provision for an operational planning capacity. The day after the speech from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, Secretary Cohen said that he was in complete agreement with the British position.
    I return to my earlier point. The right hon. Gentleman has just suggested that this is all about one man's vanity. The fact is that 30 different countries took part in the capabilities conference two weeks ago. There were 30 different countries. The matter has been driven not by one man's vanity, but by those countries combined desire
    470
    and commitment to make Europe more secure and more safe. If Conservative Members really mean what their defence spokesman said yesterday and would drive a stake through our commitment to the force, 29 countries in Europe would regard Britain as having cheated them and let them down. That will not leave us with a strong alliance, on which our defence depends.

    EU Enlargement
    Ms Sally Keeble: What recent contacts he has had with his opposite numbers in Eastern Europe on the subject of EU enlargement. [141964]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Last Thursday, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers from all the candidate countries for European Union membership at the meeting of the European conference in Nice. I have met all the applicants Ministers for Europe in the past 12 Months. As my hon. Friend will know and as the Foreign Secretary has just said, the Government are a champion of enlargement.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What discussions is he having with other Ministers on protecting national interests and dealing with some of the problems of enlargement, particularly the financial costs of extending regional and agricultural aid programmes to new members?
    Mr. Vaz: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that negotiations are going well. The first six countries that applied to join the European Union have completed negotiations and, on average, have closed 29 chapters of the 31 chapters of the acquis. The so-called Helsinki six have opened on average a total of between 9 and 13 chapters. The negotiations are going very well, and, as the Foreign Secretary has just said, they will be improved enormously by the spirit for enlargement demonstrated at the Nice summit. We shall continue to work with all the applicant countries to achieve that.
    Indeed, just before Nice, I and two ministerial colleagues went to visit Bratislava. We are the first country to have had such bilateral visits. I want more such visits to take place, not only between Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers, but between Members of Parliament from Westminster and from the applicant countries.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Given the crucial importance of enlargement, what arrangements does the hon. Gentleman envisage for reform of the common agricultural policy—without which the process cannot enduringly take place? When will that reform be made?
    Mr. Vaz: As the House will know, the Government are highly committed to reform of the common agricultural policy. That point has been made consistently.
    Mr. Maude: Not at Nice.
    Mr. Vaz: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, because he signed the Maastricht treaty, it was not on the agenda at Nice because we do not need a treaty change to

    471
    reform the CAP. He will know that that was not one of the points that needed to be put on the agenda. We shall continue to push forward to ensure that there is CAP reform, and we shall do so with the same spirit of encouragement and enthusiasm that we have always shown.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend the Minister, when he next meets the ambassadors of the Czech, Slovak and Polish Governments, say that if they read the comments of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) in Hansard, they may be reassured that the spirit of Neville Chamberlain—who spoke of a far-away country of which we know little—is alive. In contrast, the Government recognise our moral obligation to allow expansion of the European Union to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. That obligation was won by brave pilots who fought above this place in 1940, and whom Winston Churchill referred to as "the few". Therefore, although enlargement is an economic, commercial and political issue, above all else it is a moral issue, and it needs to be addressed.
    Mr. Vaz: I am sure that the whole House will have been moved by my hon. Friend's Churchillian tones. He is absolutely right—not only will I remind the ambassadors for those three applicant countries, but I will remind the ambassadors for all applicant countries. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his frequent visits to the applicant countries. This kind of bilateral relationship is extremely important because the applicant countries know, as the Foreign Secretary has just said, who is the friend of enlargement. They also know that the Conservative party would block enlargement.

    EU Presidency
    Mr. John Butterfill: When he next plans to meet the French President to discuss the work of the EU presidency; and if he will make a statement. [141965]
    Mr. James Gray: When he next plans to meet the President of France to discuss the work of the EU presidency on enlargement; and if he will make a statement. [141967]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We agreed at Nice, under President Chirac's chairmanship, on arrangements that will open the door to the enlargement of the European Union. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary next expect to meet President Chirac during the UK-French summit planned for 9 February next year. France will cease to hold the EU presidency in 19 days, when it will be passed to Sweden.
    Mr. Butterfill: When the Foreign Secretary meets President Chirac, will he discuss with him the relationship between the European declaration on human rights and the European convention on human rights? At present, legislation passing through the House has to comply with the European convention on human rights. It is suggested that the European Commission believes that it can direct this House to amend legislation to comply with the
    472
    fundamental declaration. If that is so, what will happen if the two are in conflict? Which will prevail—the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights?
    Mr. Vaz: I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman legal advice on these matters. As a former vice-chairman of the Back-Bench committee on foreign affairs, he is very knowledgeable about European issues. He will know that Commission proposals are always welcome.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend was chairman.
    Mr. Vaz: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—he was chairman of the Back-Bench committee, which means that he should be even more knowledgeable on these issues and not require advice from me.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that the Commission is entitled to put its views forward. Indeed, it has a website, especially for that purpose, exclusively available to the whole world. Obviously, we will look carefully at what it says, but the Government's position on these matters is very clear, and any legal challenges will have to be dealt with in the normal way.
    Mr. Gray: The entire tone of the post-Nice statements, including during Question Time today, has been one of swaggering boastfulness about how successful it was. However, two big things are missing from what the Government have been saying about Nice. The first is any kind of discussion of the reform of the common agricultural policy, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Perhaps because of that, something else that is very important is missing from Nice—any setting of, or promise to set, a firm date for enlargement. When will enlargement of the European Union take place?
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman will know the statements that we have already made on the subject. Nice cleared the way for enlargement. I am not surprised that Conservative Members are depressed and sad about Nice, because they know what a success it was. That was demonstrated by the way in which, once and for all, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the Leader of the Opposition on this subject yesterday.
    Nice was a negotiating triumph because of the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who were up until 4.30 yesterday morning. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) may laugh—the only time that he is up at 4.30 in the morning is when he comes swaggering out of the Carlton club. The success was not only for Britain but for the rest of Europe—the countries involved in enlargement and those of the European Union. The only political party in Europe not to get anything out of Nice was the Conservative party, so I have taken the trouble to get Conservative Members something from Nice—a packet of Nice biscuits.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the Minister for Europe confirm that it is now possible for a rational party to oppose the treaty of Nice and that it is possible for it

    473
    to support enlargement, but that it is no longer possible for a rational party, or any rational individual, to try to support both at once?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course there is no rational argument from the Conservative party on such matters. A party that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, is prepared to hold a referendum on the pension rights of the Court of Auditors, but not on the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), shows that it has no policy whatever on Europe.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Is not the most significant development in the European Union, underlined at Nice, that we are increasingly moving from a Europe led by the Franco-German axis to a multi-faceted Europe, where Britain increasingly plays the leading role? Is not that light years away from the notion of a European superstate, about which the Conservative party consistently and misleadingly tries to frighten people in this country?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work that he does in the European movement. He is right because this country wants to see a Europe of nation states. At Nice, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary established that principle more clearly than ever before. No motor or axis runs Europe; it is a continent and the EU is an organisation of first-class nation states, all of which are equally treated. That is why we are delighted that the provisions on enhanced co-operation agreed at Nice will not create a two-speed Europe.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When the Minister is swapping stories with President Chirac about his triumphs at Nice, will he take the opportunity to ask for clearer and more timely information about exactly what he and the Prime Minister have signed up to at Nice, so that he has a clear idea of the areas where he has surrendered our vetoes? Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to qualified majority voting on the pensions of court auditors—which is reported at column 355 of Hansard—and the Minister has just referred to the pensions of the Court of Auditors. Will the Minister apologise to the House and confirm that, in fact, no provision on that issue was agreed to at Nice? That is not surprising, as the institutional provisions on the pensions of the Court of Auditors were introduced under article 247 of the Maastricht treaty and are already decided by QMV. Of course, the Prime Minister and the Minister may have been tired and failed to understand the detail, but is not it about time that they made accurate statements when they are signing away this country's powers?
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Lady is getting too excited—she should have one of these biscuits. I refer her to article 247 of the treaty, and if she has problems understanding what we have done at Nice, she should go to the Foreign Office website. We have just set up an interactive line. She can
    474
    communicate with me and ask any question that she wants. She cannot appreciate, and will not accept, the fact that a British Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have this shouting across the Chamber.
    Mr. Vaz: I do not mind, Mr. Speaker, because the shouting betrays the vacuum that currently exists in Conservative party policy. Conservative Members cannot stomach the fact that a British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary can go to a European Council, such as Nice, and come back with every single one of the British Government's objectives maintained. We will take no lectures on QMV from the hon. Lady, who is sitting next to St. Francis of Maastricht—the person who negotiated 30 different changes to QMV.

    Somaliland
    Mr. Alun Michael: What steps he is taking to support and encourage progress on stability and reconstruction in Somaliland. [141968]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We welcome the establishment of a transitional National Assembly in Mogadishu, but have made it clear that it must not undermine the peace and stability achieved by the regions of Somaliland and Puntland.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the personal interest that my hon. Friend the Minister takes in Somaliland, in particular the north of Somalia, from where so many British Somalis come. They have made a considerable contribution to organisations such as the British Army and the Merchant Navy over the years. Does he agree that it is remarkable, given the unsettled state of most of Somalia, that Somaliland has become well ordered, that it has governance if not a Government, and that it has democratic institutions and is working towards an election? Does he also agree that the British Government, and we as parliamentarians, should do everything possible to encourage the continuation of that stability and the development of those institutions and of law and order in Somaliland?
    Mr. Hain: I very much welcome the points made by my right hon. Friend, and acknowledge his long-standing expertise and interest in the future of the Somali people, some of whom reside in his constituency. We are very proud to have them in Wales.
    Somaliland's stability, which is remarkable in a country that has been torn apart by some of the most vicious skirmishing and warlordery, is a model for the rest of the country and one that we should support and encourage. I shall work with my right hon. Friend to achieve that.
    Mr. Roger Gale: While the Minister is considering the promotion of democracy in Somaliland, will he widen his view to take in the whole of the African continent? Will he tell the House, in the light of

    475
    the present circumstances in Ghana, what additional assistance the Government will give to ensure that the elections there—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is not about Ghana. Let us move on to the next question.

    Overseas Staff
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: When he will next review the level of salaries available to his Department's staff serving overseas; and if he will make a statement. [141969]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Salaries of all United Kingdom-based Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, whether serving at home or overseas, are reviewed annually. There is a common settlement date for all staff of 1 April.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister will know that Members of Parliament, when travelling overseas, receive very good support from staff of all grades at missions and embassies throughout the world. Some lower administrative grades have to be filled by United Kingdom nationals because they involve sensitive work such as translating messages, telexes and telegrams. However, is the Minister aware that those grades attract salaries that leave the postholder entitled to the working families tax credit and other social security benefits? Surely, if those UK nationals are being asked to do such sensitive work in such important positions overseas, they should not have to rely on the social security system for top-ups to their wages.
    Mr. Hain: We are well aware of the problem of low-paid staff in the Foreign Office—a problem that we inherited from the Tory Government. [Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Gentleman's specific point. Our awareness of the problem explains why the Foreign Secretary authorised a pay settlement in agreement with the Treasury that was particularly beneficial to the lowest-paid staff, who received up to 9 to 10 per cent. compared with an average of 4.5 per cent. this year. I think that about six members of the Foreign Office staff would be entitled to receive the working families tax credit, and receive ex gratia payments by agreement with the Inland Revenue because they cannot attract the credit under the rules. We do not want that situation to be perpetuated and we are keeping it under review. I join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging and paying tribute to the service that our overseas staff, both locally engaged staff and British nationals, provide.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Could we not link the pay of overseas staff to their efforts in promoting British products overseas? Does the Minister agree that it is wrong, for example, that the consul-general in Sydney has equipped his offices there with crockery not from Australia, not from Taiwan, not even from Japan, but all the way from Italy? This matter could be linked with the next question. Does the Minister agree that the Italian embassy in Canberra is probably equipped with Italian
    476
    crockery, rather than British crockery? Should not the crockery and glasses in British embassies overseas be home-grown products?
    Mr. Hain: I am tempted to think that that question comes from an old crock, but that would be very unfair.
    Perhaps the explanation of the hon. Gentleman's observation is that Foreign Office staff travel round the world and bring with them their own crockery, which they have collected on previous postings. I do not know whether that applies in this case. The hon. Gentleman should raise important, serious issues rather than matters such as this.

    Italy
    Mr. Roger Casale: If he will make a statement about the recent state visit to Italy. [141970]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Queen, accompanied by Prince Philip, paid a state visit in October to Italy, during which Her Majesty and Prince Philip also visited Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. The visit was a recognition of our extremely close relationship with the Government and people of Italy. The Queen received an enthusiastic welcome, and the Italian press gave the visit extensive and wholly positive coverage.
    Mr. Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain and Italy are working together successfully on a growing number of issues to shape the European and international agenda, not least on defence issues, such as the formulation of a headline goal for European defence capabilities, but also on immigration and asylum issues as well as taking a lead on the cancellation of poor-country debt? Will he join me in thanking my colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group, and the head of our secretariat, Michael Nathanson, for helping to cement bilateral parliamentary links, which further advance the new impetus that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have given to bilateral relations at every level?
    Mr. Cook: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that parliamentary links are an important part of bringing our countries together, and I congratulate him on his work as the chairman of the British-Italian parliamentary group. We have a close relationship with Italy on defence co-operation. Indeed, while on the state visit, the Duke of Edinburgh visited Agusta Westland, which is the second-largest producer of helicopters in the world. In addition, a Tornado that was part of the fly-past for the Queen was jointly piloted by an Italian and British crew. We also work together very closely in Kosovo, where there is an Italian commander of the Kosovo force.
    Italy played an important part in, and made a major contribution to, the capabilities conference, to which my hon. Friend referred. If the Italian Government were ever faced with a Conservative Government who carried through their commitment to renege on Britain's commitments made at that conference, they would not only be astounded by that betrayal, but would ask why they should stand by their commitments to Britain if we do not stand by our commitments to our allies.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Steve McCabe: What assessment he has made of the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir. [141974]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): While visiting India, I welcomed the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir during Ramadan and called on militants and those supporting them to respond positively. I have also welcomed Pakistan's subsequent announcement that its forces at the line of control will observe maximum restraint. We hope that those recent developments will create a climate that encourages dialogue between the Indian and Pakistani Governments.
    Mr. McCabe: I welcome my hon. Friend's positive and helpful comments about the situation in Kashmir. Can he say more about the proposed investigation by the Indian authorities into the massacre at Chattisinghpura of 36 male villagers who were executed on the eve of President Clinton's visit on 20 March this year? He will be aware that the limited inquiry by Mr. Justice Pandian revealed that the original suggestion that the atrocity was the responsibility of Kashmiri militants is now subject to considerable doubt. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the true facts are known and that those responsible are brought to justice if we are to continue to reduce tension in the region?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that that appalling massacre of 36 Sikhs in March has not done Kashmiris or, indeed, India any credit. That is why I very much welcome the decision of the Indian Government to conduct a special inquiry into the massacre and to publish two reports. That is a good sign of transparency and will act as a check against human rights abuses, which are happening almost every day in Kashmir.
    It is important that the present opportunity offered by the statements of restraint that have been made by both sides is grasped. We need to move towards a proper dialogue and a resumption of the Lahore process, which was started so courageously last year by Prime Minister Vajpayee of India, so that we can get down to proper negotiations between the two countries and Kashmiri representatives to find a new and stable future for that troubled region.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I note the Minister's welcome for Pakistan's announcement of maximum military restraint on the conflict line, but does that announcement extend to its ceasing to be a state sponsor of terrorism in Kashmir?
    Mr. Hain: No. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point because there is still far too much evidence—certainly over the past year to 18 months since the Cargil incident, which was inspired by Pakistan—that cross-border terrorism is actively encouraged and, indeed, at times sponsored by agencies and elements closely aligned with the Pakistani authorities. It is very important that that stops. Then, we shall have a climate in which serious negotiations and dialogue can create a more hopeful situation.

    Ilois People
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will conduct an environmental and ecological assessment in those areas of the Chagos archipelago and Diego Garcia which have been uninhabited for 30 years, before considering facilitating the return of Ilois people to the land of their ancestral graves. [141975]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that we have already completed the first phase of a study into the possibility of settlement on the outer islands of the Chagos archipelago. The study identified the significant difficulties in establishing a resident community after three decades in which the islands have been uninhabited. We are now preparing the second and third phases of the feasibility study. They will include an assessment of how best we protect the rich ecology on islands that have long been left undisturbed.
    Mr. Dalyell: In light of the document of 13 November 1970, which was recently released under the 30-year rule and which I have given my right hon. Friend, do not the Ilois and, indeed, my right hon. Friend and I, who asked questions, and the House of Commons as a whole, have a right to feel aggrieved and deceived at the cynical attitude of the Foreign Office of those days? In the light of the documents revealed in the Public Record Office, do not we owe it to the Ilois to make it up to them?
    Mr. Cook: I would have to agree wholly with my hon. Friend's comments on the document, which I have read. The only accurate sentence that I can find in it is the one that says:
    Mr Dalyell is not, however, giving up.
    That was 30 years ago. In the recent court case, we were open in disclosing hundreds of documents from that period. I am grateful to Lord Justice Laws for commending the openness of the Foreign Office of today, perhaps compared with that of 30 years ago.
    We have accepted the judgment; we are not appealing against it. We are now looking hard at whether it is feasible to restore a settlement on the outer islands of the archipelago. That is the best way in which we can take the matter forward and do the justice for which my hon. Friend asks.

    EU Co-operation
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What recent discussions he has held with his French, German and Italian counterparts about reinforced co-operation between member states of the EU. [141977]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Several.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister took pride in the fact that there are issues on which some EU member states can move ahead faster than others. At the same time, however, that process will be subject to the national veto. How are those positions

    479
    compatible, particularly since any grouping of member states comprising more than 38 per cent. of the population of the EU can, in effect, go ahead and do what it wants?
    Mr. Vaz: Not on defence.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Andrew Love: What discussions he has had with his counterpart in Cyprus regarding inter-community relations; and if he will make a statement. [141978]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): During his most recent meeting with the Cyprus Foreign Minister on 3 October, the Foreign Secretary welcomed the progress made so far in the on-going United Nations-Cyprus proximity talks. The discussions also covered the necessity for both sides to remain fully engaged in the UN proximity talks, aimed at securing a just and sustainable settlement in Cyprus, which will benefit both its communities. The United Kingdom remains strongly supportive of the UN process and is working hard to ensure that all involved
    480
    continue to co-operate fully with the UN Secretary-General's efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.
    Mr. Love: My hon. Friend will be aware that Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, has indicated that he will not take part in further proximity talks. What efforts are the Government making to ensure the continuation of dialogue between the two communities in Cyprus, and what pressures are they bringing to bear to ensure meaningful dialogue leading to a resolution of the conflict on the island?
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done on this issue and on the number of times that he has raised it in the House. It is vital that dialogue continues between the communities, and we have every confidence in the abilities of our special representative, Sir David Hannay. My hon. Friend will know from his meetings with Sir David and others involved in this sensitive process that we want all groups to participate. As the Prime Minister said on 23 December 1998, we want to see a just and lasting settlement for Cyprus.
    Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: After the statement, sir.

  Communications White Paper
  3.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I should like to make a statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself on the communications White Paper "A New Future for Communications", which was published today and produced jointly by our Departments. Copies have been placed in the Library, and the White Paper is also available on the world wide web.
  We are living at a time of revolution in the ways in which we communicate. The worlds of telephony, broadcasting, mobile communications and the internet are changing and converging with astonishing speed. Meanwhile, our current regulatory framework was designed for a different age. We need to update the framework of regulation, and put in place a system that recognises the current fast-changing picture and can cope with the inevitability of change in years to come. The White Paper prepares us for that future, and will set up modern regulation for a modern world.
  We will be creating a new regulator—an Office of Communications, or Ofcom. The new regulator will cover all communications—telecoms, television and radio. It will help to give the United Kingdom a world lead by creating a new framework for those fast-moving industries. It will simplify and rationalise the regulatory system. It will provide a broadly lighter-touch approach, giving the industry the opportunity to act with responsible freedom. However, it will robustly uphold important standards of quality and protection for citizens.
  For citizens and consumers, it is essential that we provide some certainty in what, for many, will be a world of bewildering change. We therefore aim to protect the high quality of broadcasting which we all tend to take for granted. So we are strengthening our commitment to public service broadcasting, to investment in the distinctive voices and needs of the regions, and to the importance of rules such as the watershed, to make sure that parents and citizens can protect children and vulnerable people from unsuitable broadcast material.
  The challenge is both to free our industries from outdated rules, helping to promote competition in these markets, and to balance that with a framework which puts the needs of the citizen at its heart. If we are to meet this challenge, we need to think beyond the traditional compartments of broadcasting and telecommunications, of content and carriage.
  That is why Ofcom will regulate the broadcasters—both radio and television—and the telecommunications sector; both content and the communications networks that carry services. It will jointly regulate competition policy with the Office of Fair Trading. It will also manage spectrum, thus covering the range of responsibilities at present exercised by the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, Oftel, the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The White Paper sets out a number of specific proposals, which are encapsulated at the end of the document, and also in a summary leaflet which we are publishing simultaneously. In this brief statement I can do no more than select some of those which I think will be of most concern to the House.
  482
  In developing the policies for the White Paper, my right hon. Friend and I set three main objectives: first, to ensure universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality; secondly, to make the United Kingdom home to the most dynamic and competitive communications and media market in the world; and thirdly, to ensure that the interests of citizens and consumers are safeguarded.
  Everyone should continue to have easy access to public service television and radio channels, as now, free at the point of delivery. The White Paper therefore sets out our proposals to ensure that television channels currently available free to air are carried on all platforms—satellite and cable, as well as through the television aerial. We intend both a "must carry" obligation on UK-based network providers, and a "must provide" obligation on the public service broadcasters.
  Other communications services should be available to all at an affordable price, and we shall build on the universal telephony service obligations and Oftel's work to secure competition, so that people can increasingly benefit from new services, including the internet and higher bandwidth services. The Prime Minister has already made clear our commitment that everyone who wants it should have access to the internet by 2005. We are committed to ensuring that there is no digital divide, and that everyone should benefit from the information opportunities that are opening up.
  In a world of increasing choice of channels and other sources of information and entertainment which digital technologies are bringing us, our fundamental belief is that public service broadcasting will become more, not less, important to society. It will be important especially as a forum for informed public democratic debate, to ensure that a plurality of views and perspectives is available; to ensure that high-quality educational material is available to all without extra charge; and to help to drive the transfer from analogue to digital.
  We propose a new three-tier approach to the regulation of broadcasting, to provide a more level playing field between different broadcasters depending on the extent of their public service remit.
  In the first tier, all broadcasters will be subject to basic rules on minimum content standards, impartiality in news, provisions on the protection of minors and access for people with disabilities. We will require Ofcom to give due weight to the need for improvements in such access for people with disabilities. We also intend that Ofcom should act as a final backstop one-stop shop for complaints for all broadcasters.
  The second and third tiers will apply to public service broadcasters. In the second, regulated by Ofcom, those obligations that are readily measurable will be included: independent and original programme production quotas; requirements for regional productions and programming; and the availability of news and current affairs in peak time. We shall amend the BBC's agreement to include such a formal requirement for the first time.
  In the third tier—where the general public service provision of high-quality varied schedules will rest—we propose to rely primarily on transparent self-regulation, but with backstop powers in place in the event of failure. Each broadcaster within this tier will be required to make a statement of programme policy updated each year, and to report on subsequent success. Each broadcaster will of

  483
  course have a distinctive remit, and the backstop power will rest with Ofcom in the case of the commercial broadcasters, and with the Secretary of State and Parliament in relation to the BBC.
  We place particular emphasis on the regional dimension of public service broadcasting. There is a further aspect to that, of which hon. Members are aware and which they have raised with me on a number of occasions, concerning anomalies in regional coverage whereby, for technical reasons, some parts of the community do not receive the relevant regional programmes. We therefore propose to work with broadcasters and with local communities and their Members of Parliament to find new ways of resolving such difficulties with the advent of digital technology.
  An important part of the public service mix is, of course, Channel 4 and we have rejected suggestions that it should be privatised. Channel 4 is a highly distinctive and successful service, much valued by viewers. The present structure of a statutory corporation works well. We will therefore maintain Channel 4 as a public sector broadcaster and ensure that it continues to be distinctive and innovative, providing both complementarity and competition to the BBC and ITV.
  In the commercial sector, our view is that increased competition allows us to depend more on Competition Act 1998 powers rather than those specific to the sector, in order to secure diversity of ownership and competition in the relevant markets, such as advertising. We propose to replace the rule preventing anyone from holding two or more licences which attract 15 per cent. or more of the total TV audience share, and we propose to revoke the rule prohibiting single ownership of the two London ITV licences. We will consider changes to the points system for regulating radio ownership. We will also seek to boost the role of local community broadcasting in the digital environment, exploring the suggestion of an access fund for community radio, under the aegis of Ofcom.
  We believe that sector-specific rules to promote competition will still be needed in the communications field, but we will make sure that the stronger sectoral rules will be applicable only to companies having significant market power, with lighter-touch regulation for most companies.
  Ofcom's powers must enable it to address new competition challenges as these emerge from advancing technology and changing business models. For example, the increasing need to rely on electronic programme guides leads to a new risk that they might be used to limit competition and consumer choice. Ofcom's powers to promote competition and protect consumers will therefore apply to access to EPGs and similar new systems. And we shall take specific powers to ensure that public service channels to which access is essential for full social inclusion can benefit from "due prominence" on all relevant EPGs. Services which we require to be universally available must also be readily accessible.

  Communications depend either on wires or on the use of the electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum is an essential resource which must be managed in the public interest and in innovative ways that meet the needs of developing technologies. Because of the central importance of spectrum management to the development
  484
  and success of the UK's communications industries, we shall bring within Ofcom the responsibility for spectrum management.
  Ofcom will have a principal duty to protect the interests of consumers. There will be a new consumer panel to advise the regulator, able to research consumer views and concerns about service delivery and to represent those concerns to Ofcom and others. It will be independently appointed, decide its own research objectives and publish its findings and advice.
  Ofcom will have a crucial role in ensuring that our interests as citizens are properly respected by the world of communications. It will maintain content standards in the broadcast media and ensure that the risk of harm, especially to the vulnerable and to children, is minimised in all electronic media. Ofcom will therefore be responsible for maintaining arrangements such as the watershed on free-to-air channels and for promoting better understanding of media messages and the use of new mechanisms such as rating and filtering systems that can assist the safe use of the internet.
  We have carried out extensive consultation in preparing for the White Paper. In response to our request for views in February, we received some 160 replies. We have heard many views in person and we are very grateful to all who have contributed, including the group of experts who provided some clear thinking in the crucial early stages of preparation. I pay special tribute to the boards and staff of the current regulators, who have worked in an open and constructive way to help us to develop the policies that we are announcing today.
  Broadcasting and telecommunications affect all of us every day. We have set out in the White Paper our proposals for a new framework for regulation, which we believe will preserve the best of the past and prepare the UK to take advantage of the new technologies of today and of tomorrow. Alongside our firm policy proposals are some on which we invite further views. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members, and I commend the White Paper to the House.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the advance notice he provided—albeit somewhat truncated by a fire alarm and evacuation in his Department; I hope that all is now well. In fact, we have had more advance notice than usual, as much of the statement seems to have appeared in the Financial Times this morning.
  In other respects, the White Paper has been slow in coming. A pledge to reform the regulation of media and broadcasting was contained in the Labour party manifesto for the current Parliament; it is another pledge that will not be kept. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the planned legislative changes that he has announced today stand no chance of taking effect until 2002 at the earliest? The media and communications industries are moving fast; the Government are moving painfully slowly. Industry often complains that the Government try to do too much, but here we have an unusual example of the Government getting in the way by doing too little.
  Progress toward today's announcement has been helped neither by an undignified turf war between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry nor by the confusion and incompetence that is the hallmark of Labour in office.

  485
  The House will recall how those two Departments have been falling each over—[HON. MEMBERS: "Each over?"]—falling over each other like characters in a comic sketch for the past two years. In March 1998, the DTI published its utilities regulation Green Paper; in July 1999, both Departments published a convergence Green Paper. In November 1999, the DTI announced a Utilities Bill, which included proposals for the communications industry and, in January this year, received its Second Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] My hon. Friends remember it well. In February, the Government announced a forthcoming communications White Paper—which is, presumably, what we have today. However, in March, the communications part of the Utilities Bill was unceremoniously dumped.
  I had always thought of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as having the last word in dither and incompetence, but I now realise that I have led a rather sheltered life all these years. In this case at least, the right hon. Gentleman has nothing on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which is probably why the former has come to the House to make today's statement.
  The technical and regulatory aspects of media and communications are often regarded as subjects fit only for anoraks, but they are vital, dynamic, growing industries—powerhouses of new employment and investment with the capacity to enhance or to damage the quality of all our lives. There is an urgent need to update the regulatory framework to reflect the dramatic changes, such as the development of the internet, that have occurred since the Broadcasting Act 1996 was passed. What the Government have announced today, after all the consultation and debate, takes us a little further forward, but not far enough.
  This is a White Paper with a heavy hint of green about it. It is very general indeed, and it has one major failing. The Secretary of State referred several times in his statement to public service broadcasting, but he has failed to define it. Until we define what public sector broadcasting means in the digital age, we shall continue to fail the industry.
  Conservative Members support in principle—and, indeed, have argued for—a new single regulatory body capable of taking a balanced view across converging media. It is essential, however, that the new body has a clear and unequivocal remit with stated priorities. A tension exists between competition and content issues. How does the Secretary of State intend that tension to be addressed within the new regulatory body? Whether the system will work at all will depend on getting that right.
  We welcome the proposal for a new consumer panel, but will that have muscle or will it be another focus group? Will the new regulator be a panel or a person? Who will pay for the new regulatory body? To what will Ofcom be accountable—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or the Department of Trade and Industry? Who will make appointments to it and what sanctions will it have? Will there be financial sanctions, and will those apply to the BBC?
  Given the pace of change in the industry, the only way to avoid having to come back to the cumbersome process of legislation will be to ensure that the new regulator has sufficient flexibility to meet changing needs. How does the Secretary of State intend to deal with that? How will the new regulator be affected by any finalised EU directives on
  486
  telecoms? In the week that the Prime Minister has spent so many late nights in Nice, the Secretary of State seems to have forgotten all about the EU.
  We welcome the proposal to bring the activities of the BBC into the new regulatory framework, but will the Secretary of State confirm, as his statement implied, that, as regards complaints about political bias, the BBC will cease to act as judge and jury in its own case?
  What powers will Ofcom have to ensure fair competition between the BBC and other broadcasters, and, just as important, between other internet publishers? Does the Secretary of State recognise the need to prevent the BBC from using the licence fee to crowd out commercial competition? Will that issue be dealt with by Ofcom under the Competition Acts or is new legislation envisaged?
  Will Ofcom take on responsibility for ensuring wider industry access to local telephone lines? What measures does the White Paper contain to ensure that we do not continue to fall behind Germany and other major economies in developing internet access? What will the White Paper do to encourage the take-up of digital television?
  I note that the Secretary of State has paved the way for the creation of a single ITV, but his statement is particularly vague about the reform of radio. Many people in the radio industry will be extremely disappointed that, after so long, they are going to have only further delay and consultation.
  I particularly welcome measures in the White Paper aimed at reinforcing the watershed and the protection of children from inappropriate material.
  The Government have completely ducked any specific reform of the cross-media ownership rules. The Secretary of State will be aware that there is a powerful case for change here. Has his timidity on that point anything to do with the fact that there is a general election on the way—an election that the Government do not deserve to win?
  We welcome the general thrust of today's statement, but we do not trust the Government's meddling instincts. Where there is a need to be radical, the Government have been timid. The vital need to balance the interests of commerce and culture will not be met by a Government who understand neither.
  Mr. Smith: I note that the hon. Gentleman was, as one might put it, "falling each over" his vocabulary while he made that contribution. I might well describe his contribution as an infrastructure lacking content: perhaps we should send in Ofcom to regulate the Tory Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman came up with the old chestnut about there supposedly being a turf war between two Departments. That is a gross slur on the good and constructive work that the DTI and the DCMS have done together on producing the White Paper. The team has worked extremely well together and the White Paper has been agreed at every stage, both between the two Departments and across government.
  The hon. Gentleman eventually got round to some specific questions. He said that nowhere in the White Paper was public service broadcasting defined. I suggest that he reads pages 48 to 51, where it is comprehensively defined. He asked whether the consumer panel would have muscle. I suggest to him that the White Paper's

  487
  proposals to establish an independently appointed panel which can publish research and has a statutory right to put its views clearly and publicly to Ofcom are, indeed, proposals for a body with muscle. He asked whether the regulator would be a panel or a person. If he reads the document, he will discover that it will be a board, not a single person, and that it will have an independent chairman. He also asked to whom Ofcom would be accountable. It will be jointly accountable to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of the BBC. As chapter 5 of the White Paper spells out, the BBC governors will retain a specific role for upholding the remit of the BBC, just as the board of Channel 4 will have a role for upholding the remit of Channel 4, and the managers of ITV will likewise have a role for ITV. However, there will be a role for Ofcom in ensuring that the general economic and competition provisions that apply to all broadcasters apply also to the BBC. It will also have a role in ensuring that the measurable, quantifiable aspects of public service broadcasting—aspects such as independent production quotas and ensuring news and current affairs in peak time, and that regional targets are met—are regulated across the broadcasting landscape, including the BBC.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the proposals mean that we are moving towards a single ITV. The sector-specific provisions that currently prevent such a move from occurring—the 15 per cent. rule and the two London licences rule—are due to be lifted. However, any proposal to move towards a single ITV would have to be subject to competition law, competition policy and, ultimately, to the decisions of the competition authorities. The hon. Gentleman asked about the future of radio. We spell out in the White Paper the way in which we want to move away from the current radio points system for the calculation of ownership requirements, and make it very clear that we want to do that.
  In all those respects, the White Paper is very clear. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has more time to consider the detail—obviously, he has had the White Paper for less time than I have—he will find that his concerns are readily addressed. The key message from the White Paper is that it is about giving responsible freedom to the broadcasters. Yes, it will be a greater freedom than many of them have had until now, but it comes with the expectation that they will exercise it responsibly and that measures will be in place to ensure that they do so.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are about to have a major debate that is time limited, so I must appeal for short questions, as well as short answers.
  Mr. John Maxton: I welcome the White Paper from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry, and I look forward to debating it in a little more detail in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. However, I should like some clarification. First, will my right hon. Friend give a total assurance that the BBC's ability to be the highest-quality broadcaster in the world, as well as
  488
  one of its most innovative, will not be affected by the proposals? Secondly, will he ensure that that ability extends to the very good website that the BBC operates, and which it will develop in the coming years? Nothing must be done to prevent the BBC from using that to give people throughout the world the quality that the corporation can offer.
  Mr. Smith: The quality of BBC programming and production values will be enhanced by our proposals in the statement. That will, of course, apply to the excellent BBC online service, as it will do to BBC television programme making.
  Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome what is overwhelmingly a sensible and robust set of proposals—I felt that the Conservative response was a little churlish—and it would be difficult for me to do otherwise, because the proposals echo many recently published Lib-Dem proposals; perhaps it is comforting that, in the digital era, we still have repeats.
  I turn to a repeat of a less welcome nature. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the White Paper's proposals were trailed significantly in the press today and at the weekend. What briefing took place of journalists for last Sunday's newspapers?
  How will the relationship between Ofcom and the Competition Commission work to prevent duplication? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the probable formation of one ITV will not in any way reduce regional programming and regional production? Will his commitment to ensure that ITV is available on satellite television extend only to that one ITV—in other words, London—or will all ITV regional companies be accessible on satellite?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the future of BBC World, which he did not mention in his statement? In the digital era, it is surely a little odd for the Foreign Office to maintain that it should support the BBC World Service—radio services involve technology from a bygone era and, although radio is still important, it is only one medium—while there are no proposals to ensure that BBC World is similarly supported.
  Mr. Smith: In relation to briefings of the press, I gave an interview to The Daily Telegraph for its Saturday edition and to the Financial Times for this morning's edition. I spoke only in the most general terms about the principles lying behind all that we are seeking to do. Other briefings, I have to confess, I know nothing about.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about Ofcom and the Competition Commission. They will work together to regulate the media from the point of view of competition policy. Ofcom will clearly have a role in closely advising the Office of Fair Trading in its approach to these matters.
  On any move towards a single ITV and its impact on regional production, we set out in chapter 4 of the White Paper some very tough provisions on the need to maintain regional strength. For example, one provision states that if a regional licence changes hands at any stage, Ofcom will assess the regional proposals that are being made and enhance regional requirements at that point. If ownership changes, regional requirements will be strengthened, rather than diminished, in the process.

  489
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the accessibility of ITV companies on satellite. The answer is that, so far as possible, we would want to ensure that the relevant regional programme was available to the relevant region. That is the principle that we want to set in place, although it may of course be necessary to sort out some technical issues to achieve it.
  On the World Service, radio may be an old technology, but it is a very popular, versatile and high-quality technology. It offers ready access to virtually all communities across the world, and the World Service does an excellent job in using that medium to make impartial news and current affairs information available to the world.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to allow disabled people access to broadcasting services. He will be aware that about 1,000 people in every constituency rely to a greater or lesser extent on subtitling. What measures will he introduce to ensure far greater availability of subtitling outside the traditional analogue channels than there is now?
  Mr. Smith: Such matters will rest in tier 1 of the three-tier regulation system for broadcasting, which will apply to all broadcasters. We shall look to Ofcom to ensure that subtitling is enhanced beyond what is available at the moment.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The Secretary of State has given birth to a White Paper after a long pregnancy, which began during the previous Government when I was a Minister. I remember very well many of the better bits of what he has announced. I commiserate with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who should have made this statement. I hope that he has not lost control of the matters that we gained for the DTI and Oftel, such as the electronic programme guide and the technology under the Broadcasting Act 1996, when a Bill, because it is crucial that those matters are in the hands of the DTI if the commercial and creative industries are to be best promoted.
  Will the Secretary of State please make it clear what is intended for digital television, because that is the unspoken part. The right hon. Gentleman is so passive about this issue. Surely it is no good waiting for 95 per cent. coverage if what is needed is a public-private sector partnership to get the thing going. In a multi-digital channel age, it is not enough to announce the semi-continuation of the BBC and the statutory position of Channel 4. Public service broadcasting now covers a multiplicity of channels and various means of delivery, and we must completely redefine how public service broadcasting can best be achieved, rather than continually backing just the BBC.
  Mr. Smith: First, may I say what a great pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman in his place.
  The DTI and DCMS are at one on the need to ensure that responsibility for access to the new media—especially issues such as the electronic programme guide and access for programme makers to satellite and cable channels—comes under the framework that we are establishing.
  On digital switch-over, we are right to say that we do not want to switch off the analogue signal until we are absolutely certain that everyone who can receive the
  490
  analogue signal at the moment will be able to receive digital signals in the future. It would be folly for any Government or any party to suggest that they wanted to do otherwise. That and the test of affordability are the two fundamental tests that we have put in place. We have set a target timetable of 2006-10, and we believe that that can be achieved, but those tests must be met.
  Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Independent Television Commission has the power to monitor the commitments made by franchise holders on the delivery of programmes. What in the White Paper will ensure that franchise holders of lucrative contracts deliver the programmes that they promised to deliver when they were awarded the franchises?
  Mr. Smith: We propose a stronger process to ensure that that happens. ITV franchise holders will be expected to issue a statement every year of their programming, scheduling and public service priorities. They will have to be tested against that statement during the year, and Ofcom will be expected to analyse how they have performed against that statement before they make the next one.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Given that the same sure management hands have presided over the finances of the dome, the letting of the new lottery contract and Oftel's control of prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes, and given the analogous delays in the development of the Financial Services Authority, what is the latest possible date for the commencement of the powers that the Secretary of State envisages?
  Mr. Smith: First, let me say that we do not intend to put the New Millennium Experience Company in charge of Ofcom.
  As for timing, it is proposed that we should seek to legislate to implement the White Paper at an early stage in a new Parliament—provided, of course, that we succeed in persuading the electorate to give us their trust.
  Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and, in particular, his robust comments about preserving regional identity. He did, however, mention a fairly significant change in the way in which the system would be regulated. He talked of a lighter touch and of transparent self-regulation. Will he say a little more about how that is likely to operate in practice?
  Will the existing licence conditions of Channel 3 companies continue in force? There is also the question of regional regulation. Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that Ofcom will have regional offices? Will it have a Scottish office, for example, and will it have a Scottish board member?
  Mr. Smith: The maintenance of regional strength will be a matter for the second, not the third, tier of regulation. It will not be a matter for self-regulation; it will be regulated directly by Ofcom. Commitments will be expected, and commitments will be held to.

  491
  As we spelled out specifically in the White Paper, we will ensure that the needs and interests of viewers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in the regions of England, are taken fully into account by Ofcom. That will undoubtedly mean its having a regional presence.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the legislation be flexible enough to enable a Welsh broadcasting regulatory authority to be established? If not, how will the specific interests of Wales—particularly with regard to S4C—be taken on board? Will Ofcom have an office in Wales? Will the Secretary of State guarantee the operating freedom of S4C? Will he assure us that it will not be compromised by bureaucracy and that it will continue to be adequately funded?
  Mr. Smith: We do not intend to make any change in the format of S4C, its statutory responsibilities or its funding system. We want membership of the consumers' panel to be drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom, and to include specific representation from Wales. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), we intend to ensure that Ofcom takes particular account of the views, needs and wishes of people in both Scotland and Wales. Ofcom will undoubtedly have a place in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I welcome the unity of purpose between my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Culture, Media and Sport. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), it contrasts starkly with what occurred under the last Administration. In April 1996, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said that
  we should not set in place a regulatory system for a fully integrated media market that does not yet exist.—[Official Report, 16 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 543.]
  In fact, it clearly did exist.
  May I ask my right hon. Friend what the relationship will be between Ofcom and the other regulatory bodies in relation to dominant players, especially when one of those dominant players is a large newspaper owner? Why should newspapers not be included in Ofcom's remit? May I also ask what relationship my right hon. Friend expects to develop between spectrum allocation under Ofcom, and the role of the Ministry of Defence? In peacetime, one would expect Ofcom to play a significant part.
  Mr. Smith: The Ministry of Defence has its allocated spectrum. It would not be sensible to seek to take back some of that allocation on a purely temporary basis and yield it up at a time of conflict; such a system would be a nonsense. We have no intention of removing the MOD's responsibility in relation to its portion of spectrum.
  The regulation of competition affairs in respect of newspapers will be governed by the pretty tough competition rules introduced by the Competition Act 1998. The role of Ofcom will be as adviser to the OFT and to the competition authorities. There is no proposal that competition policy should be relaxed in any way.
  Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) indicated that
  492
  many of us on the Conservative Benches have been promoting the cause of a communications development commission for a long time. When I came here this afternoon, I confidently expected the White Paper to be the realisation of those dreams. The long-overdue White Paper is in fact timid and narrow. It deals with nothing like all the subjects that should be covered by a proper communications White Paper, such as electronic press, e-commerce and all sorts of other issues.
  The Secretary of State said that the White Paper provided a new framework of proposals for regulation. It is regulation, regulation, regulation. The word "development" is not mentioned once.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) asked the Secretary of State—he did not reply; perhaps he would like to now—who Ofcom would be answerable to and what independent powers it would have. Is it independent or is it a Ministry of truth?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read chapter 3, where we set out in some detail our approach to e-commerce and to the development of the internet. I hope that, as he is reading it now, he will see that that is indeed the case. He obviously was not listening when I answered the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) precisely. Ofcom will be answerable jointly to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I welcome the White Paper, but is my right hon. Friend is aware that equipment that could legally describe itself as digital is being sold for as much as £2,000? What consideration has he given to some kitemark, or perhaps to bringing, through early regulation, the signal transparency to consumers that what they are buying will be able to receive the new digital communications?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many advertisements for televisions and for other equipment label them as digital in some shape or another although they do not receive digital television signals. We want to ensure that there is greater clarity for the consumer and that the consumer can have greater trust in the claims by manufacturers and retailers. I am in discussion with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to find out what steps we can take to tackle that problem.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Can the Minister explain how cross-border regulation will develop as in paragraph 8.3, bearing in mind not only that many companies in satellite television, internet service provision and the rest are global rather than British, but that the Government agreed in Nice that the French should continue their national veto blocking international progress in that key area?
  Mr. Smith: Basic requirements are already in place that have been agreed through the European Union. They include the television without frontiers directive and apply across the board to any Europe-based broadcaster or provider. The provisions that will apply specifically to Britain will apply to any broadcaster that is based in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, yesterday,

  493
  the Secretary of State for International Development published a White Paper about the impact of globalisation on developing countries. Is he aware that the number of factual programmes about developing countries broadcast by the four main channels has fallen by 50 per cent. in the past 10 years? What action does he propose to take to increase substantially the amount of coverage?
  Mr. Smith: It will not be for me or for government to dictate to broadcasters the precise nature of scheduling or programme content. However, what we can do, and what we do in the White Paper, is to make it very clear that, in our view, public service broadcasters—and that means not only the BBC but ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—must be in the business of providing high-quality, varied, mixed and challenging programme schedules. They should not be going simply for the lowest common denominator of popular entertainment. Although that must of course be part of what they provide, it must not be the sole content. That principle, which is what public service broadcasting is all about, is fundamentally enshrined in the White Paper. It will be up to the BBC governors, the boards of the other public service broadcasters and Ofcom to ensure that that occurs.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On behalf of the European informatics market group and the all-party parliamentary and industry information society group, of which I am chairman, I thank both the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for their officials' co-operation with the groups. I hope that that co-operation will continue. However, I have yet to meet an official or a regulator—and I think that I have spoken to most of them—who believes that Ofcom should report to two Departments. Could both Secretaries of State please resolve the matter once and for all? The move will not be successful unless it involves only one Department.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will also commit himself at least to introducing a draft Bill on the matter in this Session. Clearly, all three main parties agree on what has to be done. If we at least had a draft Bill, when the Conservatives come to power, most of the work would be done and we could move quickly to implementing the provisions.
  Mr. Smith: I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that co-operation with EURIM will continue. I also tell him that co-operation between the two Departments has been extremely good and has produced a very constructive White Paper. I see no reason why that co-operation should not continue. As for the hon. Gentleman's final point, I certainly hope that we shall be legislating much sooner than the Conservatives ever getting back into power—a remote prospect indeed.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I would support a communications Department as a part
  494
  of the proposals. If we have Ofcom, we will need only one communications Department. I hope that such provision would be included in a draft Bill.
  There seems to be some confusion about one matter. If we are to have digital television internet access by 2005, but switch-over will not occur until 2006 or 2010, we will have to find a way of giving away digital boxes, perhaps by using a private finance initiative. We have to find some way of overcoming the digital divide. If we do not do so—and the White Paper does not deal with the problem—we will not be the most modern economy in the world.
  If the BBC does not want to establish a public service education or sports channel, would Ofcom have sufficient money to commission one?
  Mr. Smith: On the advent of digital television and internet access, of course digital television is not the only means by which people can gain access to the internet. It is, however, becoming an increasingly important means for people to gain such access, as the very rapid take-up of ONdigital's service, for example, is proving.
  As for Ofcom's powers, it will not be possible, and nor should it be possible, for Ofcom to start up a channel or to enforce the start-up of a channel. What Ofcom will be able to do, however, is to do research, to provide encouragement, to identify gaps in the market and to advise broadcasters. I certainly hope that broadcasters will take account of the research that Ofcom does.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: For the benefit of my constituents who still cannot receive terrestrial television, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that "must carry on all platforms" provision will mean that, in future, ITV—which is Channel 3—ITV2 and ONdigital will be carried on satellite? Could he also possibly answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) about whether he is proposing any changes in the cross-media ownership regulations?
  Mr. Smith: We spell out that the public service provision—channels that are currently free to air on analogue, together with licence-fee funded free-to-air channels—must be available on all platforms. That is the "must carry" obligation that we have set in place.
  On cross-media ownership, we spell out clearly the issues that need to be addressed. We also set out clearly the principles of diversity and plurality—plurality is extremely important in this respect—and invite views on how to proceed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's views will be among those that we will read with pleasure.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that we must move on to the main business.

  Points of Order
  4.25 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, this House is under an obligation, as Britain is a signatory to the European convention on human rights, to ensure that all Bills put before the House comply with our treaty obligations. Indeed, that is written on Bills presented to the House. I asked the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), whether that was also the case in connection with the declaration of fundamental rights, which has now been incorporated into the treaty of Nice. In his reply, the Minister of State insinuated—somewhat worryingly and depressingly—that as a former chairman of our Back-Bench European affairs committee, I was better able to answer that question than he was. Although that may be true, it is surely a contempt of this House and of your office, Mr. Speaker, for Ministers not to tell the House the legal implications of the treaty obligations into which they have entered.
  Mr. Speaker: Ministers are responsible for their own replies. However, I will read Hansard and contact the hon. Gentleman after I have done so. I hope that that is helpful to him.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the statement on the communications White Paper—and it has happened on previous occasions—the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that people can read the answer to their questions in the White Paper to which he had referred. However, it is impossible for us to obtain copies of a White Paper—at least in theory—until the Minister sits down after his statement. Could you instruct Ministers that that is the case, Mr. Speaker, and either remind them that we have to ask questions about a White Paper because we cannot see it until the statement on it is made, or ensure that there is a change to the rules, so that the relevant White Paper is made available shortly before the statement is made? In fact, today, one person who asked a question already had the White Paper, suggesting that he had left the Chamber and re-entered it before he asked his question.
  Mr. Speaker: Once again, I am not responsible for the answers of Ministers. However, Ministers should not make reference to documents that are not available at the time of the statement. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you might look at
  496
  the rules about giving out White Papers. They are available as soon as the Minister stands up, but we are not allowed physically to leave the Chamber if we want to be called to ask a question. Would it not be more sensible for the attendants to hand out copies of the White Paper while the statement on it is being made? That would improve our ability to represent our constituents better.
  Mr. Speaker: As I have just stated, perhaps Ministers should not make reference to chapters—
  Mr. Bruce: They did.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer in the best way that I can. Ministers should not make reference to chapters in White Papers until those documents are available to everyone in the House. I am the custodian of the rules, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about them, he, as a Back Bencher, is capable of changing them.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask that it should be your practice that in the event of a point of order in this House leading to a private exchange of letters between you and an hon. Member, that letter may be made public for the benefit of all Members of this House?
  Mr. Speaker: I regret that the hon. Gentleman heard the point of order of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) while sitting on the Front Bench and then took the opportunity to raise a point of order from the Back Benches. When I write a letter to a Member of this House, it is up to that Member whether he wishes to make that document public. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. Ministers are responsible for their replies; nevertheless, I will look at Hansard and communicate with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. That is the way that I will do it.

  BILL PRESENTED
    HOMES
    Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. David Lock, presented a Bill to make provision for imposing requirements in relation to the marketing of residential properties in England and Wales; to make further provision about the functions of local housing authorities relating to homelessness and the allocation of housing accommodation; 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 5].
Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FIFTH 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.

  Home Affairs and Inner Cities
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I should tell the House that Back Benchers' speeches will be limited to 12 minutes.
  4.31 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
  "But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of the decline in police numbers since 1997; note the continuing failure of many of the Government's measures to combat youth crime and that the Government remains committed to the early release from jail of thousands of criminals; deplore the Government's further attempt to restrict the right to trial by jury and its failure to put forward any measures to strengthen the rights of victims of crime, or to make prisons more purposeful, or sentencing more transparent, or to clear up the chaos in the asylum system; and further regret the absence of measures to halt the decline of inner cities and the failure to create a coherent programme of actions since 1997 to address the conditions that give rise to the growth of crime in deprived urban areas, notably poorly-maintained housing, rising homelessness, increasing numbers of empty houses and failing inner city schools, which have combined with the Government's commitment to building on green fields to perpetuate migration from inner cities."
  Last year, in the debate on the Address, I catalogued a series of failures by the Home Secretary and the Government and suggested that the contents of the then Queen's Speech would do little to rectify those failures. This year, I am obliged to observe an even worse catalogue of failures and the fact that this year's Gracious Speech will do very little to address the problems that most people encounter in their everyday lives as a result of the Government's abysmal failure to tackle crime and the causes of crime.
  In the past year, despite promises of an extra 5,000 police officers, and then another 4,000, police numbers have continued to plummet; crime has risen by 190,000 offences, and the Home Secretary's legislation, which failed to work last year, has still failed to work 12 months later. To this day, not a single child curfew order has been issued, and all that the right hon. Gentleman can say in response to that lamentable failure is that it is the fault of the
  conservatism of the social services departments.
  So we now know that it is not his fault at all.
  498
  A year ago, when the Home Secretary was attacked for his misleading party conference speech, he blamed his officials. The same officials seem to have been blamed for everything that has gone wrong under his stewardship of the Home Office—that is a lot of blame. They were blamed for forgetting to renew the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts; blamed for wrongly briefing the right hon. Gentleman when he gave a press conference on asylum; blamed for causing him to give the Welsh Assembly powers over Welsh criminals; and blamed for causing him to publish the names and addresses in the Macpherson report. Can that be the same man who once said that
  we take full responsibility as Ministers
  and claimed that he would not hide
  behind officials' skirts…?—[Official Report, 24 May 1999; Vol. , c. 33.]
  If it is not officials, it is social workers. In reality, the buck stops with the Government, and the catalogue of failure on crime and disorder since 1997 shows that the buck stops with the Home Secretary.
  The succession of Downing street leaks during the summer showed that the Prime Minister is rattled. Who can forget his request for eye-catching initiatives, particularly on law and order, to try to portray the Government as a success? Only a Government so out of touch, so totally unaware of the problems of real people, would think that a few eye-catching initiatives would be enough to hide their total failure on law and order. What did that request produce? What was the eye-catching announcement? Why, it was the appointment of Lord Birt as the Government's new crony crime tsar.
  I recently asked the Home Secretary how many times he had met Lord Birt since his appointment. The answer was interesting. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had met Lord Birt once, on 25 May. That is interesting because Lord Birt was not appointed until 10 July. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed a crime tsar to whom he has not spoken once since appointment. That is another ludicrous example of the Government's summer of spin.
  What has the Home Secretary come up with after three and a half years in government? What eye-catching policies are to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman over the next few months? He seems to have decided to use his final Queen's Speech in office to attempt to put right the failure of his first Queen's Speech. [Interruption.] That failure is indeed terrible.
  First, there is to be a rehashed version of the Home Secretary's discredited curfew plan for young people. After nearly four years in government, he is still trying to make his first year's legislation work properly. Those are the proposals that the Prime Minister described, in the face of all opposition, as "eminently sensible". They are evidently not, because, after two years, not a single child care order has been issued. That might have been less catastrophic if the Home Secretary had accepted our original advice and set the age limit at 16, which—belatedly, and with no apology for past error—he is at last going to do.
  Secondly, another Bill has been introduced to restrict the right to trial by jury. After three and a half years in government, the Home Secretary is still trying to get this unnecessary and thoroughly rejected legislation through Parliament. What better example could there be of this Government's arrogance? The Bill has twice been rejected

  499
  in Parliament by what is, according to the Government's own claims, the more democratic House of Lords, yet the Government are still trying to push it through. The Home Secretary has been opposed by the Criminal Bar Association, the Society of Labour Lawyers, the Legal Action Group, civil rights groups, the Institute of Race Relations, the Howard League for Penal Reform, and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.
  The proposals are opposed by everyone, it seems, except the Home Secretary and his colleagues. However, the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister have not always been so enthusiastic about the measure. This is the proposal of which the Prime Minister said:
  It is totally unsatisfactory to leave this to magistrates to decide. Fundamental rights to justice cannot be driven by administrative convenience. If we are to speed up and improve court efficiency, there are better ways to do it.
  This is the proposal of which the Attorney-General, Lord Williams, said:
  This would be madness … I hope that Parliament will refuse to countenance legislation of this kind.
  Furthermore, let us not forget that this was the proposal of which the Home Secretary himself said:
  Surely, cutting down the right to jury trial, making the system less fair, is not only wrong but short-sighted, and likely to prove ineffective.—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 433.]
  He said that only a few months before he introduced the measure in the House.
  In case that is not clear enough, I shall quote from the Home Secretary's response to the proposals in the document, "The Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System", published in 1997. He said:
  We are opposed to a removal of the right of a jury trial. We do so because it is a fundamental right where people's honesty is at stake.
  There we have it, as clear as day: the Home Secretary was opposed to that proposal. What made him change his mind in just a few weeks? Was it the fact that the proposal would reduce unnecessary delays in the justice system? No, it was not. It could not have been that, because, as the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), admitted, the Conservative policy of plea before venue had already done that. The answer is that the main effect of the Bill will be that more than 5,000 criminals will serve shorter prison sentences. That is the sole advantage of the Bill, from the Home Secretary's point of view. The Bill is wrong: it attacks fundamental liberties, and it should not proceed. We shall steadfastly oppose it.
  What else does the Gracious Speech offer us? At first, we were quite hopeful that there would be a Bill to recover the assets of drug dealers and other criminals, but on closer examination that turned out to be only a draft Bill. I asked myself why. If I ask myself, I get a more sensible reply than if I ask the Home Secretary. Could he be having trouble making it comply with his human rights legislation?
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: It is fascinating to hear that when the right hon. Lady wants a sensible reply, she asks herself. Who did she ask when
  500
  she introduced, at the recent Tory conference, her policy to deal with minor drug offences? Was it just herself, or was anyone else involved?
  Miss Widdecombe: It involved a very large number of people who are concerned to eliminate the scourge of drugs from society. Is there a single measure in the Queen's Speech to attack the scourge of supply and demand of drugs? No, there is not. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about sensible measures to tackle that problem, he need not look to the Labour party, because it simply does not have the answers.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I want to make some progress.
  I was asking whether the Home Secretary was introducing a draft Bill because he was having trouble making it comply with his human rights legislation. The Home Office briefing note on the Bill says:
  care is being taken to ensure that the Bill would be European Convention on Human Rights compliant.
  I am not an expert on spin, but that seems to be saying that the Home Office has no idea how to make the Bill compatible with other policies. This Administration continually lecture us on joined-up government, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot even join up his Department.
  Just a few months ago, the Bill was supposed to be important. Let us look back a bit. A Minister said in May:
  we need to confiscate unlawful assets that have built up. This should be the norm, not the exception … we will make sure the structures are put in place as soon as possible.
  Who said that? Well, it was the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Another Minister said in June:
  we aim to legislate as soon as Parliamentary time allows to give the police and customs the powers they need to track and then confiscate the assets of drug dealers.
  Who said that? Perhaps if I continue, I will jog his memory. He went on to say:
  To the communities who are fighting back we say we are on your side. To those causing misery—the dealers, the traffickers, the money launderers, we are on your case.
  By now, we must all recognise the empty rhetoric. It was, of course, the Home Secretary promising to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allowed. What is wrong with now? I thought that he believed in speeding along.
  Ms Hazel Blears: If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is dilatory in his alleged failure to legislate, what was wrong with introducing such measures during 18 years of Conservative Government, when there was a complete failure to address the issues and to protect the communities that suffer from those serious organised criminals?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady cannot have been following the debate too closely. We introduced legislation on the confiscation of drug dealers' assets when we were in government. It is not an invention of the right hon. Gentleman. He has merely failed to follow it

  501
  up, despite endless promises to do so. He stands convicted of failing to deliver on his promises. It is all spin and no delivery.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche)rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: Come on—let us have some more.
  Mrs. Roche: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that legislation on the proceeds of crime which was introduced in the previous Parliament was, in fact, a private Member's Bill, and was wholeheartedly supported by Labour? It was not introduced in Government time.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady cannot rewrite history. If she is looking for which Government promoted that piece of legislation, she will find that it was the previous Conservative Government.
  Before that entirely futile interruption, I was asking why the Home Secretary was, to use the word of the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), dilatory. I did not say anything so harsh; I asked why he was dithering. If he is so attracted to early release, why does he not release some of his legislation early? He has found time for a totally unnecessary Bill on trial by jury, to which he has not previously committed himself, but not for a Bill to confiscate criminal assets, to which he has committed himself time and again.
  What has the right hon. Gentleman to offer? There is no Bill to end the crisis in policing—just further burdens on the patrolling officer. There is no Bill to tackle last year's rise in sexual offences; no Bill to enhance the rights of victims in the justice system; no measure to make prisons more purposeful; no Bill to make sentences more transparent. Does that not show that his priorities lie not in effective action, but in headline-grabbing announcements in an attempt to salvage his long-gone reputation for being tough on crime?
  The public will not be fooled by the announcements. They have seen and suffered from the decline in police numbers.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)indicated dissent.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It would appear that he denies that people have suffered from the decline in police numbers.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I want to tackle the right hon. Gentleman first. When I said that people had suffered from the decline in police numbers, he shook his head. Does he dispute that? If he does, I shall give way to listen to him. He does not dispute it; he denies that people have suffered from the decline in police numbers.
  Mr. Blizzard: The right hon. Lady has made much of headline-grabbing announcements and eye-catching
  502
  measures. Would she regard automatic fines for first-offence cannabis users as an eye-catching measure and a headline-grabbing announcement?
  Miss Widdecombe: I regard the fight against drugs as a top priority, and I am sorry that the Government do not share that ambition.
  The public lived through the massive rise in crime last year. They do not understand—it is as simple as that—the Home Secretary's decision to release nearly 27,000 prisoners from jail early to offend again.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend was with me when I talked to the chief constable of Dorset. Is it not a plain fact that it does not matter how much legislation this place passes if the police do not have enough people on the ground or enough resources? They have no overtime budget, so they cannot take special measures. Crime is going up while police resources are being kept unacceptably low.
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend speaks correctly for his constituents and for those of many other hon. Members, including those of Labour Members who are unwilling to admit the facts and who cheer in derision when we claim that people have suffered from more crime. If those hon. Members think that the real world does not consist of rising crime, they do not live in it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall make a little progress; I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would want me to do so.
  The public want action to tackle the rise in crime through effective sentencing and through an increase in police officers. They want action to ensure that prisoners serve the sentences given to them by the court. We are committed to such action. The Prime Minister describes that as "nonsense". Nothing better encapsulates how completely out of touch this Government are.
  The Prime Minister once said:
  the people's priorities are our priorities.
  However, he is now saying that the people's priorities are "nonsense".
  Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Lady has got on to the issue of resources, will she clear up a certain amount of confusion between her and the shadow Chancellor, who has gone out of his way to say that there would be protection for resources allocated to health and education? Regarding the Home Office, he has said that money allocated to asylum and immigration would have to be additional and that savings would therefore be made elsewhere in the Home Office. Those savings could come only from the probation service, the Prison Service or the police. Which service would they come from?
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman can do better than that if he puts his mind to it. It is only three years since we funded 3,000 more police officers than the right hon. Gentleman is funding at the moment. If it was possible to do that then, it is possible to do it in the future. We had a record prison building programme, which we could afford. If it was possible to do that then, it is

  503
  possible to do it in future. We made probation more effective than ever before. If it was possible to do that then, it is possible to do it in future. The real difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is willpower. He does not have the will, but we have the will to tackle crime.
  Mr. Straw: I hope that the right hon. Lady feels better after that. I have a simple question for her: would she increase police spending above the level that we promised?
  Miss Widdecombe: As we are going to increase the size of the police force, I should have thought that it stood to reason that we shall have to pay more. However, as we were paying that only three years ago, it is not an insurmountable mountain. The Government regard the matter as an insurmountable mountain and have completely failed to tackle it.
  I look forward to the people repaying the Prime Minister's compliment in describing their priorities as nonsense when, with effrontery, he asks them for another go at government. I am confident that four years of utter failure will be repaid in full when that time comes.
  I am sure that we all remember the Government's commitment to licensing reform. Last June, a front-page story in The Times was headed "Pubs to open around the clock next year". The Times assured us:
  As early as summer next year, Britons will be able to enjoy the same liberal drinking laws as the rest of Europe, where people spill out of restaurants, cinemas and theatres to drink in cafés and bars until the early hours of the morning.
  That idyll was spun to The Times, but it appears to have been wrong. Clearly, the Home Secretary has changed his mind since June.
  Were the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph wrong when they reported that the Government wanted to increase the sentence for dangerous driving after the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:
  there is a strong case for making causing death by dangerous driving the motoring equivalent of manslaughter, which has a life sentence. Parliament and the public are entitled to expect the courts to impose long and heavy sentences in serious cases.
  Was the Minister just making that up as he went along, or are the Government committed to it? If they are, where is the legislation? Or has the Home Secretary completely ignored the wishes of his colleague in the Home Office?
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, as a result of inaction on the licensing laws, this new year's eve, which is the official beginning of the millennium, we shall go back to the usual free for all, rather than have the successful implementation of extended licensing laws that we saw last year? That has been a disappointment to many licensees.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that that has been a disappointment to many members of the public as well as to licensees. The hon. Gentleman chose his words carefully when he talked about the Government's inaction.
  504
  There is nothing in the Gracious Speech to protect the honest law-abiding person from the criminal. There is nothing to protect the person—
  Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish this passage.

  There is nothing to protect the person who seeks to protect his own home and property. As usual, the Government's focus is on the criminal—on releasing the criminal early and ensuring that the criminal is free to commit more crime. They have done nothing to protect the decent and law-abiding householder.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: May I finish this passage? Then I will give way.
  It is my view that when a man enters another's property with unlawful intent, he has forfeited his right to equal consideration. People must be able to defend their persons and property or go to another's aid without fear of penalty at law. We will ensure that making that a reality is a priority.
  I now give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is not her point exactly made by the reintroduction of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which takes away the right of the ordinary citizen with a clean record to go for trial by jury, but causes a repeat thief who has been convicted time and again and is currently getting an average of just under 11 months from the Crown court to get no more than 3.6 months from the magistrates?
  Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Running through the Government's approach to the justice system is a theme of less justice for the victim and more softness for the criminal.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish this passage.
  The message that the Government have been sending is, "Don't worry—there are fewer people about to catch you, and if they do catch you, it's okay, you will never have got out so quickly." From the victims' point of view, never will criminals have been released so quickly to terrorise them still further.
  For four years the Government have ignored the plight of the victim. They have released almost 2,500 burglars from jail early and allowed almost 50 more burglaries to be committed by criminals who, but for the intervention of the Home Secretary, would still have been in jail.

  505
  That cannot be said to be the action of a Government who favour the honest person. It favours only the dishonest criminal.
  Dr. Starkey rose—
  Ms King rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall make progress.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Come on. The right hon. Lady promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).
  Miss Widdecombe: I do not think so.
  Does the Home Secretary agree with Sir John Stevens, the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation, when they say that the police are in crisis? Does he recognise that police numbers have fallen by 3,000 since he took office? Does he acknowledge that the number of police constables in the service rose year on year throughout the 1990s until he became Home Secretary, and that there are now fewer constables than at any time for a decade? Does he understand the problems caused by the loss of more than 4,000 special constables since 1997? If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he is showing himself to be at odds with every other person in the country who knows that that is the Government's record. If the right hon. Gentleman does acknowledge all those things, why is there nothing in the Gracious Speech to rectify the situation?
  The chairman of the Police Federation said that
  since 1997 there has been sustained under-investment in the police, resulting in thousands of fewer police officers, heavier workloads and rising crime.
  The Police Superintendents Association says:
  The situation is urgent. The police service is moving towards the edge of a crisis.
  How can that have happened under a Government who promised to support the police? Have the Prime Minister's words from 1994 been entirely forgotten? Did he not say in his leadership election statement:
  We want to see more police on the beat … ?
  As the campaign manager for that election, the present Home Secretary no doubt had an input into that speech, so what has happened? Did not the Home Secretary himself say before the election:
  Our priority is more police officers on the beat … ?
  Is the Home Secretary aware that the Metropolitan police are still working below the safe minimum specified by Sir John Stevens in June this year? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there are sometimes just 300 police officers patrolling the streets of the entire capital on any one night? Is he also aware that the force is short of more than 800 civilian workers, with the result that 200 front-line officers have been transferred to desk jobs? If the right hon. Gentleman denies these things, he will show himself to be even more out of touch than I previously thought.
  Recently, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what assessment he had made of morale in the police service.
  506
  Yesterday I received a reply from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, which stated:
  The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale.—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 65W.]
  The hon. Gentleman kindly listed the numbers leaving the service under this Government. Since 1997, the number of voluntary resignations from the police service has risen by almost 500 officers a year. By the Government's admission, morale in the police is lower now than it was in 1997.
  So what is the Home Secretary doing? He is increasing the burden on the few patrolling officers he has left. He is asking them to stop a drunk in the street and obtain his name and address—that is, if a drunk carries his name and address. The police are then to ask him to hand over £100. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking the police to do that, he must first provide them with the support that they need by way of more officers and better protection.
  The police are in crisis. The Home Secretary once said that the police would have his strong support, but, having been given the chance to act, he has failed to do so. That has been the truth of his stewardship—it has been all spin and no delivery.
  Dr. Starkey: Some time ago the right hon. Lady asserted that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech to protect ordinary, law-abiding members of the public. Has she overlooked the private security industry Bill? Is she unaware of the many representations made by members of the public to various Members about their relatives who have been seriously injured by unlicensed door supervisors? Is she aware also of the enormous pressure from the public for the Bill? Does she appreciate the enormous help that it will provide to the public and the police? The regulation of door supervisors is known to cut street crime by up to 75 per cent., which allows the police to direct their efforts elsewhere.
  Miss Widdecombe: If there were more police, there would be fewer door supervisor incidents. If there were more police, officers would be able to do their job properly. They would be able to police in a proper fashion. That is at the root of the Opposition's complaint. Many of the Government's measures are ill-conceived and they have not worked. Even those that have some merit will not be successful unless there are sufficient police to implement them.
  The word "crisis" seems to follow the Home Secretary. It is surely not too big a word to be applied to the asylum system. Once more, the right hon. Gentleman talks tough, but we are still waiting for effective action to be taken. The National Audit Office report states:
  The asylum system is under severe strain.
  Despite having been given the chance, the right hon. Gentleman once more fails to act. This year, his supposed flagship legislation was implemented. He argued that it would reduce the number of asylum claims being made by economic migrants. He said that his new voucher system, introduced in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, would
  not deter genuine asylum seekers … but it would deter economic migrants.—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 44.]
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to tell the House what effect the legislation has had. Given that the number of asylum applications for

  507
  this year has increased and that the percentage of cases refused has remained the same, in what way is the legislation a success?
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the right hon. Lady clarify whether it is still her policy to build detention centres to house all asylum seekers who are waiting for their cases to be heard? What is the cost of that policy and from where will she get the money?
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come to exactly that point.
  The asylum system even led a ministerial colleague at the Home Office to ask the head of the immigration service to draw up plans to use old Army barracks if there were a sudden influx of asylum seekers over the summer. There are still many more than 6,000 asylum applications being made every month, and there is still a backlog of more than 70,000 claims waiting to be processed. The vast majority—more than 80 per cent. of claims—are still being refused. It does not seem to matter much what the decision is, because few of those whose claim is refused are ever removed—thousands simply disappear into the community. What is the Home Secretary's latest estimate of the number of claimants who have disappeared? Does he even know?
  I have proposed a system of reception centres to house claimants and provide them with the service that they need. By contrast, the Home Secretary has relied on a failed system of dispersal, placing burdens on under-prepared local councils and failing to tackle the root of the problem. Often, the greatest sufferer is the genuine asylum seeker. Despite that, the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats—they are not excused from the charge—attack my policy for being too harsh. So, a policy that is designed to speed up claims and deal with decisions quickly is harsh, while a policy of failure is thought to be better.
  Where is the legislation in this Session to deal with the asylum crisis? Is sorting out the asylum system not sufficiently eye-catching for the Prime Minister? Perhaps that is why there is no mention of it in the Queen's Speech. Does the Home Secretary welcome the decision taken by P&O Ferries to employ private officers to check vehicles travelling on its ferries? Is he embarrassed that the company is doing the Government's job for them? If not, that says quite a lot about the Government. The Home Secretary says that
  the system must be speeded up.—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317. c. 44.]
  Again, all spin and no delivery.
  What did Her Majesty's Gracious Speech have to say about dealing with the impending crisis in the prison system?
  Mr. Straw: Before the right hon. Lady turns to the impending crisis in prisons, will she answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) about the cost of all the detention centres needed to house approximately 30,000 asylum applicants and the speed with which she would deliver that policy?
  Miss Widdecombe: The speed with which it will be delivered will be with all possible speed—[Laughter.]
  508
  That is the sensible answer. I have watched the Home Secretary make promise after promise that he has been unable to fulfil, so I only make promises in terms that I know I can fulfil. I can fulfil that and I intend to do so.
  Mr. Straw: What about the cost? That is the key question. The right hon. Lady has obviously done all the work, so what is it going to cost?
  Miss Widdecombe: Ah, so the key question is not getting the system straightened out; it is what the policy will cost. Now we know what has driven the Home Secretary's approach to the asylum system. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what the policy would cost because he has done the costings for Oakington. He knows that the policy would not require new build in every case; he knows that the private finance initiative would spread the costs; and he knows that the early projections for Oakington showed a saving against social security costs.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I have now taken four interventions from the Home Secretary; I shall not take a fifth.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I shall make at least three pages progress.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend believe that if this country acquires a reputation for dealing quickly and toughly with asylum seekers, fewer people might seek asylum in this country?
  Miss Widdecombe: If my hon. Friend is asking whether there are long-term savings to be found, the answer is yes, but that to me is a secondary consideration to getting the system jolly well sorted out and making it fair and effective.
  As I was saying, there is nothing in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech to deal with the impending crisis in the prison system. The Home Secretary appeared to admit the crisis when he said that he wanted to intervene before I talked about it. In recent months, we have had the debacle of the raid on Blantyre house, a strike in Brixton, numerous reports from the chief inspector attacking conditions in prisons throughout the country, and the resignation of the governor of Feltham young offenders institution, amid allegations of Dickensian conditions. Yet since 1997, we have heard little from the right hon. Gentleman about the conditions in Britain's prisons. He was only too happy to highlight problems in the prison system before the election, but he has maintained a rather strange silence since.
  Prisoners now spend less time each week on purposeful activity than they did under the previous Government. [Interruption.] Apparently, it is a matter for laughter that the number of suicides has increased. Last year, there were 91 self-inflicted deaths in Britain's prisons. By October this year there were already 72, yet there is no mention of any of that in the Government's new measures.

  509

  Nothing has been proposed to make prison more purposeful, effective or humane—three aims that I should have thought were shared by all hon. Members.
  Perhaps the greatest missed opportunity of the past week has been the chance for the Home Secretary to put an end to his disastrous special early release scheme. I have made no secret of my opposition to the scheme since it began, nor have my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. When it was put through Parliament, we described it as wrong and we opposed the early release of prisoners under the scheme.
  The Government went ahead, however, and, to date, some 27,000 criminals have been released from jail early. Most of those did not serve even half the sentence that they were given by the judge. They include 4,000 drug offenders whose average sentence was 20 months but who on average served eight months; 2,500 burglars whose average sentence was 19 months but who on average served seven-and-a-half months; and approaching 200 people convicted of assaulting police officers and who were given nearly five months but who served only one-and-a-half months. Of the 27,000 released, more than 850 have breached their curfew, with 50 remaining unlawfully at large, and between them they have committed 1,000 more offences, including two rapes.
  The Home Secretary said:
  We want to send a clear message to violent criminals that they can expect the stiffest penalties if they commit robberies or other street crimes.—[Official Report, 23 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 560.]
  Yet he has released more than 1,000 robbers under the scheme on whom the average sentence imposed was 26 months while the average sentence served was 11 months. Apparently, however, they were not serious robbers. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the average sentence for convicted robbers placed on home detention curfew was just over two years. He said that he thought all would agree that that gave an indication of the relative seriousness with which the courts regarded each of the offences in question. Therefore, according to the right hon. Gentleman, if one commits a robbery and, to put it mildly, distresses a victim—one might even do something worse—and that merits a sentence of just over two years, that is not serious.
  The right hon. Gentleman constantly tells us that no sex offenders will be released on the scheme, yet three sex offenders have been released. I accept that that was the result of error rather than intention, but it means that the right hon. Gentleman's assurance was not met by action. That is why, however eye-catching the initiatives announced by the right hon. Gentleman, or however popular they appear to be at the time, no one believes any more in his ability to implement them effectively or to see them through properly.
  We are delighted that the Government have finally accepted our recommendation to raise the age limit for curfews to 16, but how many crimes does the right hon. Gentleman think have been committed by 10 to 16-year-olds in the past two years? We are also concerned about the ability of an understaffed police force to implement those curfews properly. We are determined that however well the private security industry is regulated, we will not allow it to be used as a substitute for the police service.

  We are concerned that the number of car crimes should be reduced, but we do not believe that it is right to increase regulations on law-abiding businesses if those
  510
  regulations will not be effective. First and foremost, we believe that releasing nearly 300 car thieves from jail early is no way to reduce the number of offences. The Government have said that they intend to tackle anti-social behaviour, but releasing from jail early more than 700 people guilty of assault, more than 300 people guilty of violent offences and 100 offenders guilty of drunkenness has done nothing to help.
  Crime is rife in our inner cities. The chairman of the Police Federation said:
  there is a sense of disorder, and anarchy in many inner city areas. Most people would avoid these hot spots altogether, as there are no police officers to turn to.
  Until the number of police officers increases, that will continue to be the case. We must tackle the conditions of poverty and need which drive much of that crime. The Government have not done anything to tackle those causes, despite their continued promises. The programme set out by the Home Secretary is one of missed opportunities. It contains nothing to reverse last year's rise in crime; nothing to increase the number of police officers in England and Wales; nothing to enhance the rights of victims in the justice system; nothing to protect the law-abiding householder; and nothing to end the lunacy of a policy that sends dangerous criminals out on to the streets extra early. There is a space for a Bill restricting the right to justice, but no time for a Bill to make prisons purposeful or sentencing more transparent.
  It is now clearer than ever that the Government's pre-election promises were nothing more than spin. Since 1997, we have had nothing but fudge and failure. The Home Secretary spun, "I will tackle anti-social behaviour." Three years later, nothing has happened. He said, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", but he has been tough only on crime fighters and victims. The programme before us seeks to put right all the failure of the previous three years, but the people of this country now know that the only way to reverse the Government's failure is to reverse their position. That is why they will not be the Government after the next election.
  5.16 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the Government's record on crime. In her closing remarks, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a slip, for which we should forgive her. She said that I was seeking to put right the failures of a previous Government. I am sure, however, that she was referring to the failure of the previous 18 years of Conservative Government.
  Our record speaks for itself, not least when compared with that of the Conservative Government. In their first three years, crime rose by 20 per cent. In the first three years of the Administration of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), it rose by 40 per cent. In the first three years of the current Administration, it fell by 10 per cent. The Opposition cannot gainsay those figures because they do not happen to like the truth. The figures come from the British crime survey, which was established by the previous Administration in 1981 as the single most authoritative survey of overall levels of crime—recorded, reported and unrecorded—in the country.

  511
  The president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said that
  the Survey undoubtedly provides the best indicator that levels of crime are showing a reduction.
  He also said:
  The latest British Crime Survey is excellent news.
  I look forward to the right hon. Lady coming to the Dispatch Box to welcome that good news.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that that decrease applies to 1997–98 and not to the current period? Will he further admit that his figures—not ours—show that crime rose last year?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady is wrong in her first point. The survey compares the two years 1997 and 1999. The sample published in October covered 1999. The only difference from the recorded crime figures is that the British crime survey charts all crime reported by individuals to the surveyors, rather than merely that which is reported at the time to the police.
  I do not mind if the right hon. Lady wants to trade recorded crime figures. As I said, they show that crime rose by 20 per cent. between 1979 and 1982, in the first three and a half years of the Conservative Administration. In the first three years of the Major Administration, it rose by 40 per cent. In the first three years of the current Administration, it will have risen by 7 per cent. However, the British crime survey shows a 21 per cent. reduction in burglary, a 15 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime and a 4 per cent. reduction in violent crime. Moreover, the right hon. Lady seeks to create, almost out of nothing, the suggestion that there is some crisis in law and order. Crime is too high but, thanks to the measures that we have put in place during the past three and a half years, it is coming under control. We should compare that with the situation over which she and her colleagues presided, when crime was out of control.
  Other evidence shows that people feel safer. The English housing survey, which was published just two weeks ago, involved a huge sample. It was established, I believe, under the previous Administration. Respondents were asked whether they thought that crime was a serious problem in their neighbourhood. Again, we should compare the figures, which in this case are for 1997–98 to 1999–2000—they are up to date. The number of people in a neighbourhood who thought that crime was a serious problem dropped by a third in those two years. In some areas, the drop was more than half. The reason for that is that the measures that we put in place are working, as I shall explain.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Does the Home Secretary understand that my constituents and, I suspect, those of most other hon. Members do not live their lives comparing this survey with that survey or this crime figure with that crime figure? Their daily lives and daily experiences are entirely different from that. Will he please address the concerns of our fellow citizens? The Queen's Speech and his approach to it are entirely erroneous and completely outside our daily experience.
  Mr. Straw: Of course we have to deal with the figures. Indeed, any Opposition seek to dine out on figures, and I
  512
  do not particularly blame them. However, the Opposition try to avoid the point when the figures show the reverse of what they assert. Of course I am aware that concern about crime and disorder is still far too high. How could I not be aware of that as one who seeks to be assiduous in representing his constituents? It will take us some years before we get levels of crime and disorder back to those when Labour was last in office during the 1970s, although I certainly shall not rest there either, when they are at half the current level. The measures that we are putting in place are working.
  On the question of whether we will help victims, who is saying that a persistent criminal who has been charged with the theft of a Mars bar or a can of Tennents lager should have the automatic right to claim trial by jury? People like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Who is saying that that right should be exercised by the courts, on the merits of the case, which would bring us into line with every other sensible jurisdiction? The police, the Magistrates Association and a great many victims of crime, who have suffered from the way in which persistent criminals have run the criminal justice system that the hon. and learned Gentleman supports absolutely ragged.
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the Home Secretary's point about the jury trial Bill, he is aware, and will he kindly acknowledge, that the Bill's drafting will not allow the courts to look, one way or the other, at the reputation of the person seeking jury trial?
  Mr. Straw: We could have a debate on the Bill's exact drafting. We could also discuss whether the precise recommendations of the royal commission back in 1993 are the most appropriate or whether those that I inserted in the Bill are preferable. I did so on reflection because of the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the royal commission's proposals could have been discriminatory where the circumstances of the defendant—including, for example, the colour of his or her skin—might be taken into account. However, the starting point for that discussion must be an agreement that the current arrangement is simply unacceptable and needs to be changed.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
  The truth, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire knows, is that he opposes any change. No matter how much we changed the Bill's wording, he would still believe that the persistent petty

  513
  criminal who steals a Mars bar or a can of Tennents lager has a right to claim jury trial, whatever the inconvenience to the police, magistrates and, above all, victims.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Mr. Humfrey Malins rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  Miss Widdecombe: If the case is so utterly compelling, why did the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and Lord Williams of Mostyn oppose the reform until a few months before the Home Secretary introduced the provisions for the first time?
  Mr. Straw: I shall answer the question if the right hon. Lady will stop whining and just listen for a change. By God, as I listened to her going on about early release, I prayed for that facility to be made available to hon. Members, condemned as we are week by week to listen to her speeches.
  As it happens, this matter came up in the House once in the previous Parliament. It was not an election issue. I am perfectly prepared to say, as I said years ago, that on reflection and having looked further at the evidence I changed my mind. I am willing to acknowledge that. The more I considered the issue, the more I came to the view that changing the law to bring it into line with what happens in Scotland and almost every other jurisdiction is sensible and just, especially to the victims but also to defendants.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary knows that my colleagues and I will oppose the proposed abolition of anyone's right to choose jury trial as strongly in this Session as we did in the last. He selected five Home Office Bills as part of a programme of only 15 Bills—the Hunting Bill and four others. He is determined to reduce crime. Do objective figures show that the abolition of the right to choose jury trial will significantly reduce crime or increase the number of guilty people being properly convicted? Where is the objective evidence, because the rhetoric of the past three years has so far not revealed it?
  Mr. Straw: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question in detail, but in coming to this issue he can properly claim to be a member of the liberal establishment, which was so roundly condemned by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech earlier this year. It is astonishing that the only people whom the Opposition now pray in aid in support of their position on the mode of trial Bill are members of the liberal establishment—not only the Liberal Democrats, but the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, the Law Society and, I do not mind saying, the Society of Labour Lawyers, which has a view with which we happen to disagree. At least we have the courage of our convictions.
  Mr. Matins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not. I shall make some progress. I must answer the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  514
  It is our strong belief that, under the current mode of trial system, many defendants who are almost certainly guilty never get to trial. As anyone who is familiar with the magistrates courts or the Crown court knows, the offences involved are typically regarded as too trivial for the Crown court. Many Crown court judges have written to me to assert that point. Such cases often drop off the list or a bind-over is accepted at Crown court.
  As we are talking about a change for the future, it is difficult to calculate with any precision how many more defendants are likely to be convicted. On the best judgment available, I contend that more defendants who are guilty would be convicted and would probably plead guilty at an earlier stage, to the huge convenience of victims. There is no evidence to suggest that magistrates are less capable than the Crown court of coming to a just decision on relatively simple issues.
  Mr. Malins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I shall make some progress.
  At the general election, we wrote our manifesto against the background of a doubling of crime under the Conservative party. We are now delivering on the commitments that we made. We were committed to a root-and-branch reform of the youth justice system, which the previous Administration had left in decay. We promised to halve, within five years, the time that it takes to get persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence. When he was Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) described that as undeliverable, yet we have already reduced the average time by seven weeks and we are on target to meet that promise.
  We promised to replace repeat cautions with a single final warning, to establish youth offending teams, to streamline youth courts and to create new parenting orders. All those measures are working successfully.
  Mr. Malins: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress, but I will give way later.
  We promised to decentralise the Crown Prosecution Service. The previous Government introduced a fundamentally flawed CPS system in 1985. We promised to provide tougher punishment for repeat violent and sex offenders, and greater protection for victims and witnesses in court. All those things have been done.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked me about victims. Since we took office, the grant to the victim support scheme has increased by 50 per cent. and there are now witness services in all Crown courts, as there will shortly be in all magistrates courts. That is what we are doing for victims. We are not just talking about victims; we are acting on their behalf. Victims impact statements will be introduced next year. The latest report from the British crime survey indicates that victimisation levels are at their lowest since 1983.
  We promised to get tough on anti-social behaviour and to introduce anti-social behaviour orders. More than 140 are in place and, with the support of police and councils, are working well. Many more are in the pipeline. Police officers have told me that in, for example, the London borough of Islington—I could cite many other

  515
  examples—the mere prospect of the seeking of an ASBO has greatly strengthened their hand, and that of the local authority, when they are dealing with the scourge of anti-social behaviour.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The clerk to the justices at Banbury has told the local superintendent of police and the chief executive of the district council that, unless an ASBO is applied for in respect of a persistent offender, his advice to the justices is that they should not grant it, as that would be in breach of the human rights legislation. As a consequence, not a single ASBO has been applied for or granted in north Oxfordshire. I merely ask the Home Secretary and his officials to investigate why clerks to the justices, who I am sure seek to do an honourable job, seem to be so confused by guidance that I suspect was issued by the Home Office.
  Mr. Straw: I apologise for not being familiar with the magistrates in north Oxfordshire on a personal level, but it seems that they have misdirected themselves. The advice is clear. I believe that the Lord Chief Justice delivered a judgment only last week or the week before, the details of which I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman. The court, quite properly, concluded that the procedure for obtaining an ASBO was a civil procedure, and was not affected by the claims made by the applicants—in respect of article 6 of the European convention on human rights—that it was a criminal procedure.
  I suggest that the clerks to the justices and the police and local authorities look carefully at the protocol on application for ASBOs, which we drew up—or others drew up on our behalf—very carefully with the Justices Clerks Society, the Magistrates Association and others. That protocol is being applied very helpfully.
  By definition, a new order means that people must do things that they have not done before; but where ASBOs are being used, they are being used successfully. They have certainly been used successfully in my constituency, and in Preston, where three have been made, they have helped to reduce crime and persistent disorder to an extent that earlier measures did not achieve.
  There was another promise in our manifesto—interestingly, not a word was said about it—that we said we would implement, and we have done so. We promised to create new offences of racial harassment and racially motivated violence. To their great shame, the Conservatives rejected those proposals in government; they specifically voted them down. Yet, after all their mocking of child curfews—I could parry that by citing any number of measures to deal with offences created when the right hon. Lady and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were in office, which have not been used at all—the new offences of racial harassment and racially motivated violence had led to 921 convictions by the end of last year alone. They have been hugely important in ensuring that, at last, we give members of the black and Asian communities some confidence that, where they are subject to vile crimes of racial harassment and racially motivated violence, they can get redress.
  The right hon. Lady points to an increase of 190,000 in the number of recorded offences. Included in that number are quite a number of offences of racially motivated
  516
  violence and domestic violence. We want the number of such offences that are recorded and reported to the police to go not down, but up. However, we want the overall level of violence to go down. The British crime survey shows exactly that.
  We promised tough action on drugs through new drug treatment and testing orders, which again were dismissed by the previous Administration. They are now in place. The number of prisoners testing positive for drugs has almost halved from about a quarter in 1996–97 to 12.5 per cent. this October.
  One reason why the programme—yes, crime and disorder is still too high—is working is that we are tackling not only crime and disorder itself but something that the Conservatives did not even understand, still less deal with: the causes of crime. We are taking action to deal with the immediate and the underlying causes of crime. We are dealing with the immediate causes of crime through our crime reduction programme and the new deal, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer often said when we were in opposition, is as much an anti-crime policy as it is an economic policy. That has helped to halve long-term unemployment among the young.
  If we want to stop someone offending it is critical that we provide that person with the prospect of a job at some speed. The right hon. Lady witters on about prisons. I do not think that she wants to go too much into her record on prisons. Otherwise, I will remind her of her complacency when pregnant women prisoners were chained to radiators. I remember, too, in early 1996, her wriggling for two weeks trying to defend the indefensible. Her right hon. and learned so-called Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe had to come to the House to bail her out of that huge embarrassment.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the ending of slopping out? Will he remember that purposeful activity rose to a peak under the previous Government and has been declining ever since under his Government? Will he confirm that slopping out has returned in some prisons, that the suicide rate has risen and that purposeful activity has declined? His record is generally one of complete shame on that issue.
  Mr. Straw: I think that the right hon. Lady was a bit hyperbolic at the end, but, on the implementation of the Woolf recommendations, which go back to Lord Hurd, progress was made when she was at the Home Office, but she is remembered distinctively not for progress on the Woolf reforms but for, in a completely bone-headed way, seeking to defend the indefensible and allowing pregnant women prisoners to be chained to radiators. Instead of saying that that was a disgrace, she came to the House to defend it.
  What we are doing, which the right hon. Lady failed to tackle, is to ensure that prisoners are properly educated. Three quarters of prisoners are educated to below level 2. They cannot get 95 per cent. of jobs, which require a basic minimum of education. We are putting that education in—
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will in a second.

  517
  We are ensuring under the new deal, which the Conservatives deride at every opportunity, that appropriate prisoners can secure jobs for when they leave prison, so that they do not face the terrifying situation of going through the gate, going back to old haunts and to persistent offending.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will not for a moment.
  Miss Widdecombe: I bet the right hon. Gentleman will not.
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. Lady again at least four times.
  In addition, the sure start programme and the working families tax credit are providing much greater support for children of low-income families. The new deal for communities is targeting the areas of greatest social dislocation and crime. It is ensuring—I am sorry that it did not happen in the past—that money is properly spent to improve behaviour in those areas, as well as the physical environment.
  As we agreed when we debated the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 just before Dissolution, the whole House and the country have been profoundly shocked by the savage death of young Damilola Taylor, and our hearts go out to his family and community. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has assured me that no effort will be spared in bringing his killers to justice. We hope and pray that their huge efforts are successful.
  I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that, in recent years, north Peckham had been making tentative steps towards its revival. It is extremely important for that community, and for the parents and children in that community whom I have met, that the progress of the past three years in not set back by the tragedy. Indeed, our resolve to make the area better is all the stronger.
  In the past three and a half years, we have made a good start—but it is only a start. Ours is a strategy for the long term, and fundamental to it are two key factors—investment and reform. Investment in policing and crime fighting will increase by more than 20 per cent. in cash—which is almost 12 per cent. in real terms—in the next three years, with a 7 per cent. real increase in spending next year alone. That is the highest annual increase for 15 years, with targeted resources going on recruitment and technology. We are also investing record sums in closed circuit television schemes, crime reduction projects and projects aimed at tackling issues as varied as domestic violence, crack cocaine dealers and racial crime.
  Mr. Llwyd: Given the crime survey figures that the Home Secretary mentioned and what he described as the successes of the new deal, why is it such a priority to deal with the so-called yob culture now?
  Mr. Straw: We have to deal with crime in whatever form it occurs. In Cardiff, in the hon. Gentleman's own Principality, there is a very good example, on which we are drawing, of how excellent co-operation between police, the city council and the accident and emergency
  518
  department led by the eminent Professor John Shepherd is working to reduce violent and alcohol-related crime. Why is it important to do that? A majority of people who go out on a Friday or a Saturday night, or on any other day of the week, have a right to be able to enjoy themselves peacefully and without being assaulted or abused by others who are drunk or worse.

  It is important to do that because—this is our argument about anti-social behaviour generally—if we fail to check allegedly low-level disorder, such people get out of control in their own minds and graduate from having a pop at someone to breaking a beer glass on their heel and smashing it into someone's face. If they think that they can get away with such behaviour, they might start to think that, generally, that is the best way of resolving conflict and enriching themselves. Therefore, dealing with allegedly lower-level disorderly crime is a very important way of cutting off the graduation route between such people and higher-level organised crime. I do not see any direct contradiction—indeed, there is none—between what we are doing to deal with such behaviour and what we are doing at the more serious end of crime.
  Three years ago, evidence was produced showing that, unfortunately, compared with otherwise similar low-income estates, disorderly estates on which there were higher levels of graffiti and litter and a greater sense of abuse had higher crime levels. If we nip lower-level offending in the bud, we can stop offending entirely.
  Mr. Michael: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has referred to the success of the project in Cardiff. Obviously, the situation varies from area to area, and the needs of each area have to be considered. However, will he invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to urge health authorities, police and local authorities in their constituencies to learn the lessons of the Cardiff project and to learn that it is possible to reduce the amount of violent crime that damages victims?
  Mr. Straw: Yes. In doing so, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who piloted the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 through the House. One of the central provisions of that Act—section 17—requires not only police and the local council but all the other authorities, including the health authority, to work together. The truth is that, in some areas, health authorities are working effectively together, but in others they are not. They should follow Cardiff s example. Professor Shepherd and his colleagues have shown that by co-operating with the other partners in the area to reduce alcohol-related and violent crime, health authorities can save the staff in the NHS and the NHS budget a huge amount.
  Tied to our programme of investment is reform. The legislation to be introduced this Session will further help the police and their partners to use those extra resources most effectively. The two key strands of investment and reform mark out the choice on law and order between a Government who are delivering and a Conservative party trapped by its own contradictions.
  We are also combining investment and reform in immigration and asylum matters. We inherited a legacy in which investment had been cut, the number of immigration service staff, astonishingly, had been cut and London and Kent local authorities were faced with an unbearable burden of asylum seekers. It was taking 20 months, on average, for an asylum decision and appeal to be determined.

  519
  We are putting additional resources into the system and reforming it. For many years, only 30,000 to 35,000 decisions were made. In this calendar year, 100,000 decisions will be made and the target for the financial year is 150,000. Families with children are already being dealt with inside the two months plus four months target, and we are aiming to reach that target for all other applicants by the middle of next year. Some 4,000 additional staff are being taken on to improve caseworking still further and to ensure that we secure more removals.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked where the asylum and immigration legislation was. She is not interested in the answer, which is that we are setting out to implement the comprehensive Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
  The real question is, what would be in the right hon. Lady's Bill? Throughout the progress of the 1999 Act, only two measures were challenged. One was the ending of cash benefits, which was a huge pull factor for port applicants. We said that cash benefits had to go and would be replaced with a national asylum support system, based mainly on the provision of support in kind. The right hon. Lady's party voted against that, so I assume that clause 1 of its proposed Bill on asylum would be the restoration of cash benefits at ports, with the consequential increase of £500 million as well as a significant increase in the numbers of unfounded claims by asylum applicants attracted to this country.

  The other matter that the Conservative party voted against throughout the Act's proceedings was the civil penalty on lorry drivers carrying clandestine immigrants. If there is one measure in the Act that has made a difference and ensured a real tightening of security, not only by the immigration service but by those carrying and ferrying such clandestines, it has been the imposition of a civil penalty. Why does the right hon. Lady think that P&O suddenly decided to employ security guards? It is because, under principles of civil penalty established in 1987 by the previous Administration and taken on by us—but as the Conservatives have no memory, they have forgotten that—P&O, along with other carriers, faces the prospect of a substantial bill if clandestines are carried on its ferries. It has decided, sensibly, to tighten its security. Otherwise, hauliers might vote with their feet and go to more secure ports.
  Why, at long last, has the port of Calais decided to tighten perimeter security? The answer is that it realised that under the threat of the civil penalty it would lose trade—indeed, it was losing trade—to other, more secure, ports. This measure has worked.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Straw: Of course I will give way to the right hon. Lady. I need to hear from her whether her proposed Bill would at least be consistent with what she said before, restoring cash benefits and repealing the provisions for the civil penalty. What is her answer?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am asking the questions, because I am intervening on the right hon. Gentleman. A man in Kent reported to the police that he believed that he had
  520
  clandestine entrants in his load. He co-operated with the police who, when they found clandestine entrants, fined him £14,000 and drove him out of business. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to that man?
  Mr. Straw: The answer is straightforward: there is an appeals process, and we do not seek to operate the civil penalty system unfairly. The person has a right of appeal—end of story, and the right hon. Lady should know that.
  If right hon. Lady would like to, she could tell me what else would be in her proposal. She could provide more details on locking up all asylum seekers, but she refuses to do so. I asked her several questions about where the money would come from, and she said we knew the figures. I shall give her the figures; she is happy to rely on them. The cost of providing at least 60 detention centres to house 30,000 asylum seekers is £2 billion. She could get that money on hire purchase, through the private finance initiative, but would have to pay a little more. The cost of running those centres is £1 billion.
  The right hon. Lady may say that the time scale does not really matter, but it will take years to establish the centres, not least because in Kent, where we are trying to establish one detention centre at Aldington, Conservative-dominated Ashford district council opposes its establishment, as does the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—a Conservative. Furthermore, the local Conservative parish councillor is so offended by the idea that there might be asylum seekers—albeit, locked up—in his back yard that he has pleaded that it offends his rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, and has succeeded in gaining an adjournment of the planning inquiry.
  Mr. John Bercow: I told the right hon. Gentleman that that Act was not a good idea.
  Mr. Straw: I admit that we did not expect that the Act would be used in those circumstances, and we look forward to the courts regarding the case as entirely vexatious and worthless. It is interesting that, although Conservative Members talk in general about establishing detention centres, they fight every proposal to establish them. They know that that is a promise full of deception; they cannot deliver it. They have neither the money nor the will to do so.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I tempt the Home Secretary back to the Government's policy for a moment? What is his estimate, since the previous Queen's Speech, of the number of people who have been told to leave the country at the end of their appeal process but are still here for one reason or another?
  Mr. Straw: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is the same as the one that he would have given had he been in my position—we can only estimate the number of people who are in the country wholly illegally. Perhaps this will be in the Conservative proposal, but unless we introduce compulsory identification cards for everyone who is lawfully resident in this country and provide the police with the power to stop individuals and ask them to produce their identification cards, and to

  521
  arrest them if they do not have one, we shall remain in the area of estimates. We are putting vast resources into increasing the number of removals.
  Mr. Bercow: What is the number?
  Mr. Straw: The number of removals is already higher. Before Conservative Members start trading figures about other countries, I should say that, for example, in Germany—often cited as a paradigm—the numbers are rising; it has 500,000 rejected asylum seekers whose addresses are known because they still claim benefit, whereas at least in this country, when asylum seekers lose all entitlement to be here, their entitlement to benefit is also, quite properly, removed.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I want to make progress.
  Miss Widdecombe: What is the estimate? The right hon. Gentleman will not tell us. Will he confirm that if everyone was housed in secure reception centres and not merely allowed to disappear, he would not need identity cards and would have a much more efficient system? Will he also confirm that the costs that he has mentioned, first, include unused capacity; secondly, make no allowance for deterrence; thirdly, make no allowance for the changes in decision making; and fourthly, include the costs of case-working staff, whom he would have to employ anyway in centres or in the community? When he has added all that lot up and taken into account the fact that new build is not necessary and that PFI can work perfectly well, will he not admit that our proposal will save money in the end and produce a more efficient system?
  Mr. Straw: The prolixity of that question shows that the Conservative's have no real proposal; it is simply intended for the headlines. Our estimate takes account of the fact that there is no unused capacity in RAF stations or former mental hospitals. We have scoured the country to find places, such as Aldington, and when we have the whole of the local Conservative establishment has opposed our proposal. They would continue to do so if—God forbid—the right hon. Lady were doing my job. Our estimates are based on very slow progress.
  The right hon. Lady suggests that we should lock up all asylum seekers, but let us be clear that the proposal includes not only healthy, single, adult males but those who are unhealthy and every woman and child. They would have to abandon any bail provision, which would break various aspects of the 1951 convention. In my more rash moments, I look forward to her doing that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Straw: Let me make progress, because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Where we have promised investment and reform, the shadow Chancellor promises cuts. Where we have introduced proposals for reform, the Conservatives promise only outdated and discredited ideas, with their very dismal record still fresh in the memory. The Conservative party calls for more police, yet suggests that
  522
  we are spending too much on the police; it described our plans as "reckless". The shadow Chancellor refused to match our promises on the police, confounding what the right hon. Lady says.
  I know only too well that opposition is not a happy place. Indeed, we can all judge that from the right hon. Lady's composure today. The Labour party learned the hard way that, to be taken seriously as a Government, it is necessary to have policies and spending plans that stand up to scrutiny, but after three and a half years in opposition the Conservative party does not have even the beginnings of a coherent set of proposals on law and order.
  Let us consider a proposal that was made a huge example of at the Conservative party conference, but about which the right hon. Lady has been surprisingly reticent. Indeed, when she was asked about it last week, she said that she would not rehash the arguments. There was a headline-grabbing policy at the party conference. She tried to pull a rabbit out of the hat, but all she got was a harebrained scheme—a policy so off the wall that it was immediately discredited by the police, with her shadow Cabinet colleagues salivating at the prospect of going on television to denounce her.
  The right hon. Lady's deputy, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), joined the queue entirely gratuitously some time later. In an interview that he gave to the New Statesman, he said:
  The idea that the police should raid every home in the land looking for dope smokers is transparently absurd. Personal use has effectively been decriminalised. A vast clampdown is unrealistic.
  That represents a vast dumping on his own apparent boss. That fiasco was not simply embarrassing but catastrophic for the right hon. Lady and her party because it exposed, as never before, the policy-making chaos at the heart of the Conservative party, and it is the same story on police numbers.
  Overall police numbers have declined since 1993, but we are taking effective steps to increase them again. The last people who should criticise us about police numbers are Conservative Members. When they were in government, numbers fell by 1,500, despite the right hon. Lady's promises, made from this very Dispatch Box, to increase them by 5,000. As I have said, they described our spending on the police from 1999 as "reckless". Most crucially, the shadow Chancellor is now saying not that they would increase spending, but that there would be savings in every part of the Home Office budget, apart from that relating to asylum. It is, perhaps, a mark of the regard in which the right hon. Lady is held by her colleagues, especially the shadow Chancellor, that every time she has asked about additional spending today, she has been forced to waffle and bluster.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Lady has dined out on her reputation for straight talking. I shall give the House an example. Asked whether she would match our spending on policing, she said this on the radio:
  We might wish to spend in a different way. Sorry, I am just not going to say Yes or No to that. I think that is not a valid question at this stage.

  523
  Not a valid question? What an extraordinary state of affairs. It is apparently valid for her to assert that police numbers would rise if she took office, but invalid for anyone to ask her how she would pay for that. It is valid for her to trumpet her ends, yet invalid for her to be asked to explain the means.
  Miss Widdecombe: As the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about not getting answers to questions, will he please answer the very clear question that I put to him some time ago? He may have thought that he had escaped it. Is it not a fact that slopping out is back? Is it not a fact that suicide rates are up? Is it not a fact that self-harm in prisons has increased? Is it not a fact that assaults and long-term staff sickness have increased? Is it not a fact that purposeful activity has decreased? Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary has made a total mess of his prison system? Will he now answer those questions? As he is calling for answers, let him do some answering.
  Mr. Straw: God save us! Let me out of here, please, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It gets worse and worse.
  I regard it as reprehensible of the right hon. Lady to make party political capital out of the number of suicides in prison. She understands the circumstances in which prisoners take their lives. She knows that we are working with the Prison Service as hard as, if not harder than, her Administration did to deal with this problem. The idea that she should try to trade insults about it is utterly beneath contempt.
  I return to the issue of police numbers. As a result of our crime fighting fund, the number of officers joining the police service now exceeds the number leaving it. Wastage in the police service, despite all the myths that one reads in the newspapers, is about half the level in the public services generally, and way below the levels in the private sector. On overall wastage in the police service, as the answer given by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has shown, retirements and resignations have decreased in recent years to less than 5 per cent.
  The police training colleges are full, and extra money has been provided to boost the pay of post-1994 officers in the Metropolitan police. We have set aside funds to ensure that forces recruit up to 9,000 more officers than they had previously planned to recruit, to bring overall numbers to record levels by 2003–04. The police service is not in crisis. Were it in crisis, crime and disorder levels would not have come down in the way that they have done over the past three years.
  A sensible Opposition would recognise that the issue is not only about overall numbers—although I want to see those numbers going up—but about how effectively existing police numbers are used. The shift in police numbers has been marginal: about 2 per cent. There are 125,000 police officers, and nearly 60,000 civilians working in support of them. An even more crucial issue than whether there are 125,000 or 126,000 officers is that of how effectively each of those of officers is used, led and managed. That is what we have been doing.
  We have provided the police with the powers to deal with inefficiency—which needs to be exposed in the police service—with unacceptable levels of early
  524
  retirement and sickness. As a result of our bearing down on sickness, the equivalent of 700 officers have been added back to operational ranks. We are cutting by one third the number of forms that officers have to process, as we said that we would when we were in opposition. While the Conservative party waffles about red tape, we are getting on with cutting it.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a second.
  Another way in which we are making the police service more effective is by ensuring that it serves the whole of our community: black and Asian people as well as white. The police are fully engaged in implementing the recommendations of the Lawrence inquiry. When that report was published, all parties in the House welcomed its recommendations. However, in his speech on the police last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition accused us not only of having
  tied their hands with red tape
  but of
  political correctness.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 19.]
  I listened to that with great interest. I have dealt with the issue of red tape, but what can the right hon. Gentleman have been talking about when he used that grubby euphemism, "political correctness", unless he was talking about the joint efforts of the police and the communities, backed by the Government, to ensure that the police work in partnership with all communities? I think that he had that in mind, but he did not have the guts to say it. The police working in partnership with all communities is at the heart of what we are doing.
  Mr. Howarth: I should like to take the Home Secretary back to the point about police numbers. He made the extraordinary claim that the number of police will go up by about 9.000 by 2003, yet he told me at a meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs the other day that the latest figures showed that there were 2,700 fewer police officers, up to March this year. He told me that, since March, the numbers had fallen by a further 200. Is he now telling the House that the turnaround in recruitment and retention is such that the numbers have dramatically increased since he gave us the figures in September?
  Mr. Straw: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman is too intelligent for that question. He knows the answer-9,000 additional recruits. I gave the figures, but the happy news is that, when I was at the Home Affairs Committee three weeks ago, I gave provisional figures that the numbers in September were down by 200. In fact, they are down by only seven. The best estimates for the latest weeks is that the numbers are now starting to rise.
  Our crucial idea of partnership, and getting everyone involved in reducing crime, lies at the heart of the five Bills that we announced last week. They will give greater powers to the police, extend the modernisation of our criminal justice system, and bear down on those who threaten society, including those who use anti-social

  525
  behaviour. We introduced five Bills and a draft Bill. They include the Private Security Industry Bill, which will, at last, provide for the regulation of the private security industry in England and Wales—again, something that the previous Government could have done but failed to do.
  The Vehicles (Crime) Bill will ensure that we are able to meet our target of cutting vehicle crime by one third over a five-year period, and build on the great success of the police and local authorities in reducing vehicle crime over the past four years. It will also ensure that much of the income from speed camera fines can be reinvested to improve road safety.
  We come to the issue of targeting the profits of crime. Too often, when criminals are caught, they hang on to their ill-gotten gains and emerge from prison to enjoy their fast cars and large houses. That defeats justice and presents a damaging role model for young people. The draft Bill on the proceeds of crime will set out proposals for levelling the playing field. Measures were introduced in the previous Parliament, but they have not worked as effectively as they should have done, or as effectively as similar measures in the United States and Ireland. That is why we are introducing the proposals.
  The police and the courts cannot operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Too often, they have been unable to deal properly with disorder and other criminal behaviour. Too often, they have been prevented from hitting back at the criminals who make life a misery for so many. The legislation that I have outlined today will give the police and the courts the powers that they need to ensure that justice is done. We have achieved a great deal in the past three and a half years, but crime and disorder levels are still too high. There remains a great deal to be done. The measures in the Gracious Speech continue our programme to make the country safer and more secure, and I commend them and the Gracious Speech to the House.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Between 9 o'clock and midnight last night, I was out with a crew from the London ambulance service. The first call was to a cardiac arrest of a three-year-old in Walworth, which is in my borough of Southwark. Thanks to the skill and extreme professionalism of the crew, they managed to get to the child in time—by a matter of minutes—to prevent him from dying, which he was at a high risk of doing, and to take him to St. Thomas's hospital, where he soon recovered. I spent the rest of the evening with the crew and they explained to me that the ambulance service is often so overstretched that they cannot even get to people who are at high health risk.
  People who work on our behalf to protect law and order have the same problem but with victims of crime. Yesterday morning, I was in the office of the borough commander in Southwark, whose police officers the Home Secretary has rightly particularly commended for their work in the past few weeks. The commander made the point that although he and his colleagues are absolutely committed to what they do—they have allocated 50 officers to try to find out who killed Damilola Taylor—they have staffing problems. They are 48 officers short of the establishment of 807 officers, and 23 people
  526
  short of the civilian establishment of 220. Officers are owed 3,800 days leave that they have not been able to take because they have been working to do the job that is required of them.
  None the less, the force has charged people for 17 of the 19 murders in Southwark in the past three years. Only a recent killing and that of Damilola Taylor have not so far resulted in an arrest. The police force is in some ways highly successful, but it has no more than the capacity, with difficulty, to respond to immediate pressures. It cannot do the job that it would like to do to protect people, and to provide the law and order strategy and support that the community needs.
  The Home Secretary is right to focus on the first Home Office aim:
  Reduction in crime, particularly in youth crime, and in the fear of crime, and the maintenance of public safety and good order.
  We want a more orderly society for the good of everyone. In Southwark this morning, we were shown an extremely good initiative to achieve that end. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis were present. The intention was to target hate crimes in Southwark by fully involving young people, the local authority and the relevant partners and agencies.
  The launch made it clear, as did the borough commander in Southwark yesterday and every police officer to whom I have spoken, that there are no simple causes of crime and no simple solutions. As the Minister of State said this morning, we need sustainable, long-term strategies. The hate crime initiative is such a strategy. If there are no easy explanations and solutions, the Queen's Speech needs to contain policies that are proven to work effectively and have a sound base. We do not need measures that are appealing baubles to be put in a political shop window but which, although superficially attractive, are not worth much when one looks at them closely.
  The great feeling that there is particular evil and malaise in our society is in some ways misguided. Of course there is a huge amount of crime, but there is nothing new about crimes with knives and weapons. The streets were just as unsafe 100 years ago in that respect. When I first started work with youngsters in Southwark, kids often carried knives. [HoN. MEMBERS: "A 100 years ago?"] That was not 100 years ago, but in the 1970s. Kids have not started to carry knives just in the past few years. Alcohol has also caused crime throughout the last century, and there is probably no great difference between its impact today and its impact 100 years ago
  Having said all that, there is one difference today, and that is drugs, which are now more likely to motivate people to commit crime and to make them unaware of the harmful consequences of their behaviour. I agree with Ministers: the escalation and spread of harmful drugs in our communities need to be tackled. Drugs cause a huge amount of crime and misery, and create many more victims. They not only make victims of the people who take them, but affect many more people through drug-related crime.
  We often hear a litany in debates such as these in which we compare the records of the Tories 18 years in government and Labour's three and a half years in government. We would expect attacks on the Tories and their credibility to be obvious. However, it is difficult for a party to attack with credibility another Government's

  527
  record on crime when that party was in government for 18 years and crime doubled, when violent crime increased every year during those 18 years, and when convictions fell so greatly during the same period.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has a duty, as I have, to provide an opposition, but she has to remember to be humble about the failures of her party, too. Up until 1992—before she was a Minister—the number of police officers increased, but they decreased in the following five years, when she was in government. The two pledges by the then Prime Minister to recruit 5,000 extra police were not delivered. Indeed, over that period, there were nearly 500 fewer police. A little gentle humility, which the right hon. Lady's faith and mine enjoin us to adopt, would be welcome.
  As for the Government, we are three and a half years into their term and there is a rumour in the air that this Parliament might last for only four years. The Queen's Speech is so thin that, even with the five Home Office Bills, it does not look as though the Session could last much beyond May even if we tried hard to prolong it. According to the figures, crime fell in the first period of the Government's term, although it now seems to be rising. Violent crime has unarguably increased. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to let the Home Secretary respond in a moment, but the figures are not straightforward. It is not clear that crime is decreasing. Offences of violence increased by 16 per cent. in the past year according to British crime survey and other independent figures.
  However, where the Government stand most indicted—no matter how much they try to hide it—is on the issue of police numbers. I tabled a question as quickly as I could when the House resumed after the Queen's speech:
  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; and what was the total in March 1997.
  It was interesting, to put it neutrally, to see the answer. The Minister of State replied:>
  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.—[Official Report,11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 61W.]
  I gather that it will be published this week. It might even show that the number has increased by one or two over the past six months, but even if it has gone up by a few, it has decreased by nearly 3,000 since the general election. There are fewer officers doing the job that the commander in Southwark and the chief constable of Cumbria, to whom I spoke a couple of weeks ago, want them to do. However much people might argue that we do not get better law and order with more police officers, I have never heard anyone argue that we get better law and order with fewer.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he wants the Home Secretary or the chief constables to set the number of police officers?
  Mr. Hughes: That is a good question from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. When the
  528
  Government came to power, they said, following legislation introduced by the Tory Government, that the setting of police numbers was a matter not for them but for chief constables. Yet, at the Labour conference before last, the Home Secretary made a big speech announcing more money for the police. Suddenly, the Government intervened, saying that that money must be spent on more police officers and that police chiefs were not free to spend it on what they wanted. That is why the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) asked the right question. The answer is that the police should be allowed to choose what to spend the money on. The Home Secretary should not be telling them what they should spend their money on, as the Government have recently been doing, in contrast to their approach when they first came to office.
  I noticed that there was also one other figure to which the Home Secretary did not refer: one that the Minister gave me yesterday in a written answer. I asked the Secretary of State to set out
  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.—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 60W.]
  When Labour came to office, the proportion of Government expenditure spent on policing was 2.05 per cent. That rose to 2.12 per cent. and 2.17 per cent. in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 respectively. This year, the figure is lower than at any time since Labour came to office, at 2.07 per cent.
  More tellingly, police provision as a proportion of money GDP has fallen every year since 1996–97, and, at 0.81 per cent., is now lower than at any time since the Government came to office. Only from the beginning of the new financial year in April—probably a matter of weeks before the election—will there be an increase, for the first time under this Labour Government, in the money spent on policing as a proportion of our national wealth.
  When people were asked to vote Labour at the election and were told that there would be more bobbies on the beat and that Labour would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they never imagined that every year for the first four years of a Labour Government the amount of our national budget spent on the police would fall, and that the number of police would be down, not by tens or hundreds but by thousands, or that the numbers would start to creep back up only just a few weeks before the next election.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I answered the hon. Gentleman's written question. He might have done me the courtesy of setting out in full the figures that I gave him. Here they are: in 1996–97, police spending under the Conservatives as a proportion of Government spending was 1.98 per cent; in 1997–98, the figure was 2.05 per cent., rising to 2.12 per cent. for 1998–99, 2.17 per cent. for 1999–2000 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, 2.07 per cent. in the current year. Next year and the year after, the figure will be 2.15 per cent. In every year of the Labour Government, the proportion has been higher than that under the Conservatives, and as a result of the comprehensive spending review it is targeted to keep on rising. The hon. Gentleman might have given us credit for that.
  Mr. Hughes: I entirely accept that. I was not trying to be selective. That is why I read out the list. The list of

  529
  figures for police provision as a proportion of money GDP shows that, even in two years' time, the percentage spent will be less than that spent in the year before the election. The Minister must look at both figures.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way.
  The central point is that not only has the proportion of spending as a total of our wealth fallen but the output, to use the Home Secretary's word—people on the beat; those whom we buy—has fallen. That has had a direct effect on the amount of crime, criminality and the number of people caught.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman intervened twice on the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald; somebody else can have a turn later.
  The Tories are confused. They still have not sorted out whether asylum seekers should be detained or housed only in reception centres. They still have not decided whether they believe in mandatory sentences. They first believed in mandatory sentences for everybody, but were against them when Tony Martin was convicted. They still have not decided whether they are in favour of zero tolerance for drugs, or whether, even if they knew their policy, all of them are in favour of it. That all adds up to a lack of credibility, which is not overly persuasive. The Tories' policies have been tested by only one significant by-election in the past year—in Romsey—and we know that they got a drubbing there.
  There is therefore real danger and sadness in a Labour Government trying in some respects to be as populist as the Tories. The Home Secretary sometimes makes thoughtful contributions, as he did on "Newsnight" the other night. Indeed, I watched his performance on Sunday lunchtime television, which seemed straight down the line and entirely uncomplicated. I do not criticise him for such contributions. However, he often falls prey to the same temptations as Opposition Front Benchers.
  The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister came up with the wacky idea of walking drunken hooligans to the cash machine, before they realised that it was totally incredible. It was dropped after police chiefs told them that it was a good idea to do so. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have now come up with the idea of curfews for 10-year-olds to 16-year-olds. There has been no pilot scheme, trialling or testing and clearly there has been no great support from anybody in the know. The right hon. Gentlemen also persist with the idea that it is central to the Government's law and order strategy—the measures are in one of the key four Bills before the election—to take from people the right to choose jury trial, although there is not a shred of evidence that it will affect crime figures. As the Home Secretary has conceded, that entirely contradicts his party's position of only a couple of years ago. One regular worry about the Government is that principle behind policy is often difficult to define, and that the principle of defending civil liberties behind policies is often not to be seen at all.
  There are five Home Office Bills. We shall talk about the Hunting Bill on Monday, so I do not intend to detain the House on it, other than to say that our party is opposed
  530
  to hunting with hounds but our manifesto commitment was that everyone in both Houses should be free to vote according to their conscience. Like other parties, we shall do so. We support the Vehicles (Crime) Bill and the Private Security Industry Bill, which are in large measure uncontroversial and come in the category of what we would call sensible reform. They have been widely trailed.
  We regard the jury trial Bill as absolutely foolish, wrong, misguided and not at all central to any sensible law and order policy. The Home Secretary has miscalculated if he thinks that he will get it through Parliament. It will pass through Parliament only if, first, the Government use the Parliament Act, and, secondly, it proceeds far enough by the time the relevant 13 months to have passed. My colleagues and I, and those in the other place, will do everything in our power to delay, as well as prevent, the legislation. We believe that we shall again succeed, and that for a third time the Government will have wasted their effort in trying to pass a Bill for which they have no manifesto commitment and to which they therefore have no constitutional right to expect Parliament to agree—and in relation to which they certainly have no justification for the use of the Parliament Acts.
  Miss Anne Begg: Is the hon. Gentleman lobbying the right hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Minister for Justice in the Scottish Parliament, to bring the Scottish legal system in line with the present English legal system on mode of trial? For as long as I can remember, the prosecution has chosen the mode of trial in Scotland, yet there has been no clamour in Scotland to change to the system in England and Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman are in the same party, so is the hon. Gentleman thinking along those lines?
  Mr. Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Lady has been involved in such debates before. We have been round the course often. The Scots have an entirely different system—w[Interruption.] hey have different courts and powers. The lower court has no power to send a case to a higher court following sentencing. Different people decide about the prosecution. The systems are not comparable, so I do not seek to lobby my right hon. and learned Friend, and he does not seek to lobby me.
  Mr. David Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I want to push on.
  We have not yet seen the fifth Bill, the criminal justice and police Bill, but we understand that one of its great new ideas is the fixed penalty notice for people under the influence of alcohol. It sounds a little incredible to walk someone who has been arrested to the police station to give them a fixed penalty notice.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Clamp them!
  Mr. Hughes: Clamping them might be possible, but I do not understand that yet to have been proposed. Dealing with people is entirely different from dealing with a car—an obvious and relatively immoveable object sitting by the side of the road. There is no problem about identity

  531
  or the nature of the beast. One does not have to consider whether someone is drunk or sober, and there is no one to answer back or fight back. I think that the Government will realise that their proposition is probably unworkable and little more than another bauble in the shop window. The measure is intended to look tough, but is unlikely to succeed.
  The curfew proposal is more serious. Our gut reaction is to be against it. For the first time in my life, I convened a focus group and, when I consulted its members on the issue, they were against it. Yesterday, I went to Walworth school in my constituency and talked to the youngsters there. One youngster at that secondary school gave an accurate summary of the inaccuracy and wrongness of the proposal when he said that it would be like punishing the whole class for the mistakes of one or two people. Those youngsters were not at all persuaded about the proposal and I shall tell the Home Secretary about their suggestions in a minute. I have not found any police enthusiasm for the proposal. If there were loads of police and they had nothing better to do than wander around and try to deal with all the youngsters on the streets, it might be credible. In Scotland, the Strathclyde experience is not a parallel and has not been defined in any event as a curfew.
  The Government must make the case and win the argument. We do not think that they will, and it is highly likely that my colleagues and I will seek to remove this part of the Bill in both Houses. In contrast with what the Government normally do, we have seen not seen a trial or testing of the proposal in England or Wales, and there is no evidence that it works. Indeed, the best Home Office research suggests that it is the wrong way forward. It is a sign of the authoritarian streak that keeps reappearing in the Labour party and is without sound principle. The right to silence was lost some years ago; the burden of proof is often under threat; and the right to choose jury trial the Government want to take away. There is a worrying trend in the Labour Government's policy that seeks to be more and more authoritarian and less and less understanding of the fact that people's basic civil liberties should also include being able to walk around in the evening or at night. That should hold for law-abiding citizens, whether they are under or over 16.
  I shall say a further word about young people. There is real demonising of young people. Society often demonises them in general, but there is a particular risk of those in the inner city being demonised. I chose to live in the inner city in my early 20s, and have never moved away. We all know that there are brilliant models of good young people who will be the citizens and leaders of the future. We should listen more to them before we start ghettoising them by estate, street, postcode or neighbourhood. If we go down the road of having curfews, we risk alienating many more young people than we will get on the side of the police and order.
  Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that young people in Strathclyde and Hamilton in Scotland support the joint initiative of the police and local authority? That initiative works in Scotland and is very similar to what the Government are proposing. It is a child safety
  532
  initiative which protects young people and the victims of crime. Young people who are the victims of crime are out on the streets, not the perpetrators.
  Mr. Hughes: I have seen a briefing from Strathclyde and talked to Scottish colleagues. The scheme is targeted on individual youngsters who are regular offenders. That is different from what the hon. Lady is saying. Powers already exist for young offenders to be dealt with in the usual way. The police do not need extra powers to do that. The scheme is linked to constructive activities for young people to divert them from crime, which are as important as the scheme itself. The idea that there is suddenly a blanket approach at 9 or 10 o'clock for a certain age group, which is very difficult to define, as opposed to proposals for specific youngsters, tackles the problem in the wrong way. We agree on the need to deal with individual regular offenders, but we do not accept generalised views of certain areas or estates.
  Mr. Straw: Of course, we will discuss this in more detail when the Bill is in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman examines the proposal, he will see that it is very similar to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna). Far from being an imposition from the centre, it gives a power to local authorities and local communities. Application for that power must be preceded by discussion with the local community.
  Mr. Hughes: I accept that. We shall return to this debate later, but may I quickly say that the same power has been available for the under-10s but, so far, no one has asked to use it. The power has now been extended to under-16s, but it has not been trialled or tested and there have been no local opportunities to see whether it has been taken up or worked. Suddenly, there appears to be a policy for which there will be national legislation. The Home Secretary may have spoken to different people, but I have not met any significant numbers of police or lay people who have said that they need the power. Without the numbers of police that are needed, the power will probably—indeed, even certainly—not be used in any event.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall press on, and come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.
  Today's debate also concerns the inner cities, where it is intended that the power will often be used. Of course, in our inner cities we must encourage personal responsibility and support for families and must make sure that there are diverting activities for youngsters. However, above all we must build up sustainable communities. That is a catchphrase, but it refers to more than bricks and mortar, and is about communities of geography and communities of identity as well. When we allocate homes to people, we must stop disregarding where their family lives, where the nursery school is and where the carers and people who can do the babysitting are. Lord Young, now a Labour peer in the other place, is an eminent sociologist who has written a book that I commend to colleagues. In "The Communities We Have Lost and Can Regain", he makes it clear that if we are to regain proper law-abiding life in the inner cities, we must

  533
  get rid of politically correct housing allocation policy in the public sector, which has disregarded community ties in the allocation of houses over the past 20 or 30 years. Lord Young says that we must return to an allocation policy that is far more sensitive to the communities that we are seeking to build and strengthen. We also need more sport and out-of-school activity. Clearly, better education, jobs and training are needed, too.
  One thing is needed above all, however, and it is the same for inner cities as it is elsewhere: there must be a renunciation of violence. Coupled with drugs, the great evil is the willingness of people to resort to violence in the home, on the pitch, in the playground—where there are bullies—and on the streets, where people use knives, bottles and anything else. Too often, our role models use violence. Too often, television programmes display violence and videos glamorise it. Unless we all have a less violent society, there will always be violent youngsters. Children are not violent in their first few weeks of life or when they first go off to nursery school. They start to be violent only because they see others behaving violently.
  Mr. Bercow: One cannot object to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. His position on child curfews is commendably clear, in contrast to the fog of confusion that descends when it comes to police expenditure. Using our fertile imaginations to the full, let us envisage a scenario in which there is a Liberal Democrat Administration and the hon. Gentleman is Home Secretary. Is he seriously telling the House that his party would increase police expenditure as a proportion of national wealth? In that case, at what time today did he decide on that policy?
  Mr. Hughes: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes and the answer to the second is that that policy was not decided today. I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman had not read our alternative Budget but, if he has not, I shall send him a copy. The policy is in that document, our pre-manifesto and our alternative Queen's Speech. If the hon. Gentleman has not read those documents, he should take them to bed with him, because they might at least keep him quiet.
  To conclude, police officers are not the be-all and end-all, but they are centrally important. Our party has made a commitment to the fact that we need at least 130,000 officers in England and Wales. How many we need thereafter should not be decided by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), the Home Secretary or the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but by an advisory body that regularly gives independent, objective advice from a standing conference.
  There is an entire police agenda, and we regret that the Government have not allowed an opportunity for it to be debated. The debate should be about pay, conditions, housing, pensions, special constables and more retained officers. It should also be about neighbourhood wardens and a community safety constabulary.
  We need a Prison Service that works; at present, it is often direly ineffectual. If we prevented many more who leave prison from reoffending, as half do within two years, there would be a chance of bringing crime figures down. That entails dealing properly with drugs, alcohol, violence and sex offenders.
  534
  We need a crime prevention programme that spends the worthwhile budget granted by the Home Secretary. At the end of the first year, only 2 per cent. of the budget of £383 million had been spent.
  We need fair treatment for all our citizens. The Home Secretary rightly seeks to make sure that that is Government policy, but he has had one blind spot. Contrary to the views of many Labour party members, he insisted that asylum seekers should shop with vouchers, whereas everyone else shops with money. If anything will stigmatise people who are already stigmatised, it is the fact that they must go out on the street unable to act like self-respecting citizens.
  Lastly, we need better treatment of victims, as we agree throughout Parliament. My colleagues and I believe, among other things, that victims should have a better opportunity to present their case to courts after sentence, not just in writing.
  There may be a shared commitment to the law and order agenda, but there is also a dangerous auction between the Government and the Tory party for sounding tough, as opposed to being effective. That is not the way to go. We will support policies that have shown that they are likely to be effective—which have been tried and tested and command widespread support. We will oppose policies that take away liberties for no matching benefit. That means that the Government will get our support this Session for some of the Bills, as I have suggested, but if they insist on taking away the right to choose jury trial, we will oppose them, and we believe that we will defeat them.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a limit of 12 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now on. I call Mr. Michael.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoiled what seemed in some respects to be a serious speech with some petty knockabout. It is almost inevitable that he will criticise both other parties—that is virtually written into the script before he starts—but the self-indulgent knockabout, whereby he caricatured sensible proposals with a soundbite, was disgraceful.
  For example, the proposal for fixed penalties would be quick and effective, it would avoid red tape and time in the courts, and it would teach a lesson. It is a sensible proposal which should not be caricatured. The hon. Gentleman then argued that the right, as it is described, of people to choose where they are to be tried is fundamental. He was blown out of the water by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg).
  The court should decide where either-way cases should be tried. That is a balanced approach. Magistrates would be required to give reasons for their decision about where the trial takes place. That would allow cases that ought to go to a higher court and be subject to a stronger penalty to be dealt with appropriately. The comments of both the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) were inappropriate. The safeguards are in place, including the right of appeal to the Crown court against the magistrates' decision.

  535
  I am pleased that, having considered the arguments, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary changed his view on the matter, and I am glad that he is pushing forward with the policy. It is ludicrous to argue that the court in which a case is decided should be settled on the whim of a defendant, by the gamble of a defendant who knows that he is guilty, or possibly on the basis of the quality of legal advice that he gets, rather than being decided objectively by the court.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to persevere with the sensible enabling measure on curfews. Again, the caricature of that by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey did him no credit. Of course, civil liberties need protecting. The civil liberty of young people, as well as that of older people, to walk the streets at night safely needs to be protected.
  We frequently hear complaints that children and young people are out on the streets way after the time when that is reasonable and are causing nuisance and problems. What is the response? The police say that their hands are tied and there is nothing they can do. The measure will give them the capacity to tackle such nuisance. For example, when I discussed that type of nuisance with the local community on a housing estate in my constituency, a woman stood up and said, "I know that that is a real problem. My son is one of those causing the nuisance." Several other people said, "Oh, no. Your son is a nice lad." She said, "He is a nice lad, but he is over 6 ft. His dad left home four or five years ago. I can't stop him if he wants to go out at night. He says to me, 'Why should I stay home when everybody else is out on the street?'".
  Let us look at the process of consultation set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. First, the local authority has to propose a scheme, which must be approved by the Home Secretary. Then, the area and the problem must be defined. The problem must be discussed not just by the local authority and the police, but by the local community. There should be an opportunity to listen to people like that mother, who wants to be given back the authority to set reasonable limits for her child, and to listen to the community, which wants to set limits in respect of children's behaviour, rather than allowing those children to run amok, out of control.
  Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to discuss with him right now the merits of the curfew scheme, but he appears to be proposing a penalty without a trial. Does not that conflict with the convention?
  Mr. Michael: Here we have another lawyer trying to wrap us up in words, instead of considering the problems that affect people in the streets and on our housing estates. We are discussing giving authority back to parents and the community. Of course, if no problem exists, the measure will not be used. Communities will take back control where yobs are creating misery for local people, but local authorities are not obliged to act on the measure, and nor are the police.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) gave the example of Hamilton, which shows that where a problem exists and such a scheme is used in a targeted way, it can be beneficial.
  536
  The scheme does not have to be used if warnings and co-operation with the local community do the trick. It would be marvellous if it were never used and nuisance were reduced on our estates, but the power will be available. There will be no excuse for the police, the local authority or anyone else saying that there is nothing that they can do.
  I hope that it will be recognised that the child curfew scheme has a dual purpose. As well as protecting residents' interests, it is also intended to protect the interests of children. Often, horrific things happen because children are out on the streets at night, when they should not be. The figures from the Hamilton child safety initiative are stunning: 87 per cent. of parents of children returned home by the police approved of the initiative. That shows the extent of support from parents. Crime and public complaints about disorder fell by 23 and 22 per cent. respectively, and crime associated with juveniles, such as theft and vandalism, was down by 49 per cent.
  I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, let us look at the facts before we ignore the civil liberties of those who are disturbed by groups of youngsters behaving in a yobbish manner, and let us make sure that we target that problem.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: The Hamilton initiative was a child safety initiative. We should rid ourselves of the notion of curfew. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success achieved in Hamilton and the extent to which neighbourhoods and communities are asking for the scheme to be extended prove the worth of such initiatives?
  Mr. Michael: Yes, absolutely. Partnership with the community is central. That is provided for in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 with respect to the younger age group. We have listened and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly responded to the request for the age limit to be increased. Such schemes can tackle the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said.
  The programme in the Queen's Speech keeps faith with those who backed Labour in the belief that we would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. From police resources to the banning of hand guns, from cash to crime reduction and the strategic developments in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Government have delivered.
  It would be easy for the Home Secretary to sit back, after three years of frenetic activity, and relax for a while. Instead, the Queen's Speech shows the Government intensifying the battle against crime and the fear of crime.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is tackling some of the scandals that the previous Government left behind. I remind the House that the Conservative Government ignored the strong advice of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about the urgent need to regulate the private security industry. The Committee's report was debated in Back-Bench Opposition time because the previous Government were afraid of tackling the issue. The previous Home Secretary gave not the slightest glimmer of hope that he would tackle the problem, whereas my right hon. Friend is grasping the nettle. I shall tell the House why.

  537
  When I undertook a review of the issues on behalf of the then shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is now Prime Minister, I found an appalling situation. A senior police officer said:
  I personally find it monstrous that people with convictions for burglary in dwelling houses are being allowed to run businesses and work for such companies whilst having strings of convictions for the offence for which they are purporting to protect the public.
  Another senior police officer, referring to a new security firm, said:
  You may share my concern and dismay when I tell you that … the person who formed the company is a man with many previous convictions and is currently on bail as well as being a disqualified driver. Working with him in his security business is a man who has 23 pages of convictions on the Police National Computer … most of these convictions involve burglary and theft in domestic property. He has only recently been released from prison and he too is a disqualified driver.
  That sounds a fine team. These are the sort of people who need to be controlled.

  The previous Government neglected the problem and refused to respond, whereas my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responded. I accept that the strategic issues involving the Crime and Disorder Act, for example, had to be put in place first, but we are tackling the scandal in the first Parliament of a Labour Government. I am delighted to welcome the news from my right hon. Friend.
  I also welcome the promise to regulate wheel clamping, which can be a real nuisance and a danger, especially for women drivers, if it is done in the wrong place at the wrong time. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) for campaigning for a change in the law. Clamping is of course a useful mechanism in the right place at the right time.
  I challenge Conservative Members to put their constituents' safety and peace of mind above the temptation to make petty party political points. They should support the use of antisocial behaviour orders instead of threatening to abolish them. Those of us who have seen the misery created on a housing estate or in an inner-city area by one or two families or two or three individuals running amok, often committing a series of low-level crimes that create nuisance and intimidation, know that the ASBO was a much-needed measure.
  The order is designed to prevent such activities. There are about 30 known breaches of ASBOs, the penalties for which have ranged from fines to imprisonment. I urge the courts to use their powers well. The message must go out from the courts that breach of an ASBO is no trivial matter. It is meant to be a preventive measure, and the courts must support the intention of the House that people should be warned, on the basis of their past behaviour, to stop antisocial behaviour so that others feel safe in their homes.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to maintain momentum on two fronts. The first is the crime and disorder partnership. Next year, every local authority and every police division will have to have regard to the crime and disorder audit in their area. There are good examples of the way in which that was done the first time round. The outcome must be much better the second time round so that real problems can be targeted. The second front is youth crime. I commend the work of Lord Warner and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales and local youth offending teams in getting the necessary
  538
  measures into place. I am pleased that the courts are succeeding in reducing the time that is taken to get young offenders before them.
  Many of the measures in the Queen's Speech will help us to continue the success of the past three years, which have shown a reduction in crime. I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the success of the Cardiff scheme. We need to learn from that, and ensure that safety and freedom from violent crime is the success of the next three years so that people can walk the streets in safety. It can be done, and it must be done throughout the country.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The rag-bag of measures in the Queen's Speech is a rather sad reminder of the grand rhetoric that accompanied the coming into power of the Government only three and a half years ago. It is a long way from all the great talk about the third way and modernising Britain. We have come down to a thin Session, with some worthy and some unworthy little Bills to fill in the time between now and the general election.
  We know that the general election is a short time away—it is one of the worst-kept secrets in politics. It is likely to be on 3 May. The secret has been kept so badly that the Prime Minister will lose considerable face if he adjourns the election beyond that date. As a result, the Queen's Speech was bound to be thin, with few measures. However, the Government were not full of ideas and purpose, with Ministers competing with each other in trying to force Bills into the last legislative programme before the election. Having read the Queen's Speech, it is obvious that the Government had to go round Whitehall to find Ministers who wished to introduce Bills to fill in the time between now and May. The fourth Queen's Speech of the Session shows a Government who have run out of steam.
  As ever, the Government went back to the Home Office, which had a staggering number of Bills in the previous Session. The electoral prospects were considered and it was rightly decided that the public are still concerned about crime and law and order. As we know from some notorious memos, the Prime Minister has been desperate to find eye-catching initiatives that will tell the public that he meant what he said when he used the utterly meaningless phrase about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The right hon. Gentleman was shadowing me when he produced that phrase, and it was one that made him the leader of the Labour party. On the day that he became leader, he was no more capable of explaining what it meant than he was when he uttered it. It is not the only example of a good one-liner in politics that carries someone a long way.
  We know that the Prime Minister wishes to have eye-catching initiatives, preferably those with which he can be personally associated, to show that he is being tough on crime and on the causes of crime. Therefore, the Home Secretary—
  Mr. David Lammy: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I am sorry. I have only 12 minutes and I speak at much greater length than that on any occasion.

  539
  The fact that the Home Office has produced five Bills reveals that, when faced with the demand to produce sufficient to make the legislative programme dominated by Bills on crime, it could do very little to fill the gap. Regulating the security industry is an old chestnut for the Labour party. It will burden the police with a considerable amount of administrative work and make demands on manpower, which will be tied down in regulating one of the few industries that is left unregulated in this over-regulated country.
  Vehicle crime measures seem worthy but not terribly important. Anything that reduces the amount of vehicle crime is to be welcomed, and if new legislation makes the law easier to enforce, so be it. I would welcome an attempt to tackle some of the weaknesses that have been displayed in the law on money laundering and on the proceeds of crime. It is a complex problem and the Home Office is able to promise only a draft Bill.
  We are left with an attack on disorderly conduct. I am sure that I shall welcome part of it. We know that in market towns and suburbs throughout the country—not only socially deprived inner cities and bad urban estates—there is concern about minor disorder, vandalism and petty crime, which make such a great difference to people's lives. As politicians have always known, the difficulty is finding what can be done in legislation to tackle the problem. If something is done to make it easier to prosecute people for drinking cans of beer in the street and easier to get a penalty from people who are drunk in the streets, that will be welcome. Some of the other proposals seem again to be scraping the barrel.
  I shall learn more about the Strathclyde experiment, but I am slightly alarmed about curfews. It is contemplated that a youngster who has not previously been in trouble may suddenly get in trouble for going out at the wrong time of night. That is because somebody has decided that a curfew should apply in a certain area. If we are not careful, we shall be drawn into introducing draconian measures that are misguided responses to public concern.
  Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, but no.
  Why is the last Session of this Parliament to be spent discussing minor matters of vandalism, drunkenness and youthful delinquency on estates? The Government were told by their focus groups that such matters mattered to the public. Why did the Prime Minister come up with the dotty idea of waking up drunken youths and taking them to a hole-in-the-wall machine so that they can produce their credit card and pay an on-the-spot fine? Out went Mr. Gould with his focus groups. We all know that when people talk about crime, they mention people throwing around litter bins, drinking in the street and gathering in the town centre, so the Home Office has been asked to produce measure after measure to tackle such behaviour. If something worthwhile emerges, so be it, but I echo the observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe): if the Government think that such measures will cheer up the public and make them think that the Government are now on top of the problems of crime and disorder, they will find that they cannot meet the expectations.
  540
  In relation to his policy on the police, the Home Secretary has unwisely made foolish and misleading remarks about police numbers, so we have all gone back to playing the numbers game—arguing about how police numbers are moving. When I was Home Secretary, I removed from myself the absurd responsibility given to me for deciding how many police officers should be allocated to each and every police service in the country. The whole point of creating a more effective police service is to provide proper resources and leave to the local chief constable, in conjunction with his officers and local police authority, the responsibility for setting local priorities. Some police services want many more policemen, some want fewer and greater civilianisation, and some have other priorities.
  What needs to be tackled and enhanced is police effectiveness, which means that resources have to be right and morale has to be raised. We also have to follow up the work of targeting individual crimes, setting proper performance indicators and not allowing too much police effort to be diverted into populist measures, such as installing better cameras to increase fines derived from speeding motorists to finance the police service and ease the burden on the Treasury. Instead, we should concentrate on supporting the best chief constables and the best police authorities in getting the best from their service.
  The fifth Bill the Home Office has come up with is a complete disgrace and it is the reason why I speak today. To fill up the Session with law and order measures, the Government have reintroduced the Bill dealing with the right to choose jury trial. It is the most illiberal measure. The Bill has been thrown out, rightly, by the reformed House of Lords, and it looks as though the Government are returning to the charge to use the Parliament Acts to push the Bill through.
  I no longer understand why the Bill has been produced. Originally, the reason was to save money—about £120 million—but that argument no longer stands up and the Government have abandoned it since it became apparent that about £80 million of that was meant to be derived from the shorter prison sentences that magistrates were to hand out. It sounds as though the Home Secretary thought that the Bill would alter the incidence of crime in this country, but I consider that most unlikely. Is the recidivist charged with stealing a Mars bar more likely to be convicted by magistrates than by jurors, and does that help to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has the first idea why he is introducing the Bill.
  The Bill has often been described by junior Home Office Ministers as a measure to modernise the criminal justice system, but the right to choose jury trial for the offences catalogued in the Bill, some of which are fairly serious, is not some ancient mystery. We do not just tolerate the fact that jury trial is still to be used in respect of all the most serious crimes. It is a traditional liberty. It is not an attack on magistrates courts to say that Crown court trial is superior: in Crown court cases, there is prior disclosure of the case against the accused and of documents, arguments about the admissibility of evidence take place in the absence of the jury, and there is the jury itself. When the Conservatives were in office, every member of the Labour party would, rightly, have described juries as a bastion of our liberties and jury trial as something that anyone accused of a significant crime should be entitled to choose.

  541
  There has been an argument about whether a bishop or a Member of Parliament who is accused of stealing a Mars bar should have greater right to jury trial than the man who already has 15 convictions and is accused of the same theft. The Government's reaction to that complex issue has been to go in the illiberal direction: so impressed are they by the argument that one should not discriminate between the two types of accused that the bishop, or the Member of Parliament, is to lose the right to choose jury trial if he is accused of, say, obtaining property by fraud, or many of the other offences covered by the Bill.
  The Government are persisting with the Bill because they do not want to lose face: they introduced it, so they are going to persist with it. They have been defeated by new Labour peers, the Liberal party and the Conservative party. Against them is ranged the liberal establishment, so if they use the terms employed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), they can appeal to the right-wing, populist section of the public by arguing that it is too kind to criminals to give too many people the right to jury trial.
  By such measures, one can judge the state of a Government. At the end of their period of office, the Labour Government are tired and worn out. They cannot produce significant legislation on the subject of law and order, so they persist with a most illiberal measure that is wholly contrary to the concept of civil liberties. The Queen's Speech should be condemned on that ground alone.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: People in my constituency, both young and old, are trying to do something about crime and disorder to supplement the Government's actions since being elected and their plans for the new Session.
  At Stockland Green secondary school, members of a youth crime prevention club have used a £4,000 grant from millennium quest funding to learn how to fit mortice locks, and are now doing so in the homes of vulnerable members of the local community. That crime prevention work provides another message, as most of the club members are girls.
  In Castle Vale—a thriving former tower block estate where residents are helping to lead regeneration—young and old are involved in a series of groups combating domestic violence, drug abuse and anti-social behaviour, in conjunction with local police, council officers and people from the Castle Vale housing action trust, which is leading the efforts. Only this morning, I received a letter from the trust telling me that, after an 18-day trial, it had successfully gained five out of five possession orders against the homes of those who have committed offences against the community. Nobody wants anyone else to lose their home, but everyone must understand that there is a limit to the mayhem and chaos that families—whether individual members or whole families—can and do cause to their community.
  The interesting thing about today's news is that, if the trial had even been contemplated five or seven years ago, there would have been a public demonstration on the estate to protect those residents who were stealing the security and safety of others, because the residents would have thought that they had to stick together. For the first time, 26 residents—many of them neighbours—the
  542
  police, the remarkable head teacher of Castle Vale comprehensive school, contractors and others have gone to court to back up evidence and make statements regarding misbehaviour, anti-social behaviour and crime committed by those against whom the possession orders were sought. I pay tribute to the people of Castle Vale, who have now insisted that they will take back to themselves the safety and security that has been stolen from them. They are not waiting for others to prevent or solve crime. They understand that we all have a responsibility.
  In her calmer moments, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) knows that, however many officers there are, the police alone cannot prevent and solve crime, hence the importance of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the community safety partnerships that are developing between communities, councils, police, the voluntary sector, businesses and others. The development of policing based on operation command units underpins that by giving local police—more local under that policy—full responsibility for crime, its prevention and detection in the areas they serve. The House knows that additional officers and extra money do not, by themselves, guarantee a lower crime rate. It is not numbers alone that are critical; leadership, equipment and links between the police and the local communities that they serve are the more important key to combating and reducing crime.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that we should make it clear that we do not regard being young as being an offence. All but a small handful of young people are law-abiding and want to take advantage of the extra opportunities that teachers work so hard to offer in our schools and colleges, and which employers offer in the workplace, to make the most of their lives.
  But that said, small, thoughtless groups of yobs can and do combine to steal the safety and security that everyone has a right to expect in and around their own homes. There are many areas of my constituency, not all of them facing severe deprivation, where the few cause nuisance, annoyance and fear to the many. That is why I welcome measures in the Gracious Speech to make our high streets and town centres safer—safer for young people who are the main victims of crime as well as for others—and to get in early to try to divert young people from anti-social behaviour and petty crime.
  The anti-social behaviour orders and the new plans for fixed-penalty offences, such as being drunk and disorderly and using insulting words, are wanted in communities in my constituency and, I suspect, throughout the country, by the police and public alike. But those are only a few of the tools available to the courts to deal with persistent young offenders. However, they have the advantage of insisting that parents take proper responsibility for the behaviour of their children when they are away from home, and of providing the help that they need to do so if necessary.
  The present and new powers have to be seen against the fact that the Government have helped 250,000 young people, left to rot by the previous Government, off the dole and into jobs and training. About 1,300 young people in my constituency have been helped off the dole by the new deal, off benefits and into jobs and training, and most of those have gone into what I would call properly paid jobs, not subsidised ones.

  543
  I especially welcome the moves in the Gracious Speech to crack down on cowboy clampers, an issue ignored by the previous Government, and, if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is anything to go by, one which they thought was completely unimportant. In and around the centre of Birmingham, cowboy clampers operate from mobile phones, publishing no business addresses and using tactics, including terror, to extract cash from helpless victims. In one case, a young woman was asked to hand over jewellery when she could not produce a credit card to obtain cash from a cashpoint. In another, a woman suffering from severe diabetes, who did not know the city and did not have a credit card but needed to get home to take her medication, was held up by cowboys until she managed to contact a friend and raise money. Those are abuses of our constituents.
  I am also pleased to welcome what has been proposed for security guards—bouncers—on club doors. Much progress has been made in Birmingham and elsewhere in that regard, and I am delighted that that will be extended throughout the country.
  The Opposition make much of the fall in police numbers. In fact, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that started in 1992, when the Opposition forget that they were in office. It is also when they took responsibility for setting police numbers from the Home Secretary and gave it, properly, to chief constables. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald did not explain her apparent change of mind. It follows from all that she said that she wants the Home Secretary to be given the powers to set police numbers in 43 police forces throughout England and Wales—an impossibility.
  It is extraordinary that not a single member of the shadow Cabinet is on the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has just returned, but it has been empty for some long time. The right hon. Lady comes back just in time for me to remind her that, despite having been in office for 18 years, Conservative Members think that it is enough just to say sorry. It is not enough for those victims of crime which doubled when the right hon. Lady was in the Home Office and the Conservative Government were in power. It is not enough when they presided over a regime when, although there was more crime, fewer people were sent to prison. We had more crime and fewer criminals. It takes a brilliant Government to achieve that.
  In my constituency, under the Government whom the right hon. Lady supported, the chance of being burgled rose from one in 32 to one in 13—and it happened—and the chance of being a victim of violent crime trebled. That was the so-called golden inheritance with regard to law and order.
  In contrast, during the next year alone, the police are being given an extra £10 in every £100 to build their strength. The crime fighting fund, targeted to deliver results, has the cash for an extra 9,000 officers over and above what chief constables planned for this year and for the following two years. In the west midlands, that will mean about an extra 1,300 officers during the next three years.
  But at a time when 1 million extra people are in jobs, with unemployment at its lowest for 25 years, the police will find it harder to recruit, as will other public sector employers,
  544
  such as the health service, schools, the fire and ambulance services, and so on. In such a labour market, it is not so much cash which will attract the recruits likely to be of most value to the police force, as commitment, wanting to be part of a body helping to restore pride among the different communities in the areas where they live.
  Miss Widdecombe: During my time in the Home Office, crime fell year on year, the prison population rose to record levels, and the number of constables rose year on year. How does that compare with this Home Secretary's record?
  Mr. Corbett: The figures of the Government of whom the right hon. Lady was a member speak for themselves.
  As other employers in the new high-tech industries have found, money is not enough to secure and retain the recruits that they need. We should learn the lessons where we can. It is not for nothing that Japanese companies operating here test for commitment before giving people the opportunity to apply for a specific job.
  It is good to know that people in my constituency now have a lower fear of crime than they had a few years ago, although for too many it is still too high. More is being done to build links between the communities and those agencies which can help them to reclaim the safety and security that too many have had stolen from them. The Bills in the Queen's Speech are part of that process, but the real difference will be made by people in local communities who get the help that they need when they need it to reawaken that sense of belonging and community which is the best guarantee of safety and security.
  7.18 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: There has been a good deal of ding-dong on police numbers during the debate. They are a problem for us in Bedfordshire. The numbers have fallen since the last election. The main figure that I have in mind is that, during the previous 18 years, they rose by 16,000 nationally, which puts the fact that they have fallen under the present Government into perspective.
  The other worry about policing is the difficulty of recruitment and problems of morale. It is not easy for the police. I know—and I see beside me my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—that there are real problems at Huntingdon Life Sciences as a result of the serious misbehaviour by the animal rights movement, which is putting the police in great difficulty. I urge the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to turn their attention to that. I am sure that they will do so.
  I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in deploring the reappearance in this short Session before the general election of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill to abolish the right to trial by jury. That is hopelessly ill judged. It is remarkable that a Labour Government—who, to their credit, had leading shadow opposition posts occupied by the Home Secretary who then condemned any such suggestion, and by the Attorney-General and Prime Minister who condemned such ideas—should then make a volte face to bring in such a thoroughly illiberal and inappropriate measure.

  545
  This is the third time that the Government have introduced the measure. On the first occasion, it was thrown out by the other place because it was inequitable with regard to different types of defendant. Far from learning their lesson and leaving it there, the Government then reintroduced the measure in an even more inequitable form, which tried to ensure that ordinary people who sought the right to trial by jury could not even have their personal circumstances taken into account. The Government managed to get some support from the Runciman royal commission for their first Bill. They also gained support for it from the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, albeit in a speech that was, I am bound to say, rather lukewarm.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a succession of lawyers to keep making these points when not one of them has declared an interest in the issue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is a matter not for the Chair, but for the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who is addressing the House.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) is fully aware that I have been a member of the Bar for 35 years. I have not done any criminal work since before I entered government in 1986, but my position as a Queen's Counsel is well recorded. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not want to address the important points.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I rise in case my silence is taken as assent to criticism. I have not practised for 20 years and I have no intention of doing so again. Members of an illiberal Government who are damaging civil rights will not do their cause any good by attributing base motives to hon. Members who are defending the right to jury trial.
  Sir Nicholas Lye11: I return to the faults of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. When I read the Gracious Speech, I was astonished not only that the Government were reintroducing the Bill that opposes the right to jury trial, but that it had exactly the same words and title, which demonstrated that they intended to use the Parliament Acts to force its passage if they were so minded.
  In an intervention on the Home Secretary, I pointed out the disgraceful inequities of the Bill, apart from my opposition in principle to the underlying concept. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would listen carefully, so I hope that he will at least consider making some amendments. As he knows, the Bill has been attacked by Lord Bingham, who wrote to him to say that he was thoroughly unhappy with the fact that all circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Bill has also been attacked by Professor Michael Zander of the Runciman royal commission. One of the express reasons why the commission supported such an idea, however, was ensuring that all relevant matters were capable of being taken into account. If we have to take time to consider the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee, I hope that it will be examined with an open mind. I shall continue to oppose it root and branch as it is of no benefit whatever to the criminal justice system.
  546
  It constitutes a serious deprivation of one of our fundamental liberties—a liberty that goes back as far as the century after the Magna Carta, if not to the Magna Carta itself.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend may be disappointed to learn that he will not be able to discuss the Bill in Committee or on Report on the Floor of the House. I understand that the Government intend to table a motion to dispense with the Committee stage and with Report.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: If my hon. and learned Friend is right about that—I hope that the Minister will respond to that point—it shows the Government's complete disregard of democracy in this country. The Bill has been thrown out twice by the other place, which contains more Labour peers than ever before. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary know perfectly well that some of their most respected lawyers in the other place oppose the Bill. In those circumstances, it is disgraceful in constitutional terms for them to think it right to deal with a measure that removes the rights of private citizens by introducing it for a third time.
  What shocks me most, however, is that the Home Secretary does not fully understand what the Bill covers. He sought to justify it by speaking about petty offences relating to Mars bars. Indeed, he used the Mars bar example on several occasions during his speech. I invite him to acquaint himself with the rights removed by the Bill. It removes the right to trial by jury with regard to the whole swathe of what are called either-way offences.
  The document "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1998" contains 10 pages of either-way offences. I think that that will open a few eyes. The indictable-only offences cover only three pages. In the 10 pages of either-way offences, a mere petty theft offence can hardly be found. The pages cover offences as widespread as fraud, forgery, grievous bodily harm, wounding and the whole range of drug offences, from the most serious to mere possession. They also cover theft, violent disorder, the entire range of public order offences and of firearms offences, obscene publications offences and environmental protection offences. They cover more than 500 different offences for which the rights of the ordinary citizen to trial by jury are to be removed.
  Mr. Lammy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Magna Carta and the 12th century. Does he accept that we are now in the 21st century? The Government have been encouraging people in communities such as mine to enter the justice system. My brother is going into the magistracy. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have no confidence in our magistrates and in people who are well equipped to take care of such matters?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have great confidence in our magistrates. I grew up in a legal family. My stepmother was a magistrate and chair of the Bench for 25 years in Dacorum, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) well knows. Of course I have that confidence. However, the hon. Gentleman will also realise the quality of trial by jury. As my right hon. and learned

  547
  Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, it provides the opportunity for proper disclosure, much better legal aid and a wider degree of defence.
  Mr. David Taylor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: No, not for the moment.
  Trial by jury provides many more opportunities for careful trial. The important point is that there is confidence in the system as it currently stands. The examples given by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, on saving money undercut their case. Indeed, after we had dealt with the Bill in Committee last time round, the Minister of State said that he was not prepared to rely on saving money as a reason for introducing the measure. One wondered what the reason was. On analysis, there is no good reason for introducing the Bill. The money that the Government intend to save will supposedly come from shorter sentences—not for people who steal Mars bars, but for regular thieves who are currently receiving an average sentence of 10.9 months. They will supposedly—I find this supposition curious—be given sentences by the magistrates court averaging merely three and a half months. That is the most bogus sort of statistic that can be advanced to justify a Bill of this nature.
  However, the Bill is more fundamental, which is why my references must extend through our history, to the middle ages and beyond. Our right to trial by jury confers the right not merely on the citizen, who may or may not be worthy of it, but on our communities at large to control and supervise our criminal justice system. That is an important democratic right. It applies whether or not the offence is serious, like the Ponting offence. It applies in respect of a comparatively trivial offence such as stealing a telephone call—an offence that arose in a case that I tried when I became an assistant recorder. The jury threw out the case. For the young man involved, the decision probably made the difference between a successful career in the hotel trade and the loss of that responsible career. However, the jury threw it out because, I suspect, they thought the charge was disproportionate.
  In this democratic society, our criminal justice system is controlled by our democracy—by ordinary people through the little parliaments of the jury. As Lord Devlin rightly said, every jury is a little parliament. That is a tremendous foundation of our liberties. The Government are wrong to take that away, and we ask them to think again.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him in terms of subject matter, as I want to discuss the problem of crime in inner-city areas.
  I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who has a reputation for being a decent kind of Tory, does not understand the link between crime and the fundamentals that cause crime. Crime and the causes of crime, and the eradication thereof, involve a twin approach. Although serious crimes
  548
  are committed in my constituency, including murder, sadly, on a regular basis—it is almost always drug related—it is often the low-level anti-social crimes that disrupt the quality of life for many of my constituents. That is why I welcome those parts of the Queen's Speech that will combat anti-social and yobbish behaviour.
  The other night, a constituent of mine whom I know came out of his home, which is close to the city centre of Manchester. He confronted a youth who was urinating on the street and who had obviously had a good night out drinking. When my constituent remonstrated in very mild terms—he explained that he and his neighbours lived nearby and that the youth's behaviour was not very decent—the youth and two friends beat up my constituent so severely that he was hospitalised.
  I do not want to make a trivial point about the connection between crime and alcohol, other than to say that the climate of impunity around the use and abuse of alcohol in our city centres and elsewhere must be dealt with soon. I welcome the relevant provisions in the Queen's Speech, which begin to build on the other measures that the Government have taken, including anti-social behaviour orders and local area partnerships, which are beginning to build a new relationship between communities and the police.
  Sadly, the reality is that in communities such as mine confidence in the police has been severely eroded in recent years. That is obviously partly because the police were confronted by a seemingly inexorable rise in crime. I am afraid that the previous Government deserve enormous discredit for that rise, which was built on the previous Government's incompetence not only in terms of the law and order agenda—although they were incompetent in that regard—but in terms of the agenda that includes issues such as work. The link between very high levels of unemployment, which were created by the previous Government, and criminal behaviour is obvious and immediate.
  I am glad that unemployment has begun to fall under the present Government—that has had an impact on my constituency—but there has been no related or immediate ratcheting down of criminal behaviour. That will take considerably longer, as we begin to change the culture and climate in which we operate. We need to rebuild a sense of community in our society. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his role in introducing anti-social behaviour orders, which have been tremendously important.
  However, I issue a caution. I have said and will continue to say that my police force needs more constables and policemen on the beat and elsewhere. I have told the chief constable of Greater Manchester that he is responsible for ensuring that the inner city has a fairer share of the available resources. However, we must confront the way in which the police manage those resources internally.
  In a recent case involving the first anti-social behaviour order in Manchester, the stipendiary magistrate granted anonymity to the relevant youths. The courts thereby let down the police and, more important, the community. In one example, an ASBO was breached. Although the police had been told by members of the community, including local councillors, that the young offender was in breach of the order, the police did not operate

  549
  effectively to bring that young person to justice. The police were not setting the standards that we expect, and which we are entitled to expect, from them—that is the only way to make the new compact with the public work.
  Good developments are under way, including the sure start initiative in Manchester which is beginning to make a big difference. The local area partnership is an important part of the effort to rebuild the relationship and trust between the police and the local community.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) discussed the allocation of homes and properties. He raised a fundamental point. I hope that the Government will think hard about a proposal that is missing from the Queen's Speech and that, even at this late stage, we can have a rethink. I am referring to the way in which properties are let to different groups. That problem involves not the local authorities in my constituency but private landlords.
  For example, in east Manchester there is a large new deal for communities project, which involves reinvestment in that community. That process is obviously undermined by criminal behaviour, which does much to deter people from repopulating the area and prevents them from regarding it as an area worth living in. A significant number of private landlords, but not all of them, are a major source of concern to local people because they persist in taking no responsibility for the behaviour and attitude of their tenants. A very limited number of people can do enormous damage to the fabric of the wider community—they can fundamentally disrupt the way of life of many people. It is therefore not unreasonable to say that we need tougher controls.
  The time has come to examine whether we should license the private landlord sector. If landlords are not prepared to accept their responsibilities, we need powers to coerce them to do so. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will sympathise with my suggestion that private landlords who do not accept that duty should cease receiving the housing benefit on which many of them depend to make a profit. I urge those on the Government Front Bench seriously to consider legislation in that connection. If such a change is not introduced within a reasonable period—the demand for it in my constituency is enormous—we put at risk the gains that the Government's investment in this context is designed to secure.
  There has been some discussion about the curfew, although that is an unfortunate term. Wiser counsels in the Chamber have referred instead to child protection. We should approach this debate from the perspective not of curfews but of protection. The concept of a curfew involves political difficulties and raises other more general problems for our society. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will ensure that a message is sent, making it clear that there is no generalised assault on young people. The approach does not involve saying that all young people in a particular area are inherently difficult or problem causing—that simply is not the case. In all areas, even those with high levels of criminality, there are young people who are an asset to society and who are an important part of the social cement that binds communities together.
  I was at a pensioners do over the weekend and was gratified to see the work that the community and, in particular, the very young members of that community
  550
  put in to ensure that that group of pensioners had a good Christmas evening. Those young people might, in different circumstances—perhaps on street corners—have appeared to me and to other members of the community as individuals potentially capable of causing terror. The fact is that they are not—they are decent young people.
  We should say loudly and clearly that most young people are an asset to society—they are the future on which we must build. It is important to get across the message, through the rhetoric of curfews or child protection, that there is no generalised attack on our young people.
  Many hon. Members want to speak in this debate, so I shall conclude on this point. Of all the issues that affect my constituents, crime is probably high on the agenda. When I talk to them on the doorstep or when they write to me, they always demand that more should be done. The Home Secretary said that crime and disorder rates are still too high. We should be honest—I wish the Opposition would be a little more honest—and get away from the political rhetoric. The Conservatives had a terrible record for which they will not be forgiven. If we can establish that there is a demand for the rebuilding of communities to be the basis on which we attack the fundamentals of crime, we will be attacking crime and the causes of crime.
  7.40 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: No one in the House is in favour of high crime rates or communities being racked by disorder. The debate is about what measures, particularly in the Gracious Speech, would provide a better chance of reducing crime and enabling communities to live in a more orderly and stable fashion.
  Last Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) pointed out:
  The Queen's Speech said that the Government would combat crime and anti-social behaviour, and promised curfew orders.— [Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 19.]
  Those were the words of the first Queen's Speech of this Parliament in 1997—I share my right hon. Friend's sense of deja vu. The implication is that the Government have not made much progress in the intervening three years. I want to consider those issues from a constituency perspective.
  I am happy—or at least I am content—that I no longer have to stand at the Dispatch Box volleying statistics back and forth, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the Home Secretary were doing earlier. However, I want to mention a couple of constituency-related statistics. The Audit Commission's performance indicators for Cambridgeshire show that in 1999–2000 the total number of crimes committed per 1,000 of the population was 95.5, which is an increase over the figure for 1998–99. The total number of violent crimes committed per 1,000 of the population was 9.8, which is also an increase on the figure for 1998–99. When I tell the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), that crime is rising in my constituency, I offer her the Audit Commission performance indicator statistics.
  Another of those statistics caught my eye. The percentage of victims satisfied with the police's initial response to violent crime and burglary had decreased

  551
  from 1998–99. I hasten to add that that is not because the Cambridgeshire constabulary is not impressive, but because there are not enough police in the constabulary or on the beat. I recognise that the Government plan to spend more money on law and order next year. However, even with that expenditure, the Cambridgeshire constabulary will not reach its establishment level by the likely date of the next general election.
  I shall not make a speech about resources. I have acknowledged that more will be provided, and I want to thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for recognising the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and I have been making to them about one or two special policing pressures in Cambridgeshire. I do not expect the Minister to respond tonight; I merely want to encourage her to continue to think about those problems before the final figures for Cambridgeshire are announced.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has left the Chamber, because it was a bit like old times. In 1997, when I was at the Opposition Dispatch Box, he stood at the other one encouraging the Conservatives to support anti-social behaviour orders. At that time, I said that the Opposition were not against such orders in principle, but we thought that the Government were grossly overselling them and that they would be much more difficult to put in place than he was leading the House to believe.
  On the ground that anti-social behaviour orders might turn out to be a good thing, I have constantly badgered Peterborough city council and the Cambridgeshire constabulary in Peterborough about the introduction of such orders. About 10 days ago, I received an interesting letter from a senior police officer enclosing a copy of the new draft protocol. That was in November 2000. The House will recall when that became the law of the land. The officer said:
  The Home office has recently forwarded long awaited guidance on the protocols and procedures
  for these orders. The guidance was issued in June 2000. That is more than two years after the legislation was enacted. The letter went on to say that the police are
  concerned about the degree of evidence required when preparing an application and the fact that in many respects, the substantive offences of public order and criminal damage for example, may have been more straight forward to evidence.
  It said that the police
  look forward to receiving further legal advice once the outcome of
  initial
  court cases are known particularly about the degree of evidence required in practice.
  The senior police officer cited a case of two youths who were to be pursued with an anti-social behaviour order. They went to court on 5 October, and they went back to court on 2 November, on 21 November and on 1 December. I have to tell the Minister that there has still not been an anti-social behaviour order issued in that part of my constituency. I shall not take lectures from the Home Secretary about supporting anti-social behaviour orders. We would be interested to see whether they actually work, but they have not worked in Peterborough. The police and the council together have not been able to make them work. That is a disgrace, because it is more
  552
  than two years after the event. It is particularly disgraceful given the rhetoric that accompanied the introduction of these orders. It is no wonder that the Home Secretary was sheepish when he said that there had been 140 such orders throughout the whole of the country.
  Something caught my eye in The Hunts Post, the local paper. An article on 29 November stated:
  The Home Office has ordered police forces to compile regular crime updates for people living in rural areas.
  The failure of anti-social behaviour orders and this new bureaucratic encouragement sums up the Government. People in the rural parts of my constituency know about crime first hand because they are the victims of it. They know about the fear of crime because they live with it. They see police being diverted from rural areas into the towns and into the city of Peterborough.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: No. I am sorry, but I have only a limited time.
  Despite all the community efforts—neighbourhood watch, farm watch and all the rest of it—people know that the real problem is resources. What my constituents want is not more statistics but more action.
  When we considered the legislation that introduced anti-social behaviour orders, I asked the Home Secretary whether the Government would legislate to stop the practice of prostitutes' cards being plastered all over the phone boxes of London. I did so with the support of Westminster city council. The Minister may remember that I handed a number of those cards to the Home Secretary across the Dispatch Box—they were safely in an envelope. In his response, the Home Secretary told the House that he would act swiftly. He and I agreed that this practice needed to be made illegal.
  I was grateful for a letter that I received this very week from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). He said that he was writing to me because I had an interest in the matter, and added:
  As you will be aware, I announced on 9th June that we—
  the Government—
  would develop detailed proposals for a new criminal offence.
  That date—9 June—was the best part of three years after the Home Secretary had told me that the situation was a disgrace and that the Government would act immediately.
  The Minister of State wrote that a consultation period had followed, and ended by telling me:
  We are keen to make progress.
  Where have I heard that phrase before? Like most of my constituents, I have no idea whether what is proposed in the Gracious Speech will make any significant difference, but I, and they, have a perfect right to be sceptical. We have heard all this before, time and again, in overblown rhetoric—and overblown rhetoric to which Ministers' attention was drawn at the time.
  The proposed Bills reflect Government failure, not Government success, and that is how they will be understood come 5 April or 3 May. I ask the Minister to start getting serious about translating into action in my constituency some of the promises that the Government have made.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. John Robertson: As my predecessor said in his maiden speech,
  It is with some trepidation that I find myself on my feet at this early stage.
  I find the experience just as daunting as he did back in 1966, but, as he did, I will
  take my courage in both hands and rely on … traditional tolerance.—[Official Report, 4 May 1966; Vol. 727, c. 1686–7.]
  Donald Dewar was a great man. He has secured his place in history as the architect of the first elected Parliament in Scotland for 300 years. I know that Opposition Members held him in just as high esteem as his hon. Friends. We shall all miss him, and the House will be a poorer place for his passing. The people of Anniesland will also miss him. When I was campaigning in the by-election, I was repeatedly told, "He will be a hard act to follow." He certainly will.
  Donald stood for many things, but his lasting legacy will be his endless work to achieve social justice for all, regardless of their ethnic, religious or social background. No one can fill his shoes, but I will try to walk in his footsteps. He was one of a kind, and will be remembered by many as a man of high ideals and principles. The recent by-election was perhaps not as memorable as the one that he fought in 1978. That was a turning point in Scottish politics. The nationalists were riding high until that by-election in Garscadden, but they never recovered from the defeat and as a result Scotland can be said to have been Labour to this day.
  The Anniesland by-election a few weeks ago may not have the same lasting effect as that in Garscadden, but time will tell. It certainly dented SNP morale, and I hope it will be the platform for a famous Labour victory in Falkirk, West next week.
  Like Donald, I can say that Glasgow is my home. In fact, I was born in the constituency—more years ago than I care to remember—and I live there now. I am proud to be a Glaswegian, and to be the representative of Anniesland in the House.
  The area of Anniesland is not known for its scenery or architecture, but, as someone who has spent most of his life there, I have always found that it is the people who make the difference. They are without doubt the friendliest, most fair-minded and politest of people and, despite the many problems they have experienced, I hold them in the highest esteem. I would submit them for comparison with people anywhere in the country.
  The people of Anniesland have many different backgrounds and social standards, but whether they come from Drumchapel, Yoker, Knightswood, Blairdardie, Anniesland, Kelvindale or Jordanhill, I shall be honoured to represent them.
  The issues raised during the by-election were, in my opinion, those that will be raised at the next general election: pensions, the health service, education, jobs, housing and social justice. There was a general feeling that the Government had done a good job on all fronts. Although there was a low turnout of 38.5 per cent., a colleague said—and I feel that he hit the nail on the head—that the only time there was a high turnout at a by-election was when a highly unpopular Government or a popular Opposition were in place. As Labour won well over 50 per cent. of the votes, neither must be the case. The result appears to support my colleague's opinion.
  554
  The constituency of Glasgow, Anniesland has one of the highest proportions of over-60s in the country—31.4 per cent. Thanks to the present Government, they are better off to the tune of £5 for single pensioners and £8 for pensioner couples from next April. Moreover, we should not forget the £200 winter fuel allowance that they have just received, and the free television licences for over-75 s.
  Health is important to everyone, but to the elderly in particular. I was happy to see the promise of extra investment in the Queen's Speech, and the commitment to modernising health care. That shows Labour's continued commitment to the NHS.
  Unemployment in Anniesland is higher than the national average, but, thanks to the present Government, it has fallen by nearly 14 per cent. in the past three years. Since the new deal started in April 1998 more than 1,100 young people have started on the programme; 437 have found work through it and 390 have gained work experience or training through new deal options.
  I was extremely pleased to see other excellent proposed legislation in the Queen's Speech, which will be of interest to the people of Anniesland. I believe that the criminal justice and police Bill, which we have been discussing, will help to solve the problem of young people making a nuisance of themselves. The only thing that I would ask for is extra money to allow local councils to invest in facilities to keep those young people interested in matters other than vandalism and crime in general. Keeping the young off the streets is only part of what is needed.
  The Hunting Bill is another measure that is long overdue, and I shall be happy to make my vote count. My main thanks, however, must go to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has managed the country's finances with an even hand. He has made it possible for us to give increases to pensioners and to raise spending on the health service, as well as putting the economy in a position that enables us to bring down unemployment and maintain low inflation. As they say in Scotland, he is a canny Scot, and I am sure that the next Finance Bill will continue the good work.
  All that legislation and more will be well received by the people of Anniesland. However, although I am happy with the content of the Queen's Speech, I would like to see more radical legislation in future to meet the needs of the elderly and the unemployed in particular and, in general, the needs of those who look to a Labour Government to give the helping hand that our opponents refuse. I have already mentioned extra money for councils to use for youth projects and I would particularly like help to be provided in educating the young on the misuse of drugs, and a way to be found of communicating to them the harm that they do themselves.
  I believe that the Government have done well in the past three years. With a stable economy, we are now seeing the benefits of good, sound management. The moneys given to health, education and employment, social services and pensioners have shown who really cares about the people of this country. The fact that unemployment has fallen so sharply, and the introduction of the minimum wage, back that up. Some years ago, I remember, people—including some Opposition Members—were saying that the minimum wage would increase joblessness. How wrong could they have been?

  555
  I hope that the Chancellor can do more in the years ahead, and that the minimum wage will be increased by well in excess of inflation—but only if the country can afford it. In the words of a now famous song, things can only get better.
  In closing this, my first speech in the House, let me say again what an honour it is to serve the people of Glasgow, Anniesland. I give my word that I will do my best to achieve all that is expected of a Labour Member of Parliament. I will always have an open door to those people, and an open mind to policies that seek to improve their lives. I will try to ensure that Donald Dewar's legacy of social justice for all, no matter who they are or their walk of life, is continued.
  I thank hon. Members for their tolerance.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) on his maiden speech? As he rightly said, his predecessor was regarded with great respect and affection in the House and outside. He is and will continue to be sadly missed. Having heard the hon. Gentleman's comments, I am sure that he will be listened to with interest and respect whenever he is fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye.
  My constituency surgery last Friday began with a lady to whom I will refer as Mrs. A. She expressed concern that her young son, who is 14, had been walking home from school in October when he had been set upon by two youths, one aged 14 and the other 15, and for no apparent reason beaten up. She said that what was particularly horrifying about the attack was that the assailants had deliberately sought to cause the maximum injury to her young son's head—to cause the maximum pain, but with the minimum visible bruising.
  Mrs. A went to the police. Her son was seen by a surgeon and was photographed. Statements were taken. The assailant was well known: her son knew who it was and the police knew who it was. That was October. In the middle of December, she does not know what has happened in that case, whether the youth has been charged or whether he has been taken to court. She has heard no more from the police.
  A little later in my surgery, a couple came to see me. I shall refer to them as Mr. and Mrs. B. They live on the same housing estate in Banbury. They are public-spirited people who act as foster parents. They had bought their foster child a bicycle. That foster child, who is also 14, had been riding on the estate when he had been attacked suddenly by the same youth. He had been beaten up and his new bicycle had been damaged.
  Mr. and Mrs. B told me that the youth was well known to them, too. He was frequently seen driving around the estate in a motor car, or riding speed bicycles around the estate. He had vandalised their garden and broken down their fence. He was well known to the police and had caused much difficulty to a lot of people.
  Mr. and Mrs. B had come to see me because they were particularly upset. They had just heard from the police that the Crown Prosecution Service had advised that no proceedings should be taken against that youth as, ultimately, it had been decided that it was their foster child's word against the youth's word.
  556
  It was the same assailant in both cases. The attacks happened on one housing estate in Banbury, which could not be more middle England. What was particularly disconcerting was that Oxfordshire social services, which had placed the foster child with the foster parents, advised that it would be inappropriate to place any other foster children with them for the time being because they could not provide a safe environment. If a safe environment in which to bring up children cannot be provided in housing estates in Banbury, something serious is happening.
  When I took the matter up with the local police, I was told by Inspector Choudhary of Thames Valley police Banbury sector:
  It is true to say over the past few months the levels of policing in the Ruscote area have not been as we would have all liked, but this was due to a number of abstractions from the team that deals with that area. I can assure you that this situation will be resolved as I have made changes to the shift patterns of the officers who patrol Ruscote area and as of January far greater police presence will be visible.
  People living in Ruscote and Banbury want policemen on the beat now. They do not want to have to wait until January, but I suspect that the situation will get worse, rather than better. For the first time in the 17 years that I have been an hon. Member, I and other parliamentary colleagues in the Thames valley have been written to by the chief constable of Thames Valley in these terms:
  I am writing … to tell you that, from the latest examination of our recruitment and retention figures, it is clear that the situation is getting significantly worse. We have already lost 90 officers so far this year from April-October through transfer or resignation, whilst normally we would expect to lose no more than 40 in a full year. Recruiting too has become far more difficult.
  Currently, the vacancies are being held at the centre … but it is only a short time before these vacancies will be felt on police areas—especially those in the south east of the force where I have most difficulty with retention.
  There are many more applications
  for resignation
  in the pipeline and there is no doubt that we are seeing the start of a significant exodus of officers from this force due to high housing costs … These trends are also accompanied by the fact that we are finding it more and more difficult to recruit replacements.
  No wonder the Oxford Mail carries headlines such as
  Thin blue line gets thinner.
  Inspector Martin Elliott, who represents the Police Federation locally, said:
  What was a very thin blue line on the streets is now not even thin, it's dotted. This is a crisis—we will lose more officers this year than we will take on.
  Assistant Chief Constable Paul West said:
  We have lost more than double what we would normally experience.
  The Police Federation has put a lot of the blame for the staffing crisis in the Thames valley on the lack of a rent allowance to offset high living costs in the area and on the fact that many officers recruited in the last big drive are reaching retirement age.
  I, too, share the view that it is pointless ping-ponging statistics across the Dispatch Box, but we have a problem on the ground in the Thames valley. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will listen to the case that has been put by the chief constable for a housing allowance for officers in the Thames valley. Otherwise, we will have a serious situation.

  557
  In relation to curfew orders, David Marchant, secretary of the Thames Valley Police Federation, said:
  We've not got the officers to enforce the current laws of the land at the moment, without imposing new ones.
  There is no point in the Government introducing further criminal justice legislation if the police officers are not in place to enforce existing legislation.
  My other concern is in relation to anti-social behaviour orders. One would have thought that the youth who appears to have brutally attacked two young people on the Ruscote housing estate and to have created considerably more mayhem on the estate was an ideal candidate for an anti-social behaviour order. However, for whatever reason, I have been told by Superintendent Reeve and Grahame Handley, chief executive of Cherwell district council, that when they sought the advice of the clerk to the justices of North Oxfordshire magistrates they were told that his advice to magistrates would be that, unless it was a persistent offender, an anti-social behaviour order should not be granted.
  Corroboration for that came to me today in a letter from the chief executive of Banbury Homes, which has much of the social housing in Banbury. He wrote about some evictions that it had succeeded in obtaining against some anti-social tenants on another housing estate in Banbury. His letter states:
  We are also dependent on the co-operation from the Courts in order to consider Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, and in the Banbury area we have been advised that such co-operation will not be forthcoming.
  The Secretary of State said that, in his view, Oxfordshire magistrates had misdirected themselves on anti-social behaviour orders. All I know is that the Home Office has responsibility for issuing guidance to magistrates courts on such orders. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been in place for more than two years. It is incredible that, in my area, not a single anti-social behaviour order has been issued and that, throughout the country, only 140 have been issued. If that legislation is to work, surely the Home Office should seek to discover from magistrates courts, the Magistrates Association, the police and local authorities why they are not making more use of legislation that the House passed at the beginning of the Parliament. If they do not make greater use of it, all the new legislation is simply posturing. When the Government say that they will bear down on yobbish behaviour, it is simply posturing if they do not also provide sufficient police numbers to police our streets and ensure that the magistrates courts effectively implement legislation that has already been passed by the House.
  On Third Reading of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), said:
  The fact that these debates have taken place will assist us in ensuring that the guidance offered to the courts on the use of anti-social behaviour orders is precise.—[Official Report, 23 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 871.]
  What has happened in my patch is precisely nothing, and it is time that that changed. I do not believe in demonising young people, and I firmly support the work of organisations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. I also think that, whenever possible, one should seek alternatives to custody for young people, and that the work of groups
  558
  such as NCH Action for Children on replacements for custody is excellent. However, I also think that we have to recognise that, sometimes, there are persistent young offenders who cause a disproportionate amount of mayhem in our communities.
  The House has a duty to those communities to ensure that there are sufficient police numbers and that the courts have sufficient powers to deal with those young people. Unless the Government are prepared to do that, all the measures in the Queen's Speech on law and order are simply posturing.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Harold Best: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) on an excellent maiden speech—well done.
  So far, the debate has dealt only with crime, whereas the annunciator says that it is about home affairs and inner cities. I should like to talk a little about inner cities, perhaps establishing a precedent that other hon. Members will follow. I shall also deal specifically with the matter of universities located in inner-city areas and the recent explosive unplanned growth in the number of houses in multiple occupation—which most people know as HMOs.
  The fact that a growing proportion of our population needs short-term lets which can be found in HMOs is not disputed. Demand is especially keen among the younger population of single people and couples living together in short-term lets. Such housing suits their life style and needs, as it does those of modern industry, inner-city universities, and commerce generally. The need for "flexible" labour sources is reflected in the amount of temporary accommodation for young people who are in the process of acquiring a degree and those who have short-term contracts in the labour market.
  There are serious concerns about the problems associated with HMOs, such as their quality, potential extra fire risks and generally low standards. The Government's stated intention to legislate to raise safety standards and improve the general quality of such housing stock is—to say the least—welcome. However, I was very disappointed that the need for such special legislation was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Such legislation would have been very welcome as a long overdue attempt to improve the lot of tenants in HMOs and—just as important—the lot of those who comprise the long-term residential communities in properties adjoining universities in our inner cities.
  Today, I wish to draw to the House's attention a specific use—or, more accurately, misuse—of current housing stock, which has led to serious damage to well-established family housing stock and to the natural living communities in and around our two inner-city universities in Leeds. I shall speak about the specific area that I have been elected to represent. Hon. Members may also know a part of my constituency—Headingley, which is now known not only for its cricket and rugby facilities but for its HMOs. Last year, it had a 52 per cent. turnover in its electoral register. It is a seriously destabilised community.
  Sometimes, it seems that there is a grim determination abroad not to understand an argument that has been made very many times to universities, local government and the national Government about the form and nature of the

  559
  damage caused in inner cities by the explosion in the number of HMOs in university areas such as those in Leeds. It is devastating to witness at close quarters the process of destruction of a community caused by the number of HMOs.
  "Term-time only" use of HMOs causes houses owned and managed by private landlords to be used only seasonally. Such use has a very simple purpose and effect: to remove vast sums from those areas. HMOs are like giant pumps sucking out not only money, but complex community stability that took generations to build. They also seriously damage the physical and cultural amenities that are usually found in warm, self-sustaining communities.
  Such communities should contain, for example, a mix of small shops that trade year-round, not only seasonally. One manifestation of the change in Headingley was the loss of a very famous small family run toy shop called Pumpkin Corner. The reduction in the number of families in the area has resulted in there being fewer children there. If there are no children, there is no need for a specialist toy shop. Although loss of the shop has perhaps not caused significant damage to the local community, such losses are suffered time and again.
  The notion has been floated in some circles that it would be helpful to develop voluntary links with the student housing sector, and particularly with some of the private landlords. However, the idea that that will slow down the process of community impoverishment, let alone preventing the untrammelled so-called market forces that are now at work from destroying larger parts of our inner-city areas, is simply fanciful and manifestly not true.
  We need responsibility for the defence of our communities to be taken by our elected local and national government. We need action to ensure the defence and retention of inner-city areas for the year-round housing of needy families and first-time buyers—who are now priced out of the market—rather than the transformation of areas surrounding our inner-city areas into barren transit camps. Such a process is currently under way in those areas. It is being participated in unwillingly by the good landlords, and uncaringly by short-term and profiteering landlords. The need for greater provision of safe and good-quality accommodation for the student population is not being dealt with by the current process of unmanaged market forces.
  Sadly, not only the Government but the universities have been found wanting in the matter. In Leeds, the universities' behaviour towards the community who supported them for generations has been found seriously wanting. They have shown at best an ineffectual concern, and at worst a betrayal of the support that they have received from local communities, on which any continuing mutually beneficial economic and social relationship depends. They have betrayed the community.
  The expansion of student numbers in higher education is, to put it mildly, a laudable policy objective, and it is being achieved. The objective would be especially laudable if the numbers reflected a large increase in students from social classes 3, 4 and 5. I look forward to such change. Meanwhile, however, students who live in areas where there are many HMOs for term-time only use
  560
  are often themselves the victims not only of the worst excesses of a free-market housing policy, but of the area's increasing crime.
  The types of crime mentioned in today's debate are occurring in and around those university areas. Such areas always contain a young population who have constantly to relearn the lessons of history. As the student population in such areas is replenished annually, the areas have a permanently renewed youthfulness that never matures.
  The supporters of unfettered free-market forces were right about the market providing—it provided substandard accommodation for large numbers of students, and not just in Leeds. The same free market also failed—and fails—to invest in new housing stock. It is important to acknowledge that we all seek good-quality and safe living conditions for the overwhelming number of students who live in the inner-city areas of Leeds. The free market economy wants a guaranteed profit—that is, guaranteed through a public support of education. It is a common trait, which has become manifest in other former public sector industries, leading to all kinds of failures and human disasters.
  I am told that in the southern end of Headingley, there are more than 1,000 so-called empty beds in HMOs. That part of my constituency is becoming steadily impoverished. The poor quality of the provision and its continuing decline means that neither students' parents nor the students themselves wish them to live in such poor conditions. As a result, there is a growing dereliction created by the profit-farming landlords. It reminds me of the dustbowl farmers of the American mid-west in the 1920s and 1930s—pillaging the land, profiting and moving on to pastures new for even greater profits. Local government has found this unplanned-for growth in HMOs irresistible, as it has not had the powers to stop it. The evidence of such growth is before our very eyes, and its predicted spread is taking place.
  One consequence of the expansion of these transit camps and empty beds is a dramatic drop in the family occupation. It is not a question of losing one family shop; there is a serious threat to schools in the areas damaged by the growth in HMOs. At least two primary schools in my constituency are experiencing serious difficulties related to the fall in numbers of primary school-aged children. One of those schools is just 10 years old. It was built when the demographics showed a secure, continuous supply of young children.
  The Government's stated policy of recovering inner-city areas for reoccupation by long-term residents is working in parts in Leeds—for example, in the riverside developments in the centre. However, such developments are not occupied by young families working in the shops, offices and call centres. They are moving out of the city centre—first-time buyers have no chance of buying a city-centre property.
  The pressure that that puts on greenbelt land is understood, but it also adds enormously to the polluting effect and the CO2, level. The so-called rush hour is now 12 hours long. That kind of pressure means that Headingley lane has the dubious claim of being the second most polluted road in Leeds.
  In one way, managing the unparalleled growth in student numbers is wonderful—it is what we all want. The growth in the educational process is, from my perspective, as essential to the nation's health as the national health

  561
  service. In fact, the NHS depends on it. However, I am concerned that we are in danger of destroying the very centres—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Sir Paul Beresford.
  8.23 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: It is helpful to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). He started the debate on the inner cities, which seems to have slipped as the lawyers have pounded their Benches. [Interruption.] "Spoken as someone who is not a lawyer" might be a better way of putting it.
  When I dashed home last Wednesday and turned on "Newsnight", I heard the Home Secretary being interviewed. I did not hear him very clearly, but I thought that he was talking about the inner cities again. He said, if I heard him correctly, that he put all the blame—or a considerable proportion of it—for the state of the inner cities on what happened in the 1980s. That is rubbish.
  When I arrived in this country in the early 1970s, I worked in the east end of London. I can tell the Home Secretary that the state of the east end of London then was deplorable. The state of housing—almost entirely council housing—was shocking, as were the streets and transport. The atmosphere and environment appalled me.
  Over the years, I have regularly visited many of the estates in that area and in south London. Many have improved—equally, many are still absolutely appalling. One—the North Peckham estate—has been featured recently because of that awful, awful incident. I used to know the North Peckham estate quite well from a number of visits.
  There have been successes, which have been largely brought about by co-operation. I do not know of the Cardiff example that was mentioned, but that sounded as though it resulted from a similar approach. By co-operation, I mean co-operation between the community, the Government—to a degree—the local authority, the police, the faith communities and the private sector. I believe that the private sector is key.
  My reason for saying that derives from my shock when I became a Conservative councillor in south-west London and looked at some of the estates there. They were absolutely disgusting. Anyone who has been on a train leaving Victoria station going towards Clapham junction will see, as they go across the river, a highly coloured, novel estate—post-war, modern build. In 1978, and for a year or two afterwards, the crime level on that estate was so high that the police only went there multiple-handed, frequently carrying arms. It was a no-go area. Taxis would stop outside and let their passengers out. People walking there had to go in pairs, looking out in case something was dropped on them from above. In the case of a local policeman, it was a Ford Cortina gearbox. I suspect that that "Ford Cortina" ages me somewhat.
  That estate has changed completely because of co-operation between the community, both inside and outside the estate. It has changed largely because of the private sector, but even more important has been home ownership. The right to buy turned that estate around. About 55 per cent. or 60 per cent. has now been sold. There is a pride in that community; the crime level on the estate is now so low that it does not have a closed circuit television camera.
  562
  Many of these ideas were used up and down the borough. Most of the estates, if not all of them, changed fairly rapidly as the environment changed. Again, that was largely due to our getting the private sector to work for the public sector—collecting rubbish, cleaning the streets, maintaining street lighting and removing the graffiti. We introduced ideas that were new then—we may have been the first borough in the country to use CCTV. There were other things such as building out crime, using colour, cleaning up the parks and introducing park police. One helpful factor was the abolition of the Greater London council. [Interruption.] I hear deep breaths being drawn.
  In those days, the GLC was the most interfering, difficult body that any local authority could suffer in London; it either slowed progress or wrecked it. In addition, the Inner London education authority was abolished. Under ILEA, education in inner London was appalling. Its standards were either the worst or the second worst for the whole of its life, but its expenditure and cost to the nation and the people was far an away the greatest.
  Perhaps the biggest change, especially in those times, was the fact that Wandsworth was determined to work in co-operation with the police. In those days, the GLC had a police committee, which was effectively an anti-police committee. All the left-wing local authorities—there were quite a few then—had anti-police committees, and the police received no co-operation from the local authorities that needed to co-operate. It was not just a matter of money, bearing in mind that that authority consistently—under whatever Government—received either the second lowest or lowest external grant, but managed, by using decent services, not to penalise its local people, consistently asking them for the lowest rates, poll tax or council tax.
  Despite the fact that there is no boundary around the area—other than that drawn on a map—the result was that people liked the authority. The community came with it, preferring good services at the lowest cost. People had been moving out of the area, but they have now moved back; it has become a desirable place to live. Education in the area has improved and there are new schools, new Church schools and new city technology colleges. Competition between the schools has become co-operation. Education in the area has a long way to go, but it is on the way.
  In 1978, Wandsworth started on a par with Lambeth, Hackney and Haringey, but there is now a huge difference between them, which results from their different attitudes. As I said, this is not a matter of money because, after all, Wandsworth's total external support is £756 per head and the band-D council tax is £401 this year, whereas—I have mentioned the North Peckham estate—Southwark receives a grant of £1,093 per head but soaks its local people at band-D of £845. Other factors must be considered, such as the different policies of those councils.
  As the lawyers were hammering on the Benches earlier, I shall compare crime in Southwark and Wandsworth. It is not good in either authority. I understand that last year there were 600 violent incidents and 500 drug offences in Wandsworth, but there were 1,500 violent crimes and 1,639 drug offences in Southwark. That is reflected in what has gone on in that authority. I wonder what Southwark did, or did not do.

  563
  In the early days, Southwark fought the right to buy, tooth and nail. Those who bought their homes were squeezed with extra on-costs. The authority fought the use of the private sector. Even when compulsory competitive tendering was introduced, it continued to use its notorious in-house, poor-quality and expensive services. So its council estates were in poor repair and heavily squatted. They had filthy streets and graffiti everywhere. Maintenance was poor in general. There were drug addicts at every turn; litter and used syringes on every corridor; and old sofas and burnt-out cars throughout the estates. I remember walking through them. Of course, Southwark was politically correct—in education with bog-standard comprehensives and with continued poor co-operation with the police.
  Even today, many local authorities fight working with the police and the private sector. For example, Southwark is carrying out many major works and has an in-house engineering team, but there is not a single qualified engineer—I mean one who has a degree—in the whole team and the authority will not use the private sector if it can possibly help it.
  I turn now to the Queen's Speech and what this Government have done to help. They have not really helped. They have cut the right-to-buy discount, so people are persuaded that home ownership is not for them. They have introduced best value. Best value involves loads of consultations and reams of consultation documents, which has produced consultation fatigue. It also involves benchmarking groups between local authorities—the awful compared with the appalling. They have talked about beacon boroughs, but an authority can only become one if it is politically correct—never mind the service. Costs arise especially as there are armies of auditors in the Audit Commission being fed on tons of papers, collected by armies of council bureaucrats. There is no best value in that. The aim of best value was to cut out the necessity to use the private sector, so there is a return to in-house teams and standards drop. The Government have introduced a new scrutiny system, but it enables incompetent authorities to hide their incompetence.
  I have spent 21 days during the past few months with the Metropolitan police. I have never seen a more demoralised force in my life. It is absolutely pushed to the limit. The figures for the police force in Wandsworth for March 1997 show that it had 596 officers; that figure has now dropped to 570. The figures for Southwark for 1997 show that it had 861 officers; that number has now dropped to 821.
  To make matters worse for Metropolitan police officers, they are running round with best value strung round their necks, having to produce figures for auditors—with an unbelievable 59 targets to try to meet—rather than getting on with constructive policing. The Government have also created a Mayor and the Greater London Authority, which have added to costs.
  The inner cities need pragmatism from the experience of success. They are not getting that; they are getting the knee-jerk dogma of those who have failed.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I say to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) that I do not intend to rise to some of his more controversial comments about the GLC? I merely point out that its abolition was opposed consistently by a great majority of Londoners; it was an act of political vandalism that owed everything to ideology and nothing to the sort of local government efficiencies about which he was talking.
  I welcome the proposals on home affairs in the Gracious Speech. Many political journalists mocked the legislative programme that we have introduced, but I would expect them to do so. Most political journalists have no great connection with the realities of street life, such as that in the area of London that I represent. Indeed, the most dangerous thing that most political journalists experience is being hit by a wayward champagne cork at a good dinner.
  I listened to yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the Nice summit. There has been enormous concentration—on television and in the media—on the euro, national vetoes and qualified majority voting, which are all very significant subjects. However, not one person has ever stopped me on the streets of West Ham to talk about national vetoes, the euro or QMV. They are not subjects of debate for my constituents. I am not saying that they are unimportant, but they are not the kind of thing about which the people whom I represent are overly concerned. That is not surprising. When I listened to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, even he did not seem to know what those issues were all about. That was certainly the impression that he gave. Those are not the issues discussed by the people I mix with in the pubs in my constituency.
  Much of the talk in my constituency is about the very issues that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to in his speech. I want the Labour party to make law and order a central part of our election strategy. Of course it will be electorally popular because it is socially necessary. Any party that could guarantee safe streets would win an election hands down. However, it is not possible to give a cast-iron guarantee of safe seats [HON. MEMBERS: "Safe streets."] Yes, safe streets, but I am very glad to say that I have a safe seat. I hope that all my colleagues feel the same about their constituencies. They certainly look safer by the day, when we consider the performance of the Leader of the Opposition.
  There are many things that we can do to make our streets safer, such as providing more police, more CCTV cameras, more information hotlines and, of course, better street lighting. However, the most important thing that we need to do is to mobilise our local communities. Peer pressure is the strongest pressure needed to cut crime in our areas.
  I have not lost sight of the need to deal with the causes of crime. There is little point in addressing the symptoms and ignoring the causes. However, I must make an important point. One understands that unemployment, poor education, bad housing and a lack of facilities can generate crime, but none of those factors excuses crime.
  I had a pretty bad experience in my constituency recently. It was certainly the most dangerous—although not the first—incident that has happened to me in 17 years of representing the area. Ironically, it took place on the

  565
  eve of the "Respect" campaign that was being launched by the local authority in Forest Gate. Indeed, it is a very good local authority, which was voted council of the year in 2000. If the incident demonstrated anything, it was that there is a need for respect on the streets of Forest Gate—certainly, as far as the local Member is concerned.
  As I left Forest Gate station, I was trailed by four yobs who assaulted me. A knife was held in my side and I was robbed. At that point, I did not want to hear about their personal problems or to be told that they were the real victims. What I wanted was a posse of police to come screaming down the road to give them all a good truncheoning. Unfortunately, that did not happen and I was deprived of 50 or 60 quid. I was, and remain, very angry, but I am looking on the bright side—at least I will not have to canvass those yobs; I have worked out that I can mark them down as Labour doubtfuls, assuming that we ever find out where they live.
  The incident received a great deal of national publicity because it involved a Member of Parliament. If that helps the community and the authorities to focus attention on the problems of street safety, it will have been a worthwhile experience, but not one that I would wish to repeat every week. The reaction to my experience was interesting. All too many of my constituents have had similar experiences, but they do not get the coverage that I received. A large number of people have written to me, sent me cards and stopped me on the street to express concern. Every child in a class in Selwyn road primary school, which I had recently visited, wrote me a lovely letter with a picture. It was very touching. Interestingly, the letters revealed that one in three of all those kids in a primary school in the east end had experienced a similar incident through a member of their family.
  We have to wake up to that fact. Such a crime focuses the attention of people who have experienced it. I exchanged a few jokes with Harry Redknapp, the manager of West Ham, when he saw me coming out of the ground. He asked whether I wanted him to walk me home so that I would be safe. I said, "I think I can survive, Harry. I might run into a few Chelsea supporters, so it's best you don't walk with me." Then he said, "My mother is frightened to go out after dark." When it gets dark at a quarter to four in the afternoon, many of our elderly citizens are imprisoned indoors. That is an appalling indictment of what is happening in our communities.
  The response and follow-up actions of the police at Forest Gate and Plaistow stations were superb, but the uncomfortable fact remains that in an area such as mine, the police simply do not have the resources to deal with the amount of street crime that they face. It is not a party political issue; it should unite us across the whole House because all our communities suffer from the effects of street crime.
  I asked for a snapshot of an eight-hour period of duty in Newham in my constituency for Friday 8 December. There were three unexpected deaths—a two-day-old baby was found in Newham college and the bodies of a 17-year-old and a 20-year-old were found within three hours in Winsor terrace in south Newham—and a security guard was stabbed in McDonald's on Barking road. Those events were in addition to normal policing. There were also seven robberies, a number of burglaries and 45 motor offences in those 24 hours, and there have been 24 murders in Newham since December 1999.
  566
  Having said that, it is interesting to see that crime in Newham is falling this year as a result of close co-operation between the London borough of Newham, the police and local communities. However, as the regeneration of the community is extended through City airport, the Exel exhibition centre and the new university, more demands will be put on our police force. The Home Office must recognise that. On the current method of allocation, we are 70 police officers short and the force is desperately trying to recruit.
  The vast majority of my constituents are decent and law-abiding, but there is a sizeable number of criminals and anti-social yobs who must be dealt with. I know that I speak with the full authority of the great majority of my decent constituents in the east end in saying that we want the Government to pursue their initiatives and to ensure that the police are given adequate resources in order to turn such good initiatives into reality on the ground. We can pass as many laws and initiate as many different schemes as we like, but unless we give the police resources to effect those laws and schemes, we shall leave ourselves open to ridicule and criticism.
  I should like to make two suggestions in conclusion. First, I believe that most street crime is associated with drugs. It is so easy to get drugs on the streets of my constituency. People are openly rolling spliffs on street corners. I have consistently argued that the war against drugs is simply not being won. If a strategy for war is not working, it is best to try to change that strategy rather than persist with it. I firmly believe that we should decriminalise the personal use of cannabis and set up a commission of inquiry into the legalisation of all drugs. [Interruption.] It is an interesting and controversial point, but we should at least be prepared to consider it. If we were to decriminalise certain categories of drugs, it would lead to the most dramatic fall in criminal activity in this country in peacetime.
  Secondly, we in this House do not fully understand the yob culture. Many factors have led to the yob mentality, and they are attitudinal as well as social. We should consider a compulsory scheme of national community service. I shall develop that point at some other time—obviously, not in this debate. I have not turned into some Colonel Blimp from Tunbridge Wells, I just think that we should look radically at what is going on in our society and come up with some radical solutions.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Either he is getting wiser in his old age or I am going soft in the head, because I confess that I agreed with a great deal of what he said. It is refreshing for a Member to bring original thinking and some passion to the House. We all share in his tribulation with the yobs. He experienced what so many of our fellow citizens have had to put up with, and I salute his courage.
  I know that others want to speak, so I shall try to be brief. I want to make three key points. The first does not concern the principal subject that we are debating, but we are entitled in debates on the Queen's Speech to discuss other matters. I want to put on record that I am concerned about the proposal in the Gracious Speech that
  A Bill will be drafted to provide for safer travel on the railways, in the air, at sea and on the roads.

  567
  I record for the benefit of Government Front Benchers that the air accidents investigation branch is in Farnborough in my constituency. It is respected throughout the world for its professionalism and technical expertise. I do not wish the Government to take any measure that would impair the working of that organisation. Please leave it alone; leave it to be independent.
  I turn to the issues specifically before us. The Home Secretary tried to paint far too rosy a picture of the Government's achievements since the election. The figures do indeed speak for themselves. I cannot conceive how the Government can possibly hope to present a credible picture on police recruitment. The Home Secretary told us earlier that he wants 9,000 extra police by 2003. However, on the basis of figures with which he has provided us, we are already 2,700 or 3,000 short, so reaching the figure that he suggests does not seem realistic. Even if we were to recruit such numbers, where would we find the capacity to train them? I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), has heard from the Manchester area, whose bid for 30 recruits was cut back because training places are not available. It is therefore not possible to achieve those figures.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke about difficulties, and I wish to draw the attention of the House to those faced in Hampshire, which are the same as those in the Thames valley and Oxfordshire. Recently, there was a meeting of 700 members of the Police Federation in Winchester guildhall, about which Alan Gordon, the chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation said:
  I have never witnessed such numbers, and I believe it is indicative of the strength of feeling that exists within the rank and file members.
  I sincerely hope that it has not been lost on the ACPO team who were at the meeting how angry, annoyed and frustrated our officers feel about shortages of staff, pay and conditions of service within this Force.
  Mr. Gordon was referring to the Hampshire force, which is 80 under strength. I dare say that the money is there, but the force cannot obtain the men to do the job. So far this year, 96 officers have resigned, against an expected target of 70. The chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation reported that nearly 130 officers were on long-term sick leave, which is an increase of more than 20 per cent. on last year's figure, and a further 120 officers were on restricted duties. As Mr. Gordon said, those figures amounted to nearly 10 per cent. of the force being unavailable for front-line duties before taking account of annual leave, rest days and court attendance.
  Throughout the land, the police force is in crisis. It is no good the Home Secretary coming here and telling us what a fantastic job the Government have done because that has not been reflected on the ground, as one Member after another has testified. The hon. Member for West Ham said that he needed a load of bobbies to come to his rescue, as does every other victim of crime. However, they are simply not available. From everything that I have been told by Norman Brennan of the Victims of Crime Trust and the chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation, there is no doubt that morale is at rock bottom. It is partly a question of pay, and partly one of conditions. No fewer than 60 police officers in Hampshire have
  568
  decided against making contributions to their pension funds because they cannot make ends meet if they commit themselves to making those payments.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but that is a fact, and it should be of great concern. Police officers are asking their chief constable whether they can take other jobs to supplement their income. In most cases, the chief constable is forced to say that that is not on, as it would be bad for officers' health and their commitment to the service.
  There is also the question of status. Other Members have referred to the way in which the police have been battered. I make no apology for adverting to the Macpherson report. If the Government are not prepared to recognise the damage that has been done to police morale throughout the country—but particularly in London—by painting the police as institutionally racist and kicking them from pillar to post all the time, they do not understand what is going on in forces throughout the country. Today, a petition with 16,000 signatures was handed in by Norman Brennan on behalf of Steve Hutt, the policeman who was dismissed for making an unfortunate remark, which he has subsequently regretted. Morale has been seriously damaged by the Macpherson report and it is a great shame that the Government do not recognise that.
  We are engaged in party politics, so it is fair enough to take part in the battle of trading figures on police numbers. However, we deceive ourselves if we pretend to the British people that the solution to all the problems of yob culture and street violence is wholly within our hands. It is not, as parents have a role to play. I genuinely believe that many of our problems stem from a lack of parental control. It is fair also to say that parental control is absent because the nature of families has changed. About 75 per cent. of the population are married now, whereas a few years ago the figure was 92 per cent. A fundamental change is taking place in the make-up of society and of families. Overwhelming evidence shows that children benefit from being brought up in a household with a mother and father who are married. To suggest otherwise is to ignore all the evidence.
  That is not to say that those brought up in other types of household will turn to crime or become irresponsible citizens, but evidence shows that there is a greater likelihood of their prospering if they are brought up in a household where the parents are married.
  When the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), addressed a conference that I organised on the cost of family breakdown, he said:
  we know that the evidence demonstrates that marriage does work in creating a stable, coherent framework in which children can be brought up and acquire the values that are the bedrock of a stable society.
  A report which I was responsible for drawing up, with others, on the cost of family breakdown shows that there is a relationship between broken families and the level of crime. The report states:
  Home Office statistics for 1998 show 21 per cent. of all crime was committed by children under the age of sixteen. The significance of this lies less in the fact that they are responsible for up to 5 million

  569
  burglaries a year … than in the fact that 90 per cent. of juvenile offenders under sixteen come from broken families, and more than half have been excluded from school.
  There is a clear message to the House and to the country. Of course, people may live the life style that they want, but society is paying a price for certain styles of family. The Government should be unequivocal, instead of pandering to political correctness, with one Minister set against another—the Home Secretary and his Minister of State both supporting marriage, but others forcing through the age of consent legislation in another place, and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities saying, I believe, that all life styles are equally valid. The Government must recognise that the evidence shows that marriage forms the best basis.
  I hope that the Government will recognise that the position is not as rosy as the Home Secretary painted it. There are serious difficulties with the Government's policy. The Opposition have proposed some solutions, particularly with respect to the family, that should help to reduce the level of crime.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Hilary Benn: In the debate so far, many hon. Members have spoken about the fear of crime. Like many other hon. Members who have spoken, I represent an inner-city area, and to me nothing symbolises that fear more accurately than the number of houses that I see in my constituency that have metal gates on the front door, because these days it is not enough to shut one's front door if one wants to shut the world out.
  Because security is in part a state of mind, is it any wonder that our constituents who find that bloody syringe in the gutter or in the park next to the children's swings, who have to live through the comings and goings at houses where drug dealing takes place, who see the remains of the latest burned-out joy-ridden vehicle, feel that the area in which they live is in decline? That is certainly true of parts of my constituency.
  We have in our society an extremely sensitive measure of the quality of life in particular areas. It is called house prices. Is it any wonder that there is such a disparity between the value of properties in different parts of Leeds, as is the case in other major cities?
  As a relatively new Member, I have been surprised by the extent to which crime is drugs-related. In the police division of Holbeck, which covers the largest part of my constituency, 60 per cent. of the crime is thought to be drugs-related. Like many of the police officers to whom I speak, and, I suspect, an increasing proportion of hon. Members, I believe that we need a genuine debate about the scourge of drugs, and, to be controversial, I would include alcohol within that debate because of the effects that it has.
  The other strong message that I want to put across on behalf of my constituents relates to what I describe as incivility and menace, to which other Members have referred. I am talking of neighbour disputes, children who are out of control, anti-social behaviour, the person next door who plays loud music into the small hours despite having been asked kindly to desist and cars being joy-ridden round estates. Joy-riding is a strange term because it brings no joy to my constituents, who have to listen to the screech of car tyres and the crunch of metal. Last month, one of my constituents, an elderly lady,
  570
  had a joy-ridden car driven into the back of her house. The windows were smashed, and it is no surprise that she wants to leave the area.
  These are unquestionably crimes in the eyes of the victims, who come to my surgery and ask with simplicity and force, "Why should I have to live with this?" They are right to ask that question and we must have an answer.
  I shall make three quick points. First, I do not believe that law-and-order soundbite wrestling, to which we have been treated in parts of the debate, is the solution. In truth, every Member knows that the problems are complex and the solutions elusive. We must consider police responsiveness. In my experience, nothing causes more aggravation than the policing waiting list. Inevitably, when the police receive a phone call, they will prioritise the man with a knife over young people causing difficulty in a neighbourhood. Yet it is frustrating for those on the receiving end of that menace and trouble not to have a police response.
  I am interested in the neighbourhood warden initiative, a scheme which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. Leeds is lucky in that it is one of the 50 schemes that has received funding. Two parts of my constituency, Beeston and Cottingley, will benefit. There is real potential because neighbourhood wardens might be able to undertake some police functions, including responding to a call and taking some details. With the best will in the world, even if we had in place now all the police officers who the Government will fund, those officers would still find it difficult to respond to every call.
  Secondly, there is community policing. I have had the good fortune to meet good community police officers in central Leeds. Their work, and the uninterrupted time in which to do it, is crucial. It may not register in all the measures of police efficiency, but I believe that their form of nosey neighbourliness, if I may so describe it, is just as effective as their colleagues rapid response.
  Interesting things have been happening on the Lincoln Green estate that have been initiated by Police Constable Tony Sweeney, the community police officer, working with the housing department and the council. There was a crackdown on crime involving several agencies. Nurses have been brought in from the local hospital to live in empty flats.
  I was saying that house prices are a measure of demand. The social landlord equivalent of house prices is void rates. In April, there were 187 void properties on the Lincoln Green estate, and now there are only 68. Whereas the burglary rate for residential properties was averaging about 16 a month, it is now down to two or three a month. That is the result of hard graft locally, co-operation and commitment. The police, the council and the residents' association, which has only recently been formed, are working together to make a difference.
  Thirdly, we need to consider the causes and the consequences of crime. There should be a consequence to our actions, and that is why I am strongly in favour of restorative justice schemes. We rightly feel the anger that Members have expressed on behalf of the victims of crime, but there is another voice in our heads which asks, "Why?" I recognise that there are those for whom crime is a career choice. However, we neglect at our peril the fact that criminal behaviour and low educational attainment are closely linked. We know that poverty is a

  571
  factor. We know that those who are addicted to drugs are driven to find the means to feed that habit. And how often do we read that those who have committed the most appalling crimes of violence were themselves subjected to abuse and beatings when they were young? My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is right to say that that can never be an excuse, but it does, in part, offer an explanation.
  Since we can only give back to each other and to society that which we have been given, giving love and security to young people and showing our commitment to them, working through sure start and the literacy and numeracy initiatives, and carrying out better inspections of local authority services for children may, in themselves, be just as important long-term contributions to solving the problem of crime as any other measures that we take. They are all expressions of the "us", rather than the "me" society, and if they work, we might be able to restore hope to the people whom I represent, who desperately need it.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to be called to speak. If there were two speeches by Labour Members to which the Home Secretary should have listened, one was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) and the other by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). We have learned a great deal from them this evening, and I regret deeply that the Home Secretary made a speech that was less interesting and less sensible than theirs.
  The Government say that they will focus on cutting crime, but the Queen's Speech provides little evidence of a focus on anything other than a desire to do as little as possible save spin their way to the forthcoming election. The appearance of action is no substitute for action itself. The failure to recognise the problems that need solving, or the wilful refusal to see what is staring us all in the face, are not what the country requires in the Queen's Speech.
  Why is there nothing in this Session's programme to ensure that police numbers are increased substantially to meet the needs of areas such as rural Harborough? The police force in my county has to cover not only the city of Leicester, with all the social and other crime-related problems that appear to be so prevalent in new Labour's urban Britain, but the huge area outside the city—rural Leicestershire and Rutland—which presents huge problems of isolated communities separated by long distances, cash-strapped district councils, a farming economy in crisis, village schools closing down, difficulties recruiting teachers, and drugs being sold to schoolchildren. The Government say that they are determined
  to combat all aspects of crime to protect all members of our society
  and I am sure that they would like to do so, but I heard nothing in the Queen's Speech and I have seen nothing of sufficient purpose or result achieved in previous Sessions to justify my having any faith in the Government's aspirations, or that their proposals will help my constituents.
  Tackling disorder and disorderly conduct was the aim of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Why has so little been made of that legislation? Police and local authorities
  572
  have made scant use of anti-social behaviour orders and parenting orders, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said. Have the Government bothered to find out the reason, or whether any one reason or group of reasons lies behind that apparent failure? No, they have not, so they now propose general curfew orders which are draconian, illiberal and a desperate response to the Government's failures. It is wrong to impose a penalty on anyone, let alone a whole group of young people, without due process, but despite the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government clearly care little for due process. I suggest that it will be futile to impose general curfew orders if there is an insufficient number of police available to carry out their existing tasks.
  The Government say that they want to make more use of tagging, or electronic home curfew orders, so that young criminals can be kept at home rather than sent into custody. That is fine in theory: it is far better to sentence a teenager to a home detention order than to send him to a young offenders institution, and I tried to do precisely that a little while ago. I sit as a recorder and I had before me a group of naughty, silly, bored teenagers who had, earlier this year, mugged a train passenger at a London railway station late one evening and stolen his mobile telephone. It was their first offence. The courts bend over backwards not to send youngsters inside when a more constructive alternative is available, and I suggested that the teenagers be kept at home between 7 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock the following morning. However, I received a letter from the Home Office telling me that judges should not sentence teenagers to home curfews because the authorities have neither the machines nor the ability to monitor them, and individuals who break a curfew are caught only by chance, usually in connection with some other offence.
  Tagging has been available since the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and it was extended under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. However, the Government have failed to implement their warm-sounding words at every turn. The Government are not so much guilty of lacking the right intentions on criminal justice, as the managerial competence and willpower to carry their intentions through into action on the street and in the courts, be they adult or juvenile.
  The Government propose legislation to regulate the private security industry, which is no doubt a hugely worthy subject. The Select Committee on Home Affairs dealt with that matter in the previous Parliament when the Conservatives were in office, largely at the behest of Labour Members, but when the Labour party took office it did nothing about it. Why not, and why only now? The Government are simply trying to fill up the time between now and next spring. The Labour party had 18 years in opposition. The Government should be bristling with ideas, but they are not. They are, I fear, a thought-free zone.
  Instead, the Government give us a Bill on foxhunting. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) wasted a golden opportunity with his private Member's Bill to do something for his constituents. He made a gross error of judgment and achieved nothing. Now the Government are doing the same thing on a national scale, and their offence is made all the worse because their Bill comes in the wake of the Burns report. The Bill's motives are clear and they are of the lowest. It is throwing a bone to the left-wing, anti-rural element in the Labour party, to persuade it that

  573
  a Government led by this Prime Minister has not lost touch with its class warfare roots. Foxhunting is not at the top or anywhere near the top of the country's agenda. The Home Secretary knows that, and should have had the courage and the clout to stand up to the Government's business managers to get rid of the Bill and use the time to do something of benefit to the whole country.
  The Home Secretary should have done the same with regard to the jury Bill. That was not a manifesto Bill the first time, it was not a manifesto Bill the second, and it is not a manifesto Bill this third time. It is unwanted, unnecessary, unpopular, illiberal and unintelligent, and it represents another missed opportunity.
  The Home Secretary tried to rely upon the support of the previous Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, on Second Reading on the last occasion. He misused the correspondence with which Lord Bingham had provided him and he fell apart in trying to defend his actions. I have no doubt that during the next few weeks the Government will unravel as they try to produce a third and deeply silly jury Bill.
  We have wasted a great deal with this Queen's Speech and during the next few months the Government will learn that to their cost.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: As we approach the end of the Government's first term, it is appropriate to look back at what we have achieved and to look forward at what we have yet to do. Last week, I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) speak of the shocking and tragic killing of her young constituent. She described the environment of the blighted estate in which Damilola Taylor lived and she rightly expressed the Government's vision in trying to improve and transform those conditions. She said that we have recognised the dreadful problems of social exclusion which blight our inner cities and outer estates. We are determined to address those needs and we have devised a range of policies and programmes, such as welfare to work, sure start, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, healthy living centres, education action zones, new deal, and so on.
  In truth, we cannot know if all those policies will be effective, but we should and shall be judged on whether they work. We also deserve credit for our bold ambition—it is a bold ambition—both because of the difficulty of the task and the extent of the problem.
  The social exclusion unit report identified 44 districts where there was at least two thirds more unemployment than normal, where the under-age pregnancy rate was one and a half times the normal, where 37 per cent. of 16-year-olds had no GCSE grades above grade D, and where mortality rates were 30 per cent. higher than normal. That is what characterised those communities. The report "Bringing People Together" estimates that there are between 1,600 and 4,000 such neighbourhoods. That is roughly 15 million people—30 per cent. of the population of these islands live in those areas.
  At the beginning of the 21st century and at the end of this Labour Government's first term, I am confident that members of the previous Labour Governments of Attlee, Wilson and Callaghan would share our ambitions, if not all our methods. The solutions tried in the past have not worked. Where we have increased social welfare
  574
  programmes and poured in vast resources, there has been little effect other than perhaps increasing dependency. Our Government have embarked on a new policy of helping people to help themselves. I am pleased that the Queen's Speech continues that process by announcing Bills to tackle the continuing problems of the yob culture and benefit fraud, along with Bills to reform schools and help homeless people.
  However, the Queen's Speech is something of a disappointment to many people in my constituency because of what it does not contain. Our 1997 manifesto promised a Bill to license houses in multiple occupation. Indeed, the Green Paper on housing published earlier this year outlined such a scheme. It seems that Ministers believe that that is not a sufficient priority for legislation this year. I am disappointed with that decision, although I understand the pressures of competing Bills in what may be a short programme.
  Most Ministers and Members of Parliament will not see the need to increase regulation of houses in multiple occupation, or, if they recognise that need, they will not view it as a priority. That is the case because the distribution of houses in multiple occupation is neither random nor uniform. It is aggregated where there is unusual demand for short-term accommodation or unusual supply of surplus hotels or vacant housing. Those circumstances fall roughly into three categories. They apply in some northern cities—Leeds has already been mentioned—where the population is rapidly falling. They apply also in some seaside resorts. Finally, they apply in constituencies such as mine, which have benefited from the rapid increase in student numbers during the past decade.
  The extension of the opportunity to participate in higher education to so many more young people is, indeed, a great benefit. Raising the education skill levels of our future work force is also a benefit to society. That benefit is not, however, unalloyed. During the past 10 years, the two universities in Cardiff, Central have increased their student numbers from a combined total of 10,000 to the present total of 30,000. That has occurred without any planned accommodation, transport or social infrastructure.
  That rapid change has not happened without an undesired impact on local communities. In the inner-city wards of Cathays and Plasnewydd in my area, up to two thirds of properties have been converted into student flats. Most families have sold their houses to large-scale landlords and moved to quieter neighbourhoods. Local schools have suffered massively falling rolls and are struggling to cope. Much of the remaining indigenous population consists of elderly people, who often feel alienated from the new communities in which they live, although they have lived there all their lives. Streets that were filled a decade ago with house owners with a long-term commitment to their property and community are now owned by three or four large-scale landlords who live elsewhere and may never even have seen their properties. Such properties are often managed by letting agencies. Both landlords and letting agencies have only one clear commitment: to maximise the rental income in the shortest possible time.
  Those are communities that are under stress and in which regulation is overdue. Short-term tenants such as students are highly vulnerable, as the properties that they inhabit may be unsafe. Although additional safeguards exist for some houses in multiple occupation, the current

  575
  definitions exclude the houses in which the majority of students in my constituency live—three-bedroomed family properties.
  Cardiff students union has identified at least 160 students and several landlords who have lost money to a letting agency called Castle Management, which is based in Cardiff. Customs and Excise finally moved in and took the owners, Naiz Taj and Sha Unia, to court over a specimen debt of £12,780. The court order forced the business partners into liquidation on 8 November this year. I believe that Mr. Taj left the country the following day, leaving an estimated debt of £250,000, which he owed to students and others. What alarms me is the ease with which he and his partner could return and set up a new business that would prey on students and others.
  It is common for students to pay bonds and non-returnable administrative fees to agencies that secure their houses and retainers of up to half or three quarters of the rent on houses that may be sub-let. That is unacceptable, and regulation and legislation is needed. The local council and students union should consider setting up bond boards to try to overcome those problems.
  We could set up partnerships, but the Government should recognise that regulation of houses in multiple occupation is an essential requirement for some of our inner-city estates. That is not essential everywhere, but it is extremely important in some places. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will give me and my constituents some reassurance about the fact that the legislation, although late, will not be forgotten.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Her Majesty's Gracious Speech announced three housing Bills. All of them will be of interest to people living in our inner cities and beyond. The first Bill will speed up the home-buying process, the second is a commonhold and leasehold reform Bill and the third is a Homes Bill to help the unintentionally homeless.
  Proposals to speed up home buying are long overdue. Compulsory sellers packs, which will contain standard and essential information and provide buyers with crucial documents, including survey information, search details and a contract proposal, are welcome. The question is whether those proposals will work. The pilot scheme in Bristol was not a true test because the sellers did not have to pay for their packs. When sellers are asked to pay, will they be prepared to do so, and will the financial institutions recognise the packs or call for their own surveys?
  The service targets to encourage faster local authority searches are welcome, as are measures to encourage the use of new technology to speed up the service. We await the detail of the legislation, but hope that something can be done to speed up the home-buying process and to reduce the unnecessary costs that are often incurred by genuine buyers.
  Before commenting on the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, it is worth remembering what the Government said in their consultation paper:
  The existing residential leasehold system is fundamentally flawed. It has its roots in the feudal system and gives great powers and privileges to landowners. Despite a series of reforms over the last thirty or so years, abuses continue to flourish causing misery and distress to leaseholders.
  576
  From a 1992 estimate, there are approximately three quarters of a million long-leasehold flats in England and Wales. Leasehold is the system of tenure whereby the leaseholder buys a lease, often at the market price for freehold flats, for an extended period but does not gain the advantages of owning his property outright.
  Liberal Democrats recognise that while leaseholds might suit some people, many leaseholders are unhappy with the system, and our policies would be geared to helping them to enfranchise themselves. The Government have recognised the need to change leasehold arrangements and have offered two proposals in a draft Bill. Those proposals involve the introduction of commonhold and, for those who cannot afford or do not wish to join that scheme, further reform to the current leasehold system.
  Commonhold is a new form of tenure for blocks of flats and other multi-unit properties. However, many leaseholders and their associations have criticised the Government's proposals. They feel that the Government's objectives will not be sufficient to end the "misery and distress" experienced by leaseholders. Their criticisms are threefold: first, that leasehold will continue to exist without a schedule for its full removal; secondly, that commonhold will not be a solution for leaseholders because 100 per cent. of tenants and the freeholder must consent, which is highly unlikely; and thirdly, that in order for leaseholders collectively to enfranchise under the proposed plan, they would have to allow the freeholder to retain the "marriage value" of the property when the lease has less than 90 years remaining. What reassurance can the Minister give to convince leaseholders that their fears are unwarranted?
  The Homes Bill will implement the homelessness package outlined in the housing Green Paper. It will meet the Government's manifesto commitment to restore the duty on local authorities to provide homeless people in priority need with settled accommodation. Can we expect it to set out a more strategic and preventive statutory framework for tackling all forms of homelessness? That would create a modern framework for reducing homelessness by shifting the emphasis from crisis-driven intervention to a long-term approach focused on tackling social exclusion.
  The formulation of the new duty will mean that homeless people in priority need will be provided with settled accommodation, but what about homeless people who are not in priority need? Will the new legislation improve the assistance given to them? Under the existing legislation, authorities are required to provide advice and assistance to help that group secure accommodation. However, the level of service provided is often poor, with applicants sometimes sent away with just a list of bed-and-breakfast establishments.
  The housing Green Paper emphasised that local authorities should provide accommodation for homeless people who are in priority need if they have the scope within their housing stock to do so. However, authorities already have that discretion if they wish to use it. It may help in areas where there is less pressure on the housing stock, but it will not improve the position for people in most areas of the country where the pressure on housing is greater.
  We believe that the intention should be to improve the level of service as far as possible for homeless people in all areas of the country. We recognise that in high-demand

  577
  areas it is unrealistic to expect authorities to provide accommodation for this group. However, the quality of advice and assistance is not dependent on the amount of stock available, and there are numerous examples of good practice achieved in various parts of the country.
  The housing Green Paper floated proposals to reform the social housing lettings process, to introduce more flexibility and to promote choice. Which of those proposals will be implemented in the Homes Bill?
  We agree with the aim of allowing local authorities to implement lettings schemes that are relevant to local needs and priorities. That is consistent with promoting a stronger strategic housing role for local authorities. However, there is a need to ensure that, within a more flexible framework, meeting housing need will continue to be a key priority, and that certain basic requirements are met in all local authority areas. We believe that local flexibility should be underpinned by a set of minimum standards, which could be set out in regulations.
  The Green Paper was clear that applicants should be suspended from the lettings process only in exceptional circumstances and that vulnerable groups should be safeguarded. Any reform of the lettings process must also give priority to providing a robust mechanism for ensuring that the current wide-ranging exclusions from social housing are brought to an end.
  We hope that the Homes Bill will contain important new measures to prevent homelessness, and that the emphasis of the statutory framework will shift from crisis-driven intervention to a more long-term approach. Will the legislation include the proposals in the housing Green Paper to place local authorities under a duty to carry out homelessness audits and to publish strategies for preventing homelessness in their area? Will it ensure that social services departments participate fully in this process so that homelessness strategies operate across all relevant parts of the local authority?
  With the social housing sector continuing to diversify and the stock transfer programme set to increase to 200,000 units per year, it is important that robust arrangements are in place to ensure that housing need continues to be met after transfers have taken place. That links in with the scope of the strategic role of housing authorities and with the emphasis on creating sustainable communities, as set out in the Green Paper. Will that be recognised in the legislation?
  Will the legislation recognise that the current statutory framework does not give adequate protection to victims of racial violence and harassment? That was recently highlighted by a case reported in The Guardian, in which a family who had suffered persistent racial harassment were not offered alternative accommodation by their local authority. That is a complex case, but it highlights some of the housing difficulties faced by victims of racial abuse.
  The current homelessness legislation makes it clear that it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation when they are experiencing violence from a partner or another associated person. Shelter, the housing pressure group, does not expect the first draft of the Bill to include new provisions in this area. Is this another area where the housing lobby will have to wait and see?
  The present homelessness legislation sets out categories of people whose vulnerability is such that they are considered to have a priority need for housing. They
  578
  currently include people with dependent children, pregnant women, those who are vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or disability, and those made homeless as a result of a natural disaster.
  The housing Green Paper proposed the extension of priority need to new groups, including homeless 16 and 17-year-olds, people leaving care and those who were vulnerable as a result of violence and harassment or had an institutionalised background. Will those measures be included in the Homes Bill, or will they be introduced in new regulations under powers conferred by the Housing Act 1996?
  Homeless people who experience domestic violence and who have dependent children are currently considered to have a priority need for housing. However, although they may be considered homeless under the current legislation, people without children who are fleeing domestic violence are often not found to be in priority need by some local authorities, and are therefore not entitled to temporary accommodation.
  Ms Oona King: I, too, welcome many of Shelter's proposals. As for how councils can extend provision for the homeless, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's intended review of the £8 million increase in revenue support grant should take place earlier rather than later?
  Mr. Sanders: The hon. Lady is right. It is just a pity that that did not happen in the first year after the Government took power and that we have had to wait three years. As a result, public funding for housing will be less at the end of this Government's term than it was under the last Government.
  In relation to people with institutionalised backgrounds, it will be important to consider any proposals within the wider contexts of tackling social exclusion and reducing reoffending rates. The social exclusion unit's 1998 report on rough sleeping revealed that about half the number of rough sleepers had been in prison or on remand at some time. Many prisoners have a history of homelessness, local authority care, drug abuse and mental illness. Without a home to go to or support on release, people are likely to reoffend and begin a cycle of homelessness or crime. Will the Homes Bill set up a clear framework of guidance to establish the circumstances in which people will be considered to be vulnerable?
  There are some disappointments in the Queen's Speech. There is no mention of housing benefit reform, and the housing benefit restrictions for under-25s are still in place. As others have said today, many housing organisations were disappointed to learn that legislation was not included to deal with houses in multiple occupation. HMOs include a number of properties in many inner-city and other urban areas.
  The Government claim to be keen to implement such legislation, but it is not in the Queen's Speech. Many organisations say that it should be a top priority for the first Queen's Speech after the general election. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will act quickly?
  The House spends too little time debating housing issues, yet housing is vital to the quality of life of all our citizens—and that applies to none more than those in inner cities. In that regard, the Queen's Speech has taken

  579
  a very small step forward, but many questions remain unanswered, and hundreds of policy proposals remain on the shelf.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: The Deputy Prime Minister is unable to join us this evening. We wish him and his family well—he is attending an important family engagement—and welcome in his place the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I have no doubt that she will bring her usual refreshing candour and honesty to the debate.
  This has been an interesting discussion, marked at its heart by a clear division between those who believe that the priority in the Queen's Speech should have been tackling the root causes of crime and those who believe that symptomatic measures are sufficient.
  We have heard many interesting contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in a characteristic tour de force, listed the Government's failures to tackle crime at its source. The core of her case was the irrefutable point that rising crime figures are driven by the decline in police numbers under the present Government. The Home Secretary, who has now resumed his seat, spoke for an hour, in considerable detail. What was disappointing about his response was his failure to answer any of the specific points that had been raised, particularly those relating to the decline in police numbers and police morale, to evidence of a decline in the state of the Prison Service, and to the estimated number of asylum seekers now staying on illegally in the country. He would not give us a single answer on any of those points.
  Most amazing of all was the Home Secretary's attempt to demonstrate that crime in this country was not rising at all—an observation that will be as alien to people living in our inner cities as was the Minister for Transport's claim that the railways were not in crisis.
  Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman disputing the irrefutable evidence from the British crime survey, which showed that crime overall went down by 10 per cent. between 1997 and the end of 1999?
  Mr. Norman: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am referring to his own figures for crime in the past year. Crime has undoubtedly gone up; it has gone up in almost every major city.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Norman: I need to make some progress, but I will refer later to the specific numbers for specific—
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two Members standing at the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Norman: If the Secretary of State will excuse me, we have very little time left for the winding-up speeches, so I will make some progress.
  580
  Some remarkable contributions have been made, notably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who referred with great eloquence to the threadbare and dangerously illiberal proposals in the Queen's Speech; by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who spoke with great knowledge and authority on the dangers of the withdrawal of trial by jury; and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who spoke with the depth of knowledge that derives from having been responsible for Wandsworth for many years. There were other important contributions, notably those by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) on a remarkable maiden speech. It was delivered with great verve, eloquence, passion and feeling. We appreciate his contribution to the debate.
  The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) kept us well entertained. He started with a whimsical reference to the Greater London council and moved on to talk about his unfortunate experiences in West Ham, for which he has our sympathy. However, he then continued to argue for the legalisation of drugs, which lost us somewhat. Finally, he said that he was no Colonel Blimp from Tunbridge Wells, which will come as a considerable relief to some of my constituents.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) made a remarkable bipartisan contribution that was rich in detail. He made the point that the solutions to the problem of the inner cities and inner-city crime are complex. He is surely right. He argued strongly for community policing, for neighbourhood wardens and for the social causes of crime to be tackled.
  The relationship between crime and the decline of the inner cities is inextricable. Their decline is the engine of social deprivation and the driving force of poverty, welfare dependence and loss of opportunity for children who are left behind at a time of prosperity for the rest of the country.
  The inner cities account for 53 per cent. of all crime and a larger proportion of violent and serious crime. As the Rowntree Foundation said,
  cities have the brightest lights and darkest corners feeding the hopes and fuelling the fears of millions—
  a sentiment that can be shared by Members on both sides of the House. Cities' success or failure will determine the country's success or failure in tackling Britain's major social problems and in dealing with the problems of crime at source.
  After three-and-a-half years of prosperity, today the state of our cities is not better but worse than in 1997. According not to my figures but the Government's own figures, poverty has increased. According to the Government's own figures, the gap between rich and poor has increased. According to the Rowntree Foundation, 500,000 more people are living below the poverty line than in 1997. According to Oxford Economic Forecasting

  581
  and the university of Bristol, the north-south divide has increased, despite the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister seems to think that it does not exist at all—I quote:
  There is no North-South divide on unemployment.
  Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on that in her winding-up speech. Does she agree?
  Crime in the inner cities has increased. The Home Secretary would like to pretend otherwise, but his own figures suggest that there has been a 16 per cent. increase in crime in urban areas in the west midlands; a 12.6 per cent. increase in London; a 9 per cent. increase in Southwark, to choose a topical location, where police numbers have been cut by 40 since the election; and an 8 per cent. increase in Merseyside, where police numbers have been cut by 300 since the election.
  Before the general election, the current Home Secretary said:
  Poverty and lack of opportunity cause crime. But crime and disorder … reduce opportunity even further.
  In other words, we are caught in a vicious circle which the Home Secretary has perpetuated. [Interruption.] Consequently, the exodus from our cities has continued: not only have Newcastle and Manchester lost 16 and 22 per cent. of their populations in the past 30 years, but in the past three years—
  Mr. Straw: What was that about the past 30 years?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to those on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps we should calm ourselves; just be calm.
  Mr. Norman: The exodus is perpetuated by the Government's own policies which encourage building on green fields, particularly in the south-east and south-west where more than 60 per cent. of new houses will inevitably be built on green fields. Let Members on both sides of the House also remember that for every executive home built in the countryside, there is a family leaving the inner city, a school roll decreasing in the inner city, a shop nearer closure in the inner city and crime increasing in the inner city. The two problems are inextricably linked. The death of the countryside is also the death of the inner cities.
  The decline of our inner cities is not new, but its continuation should not only concern every hon. Member but serve as a call to action for every hon. Member. Against that background, the Queen's Speech is a bitter disappointment. It will come as a bitter disappointment to all those who, in the past three years, worked so hard—many with the Government—to develop a programme for the inner cities. However, that disappointment comes as no surprise following the flop of the urban White Paper, which was a great disappointment not least to Lord Rogers, who, with great and commendable reservation, said:
  this White Paper falls short of what is going to be required to engender a real urban renaissance.
  The Queen's Speech was an opportunity for imagination, coherence and boldness. Instead, almost nothing in it is of the slightest relevance at all to the causes of crime or to inner-city regeneration. It is full of measures that are peripheral, vacuous, illiberal and gimmicky, and it is clearly designed to be eye-catching, with a view to a general election but nothing else.
  582
  Where in the Queen's Speech are all the measures that Lord Rogers called for and that would have commanded bipartisan support in the House? Where are the urban priority areas that were going to be the centrepiece of Lord Rogers's reforms? Where are the new powers for regeneration companies that would have required primary legislation? Where are the measures to reverse the exodus from our cities and to arrest building over our countryside? Where are the measures to level the playing field on tax, which have been universally called for by all those who are involved in inner-city regeneration? Where are the measures to bring coherence to a Government programme that is totally incoherent, splintered and full of Elastoplast, politically correct initiatives?
  It was the Government's own performance and innovation unit that referred to
  too many Government initiatives causing confusion and not enough co-ordination
  and it was the Prime Minister who, a year ago, gave the Minister for the Cabinet Office the task of ensuring that
  joined up Government for the socially excluded is a reality in every part of the country.
  Can the Minister point to one single measure that will help her in that cause, or does she agree with us, Lord Rogers and the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee that the programme for the inner city is too fragmented and dissipated and that money is being wasted? Does she agree that there should be a single regeneration Minister; that urban regeneration companies need statutory powers and to be rolled out across the country; that there should be increased policing as a prerequisite for spending money on urban regeneration; and that it would be better to spend money first on education and policing before a penny is spent on developing new and expensive buildings or fortifying houses, so that politicians can parade down the streets congratulating themselves on their progress?
  Does the Minister agree that the Government's priority should be policing—community policing in particular—and education first, and money spent on everything else second? Is she satisfied that the current programmes are coherent, fundamental and co-ordinated, or does she agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? I hate to bring him into this debate, but he said:
  there is a risk of having far too many central projects and too many … programmes
  and that a top-down approach from Whitehall would not work.
  When the Minister for the Cabinet Office goes back to Redcar for Christmas and meets youths and young people on the estates, does she believe that she can sell the curfew orders to them as a way of improving their life style and encouraging them to stay in the cities, or of giving them a single reason not to leave and move to the countryside?
  It was the Minister herself who said in June:
  this Government's top priority is to tackle the root causes of poverty, homelessness and social exclusion.
  Will she tell us what in the Queen's Speech helps tackle one root cause of poverty, homelessness or social exclusion? Which of the Government's achievements is she most proud of? Is it the 3,000 increase in homelessness since 1997? Is it the 50 per cent. increase in those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Is it the

  583
  fact that the Government have spent less money on regeneration than we did? Is it the growing number of empty houses in our cities? Is it rising crime and the fact that the Home Secretary does not even think that crime is rising? Or is it the accelerated house building on green fields?
  Is not the truth that the choice at the election will be between a Conservative party committed to governing for all, increasing police numbers in the inner cities, rolling out regeneration companies under a single Minister, reversing years of failure of Labour councils and local education authorities, and a Labour party which masquerades as a party of the less well-off but which took a mere three-and-a-half years to run out of ideas, forget its origins, forsake the inner cities and betray its own heartlands?
  9.47 pm
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): May I echo what other right hon. and hon. Members have said about the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson)? It was very impressive—the content was good, it was well informed and he gave a wonderful performance. I think that the House will hear more from him in the future. We all join him in the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Donald Dewar, a well-respected man of integrity whom the House misses.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary opened the debate by setting out very clearly what the Government are doing to fight crime and the important legislation proposed in the Gracious Speech to help to achieve that. As a Government, we have always maintained—and this relates to the last point of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)—that there are two sides to that coin. We said that we would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
  To address some of the causes of crime, we are not only making major investments in policing, CCTV and other crime reduction projects but are putting equal emphasis on a comprehensive programme of action to help communities blighted by crime, unemployment, poverty, poor health and a poor quality of life.
  When we came to power in 1997, we faced tremendous challenges. As a result of 18 years of Tory Government, crime had doubled, communities had been ravaged by nearly two decades in which long-term unemployment doubled, homelessness and poverty had more than doubled and child poverty had tripled. It was a poisonous legacy fuelled by serious under-investment in places and in people. Many communities were destroyed—one has only to look at what happened to the mining communities in Yorkshire and elsewhere in the 1980s to realise that that is so.
  The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells says that social measures are lacking in the Queen's Speech. Yes, they are, because we are working in parallel. Bills match each other. We have already introduced the new deal. We have provided an extra £5 billion for local authorities to tackle the scandalous housing repair backlog that we inherited. We shall provide an extra £250 million over the next three years to help key workers buy houses in our major towns and cities—houses for nurses, teachers, police officers and others.
  584
  We are starting to rebuild our roads and railways. We have set up the new deal for communities. We have committed £350 million, over three years, to regenerate coalfield communities. I shall not continue the list because it goes on and on, but I have mentioned the things that we are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "We want more."] We have begun to modernise central and local government and to reform the civil service and service delivery. We have established regional development agencies to drive forward economic growth and regenerate the regions in partnership with local communities.
  Many of those threads have been drawn together by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and published in the White Paper on urban policy, "Our Towns and Cities: The Future". We have set explicit targets for improvements in the delivery of those services. To help to take that forward, early next year we shall publish our action plan for neighbourhood renewal, building on months of extensive consultation and discussion.
  Hon. Members present in the Chamber tonight will have heard many hon. Members, who are expert in the subject, talk about their local communities and the nature of the problems that they face. That has been reflected in many contributions. I should like to respond to some of the points that have been made. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) agreed that the yob culture must be taken on and that trust must be built between the police and communities to tackle violence and crime where people are threatened.
  On curfews, we do not want to discriminate against kids. I was struck by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said that he viewed curfews as a child protection proposal, which is a positive and clear way to express it. Curfews are intended to protect children and their communities. They will apply to 15-year-olds and under—children of statutory school age. It is not a blanket proposal. We will not pick every 14 or 15-year-old off the streets.
  Curfews will be used by local authorities in conjunction with the police, and they will have to go to the Home Secretary for ultimate authority. They represent a thoughtful way in which to help children who are under threat. Alongside that proposal, we are tough on the causes as well as on the crime. We are helping to keep kids away from crime, with summer schools and youth inclusion schemes, which have cut crime rates and kids have better opportunities as a result.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) argued that we need to achieve sustainable communities and that we need to abolish allocation policies to achieve that. I am pleased to let him know that the Homes Bill, which was presented today, will reform the way in which local authorities allocate housing. The Bill will be published tomorrow.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) was disappointed that the Queen's Speech did not include proposals to license houses in multiple occupation—HMOs, as he referred to them. I am afraid that, unfortunately, we have not found it possible to find time for to license HMOs in this Session, but the Government remain committed to introducing such legislation when parliamentary time allows.

  585
  My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central and for Leeds, North-West, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), asked whether the Government should look further at licensing landlords in the private rented sector. In the housing Green Paper, which was published in April, we consulted on possible approaches to tackle the worst practices in the private rented sector. We shall announce our conclusions later this week and will then address that issue.
  The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) wanted a draft leasehold reform Bill, and one will be published, as well as the Homes Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) suggested in an intervention that we would miss out Committee and Report stages. I assure him that any Bill that the Home Office introduces will be taken through all the relevant stages, as will all the other Bills.
  Several hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), raised the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, which will benefit victims, and the criminal justice system generally, by ensuring that cases are not delayed and do not waste the time of the Crown court unnecessarily. The right to elect jury trial has been used by many defendants in criminal cases to cause delays in the courts. Research shows that in the majority of cases in which a defendant elects a jury trial he will change his plea from not guilty to guilty once the case goes to the Crown court.
  Several Labour Members argued that defendants in Scotland have never had the right to choose which court will try them, and I have never heard anyone in either House of Parliament complain that that has led to inferior justice over the border. Any change of this kind needs to be alive to the need for safeguards. That is why we are providing a right of appeal to a senior judge against decisions by magistrates that they should hear a case.
  My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) spoke of the relationship between crime, drugs and alcohol. I assure both my hon. Friends that we are working hard to do what we can on what is not a short-term problem but a complicated issue. We have programmes on prevention, education and treatment. We need more on that front. We have gone a long way, but we still have an awful long way to go. We are working in Europe and south America to try to stop the supply of drugs, or at least to cut it down. This is not an easy issue, but I can assure those who have expressed concern about the impact of drugs on their communities that we are doing all that we can to ensure that the problem does not get worse. We hope that it will now get better.
  The hon. Member for Torbay raised the question of housing legislation. We are grateful for his support for our proposals. The Homes Bill was introduced today and it will be published tomorrow. It will cover issues such as reform of the house-buying system and the strengthening of the safety net for those made homeless. I do not have time to go into detail now, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied in relation to many of the points that he raised this evening.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), raised the question of police numbers. I shall not go into the arguments that we have already spent some time discussing. Suffice it to say that
  586
  there was agreement that decline has been steady since 1993. It is worth noting what the Police Federation blames for the decline in police numbers. Its chairman, Mr. Fred Broughton, said in 1990:
  The principle reason, without any doubt, is the damage that was done at the decision of the last government to take housing allowance away from new recruits.
  We have boosted the pay of the 1994 recruits to the Metropolitan police by about £3,500 to compensate for that Tory mistake. More will be given, year on year, to increase police numbers, aiming at an increase of 9,000 over the next three years.
  On the points raised about the urban White Paper, I want to make it clear that many of its proposals do not require legislation. For example, new planning guidance, PPG1, new millennium communities, more urban regeneration companies and the £180 billion, 10-year transport plan do not need legislation. We have already legislated in some areas—for example, on the new powers for councils to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will introduce—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add:
  'But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of the decline in police numbers since 1997; note the continuing failure of many of the Government's measures to combat youth crime and that the Government remains committed to the early release from jail of thousands of criminals; deplore the Government's further attempt to restrict the right to trial by jury and its failure to put forward any measures to strengthen the rights of victims of crime, or to make prisons more purposeful, or sentencing more transparent, or to clear up the chaos in the asylum system; and further regret the absence of measures to halt the decline of inner cities and the failure to create a coherent programme of actions since 1997 to address the conditions that give rise to the growth of crime in deprived urban areas, notably poorly-maintained housing, rising homelessness, increasing numbers of empty houses and failing inner city schools, which have combined with the Government's commitment to building on green fields to perpetuate migration from inner cities.'—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: I instruct the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 169, Noes 329.

  Division No. 1]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Allan, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  587

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brake, Tom

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Breed, Colin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burstow, Paul

  Livsey, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Cash William

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clappison, James

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Page, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Randall, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gale, Roger

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Garnier, Edward

  St Aubyn, Nick

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gibb, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gidley, Sandra

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gill, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

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

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Soames, Nicholas

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Gummer Rt Hon John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hammond, Philip

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Harvey, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hayes, John

  Townend, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Tredinnick, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Trend, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tyler, Paul

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Walter, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Webb, Steve

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Keetch, Paul

  Wilkinson, John

  Key, Robert

  Willetts, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Willis, Phil

  588

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Yeo, Tirn

  Mr. James Gray and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Darvill, Keith

  Ashton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Austin, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barnes, Harry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barron, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dismore, Andrew

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Drew, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe

  Edwards, Huw

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Berry, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Best, Harold

  Ennis, Jeff

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blackman, Liz

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fisher, Mark

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Galloway, George

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Casale, Roger

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hendrick, Mark

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  589

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hutton, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Jamieson, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pendry, Tom

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pike, Peter L

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Linton, Martin

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rogers, Allan

  Lock, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCabe, Steve

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salmond, Alex

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Martlew, Eric

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stringer, Graham

  590

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Todd, Mark

  Wills, Michael

  Touhig, Don

  Winnick, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question again proposed.
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 in the name of the Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I question whether the Standing Order under which motion No. 3 is to be debated is the appropriate Standing Order.
  For the past 10 years, the Standing Order has allowed a fishing debate before the Minister goes to the Fisheries Council. As the forthcoming Fisheries Council is the most important for 10 years, would it not be extraordinary if the House of Commons and hon. Members representing fishing constituencies were not allowed to express their views to the Minister with responsibility for fisheries before he went to the Council, as opposed to afterwards? Is Standing Order No. 119(9) the appropriate Standing Order?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. There is no breach of any Standing Order. The matter that he raises is one for the business managers and not for the Speaker.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was an opportunity yesterday to debate the matter in Committee. All Members had the opportunity to talk about the annual fish quotas. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was not present for that Committee debate.
  Sir Robert Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be helpful for the Chair to enlighten Members, such as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), that under the Standing Orders any Member is entitled to attend a European Standing Committee and put his points to the Minister? It was the absence of the hon. Gentleman and others that meant that points were not made on behalf of their constituents.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker tries always to enlighten all Members.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  FISHERIES: TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES AND QUOTAS 2001
  That this House takes note of the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 28th November relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2001 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; recognises that a number of fish stocks have fallen to particularly low levels; and supports the Government's intention to sustain stocks for the future, and assist recovery of those stocks which are in danger of collapse, while negotiating the best possible fishing opportunities for UK fishermen.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  MR SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 13 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25,
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 21st December, do adjourn till Monday 8th January 2001.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  MR SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 13 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12,
  That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays:
  12th and 19th January, 16th February, 2nd March, 4th May, 22nd and 29th June, 6th and 13th July and 19th October 2001.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  MR SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 13 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  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.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
  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, where more 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. McNulty.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
10.22 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
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).
I stress that I want to say little about the 1993 Act, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 or the Pre-Budget Report 2000. Even if I wished to focus on their content, I suspect that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will have much to say, and the motion before us allows that to happen in an appropriate way, but at present we are discussing the process for that discussion rather than the content of it.
Section 5 of the—
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister will know that section 5 states that these reports will be the basis of submissions to the European Commission. Will the House read what information the Government send on the basis of that, or will the information be kept secret and away from the House? In other words, will the Government tell us what information they will pass on, which we note must be based on two large reports?
Mr. Tipping: I am about to describe the process and I shall take the hon. Gentleman through it before answering his point. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act provides that both Houses must approve a report to Parliament on the Government's
assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in Article 2
of the treaty. As in previous years, the section 5 report is to be the Financial Statement and Budget Report, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and the Pre-Budget Report published on 8 November. That is the material to be discussed by the Committee. It is important that we have that discussion before discussing the material to be sent on to the Commission, but the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) makes a fair point: in the interests of openness, the material sent by the Treasury to the Commission should be available for public inspection.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister is being helpful. Will he confirm that all Members of Parliament will be able to read the information that the Government send to the Commission, if they wish to do so? That would be a most helpful concession and clarification.
Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to ensure that, following the discussion in Committee, the report sent by the Government to the Commission is made available in the Library to all Members of Parliament, I am happy to arrange that. The answer is yes.
594
The motion allows the discussion to take place in Standing Committee, rather than on the Floor of the House. The motion is not unprecedented: this is the third annual programme to be submitted in that way, and the section 5 debate was carried out upstairs in 1997–98 and 1998–99. Debate in Committee will last for exactly the same time as it would on the Floor of the House—one and a half hours—and any Member will be able to participate in that debate.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Minister telling us that, if we agree to the motion, all Members of Parliament—or at least, over 500 of them—will have only an hour and a half to consider these matters and that there will be no further opportunity to do so?
Mr. Tipping: Let me make two points in response. The documents for discussion are the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 and the Pre-Budget Report 2000, all of which the House has had an opportunity to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether only an hour and a half is to be available for the debate. That is so, and it would be so if the debate were held on the Floor of the House. With those remarks, I commend this simple motion to the House.
10.28 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Based on the figures in the documents, will the Minister tell the House how close the Government are to meeting the two tests relating to the deficit criterion and the debt criterion, and in which year they will meet their own five key convergence tests for giving up the pound for the euro? The figures on which the Minister is working go up to 2005–06, but in which year are we likely to meet the convergence criteria set by the Government—or have we already done so?
10.29 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: The motion is one of those seemingly innocuous motions which the Government would prefer the House to nod through quietly. It will probably be subject to the ghastly new deferred vote mechanism. Given the number of hon. Members who are present tonight, several hundred hon. Members will magically appear to vote on Wednesday with little or no idea of what has been discussed. However, that is how the Government want to run the House of Commons and the country and, for the time being, that is how it must be. I am delighted to say that the debate has no time limit, and presumably cannot be subject to a closure motion because all the Government Members have gone home. That is another interesting thought which we might wish to ponder and explore on future occasions. These debates literally mean "until any hour", unless Members are brought back to impose a closure.
We are being asked to deliberate on some substantial documents. The Pre-Budget Report alone is a large and expensive document, with a cover price of £40. Here, according to the Government, is £40-worth of material, along with several other documents, which the Minister now tells us will have to be dealt with in an hour and a

595
half in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, in which he says, with great generosity, that all Members of Parliament may participate.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It may be true that all Members of Parliament may participate, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that not all Members of Parliament can vote?
Mr. Forth: I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct on that matter. Roughly 500 Members who are not on the payroll can turn up in the Committee—I hope that a large Room has been booked for the purpose—and seek to catch the Chairman's eye to debate the Pre-Budget Report, among other documents, for an hour and a half, but, regrettably, at the end of the process, only the members of the Committee will be able to vote on the matter, and that will be the last word that the House has.
The Government are trying, in order to conceal I know not what, to slip some substantial and important material through a Committee which, by its very nature, can hardly be representative of the House. That would be bad enough—I refer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—but section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, referred to in the motion, states:
Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament for its approval—
it says only "for its approval", not "or not", or "for its consideration", which rather prejudges the matter in an undesirable way—
an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals …
That is presumably what this large amount of material is about. Then the section says:
which report shall form the basis of any submission to the Council and Commission.
Presumably, "which report" must and can only in this context refer to all the documentation referred to in the motion. But the section says "shall form the basis". The Committee is presumably being asked to consider all this material in some way, and then to take as a matter of faith the means by which Her Majesty's Government will report it.
Mr. Hogg: Would it not be right for the Government to attach a health warning to any recommendation in the report that they may make to the effect that it has been considered in Committee by a small number of hon. Members, with an even smaller number of hon. Members able to vote?
Mr. Forth: Yes, that would certainly be in the cause of transparency—about which we hear quite a lot from the Government these days—to say nothing of freedom of information. Why on earth we should be reporting anything to the Council and Commission is beyond me, but that is a matter for another day. But given that we are apparently now obliged to make such reports to these bureaucracies, then—as my right hon. and learned Friend
596
says—in order that the Council and Commission may assess the value of the report, we should tell them that it has been dealt with in a scanty way by the House.
Things get worse. I pick up here the reference to Standing Order No. 118, which deals with Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation. I am not sure whether what we are talking about is delegated legislation at all. The Standing Order states:
There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, for the consideration of such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them.
I do not know whether we are considering instruments in the strict sense of the term; we are certainly not considering legislation. It is therefore odd, to say the least, that Standing Order No. 118 has been chosen to deal with those matters.
Mr. John Bercow: Do not the seven words
shall be treated as if they were
give the game away?
Mr. Forth: They do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole procedure smacks of some sort of shameful sleight of hand. We would be better served if the Government were more straightforward with the House, and gave us many opportunities to consider such matters properly.
We have dealt—but not properly—with motion 6, which is in the name of the Leader of the House. It proposed:
That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays —
It goes on to name 10 or 11 Fridays in 2001 on which the Government do not want the House of Commons to sit. Why do the Government want to slip the material in motion 9 through in an hour and a half when we could deal with it properly on any of the Fridays on which they have the gall to suggest that the House should not sit?
Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health warning should state that, notwithstanding the fact that we had ample time, the Government chose not to use it, but instead to stick the reports mentioned in the motion upstairs in Committee, where only a small number of hon. Members can speak and vote?
Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a helpful suggestion. The European bureaucracies apparently insist on receiving a meaningless report after scant or no scrutiny by the House of Commons. It would therefore make a lot of sense if we attached all sorts of warnings to it, saying, "Don't be fooled by this document; it has barely been examined by the House of Commons. It is simply the Government's version of what is going on, and, if I were you, oh bureaucrats of Europe, I should pay little or no attention to it." If nothing else emerges from the open-ended debate with no time limit on which we are embarking, such valuable information may be discerned and passed on to the bureaucrats.
I have expressed brief, preliminary thoughts. I am sure that other hon. Members want to elaborate on them. They have plenty of time to do that because the Government have generously allowed us all night to consider the motion. Subsequently, I must check the procedure for

597
what would happen if the debate continued until 2.30 pm tomorrow. It is an intriguing thought that, were we able to discuss the substance of the reports, the Government, in their generosity, might have allowed us sufficient time to do that. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will watch like a hawk to ensure that I make no attempt to discuss the substance; I shall not do that. I simply speculate that, under some circumstances, such a debate could continue throughout the night because a closure is no longer possible. I should like to ponder that thought and return to it on a subsequent occasion.
I urge the House to vote against the motion because I believe that it is superficial and secretive and suggests that the Government have much more to hide.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend alluded to an important point: the possibility—I put it no more strongly—that the debate might continue throughout the night. In such circumstances, does my right hon. Friend believe that it would be a definite breach of protocol if, at some stage during the night, no member of the Treasury Bench were present?
Mr. Forth: I think that that would not only be extremely irregular but would display contempt of the House. However, that would be nothing new from the Government. We have come to expect from them constant and continual contempt of the House and its traditions, and an attitude that the House of Commons does not matter any more because the Government must have their way and are entitled to do everything that they present to the House without proper scrutiny and now without even a proper vote.
We now have the ridiculous procedure of so-called deferred Divisions. I suggest that when we embark on such Divisions, probably as soon as tomorrow, the world will see how ludicrous and bizarre they are. Again, that is a story for another day. I urge the House to reject the motion.
10.40 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has rightly attacked the Government in a vicious manner for the scandalous activities in which they are involved, but it is only fair to say that I am grateful to them for the chance to ask some questions that I tried hard to put during debates on the Maastricht Bill and the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which was passed by the previous Government.
I have two simple questions, which I was unable to have clarified at that time. First, are we obliged to submit such reports to the European Union and what would happen if we did not do so? I want the Government to make the position clear. Is there an absolute obligation to submit those reports? Would Treasury Ministers end up in a Euro prison if they did not do so and could Britain be fined? Those are important matters.
My second question is also important. Is there any procedure whereby the European Commission or European officials could take the view that the information provided by Britain was not accurate or proper and could they ask for
598
further information? Obviously, we cannot go into the detail of the reports in any way, but I want to put to the Government three brief points that worry me.
Mr. Forth: Do not make them brief, Teddy.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Well, I do not want to waste any time. I appreciate that the Minister works extremely hard in the House of Commons, and I do not want to keep him from his bed unnecessarily.
We must consider environmental issues. I have two brief points to make on "Budget 2000", one of which concerns pesticides, which are vital to the environment. The Government say that their policy—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I have been lenient, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we are debating not the content of the reports, but simply whether they
shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 …
We cannot discuss the detail.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept that absolutely; I simply point out that the question of whether information is accurate or propaganda is terribly important in relation to whether it should be considered by a specialist Committee of MPs or by the whole House. If there were any question of misunderstandings being created, the whole House should discuss such information. That point might influence how Members vote on the motion.
Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend accept that a defect of the process that we are being asked to approve is that that process will not allow the House an opportunity to add to or subtract from the reports? That means that they will be imperfect documents because they cannot properly reflect the views of the House.
Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that our democracy was effectively destroyed by membership of the European Union and the various treaties cast by previous Parliaments. I have argued for many years that joining a European Union that has approved such treaties has effectively destroyed our democracy. I am very glad indeed that he accepts that point, which is why I am sure that he must have been with me in opposing all those dreadful treaties.
It is crucial to consider what would happen if the EU said, "This is not the information that we want—it is a lot of silly propaganda." That is important in terms of whether such information should be considered by a Committee or the whole House. "Budget 2000" states:
There is increasing evidence that pesticides use is associated with significant environmental impacts … and water quality. The Government is committed to minimising the environmental impact of pesticides, consistent with adequate crop protection.
What on earth does that mean? Basically, that we are on everyone's side and have no policy at all. Please do not think that I am attacking the Government—I am asking a simple question: the Commission could say that a report was a load of rubbish and not what it wanted, but would it have the power to say to us, "We do not think that the report is adequate or appropriate in terms of the legislation"?
Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be some process whereby we can make it clear in

599
the report that there were 14 Members of the House present when the report that is to be transmitted to the Commission was debated? The fact that there are but 14 Members present rather undermines the suggestion that the report has the approval of the House.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I cannot be responsible for the number of Members present in the Chamber. That is a difficult argument, because if we are deciding whether the matter should go to a Committee or be considered on the Floor of the House, some people may say, "What does it matter whether we have 14 people down here or 14 people upstairs in Committee?".
What happens if the Commission, when it considers the report, takes the view that it is not accurate? I shall give a specific example.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I shall increasingly have to interrupt hon. Members unless they stick more strictly to the motion before the House. The House is being asked whether it will treat these reports as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118. That is all.
Sir Teddy Taylor: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I want to make this one point. If we approved or rejected this motion, how would the Committee or the House view a letter from the Commission saying, "In our opinion, this point is not accurate"?
I shall just mention the issue of EU contributions, because I asked the Prime Minister about that when he made his statement yesterday and he said that they were going down. Page 190 of the report says that our EU contributions in the forthcoming year will be £6.6 billion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is now persisting along a route that he should not be taking. I ask him to bear in mind what I have already said.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I certainly will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall bring my remarks to a close.
Should the motion go to a Committee or should it be considered on the Floor of the House? Will the Government say specifically and clearly what we will be considering? Will we simply consider the Government sending a piece of paper to the European Commission saying, "That's it. If you don't like it, too bad"? Will the Government say that we must send it by a certain date? What will happen if we do not send the report, and what will happen if the Commission takes the view that it is either inaccurate or it does not deal with the policy issues as effectively as it should?
We are considering a motion about whether reports should go to a Committee or to the House as a whole. Before we decide whether they should go to a small group of experts or should be considered by all of us, it is terribly important for us to know whether this is a serious issue or just a bit of fun.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has flagged up important issues of concern to all right hon. and hon. Members.
600
Does he agree that it would have been courteous and true to form if the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, had set out some of these points right at the beginning? It is peculiar that a request for information should have to be made.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate fully what my hon. Friend says. Although he is a recent arrival, he is a leading and outstanding Member of the House of Commons. I can assure him that some of the old lags and I have asked Ministers these questions on the treaties year after year. I have felt the same frustration as he has. Even Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—an outstanding former Minister of Agriculture is present—
Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend please reconsider the use of the word "expert"? He suggested that this matter will be committed to a Committee of experts. Perhaps he would care to confirm, lest the Commission is listening, that those whom he calls experts are in fact designated by the Government Whips.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Neither the Government Whips nor the Opposition Whips would appoint anyone to a Committee unless they had special qualifications. Is my right hon. and learned Friend suggesting that Government and Opposition Whips send any old rubbish up to the Committee? Of course, they do not.
Mr. Hogg: I am suggesting not that the Whips would send any old rubbish up to the Committee, but that they would send tame Members of Parliament.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should point out to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and other right hon. and hon. Members that we are now straying well away from the motion.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfair attacks have been made on the party Whips, who always do their job with great care and attention.
I have asked the Minister three questions, which I hope he will answer. I merely want to establish whether this is simply a bit of fun—an irrelevant nonsense. Is it just a case of our having to send some documents to those in Europe—and if they do not like what we send, too bad—or is it serious business? If it is serious business, some of us would like it to come to the House of Commons, so that we can look at it carefully. If, on the other hand, this is simply something that we have to do, and we are going to send something that is not too accurate without including—as we are meant to—comparisons with other member states, some of us would like to know that.
I have been asking such questions for a long time. The Minister was very helpful in saying that he would ensure that the House of Commons Library had a copy of what the Government sent to the Commission, but I want him to answer my questions. I want to know—I have tried to find it out from Ministers responsible for Europe before, in the present and the last Government—whether this is serious business, or simply something we have to do that does not matter too much.
10.51 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not want to detain the House for long, but I think it important to discuss whether these matters should be considered on the Floor of the House, or treated as delegated legislation and discussed by a Committee with just a few members. While I accept that any Member of the House would be entitled to speak, a Committee debate would take place away from public view, and would not have the prominence that would be given to a debate on the Floor of the House.
I enjoyed one or two benefits as a result of sitting out the last Parliament and resting between engagements. I did not have to vote on the Maastricht treaty, and on legislation similar to what we are discussing now. That was one of the pleasures of not being in the last Parliament. I will say that, had I been here, I would unquestionably have voted against the Maastricht treaty. I abstained when the Prime Minister came back from Maastricht in December 1991, but as I was then parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, I was obliged by convention not to vote against a matter of important Government policy. However, I did not have to vote for that legislation—the motion arises from the obligations assumed by the United Kingdom as a result of the Maastricht treaty.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was a smidgen uncharitable to the Minister, who treats the House with courtesy and tries to explain as much as possible to enable the House to reach a judgment. However, on this occasion the Minister has not explained—as I hope he will a little more—about the information that is required under article 103(3) of the treaty establishing the European Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked about convergence criteria. In the margin next to section 5 are the words
Convergence criteria: assessment of deficits.
I do not have a copy of the treaty with me—despite my known scepticism, I do not keep a copy under my pillow or close to my person—but I recall that the business of deficits is extremely important. The treaty confers substantial powers on the European Commission to fine Governments who are found to have run up budget deficits in excess of—is it 3.5 per cent. of gross domestic product? I am sure that the Minister for Europe has the figure at his fingertips. A budget deficit in excess of that would render any member state liable to a fine, and the United kingdom would be one of those members. Although we have an opt-out on the single currency, as I recall—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton may be able to correct me if I am wrong—the measures apply to us, so we are bound by the legislation. It is material legislation in so far as it confers a substantial power on the European Commission.
Mr. Bercow: Am I not right in thinking that that point was clearly established towards the fag end of the previous Parliament, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was subjected to scrutiny on the point?
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend probably has a better memory on those matters than me, but I recall that it was a big issue. Therefore, the importance of the issue has a
602
bearing on whether the matter should be dealt with in a Committee upstairs, or on the Floor of the House. The Minister has already said that a previous example is being followed. It may be that we do not wish to be thought to be creating a precedent.
The Government seem to be saying that, instead of drawing up new information and an entirely separate document, in which we set out the information that is required under article 103(3) or under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, we have a number of documents that are readily available for public scrutiny, not to mention scrutiny by right hon. and hon. Members, including this year's Budget document.
The advertising slogans on Government documents are a bit rich at public expense. One example is "Prudent for a Purpose: Working for a Stronger and Fairer Britain", which is a bit nauseating. It is the Red Book, even though it is white—I refer to the Budget 2000 statement. Another example is the pre-Budget report, which was published last month. I have not studied that. I accept that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to study it tonight, or to acquaint the House with the results of my studies. Nevertheless, from some of the complicated pages on public finances in the pre-Budget report, it would seem that, certainly for the coming year, the Government are unlikely to run the risk of falling foul of the requirements in relation to the national budget deficit and our obligations under the Maastricht treaty to maintain the deficit within certain limits.
There could, however, come a time when the picture looked less rosy. After all, the Government have had the great benefit of inheriting a magnificently well-founded economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) left the economy in such a splendid state that even this lot have been unable to muck it up as yet.
Mr. David Jamieson (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): That is a joke.
Mr. Howarth: It is not a joke. It is a serious point. I say in parenthesis that the Government have made great claims about the success of the economy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Howarth: I thought that I might be pulled up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is straying way away from the motion. He must come back to the motion.
Mr. Howarth: I thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might allow me a tiny stray because I was provoked.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will recall the Minister saying that the Government expect the matter to be dealt with in an hour and a half—no more than that—in a Committee. Presumably, some of that time will be taken up by the Minister, if a Minister bothers to attend the Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that an hour and a half is enough time for the entirety of the House of Commons and all its Members to consider properly the matters that he is describing?
Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend asks a good and interesting question. I do not underestimate the gravity

603
with which the matter should be regarded, as it deals with a sphere of United Kingdom Government policy over which the European Commission has very substantial powers. It is therefore only right and proper that as many hon. Members as possible are given an opportunity to discuss the matter before a submission is made to Brussels.
Ministers should not allow other Labour Members weeks away from the House to fiddle around in their constituencies, clearing blocked drains for their constituents. That is not why we were sent to this place. We have been sent here to try to scrutinise complex documents, ensure that we look after the overall national interest and hold the Government to account for their actions on these very substantial matters.
I regret that a feature particularly of Liberal Democrat politics—because they do not have a view on most of the big issues—is to judge hon. Members partly on the basis of how well they address those parish pump issues, whereas what we should be doing is to spend time in the House addressing the big issues.
Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the defects of the process that we are discussing is that the House is being asked to approve, in one of its Committees, the Financial Statement and Budget Report and other reports with no capacity to amend those documents? Surely he will agree that there will be various opinions on the accuracy of the documents that will be remitted to the Commission. If the process is to have any validity at all, the Committee should be able to amend the documents when it considers them.
Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. As I said, the documents are off the shelf, not tailor made. I am not sure that I criticise the Government for not producing only tailor-made documents, as the use of other types of document may save public money. Such documents may be quite sufficient for the European Commission officials responsible for assessing whether the United Kingdom has complied with article 103(3) of the European Community treaty to make their judgment. In future, however, there may be a requirement to debate the matter in very much greater depth. I do not know how accurate the information is, and I certainly do not know how accurate the forecasts on which the Government are relying will be.
We are debating a serious matter that relates very much to a substantial and serious power that the European Commission has over our economic activity. As right hon. and hon. Members might like to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the bits of the off-the-shelf documents that are to be filleted out and forwarded by the Government to Brussels, I think that the appropriate place for the documents to be considered is not in Committee, but on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has rightly dwelt on the minimal time available for consideration by the House of these important matters. Does he agree that it would be useful to know the premise—other than reference to the precedent of delegated legislation—upon which the allocation of 90 minutes is based? Are Ministers assuming that 10 hon. Members will wish to speak? Do they
604
suppose that 20 or 30 hon. Members will wish to speak? What does my hon. Friend think the Government's response would be if substantially more hon. Members wished to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to go down that track. The time has been established.
Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful to you, as ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. As I understand it, most delegated legislation Committees run for 90 minutes.
By what process of consultation was this decided? Was it through the usual channels?
Mr. Tipping: I can help to put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. The time of 90 minutes for such debates comes under the Standing Orders of the House. It has always been 90 minutes, right back to 1993, whether the debates have been on the Floor of the House or in Committee.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for that guidance. He is saying that, according to precedent, if the debate were taken on the Floor of the House, 90 minutes would be allocated for it. However, he did not tell us what happened before 1997.
Mr. Tipping rose—
Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howarth: May I allow the Minister to explain first?
Mr. Tipping: Such debates have always been 90 minutes. They were 90 minutes under the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported.
Mr. Howarth: Again, I am grateful to the Minister.
This is an extremely important issue. If, in the future, the United Kingdom is in danger of being fined by the European Commission for failing to limit a budget deficit to a certain size, and if the economy turns sour and the Conservatives are returned to sort out the mess—perhaps by May—I would not like it said that precedents were created for 90 minutes to be the length of time available in which to discuss these matters.
Mr. Hogg: Is the essential question not about time but about where the matter is to be debated? Perhaps my hon. Friend should be asking not whether there was a discussion between the usual channels about the time of the debate, but whether there was a discussion on where it would take place—on the Floor of the House or in Committee.
Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. I was trying to ask the Minister whether there had been a discussion with the usual channels or whether a Committee of the House had decided that that would be the appropriate procedure. Perhaps he can tell us that in his winding-up speech.
11.7 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I do not wish to detain the House long on this matter. I am surprised, however, that today, of all days, the Government have not decided to withdraw the motion, because they have been humiliated and insulted in a most extraordinary way by the President of the European Commission. I should have thought that in the light of that, the Government would wish to have this measure dealt with by the whole House so that it could indicate whether it supported the Prime Minister or agreed with the words of the President of the European Commission, who, according to press reports, today slammed the self-serving Prime Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman can address himself precisely to the motion before the House, I shall have to ask him to take his seat.
Mr. Chope: I am seeking to address myself to the motion before the House. Should this very important issue of the pre-Budget report be referred to a Committee to be discussed by a small number of Members, and voted upon by an even smaller number, or should it be debated at greater length on the Floor of the House and be subject to a vote in which all right hon. and hon. Members can participate?
It is apparent from today's news reports that the European Commission does not think that this House takes European issues sufficiently seriously. The Commission has insulted the office of our Prime Minister. I have my own views, and so have my constituents, about the Prime Minister's personal qualities, but the office of Prime Minister has been the subject of a grave insult today by the President of the European Commission. It may be his way of saying thank you for what seems to have been an abandonment of the veto over the future appointment of the European Commission President. However, it is an appalling outrage and I am surprised that the Government are not seeking to defend the Prime Minister, and the office of Prime Minister, against that appalling insult. They could have done so either by withdrawing the motion or by saying that our relations with the European Union are sufficiently important to warrant debate by the whole House, rather than being submitted to a Committee.
11.10 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has just said. A number of problems are associated with the process that we are undertaking. First, this is effectively a procedure motion. We are being asked to vote on whether a matter should be considered in Committee, but hon. Members who have not heard this debate will vote on it. I understand that the vote will proceed in a new way for a Division in the Lobby, with hon. Members recording their vote in a book tomorrow.
We need to be able to communicate at least to the reports' recipients that the procedure motion has not been considered by those who are voting on it. It is perfectly
606
true that hon. Members who have not heard the debates on motions often vote on them, but to vote the following day—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are here to debate the motion, not the voting procedure.
Mr. Hogg: Of course I shall adhere to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that was the first point that I wanted to make.
The second point is different. Let us assume that when the vote takes place on the motion tomorrow afternoon, a majority is in favour of remitting the matter to a Committee. Let us consider exactly what the Committee will be capable of doing, because that goes to the heart of the question whether we should remit it to a Committee. A small group of Members will be asked to consider the reports. We know perfectly well that they will not necessarily reflect the true opinion of the House; they will be chosen by the Whips. We should be able to communicate to the Commission the fact that those who consider the matter in Committee will not reflect the true opinion of either the country or the House. I know of no way in which that can be done.
It is absurd to suggest that the documents represent the unvarnished view of the House. We know perfectly well that the pre-Budget report contains many statements on which my hon. Friends and I disagree, but we have no choice—either the Committee approves the report, or it does not. The Committee has no capacity to vote on an amendment. That is surely a very extraordinary fact, given that the House knows full well that there is a variety of opinion on the economic state of the country. However, the Committee can only either approve or disapprove the reports. That is not a proper way to do business. I should have thought that the will of the House would be that the Committee should be able to amend the documents, but no such ability exists and, consequently, this is an imperfect process.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the situation is far more serious that he suggests? Even if we could change the wording of the documents, under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—an unusual measure—the amended documents would not be sent to the Commission. A report based on such documents is sent. So even if all our hon. Friends said that they did not like what the documents say about agriculture and wanted to change that, it would not matter because the Government send a report based on the documents; they do not send the documents themselves. So democracy has been more undermined by section 5 of that Act than perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend realises.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He may well be right. Although we have differed on many matters in the past, we are broadly saying the same thing on this occasion—whatever view the Committee expresses and sends to the Commission, it will not necessarily reflect the true view of either the country or the House.
Sir Teddy Taylor: How on earth did the legislation go through the House?
Mr. Hogg: I am not disagreeing with my hon. Friend. He makes an additional point that may well be right,

607
but the essential fact is that the process on which we are embarking enables us either to approve or disapprove the reports, but gives us no ability to amend them. That lies at the root of my objection. In theory, there may be a case for a Committee to consider the matter, but only on the basis that it can amend the reports.
Sir Teddy Taylor: It cannot do that.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend says that the Committee cannot do that, and I agree with him. That is why the procedure is so defective.
Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons why it is wrong to treat the documents on a par with and as if they were delegated legislation is that to do so gives the impression that they are a fait accompli? In fact, far from being delegated legislation, they are precursors to legislation.
Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, but he makes an interesting point that I would like to amplify. When people deal with legislation, they consider the consequences of what they write rather more carefully than they would if they were concerned only with a report. If they write legislation, they have to consider, for example, the penal sanctions for those people who contravene its terms. Naturally, even this Government consider carefully the terms of legislation. However, they are able to take a much more cavalier attitude to reports, because they know full well that a report—as distinct from legislation—can never be the subject of judicial review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) makes an interesting point. By referring to this matter as though it were delegated legislation, we are cloaking the process with a degree of respectability that Government propaganda does not deserve. One of the things that most of our colleagues in the European Union would accept is that this country is, generally speaking, careful about legislation.
By moving the motion, the Government are indulging in a sleight of hand that is not respectable. The House needs to devise a mechanism by which we can say, when we remit the matter to the Commission, that it is not legislation but Government propaganda; that the Committee that has considered it has not had the opportunity to amend it; that the issue has been considered only by those Members who are acceptable to the Government Whips and, by definition, that is not a test of the view of the House; and that the House has not had a chance to express a view or to vote on the matter. In short, this is worthless report and should be treated as such. My advice to Members is that they should have nothing to do with a process that is a denial of democracy.
11.18 pm
Mr. Tipping: Several hon. Members have said that this has been a serious and interesting debate, and I agree with them. It has been extremely interesting and it has given the House the opportunity to test out our new processes, a point that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) acknowledged.
608
This is the first opportunity that we have had to test the procedures to be used this Session. If I read the mood of the House correctly, there will be plenty more testing of them, and we shall see how we proceed. I have certainly enjoyed the debate.
As I said in my introductory remarks, I shall focus on the process behind the motion rather than on the substance of section 5. I shall try to resist the temptation of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who challenged me by saying that I should have answered the questions before they were asked. That is an interesting concept. I know that I have a degree of telepathy and understanding of the House, but he will forgive me for not answering all his questions before he asked them. He would think me churlish if I answered the wrong question.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham realised, on reflection, that this was a matter of process rather than substance. Nevertheless, several questions have been asked, and I shall try, with your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to answer them without straying outside what I see as the terms of the debate.
Mr. Bercow: There is plenty of time.
Mr. Tipping: Yes, there is, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall make progress. I have not even begun to answer any of the questions that were asked.
The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), asked me, in effect, whether this was to be a debate on whether the United Kingdom was meeting the five economic tests. She questioned whether the documents that have figured in our debate are sufficiently up to date to enable Members on the Floor of the House or in a Committee to decide whether those tests are being met.
This debate does not concern an update on the five economic tests. The programme provides information on UK economic policies in line with the stability and growth pact. It does not assess whether the UK has achieved cyclical conversion within the euro area. The hon. Lady will know—my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reassures me on this point and tells me to be firm, and it is widespread currency—that the Government have said that we will produce another assessment of the five tests early in the next Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whom I suspect will be with us shortly, made a good case for himself being a member of the Committee. There has been much debate about who the members of the Committee should be. There are plenty of volunteers on the Opposition Whips Bench. I want to reinforce the point that hon. Members can attend Committees and speak in their debates, whether or not they are members of those Committees. In preparing for the debate, I took the precaution of looking at Opposition Members' attendance at the previous two such Committee debates, and I have to say that it was extremely sparse. I look forward, if this matter is referred to a Committee, to studying the attendance record and reading the report of its proceedings.
Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind the House that although hon. Members who are not members of a Committee may attend and speak, they may not vote?
Mr. Tipping: That is clearly the case, and that is one of the reasons for this debate. It has also been one of its

609
themes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and many of his colleagues—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, in particular—have accused the Government of trying to slip the motion through the House without allowing sufficient time for debate. As I said to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the time allowed for the debate has not changed. Such debates are always allotted 90 minutes, whether they are held on the Floor of the House, if that is what the House chooses, or in Standing Committee. That is the nature of our Standing Orders.
The hon. Gentleman told us that we were sending the matter to a Standing Committee to put it out of sight and out of mind. He did not use those words, but he said that the debate would take place away from public view. The Committee will be open to the public, and there is no question of us trying to hide it.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I entirely accept that the Standing Committee will be open to the public. My point was that proceedings are generally more visible if they take place on the Floor of the House. I know that the Press Gallery is empty now, but there is more focus on what goes on in the House than on what happens in Committee.
Mr. Tipping: I look forward to reading the hon. Gentleman's important comments in tomorrow's national press. He has made many valid points and I would be disappointed if The Daily Telegraph and The Times did not quote him at length.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who, surprisingly, has not yet rejoined the debate, asked whether the procedure under Standing Order No. 16 was appropriate. Standing Order No. 16 provides for the Question to be put after one and a half hours on any motion pursuant to an Act. He argued that, since the motion was not a statutory instrument, Standing Order No. 16 did not apply. As section 5 of the 1993 Act is clearly part of an Act, it is eligible for such debate.
Mr. Bercow: Does not the fact that, effectively, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 is a constitutional measure lend prima facie support to the notion that debate should take place not in Committee but on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Tipping: I do not think that that leads to prima facie support. Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues asked whether there had been a request from those on the Opposition Front Bench for the matter to be debated on the Floor of the House. I say directly to him that there has not been such a request. I have no problem with that. There are frequent discussions between the Front-Bench teams about the ordering of business, but, on this occasion, we have not been asked for such a debate. However, other hon. Members have asked for a debate on the Floor of the House.
I was pleased to be able to help the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) earlier. I confirm that when the report is produced—following debate in Committee, I hope—I will arrange for any document that goes to the Commission to be placed, for his perusal and that of other Members, in the Library. He asked me some questions and I must be careful about my answers because I do not want to stray out of order.
610
He asked whether we were obliged to submit a report to the Commission. That is the nature of the treaty; that is the agreement; that is our treaty obligation. He asked whether there is any procedure for the Commission to question the Government's report. Yes, I would expect the possibility of the Commission asking questions about it. Thirdly, he asked by what date must we get the report to the Commission. It is our intention to ensure that the report is with the Commission by the end of this calendar year.
Sir Teddy Taylor: What the Minister has said is most helpful, but I have just one tiny further point. If, by chance, the Commission were to say to the Government after they submit their report that it is not happy, that it is doubtful and that it disapproves of the report, would the Government make that public and tell the House of Commons? That is relevant to whether we should consider the matter in Committee or on the Floor of the House, and it is a terribly important constitutional issue.
Mr. Tipping: It is an important issue. If such queries are raised, there will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to pursue the matter. Clearly, if there is conflict between the Government and the Commission, one ought to be open about it and give hon. Members, perhaps through the Treasury Select Committee, the opportunity to pursue the matter.
Mr. Hogg: The Minister has been very helpful so far, and explained to the House how he intends that the documents will be sent to the Commission. He will have heard Opposition Members express anxieties about our inability to amend the report. If an early-day motion expressing concern about the accuracy of documents to be remitted to the report were signed by a number of hon. Members, would he be good enough to undertake that the early-day motion would also be remitted to the Commission, so that the Commission would know that this House was not 100 per cent. in support of the report?
Mr. Tipping: One thing that I learned early in my career in the House, which has not been as long as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is not to pay a great deal of attention to early-day motions.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Disgraceful.
Mr. Tipping: Let me tell the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I shall do a little research tomorrow to see how often his name has appeared on them. I suspect that, to put it charitably, he is not in the leading ranks of the charge. However, an early-day motion is not an expression of the House's opinion, but the expression of an opinion of a group of Members, some of whom have a clear interest in a proposition.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked a process question about whether it is appropriate to amend the report. The report is not amendable, whether it is taken on the Floor of the House or in Committee. The matter simply does not arise.
Mr. Bercow: What are the nature, extent, duration and limits of the available sanctions and are they subject to appeal?
Mr. Tipping: I am not certain about the focus and remit of the hon. Gentleman's question. Would he like to have another go and let me try again?
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful, as a second bite is always welcome and, in consequence, the taste is that much juicier. Is the penalty financial? Can it be multiplied and be imposed more than once? For what period or periods could it apply, and is there a right of appeal? Need I make myself clearer?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister seeks to answer, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question is relevant to the order before the House—if that helps him.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Minister should take the advice of the Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Tipping: I shall take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes)-I always take the advice of the Whips on the Government Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Aldershot made several points. He asked about the nature of article 103(3). The report that we shall submit to the Commission for its approval gives
an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment, expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in article 2.
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want a precedent to be set. That is a matter for the House and it is why we are having a debate tonight. The hon. Gentleman also asked for extensive debate on the process. We have had the opportunity for that debate, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has joined us. I understand that she will initiate the debate in Committee, and that she intends to reflect on the points
612
of substance that hon. Members have helpfully made tonight. I know that she does not intend to speak for too long in Committee.
Mr. James Gray: Why?
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary wants to hear the views of hon. Members to ensure that any report that we make to the Commission fulfils our needs and obligations.
Question put:—
MR SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.
Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 13 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000]

PETITION

  Broadcasting Licences
  11.34 pm
  Sandra Gidley: I am pleased to present a petition organised by Alan Macleod and signed by more than 500 residents, who seek to end the situation whereby Christian and religious groups are barred from owning certain types of broadcasting licence. It is a happy coincidence that the White Paper on the future of broadcasting was launched today.
  The petition states:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Waste Disposal (Essex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the important matter of waste disposal in Essex. I am pleased to see in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), and the hon. Members for Colchester (Mr. Russell), for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
  This is the second time that I have brought the subject before the House. The other occasion was in early 1999, soon after the draft Essex and Southend-on-Sea waste plan was published.
  In Essex, waste plans are rightly controversial and emotive. The plan was first published in November 1998. It identified a number of sites for large-scale waste management. Warning lights immediately came on because of the possibility that those sites might be earmarked for incineration plants. One of the sites was at Rivenhall airfield in my constituency.
  Such a choice was singularly offensive as that site had been the subject of a major public inquiry in 1995, when an enormous project for waste disposal by way of landfill was proposed. The inspector took 17 days of evidence and came to the conclusion that it was not an appropriate site.
  I shall quote from the inspector's report on the Rivenhall site, but much of it will apply to other sites across the county in which other hon. Members have an interest. In 1995, the inspector stated with regard to Rivenhall:
  I conclude there are visual, heritage, amenity, traffic and ecological objections to the proposals, all found in discord with the development plan.
  At that time, landfill was the danger; now it is incineration. In the hierarchy of waste—that has always interested me as an intellectual notion—incineration languishes near the bottom, among the serfs and villeins of former times, so to speak, together with landfill.
  One might say that in many ways incineration is a greater threat to local communities than is landfill. Landfill has a life expectancy. Eventually a hole is no longer a hole because it is filled up. A very expensive capital project such as an incinerator would be expected by its owners to last as long as possible, to maximise profit. A landfill site is an eyesore and a nuisance to the neighbouring occupiers, but because of the height of the structure, an incinerator is a blot on the landscape. That would be particularly so at Rivenhall.
  The site may not be at the forefront of the minds of those who do not come from Essex, but a number of hon. Members present do come from Essex. The incinerator would be placed at the top of the hill and would be seen for miles around—almost, one might say, as a monument to the folly of those who decided to locate such an installation there.
  Incineration has an insatiable appetite. It needs, by its nature, to draw in an endless supply of waste to a central point.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not waste from Essex that the
  614
  incinerators would burn, but waste from London? Does he also agree that, if incinerators are as safe as we are told they are, there is no reason not to build them in London and so avoid the need to cart the rubbish down the Al2?
  Mr. Hurst: I can find no point of disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. Furthermore, incineration works on the principle of maximising contracts. We have seen in other parts of the country minimum standards and minimum amounts imposed on contracting local authorities. If they fail to meet those targets for waste—as I believed happened in Cleveland—they suffer financial penalties.
  The existence of an incinerator multiplies traffic movements, and therein lies one of the strongest arguments against incineration as a major way forward in waste disposal. The inspector's report on the site of Rivenhall did not give the go-ahead, but stipulated as a caveat that there should be an assessment of the highway and traffic consequences of siting such an installation at Rivenhall.
  It is not possible for me to state how many additional traffic movements would be created by such an installation at Rivenhall, but it has been estimated that as many as 50 heavy lorry movements per day would bring waste to the site. Those lorries would come along the unreconstructed section of the Al20—not the part that is proposed to become a dual carriageway, which runs west of Braintree, but the part that runs east of Braintree towards Colchester, which is a two-way highway already overburdened with traffic. The lorries would run through the village of Bradwell, which is already under pressure from continual flows of traffic, way in excess of the capacity originally envisaged for that stretch of road.
  Because Rivenhall is described as an airport, one might imagine that it is an industrial site—indeed, it is ludicrously called a brownfield site. In fact, it is one of many airfields constructed throughout East Anglia during the second world war—many in my constituency—from which our pilots and our allies in the United States air force flew during the liberation of Europe. There were airfields at Earls Colne, Wethersfield, Andrews field at Saling and Rivenhall—all in my constituency. Only this morning, I was speaking to a close friend and constituent of mine, John Alston of Coggeshall, who remembers being on the airfield when thousands of service personnel were being entertained by Glen Miller and Bob Hope. That is the origin of the categorisation of Rivenhall as an industrial site, but it is fair to say that the residents of Rivenhall are not "In the Mood" to have a major incinerator on the site. To the naked eye, Rivenhall today is pastoral—it is farmland and woods crossed by pathways and quiet country lanes. Were a major waste disposal installation to be put there, those lanes would thunder with the sound of lorries carrying waste to the site.
  As the hon. Member for Colchester says, a further problem is the importation of waste from London and Kent in particular. Each year, there are many thousands of vehicle movements from London and Kent bringing waste into the county of Essex. In one form or another, the importation of waste into Essex has been going on since Roman times. London has always tried to dump its

  615
  surplus waste in our county, but if there is one thing that will act like a lamp to a moth, it will be large-scale waste disposal sites dotted across Essex.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in his Adjournment debate. He has the honour to represent a lovely part of Essex, at least for the time being. I share his concern about journey numbers, but is he objecting to them or to incinerators per se? Does he support the Government's position, which is that incinerators are inevitable as a last resort?
  Mr. Hurst: I take the hon. Lady's point. My objection is that, by its nature, a large-scale incinerator will draw imported waste from other areas. Without that importation of waste, the incinerator is not a profitable operation. Without going into any other ground that might lead one to oppose incineration or not, incineration on a large scale is harmful to Essex because of the traffic movements that it generates within the county.
  The Government's policy is manifold. There are aspects of it that are akin to the locality principle. That principle would say that Braintree district, Maldon district or Colchester should each deal with its own waste. I am sure that each one is capable of dealing with its own waste, and on that basis there would be no need for major waste disposal sites to be dotted across the county.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I support much of what the hon. Gentleman says. In a spirit of cross-party unity, if I say that I agree with many of the arguments that he has advanced in respect of Rivenhall, I hope that he will agree with me that Sandon in my constituency would be equally unsuitable as a possible site for an incinerator. We would prefer to see no incinerators in Essex.
  Mr. Hurst: I can confirm that Members in the Braintree area take an internationalist view of these matters and are not sectional. Everything that I have said, save for the geographic aspects, applies equally to Sandon or any major site within the county, including Rivenhall.
  The further argument against incineration on a major scale is that it detracts from the incentive to follow through recycling. Witham in my constituency and the district of West Mersea, which is close to Colchester, are both undergoing major recycling experiments. I am told that recycling of household waste has reached 50 per cent. in the Braintree district, and that the target is 60 per cent. in two years. If other districts within the county and elsewhere, especially in London and Kent, took that step, there would be no need for incinerators. If a county or a district such as Braintree is making progress with recycling, it seems hard that it should be penalised by having major waste disposal sites in the county or the district.
  The plan has recently been adapted and modified by the county council. It gives us great hope that there will be a presumption against incineration until the targets for household waste recycling have been tested.
  I bring these matters before the House because Braintree district and the county seek allies in arguing that we are acting in the interests of the public in promoting
  616
  recycling. If major incineration sites were to be permitted within the county, that would undermine the thrust and purpose of the Government's policy and the policy of most hon. Members in the Chamber.
  11.49 pm
  Mrs. Christine Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his Adjournment debate. There could be further clarification, and I should like to hear that the waste strategy for Essex contains a presumption against incineration without a caveat. That is the sure way of promoting more recycling with composting, waste minimisation and re-use. I know of nothing in the Government's strategy to the effect that incineration is an inevitable and absolute requirement on a waste disposal authority. That is a matter for the local waste disposal authority, and the buck should not be passed back. However, I welcome the waste strategy document that replaces the draft one because it is a move in that direction.
  The French are taking a great interest in major incinerator initiatives in Britain. They are talking avidly to waste disposal authorities, which is unwelcome to me and to those of my colleagues who are present tonight. We do not want waste disposal authorities to take that option too easily. The French are particularly concerned about a move against incineration in France. That is why some of the French-based companies are so interested in the United Kingdom. I hope that Essex county council will take note of that and go for extra composting and other facilities, develop the pilot schemes that it has introduced and that are proving so successful and remove the little caveat and go for a straightforward presumption against incineration throughout Essex. Suck it and see is what I say.
  11.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) raised an important issue, as did his colleagues, and he did so eloquently. This is the third time since the Government took office that the subject of waste disposal in Essex has been debated in the House, and it is clearly a matter of great concern to his constituents and all the people of Essex. It is an issue that we are having to grapple with throughout the country, and some difficult decisions have to be taken.
  I am aware that my hon. Friend is among many people in Essex who have reservations about the strategy set out in the emerging Essex and Southend waste local plan, as was reflected in the large number of objections made to the plan. I am also aware of the widely held view that the proposed strategy is weighted too heavily in favour of landfill sites and incineration. I know that there is a belief that intensive recycling would be sufficient to reach the targets for waste disposal that need to be achieved, and that a trial of intensive recycling is currently in place for a number of pilot areas, to which my hon. Friend referred. I agree about the need to ensure that the environmental benefits of recycling and composting are not overlooked and are given due weight by the waste planning authorities in the local plan.
  As my hon. Friend said, traffic moving to and from landfill sites and incinerators can often cause congestion on unsuitable local roads and have an adverse impact on

  617
  residential amenity. That is a further reason why the Government are anxious to encourage alternative methods of waste disposal that are less likely to create such problems. I entirely understand that people would rather not live near landfill sites, or an incinerator, but no matter what progress might be made in Essex and Southend on recycling and the local processing of waste, some landfill sites will still be required, certainly in the immediate future. It is therefore important that the waste plan provides guidance on where such facilities should be located, and it is right that the selection of such sites must, in the first instance, be a matter for consideration and debate at the local level.
  Since the subject was last debated on 26 February 1999, the Essex and Southend waste local plan has been the subject of a lengthy public inquiry at which all objections were considered by an independent inspector. The inspector has since submitted his report to the waste planning authorities, which early next year will publish their response to the inspector's findings and their proposed modifications to the plan. The modifications will, of course, be open to objection.
  My hon. Friend will know that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has the power to intervene in the plan process at any stage up to the time that the plan is adopted. His quasi-judicial role means that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of the Essex and Southend waste local plan, including the need for and choice of landfill sites. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we will examine the proposed modifications published by the waste planning authorities in the light of the inspector's recommendations, the Government's waste strategy and national policies on waste disposal.
  On Thursday, I shall meet a delegation from the Consortium of Essex Waste Collection Authorities, so I will have an opportunity to hear its views at first hand. Meanwhile, I shall comment on the Government's general approach to waste, including incineration.
  As hon. Members know, the new strategy was published in May. It identified the need for a fundamental change in the way in which we think about and manage our waste. That will mean curbing the growth in waste and learning to recognise waste as a resource. The Government are committed to dramatic increases in recycling and composting rates, which lie at the heart of developing a more sustainable system of waste management in this country. We will, though, also need to recover more energy from waste by incineration when that represents the best practical environmental option. However, I accept that care must be taken to ensure that any plans for incineration do not crowd out recycling.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Under-Secretary put on record the fact that incinerators, be they at Rivenhall or Stanway in my constituency, do not dispose simply of waste from Essex, but are required to dispose of waste from London and Kent? If incinerators are so safe, why not construct them at the point where the waste is generated? That is preferable to lorries trundling around the Essex countryside.
  Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are plans for incinerators in London; indeed, some already exist there. If he is making the same point as my hon.
  618
  Friend the Member for Braintree—that a lot of the waste disposed of in Essex comes from London—that is incontrovertible. I agree that that is not in line with the proximity principle, to which I shall refer shortly, if I have time. However, I am not willing to pretend—and neither should the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—that people in Essex do not create waste, and that they can dispose of it all by the method that is ideologically most suitable. A moment might come when incineration has to be contemplated even for disposing of waste in Essex. It cannot be ruled out, but I emphasise that it is primarily a matter for local decision.
  For the first time, the Government will set statutory targets for household waste recycling and composting. Those will require councils on average to double recycling by 2003–04 and to triple it by 2005–06. We have set even higher targets for 2010 and 2015; we will keep them under review and raise them if that should prove practical. We have a lot of ground to make up because we have been somewhat complacent about waste in the past, and we must try to catch up with neighbouring countries, which have taken a more robust approach.
  A key driver of those goals is the European landfill directive, which will require substantial changes to the way in which we manage our waste. In the United Kingdom, we currently landfill more than 80 per cent. of our biodegradable municipal waste. The directive will require substantial reductions in municipal waste sent to landfill. If waste production continues to grow at its current rate, it will mean diverting 33 million tonnes of waste from landfill each year by 2020.
  The plain fact is that recycling and composting alone will not deliver the rates of diversion necessary to meet the targets in the landfill directive. Some incineration will have to occur; as I said earlier, the precise location and quantity are matters for local authorities. Any increase in incineration should be part of an integrated, sustainable system of waste management. Authorities and the incineration industry need to plan to ensure that expansion in energy from waste does not crowd out recycling.
  I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree that we must not build incinerators that create insatiable appetites, attract waste from many miles away and generate their own reasons for existing. Contracts should allow flexibility and ensure that incineration does not compete with recycling. Incinerator operators should maximise the environmental benefits of their facilities by including combined heat and power where possible. Other countries elsewhere in Europe, most of which have far better records on dealing with waste than we do, also make widespread use of energy from waste by way of incineration.
  The national planning guidance on the management of waste is in planning policy guidance note 10, which was published in September 1999. It is intended to assist planning authorities in the preparation of their local plans and the determination of planning applications for waste management facilities. It also provides specific advice on the criteria for the siting of those facilities. In particular, it states the Government's wish that waste management decisions should be based on four principles: the best practicable environmental option for each waste stream, regional self-sufficiency, the proximity principle and a waste hierarchy. The latter comprises, in descending order of merit, reduction; reuse; recovery, including recycling; composting and energy recovery; and disposal.

  619
  In the few remaining minutes, I should touch on the question of London's waste, which is a big problem for Essex. I am conscious of the fact that, because of Essex's proximity to London, about half its landfill waste comes from the capital. The planning guidance for London is based on the waste hierarchy and principles of sustainable development, but it will be replaced by a management strategy shortly to be produced by the Mayor. That will have to take account of the UK's international obligations, including the EC landfill directive, and the national waste strategy, which sets a target of 25 per cent. of London's waste being recycled by 2005.
  A draft of the mayor's municipal waste management strategy is due to appear in the new year. There will then be a consultation period before the final strategy appears towards the end of next year. I emphasise that we expect there to be a progressive reduction in the amount of untreated waste exported by London for disposal as alternative waste management facilities are established in London. However, it is unlikely that London will achieve self-sufficiency in the short term and disposal to landfill
  620
  sites outside the capital will therefore continue to play an important role. It is therefore important that neighbouring waste authorities such as Essex and Southend should recognise that there is a continuing need for some landfill sites outside London for treated waste.
  I hope that I have said enough to show that the Government take the issue seriously. We are making substantial extra resources available over the next three years to help local authorities to meet challenging targets. I repeat that decisions about whether waste-to-energy facilities should be built, where they should be sited and what size they should be are matters, in the first instance, for local authorities, subject to the criteria that I have outlined.
  I look forward to continuing the discussion with the delegation from Essex, which is coming to see me on Thursday. No doubt the issue will not go away, so I fully expect to meet hon. Members representing Essex constituencies here, at some unconscionable hour of the night, to discuss it again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve midnight.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Veterans
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the findings of(a) his Department's Medical Assessment Programme and (b) independent scientists concerning the level of depleted uranium in the urine of some sick Gulf War veterans. [142032]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's policy on testing Gulf veterans for uranium was set out in the paper: 'Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position', dated 19 March 1999, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The paper describes the possible health effects of exposure to depleted uranium and the circumstances that might lead to an individual being tested for the presence of uranium. Tests would be conducted only on the basis of clinical indications.

  Between one and five people examined by the Ministry of Defence's (MOD's) Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme physicians have exhibited symptoms that, in the judgment of the examining physicians, have indicated a clinical requirement for testing to detect uranium and have been tested. These test results show that uranium, in any form, is not a contributory factor to the patient's ill health.

  MOD is aware of the various testing work which has been undertaken in Canada and the United States. Despite numerous requests, we have still yet to see scientifically robust results from the work from Dr. Durakovic, Dr. Sharma and Dr. Horan. MOD will continue to make requests for such evidence so that we can move forward on a scientific basis. Recognising that this has caused veterans some concern, my Department has offered to arrange independent depleted uranium testing for those UK veterans who had their urine tested for depleted uranium in Canada. A draft protocol under which that testing might take place was sent to veterans' representatives on 1 November 1999 for comment. My officials are hoping to have further discussions on this protocol with veterans and their representatives early in the new year.

  Since 1993, a clinic based at the Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center has run a depleted uranium follow-up programme for 33 US Gulf veterans (namely those whose records showed they had been hospitalised for wounds received in friendly fire incidents), which includes 15 who have embedded depleted uranium shrapnel in their bodies. To date, any health impairments among those being monitored appear to be related to their original injuries rather than to depleted uranium. Their scores on standard neuropsychological tests showed no divergence from the normally expected responses. None
  68W
  of the 33 is excreting higher than usual levels of uranium, except those with embedded shrapnel. We continue to monitor the work.

  My Department is keeping an open mind on the issue of depleted uranium, pending further research.

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission independent medical analysis of the health of Gulf War veterans, and their children born after 1991, based on clinical examination and assessed alongside comparable groups in the general population. [141952]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence announced in December 1996 that, on the recommendation of the Medical Research Council (MRC), it would fund two independent epidemiological studies of the health of Gulf veterans. One of the studies, being undertaken at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is examining the reproductive health of Gulf veterans and the health of their children compared with a demographically similar group of personnel who were in the services at the time of the Gulf conflict, but did not serve there. This work is expected to be completed early next year. The other study at Manchester University examined Gulf veterans mortality and morbidity in comparison with service personnel who did not take part in the conflict. Results on mortality were published in The Lancet in July this year. Publication of a paper on morbidity is awaited.

  Once the results from these studies are published we will discuss the findings with the MRC and take advice on whether further research into the health of Gulf veterans' and their children is required.

  In addition to the epidemiological work which is questionnaire based, clinical examinations of over 3,000 Gulf veterans have taken place at the Ministry of Defence's Medical Assessment Programme. Independent clinical research into UK Gulf veterans has been undertaken at King's College, London funded by the US Department of Defense and the Ministry of Defence. Results are expected to be published in 2001.

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an independent research project to evaluate the health effects of low-dose radiation from insoluble particles of ceramic uranium trapped in the lungs and trachea bronchial lymph nodes. [141951]

  Mr. Spellar
  While the Ministry of Defence will continue to consider carefully research proposals which bear on its activities, we have no plans to add to the extensive research conducted over many years into the effects of uranic materials on the body. Not only was uranium biokinetics the subject of a major review by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1995, but the ICRP has also published a series of studies addressing the risks to lymph nodes from inhaled radioactive materials, the development of systemic models for uranium and the calculation of dose coefficients based on various lung and systemic models for uranium.

  Ex-service Personnel
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with
  69W
  homelessness charities on the issue of assisting homeless ex-servicemen; and what was the outcome of these discussions. [142035]

  Mr. Spellar
  The primary focus for work to reduce the incidence of rough sleeping among ex-service personnel is a Working Group of officials from the Ministry of Defence and the Rough Sleepers Unit at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Steps taken by the Working Group include, as a pilot project, the launch of the "Single Persons Accommodation Centre for the Ex-Services" (SPACES) at Catterick garrison. This is run by the English Churches Housing Group, and provides accommodation advice to service personnel who are about to be discharged from the armed forces.

  In addition, the Ministry of Defence has regular discussions with the "Ex-Service Action Group on Homelessness", chaired by the Chief Executive of the Sir Edward Stoll Foundation. It has been involved in discussions with the homeless charity "Crisis", both prior to and subsequent to publication of their report "Lest We Forget".

  The Ministry of Defence values all such discussions and is taking action on a number of the recommendations made in the report, where work was not already in hand.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments (Police)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average amount of overtime worked by his Department's police officers at(a) AWE Aldermaston and (b) AWE Burghfield in each month since June. [141544]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The information requested is shown in the table:

  Hours

  Month 2000

  AWE Aldermaston

  AWE Burghfield

  June

  39.07

  38.71

  July

  45.55

  36.39

  August

  37.50

  35.06

  September

  35.61

  32.38

  October

  32.76

  31.79

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the longest amount of overtime worked by a MOD police officer at(a) AWE Aldermaston and (b) AWE Burghfield in any period of (i) one month and (ii) six months since June 1999. [141545]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The information requested is shown in the table:

  Hours

  AWE Aldermaston

  AWE Burghfield

  Highest number of overtime hours worked in one month

  164

  132

  Highest number of overtime hours worked in six months

  614

  588

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of sickness hours per officer among his Department's police(a) in total, (b) at AWE Aldermaston and (c) at AWE Burghfield for each month since June. [141543]
  70W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The information requested is shown in the table:

  Hours

  Month 2000

  Force Average

  AWE Aldermaston

  AWE Burghfield

  June

  9.4

  11.37

  4.43

  July

  10.0

  10.83

  7.54

  August

  10.2

  12.55

  8.10

  September

  10.0

  13.78

  9.11

  October

  10.9

  13.73

  9.78

  While collating data for this answer, it was discovered that the Force average figure of "9.5 hours" recorded for June 2000, in my letter (D/Min(AF)JS2931K/2932K/2933K/2934K/2935/00/M) to you of 9 August, was incorrect and should have read "9/" as shown in the table above.

  Royal British Legion (Ex-forces Resettlement)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Royal British Legion has in respect of resettlement of ex-forces personnel; and if he will make a statement. [142152]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under its Royal charter, the Royal British Legion (RBL) has a responsibility for the welfare of the ex-service community and its dependents. The RBL's services are therefore complementary to those provided by my Department and it is able to offer advice and assistance to ex-Service personnel, as well as organising a number of initiatives.

  Chinook Accident (Mull of Kintyre)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Mull of Kintyre Group about the Chinook accident, and what issues were discussed. [142464]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met with Lord Chalfont and other members of the Mull of Kintyre Group on 15 November 2000. The Group took the opportunity to restate their continuing concerns over the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the cause of the accident.

  Equality
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to promote equality between(a) older people, (b) disabled people, (c) ethnic minorities, (d) religious minorities, (e) women and (f) gay and lesbian people, and the rest of the population, with respect to the activities within the responsibility of his Department. [141489]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence, its agencies and the armed forces, are committed to, and operate a policy of, equal opportunity for all staff and for those applying for employment. The Department's equal opportunities policy clearly states that there must be no unfair discrimination on the basis of: gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, age, religious belief, physical or mental disability, or working pattern.
  71W
  The Ministry of Defence, its agencies and the armed forces are working hard, in partnership with external organisations (such as the Commission for Racial Equality, Opportunity Now and the Employers' Forum on Disability) to increase the overall number of civilian and service personnel they employ from under-represented groups. They are also striving to ensure that all policies, procedures and services are developed with a view to promoting diversity and to valuing the positive benefits that difference can bring.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Stadium
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to fund transport and other infrastructure improvements around(a) Wembley Stadium and (b) Picketts Lock. [141420]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The transport and other infrastructure improvements needed for the new Wembley Stadium, and to support the regeneration of the surrounding area, are being discussed by the Wembley Task Force. The funding for the package of improvements will come from a number of different sources. These included the s106 agreement between the London Borough of Brent and Wembley National Stadium Ltd., the Single Regeneration Budget and London Underground.

  The transport and infrastructure improvements for the new National Athletics Stadium in Edmonton are currently being assessed by the stadium project team, which includes UK Athletics and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and supported by the London Borough of Enfield, as part of on-going feasibility work. It is too early to assess what improvements will be necessary or how the improvements will be funded.

  Television Inquiry
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the most recent developments in Phase II of the Creative Industries Task Force Television Inquiry. [142683]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Inquiry has been completed and the consultant's report will be published on my Department's website today: www.culture.gov.uk—click on 'CREATIVE, MEDIA & ARTS', then click on 'FORMS AND DOCUMENTS'. A hard copy Executive Summary of the report will also be published, sent to interested parties and made available by my Department on request. I will also arrange for copies of the Executive Summary to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in due course.

  The consultants, David Graham and Associates, were asked to report on how the UK television programmes supply market could best be adapted to realise the potential of UK creative talent to satisfy the growing audio-visual economy.

  Their report addresses outstanding issues from Phase I of the Inquiry, highlights important and interesting data about recent trends in the broadcasting industry and
  72W
  updates information provided by the consultants in their 1999 research "The Economics of the TV Supply Chain". It concludes by making recommendations for establishing the conditions necessary for each element of the programme supply chain to compete and prosper in the digital age.

  Findings have informed the joint DTI/DCMS Communications White Paper, and the Government will continue to work closely with the television industry in formulating policy that is intended to meet future challenges.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Aircraft Noise
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations his Department received in response to its consultation on aircraft noise. [142052]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has received 590 responses to the consultation on control of noise from civil aircraft near aerodromes. The responses are currently being studied.

  Airport Access
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what target he has set for increasing access to airports by public transport. [142054]

  Mr. Mullin
  In their White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", the Government said that they expected all airports with more than 1,000 commercial aircraft movements a year to develop surface access strategies. These strategies contain short-term and long-term targets for increasing the proportion of passengers and airport staff travelling to and from the airport by public transport, walking and cycling. The Government have not stipulated what these targets should be, but their guidance on drawing up strategies emphasised that they should be realistic but challenging. Setting the targets is a matter for the Airport Transport Forum at each airport, a body comprising representatives of airport employers, public transport operators, local authorities and other interested parties.

  Surface access strategies were produced by each airport earlier this year, and fed into local authority Local Transport Plans. They will therefore be taken into account in the Government's decision on funding for local transport schemes. It is now the task of the Airport Transport Forums to monitor performance against the targets. The Government will also monitor the situation.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Ordnance Survey plans to resume publication of maps indicating parliamentary, local authority and ward boundaries for each county. [141319]
  73W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ordnance Survey will continue to publish the Administrative Boundary Map series which includes European and Westminster boundaries and unitary and local authority boundaries. The previous 1:100,000 Scale Administrative Areas Diagrams were phased out in 1996. The Administrative Areas Diagrams did not depict wards. In the new series eight maps at 1:250,000 scale show unitary and local authority boundaries and two maps at 1: 625,000 scale show the European and Westminster Parliamentary Boundaries.

  Environment Agency/British Waterways
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at what stage the review of the Collaboration Agreement between the Environment Agency and British Waterways is; and if he will make a statement. [141305]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Collaboration Agreement between the Environment Agency and British Waterways was signed on 19 June 2000. The Government undertook to review the progress made in implementing this agreement, as well as the Environment Agency's navigation responsibilities, as part of the first quinquennial review of the Agency. The commencement of this review was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 8 December. The review is expected to report to Government next year and to be completed in summer 2001.

  Railway Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require that all main line railway stations are equipped with lifts to enable disabled people to cross between platforms. [142244]

  Mr. Hill
  Access to railway stations for disabled people is covered by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Since October 1999, service providers have been required to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service. From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.

  In addition, the Rail Regulator is currently revising his Code of Practice, "Meeting the needs of Disabled Passengers", which is aimed at helping protect the interests of disabled users of railway passenger services and station services.

  Rai1track is committed to ensuring that all stations are fully accessible to disabled people within 20 years to enable them to meet their DDA obligations. I understand they are currently developing and prioritising a detailed implementation programme in consultation with train operators, local disability organisations and local authorities.

  Our 10-year transport plan, "Transport 2010", published in July, demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to improving accessibility. The rate and level of new investment will ensure that improvements in the accessibility of transport are brought
  74W
  forward more quickly. The plan is also clear that building in accessibility for disabled people in all investment is a condition of public money being spent.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his Department's advice on the procedures for calling in a planning application. [141739]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend's general approach, like that of previous Secretaries of State, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas. It is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.

  There will be occasions, however, when my right hon. Friend may consider it necessary to call in the planning application to determine himself, instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority.

  His policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, take this step only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in his opinion:

  may conflict with national policies on important matters;

  could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;

  give rise to substantial regional or national controversy;

  raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or

  may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.

  However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

  Call in procedure follows section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (SI No. 1624). Further guidance is available in DETR Circular 5/2000.

  Council Tax (Second Homes)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what consultations he plans with local authorities concerning proposed changes in the second home council tax discount; [141742]

  (2) what the (a) process and (b) time scale is for the introduction of the end of the second home council tax discount. [141741]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In the White Paper, "Our Countryside: The Future", (Cm 4909), we said that we would consult on giving local authorities discretion to charge the full council tax on second homes rather than the 50 per cent. discount that they are required to apply at the moment.

  We intend to issue a consultation paper to local authorities and others in the new year and will finalise our proposals in the light of comments we receive. Primary legislation would be needed to provide local authorities with this power.

  Railways
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Railtrack on the feasibility of redoubling the track between Swindon and Kemble. [141738]

  Mr. Hill
  There have been no discussions.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had recently with representatives of Wales and West and First Great Western on the subject of train punctuality and reliability. [141737]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers have had no discussions with either Wales and West or First Great Western about train punctuality and reliability. The Franchising Director is in regular contact with both operators about their services as part of his monitoring of their franchises.

  Superannuation Costs
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the additional superannuation costs for which local authorities in England and Wales will have to make provision in year 2001–02, as a result of changes to advance corporation tax. [142288]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  After changes were made to advance corporation tax we agreed, following consultation with the Local Government Association, to build £130 million into the annual settlement for 1999–2000, and subsequently each year thereafter, to meet additional local authority pension costs. Consequently no separate additional estimate has been made for 2001–02.

  Road Fatalities
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fatal road accidents occurred in Gloucestershire in the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [142105]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of fatal road accidents in the county of Gloucestershire for the years 1995–99 are shown in the table:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  40

  1996

  46

  1997

  48

  1998

  36

  1999

  40

  Local Government Act
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will amend Part II of the Local Government Act 1988. [142558]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have today laid before Parliament a draft Order under section 19 of the Local Government Act 1999, which modifies the list of `non-commercial' matters, set out in Part II of the Local Government Act 1988, which are currently excluded from local authority contracting. The Order provides for 76W
  relevant workforce matters to cease to be defined as `non-commercial' matters for the purposes of Part II, to the extent that they are relevant to the achievement of Best Value and where the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (as amended) are to be applied.

  Following completion of parliamentary consideration of the Order, a departmental circular will be published containing related guidance. The guidance will set out how Best Value authorities can consider workforce matters when selecting tenderers and awarding contracts. Our aim is to modify the restriction on consideration of workforce matters so that authorities can have proper regard to them in cases where they are relevant to Best Value and the quality of the contract.

  These proposals meet two overriding objectives. Firstly by enhancing good procurement practice under Best Value and secondly by recognising that a well motivated and trained workforce is vital to the provision of quality local services. This will make a substantial contribution to achieving Best Value services in local government.

  We have received over 120 responses to our Consultation Paper "Best Value and Procurement: Handling of Workforce Matters in Contracting" from local government, the private and voluntary sectors and individuals. I am grateful to those bodies and individuals that have responded. The revised Guidance takes account of the views expressed. A list of respondents is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  We intend to put in place with the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) a monitoring system to assess the impact of the changes both on local government and the private and voluntary sectors.

  The Order and guidance applies to Best Value authorities in England and to police and fire authorities in Wales. The National Assembly will decide whether or not to make their own Order for local authorities in Wales.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce legislation to improve the employment rights of workers employed by employment agencies. [141948]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 8 December 2000]: I intend to lay revised regulations governing the conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses shortly. Some employment rights already attach to agency workers but others do not except where they are engaged under contracts of service or apprenticeship. I plan to issue a discussion paper in due course on legal issues relating to employment status as it affects the coverage of statutory employment rights.

  Internet
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which rural businesses will benefit from ADSL internet access following local loop unbundling. [141655]
  77W
  Ms Hewitt
  Local loop unbundling will allow other operators to provide high speed digital services such as ADSL over BT's copper wires. ADSL will however not work where the end user is more than 3–4 km from the local exchange, which means that only about 70 per cent. of the country is potentially able to receive it. There are other broadband technologies available, including satellite which can potentially cover the whole country. As stated in the White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future", the Government will ask the Countryside Agency to monitor the rollout of broadband in rural areas and we will take this into account in developing policy.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which rural communities will be able to benefit from British Telecom's planned provision of ADSL internet access. [141664]

  Ms Hewitt
  BT has already rolled out ADSL to exchanges covering nearly 40 per cent. of the population. Subject to commercial considerations, it intends to upgrade exchanges covering 70 per cent. of the population by the end of 2002. ADSL will however not work where the end user is more than 3–4 km from the local exchange, which means that it will not be available to everyone. There are other methods of high speed internet access becoming available, including satellite which has the potential to cover the whole country.

  Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council held in Brussels on 30 November; and if he will make a statement. [141627]

  Dr. Howells
  I represented the UK at the Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council in Brussels on 30 November.

  The Council reached unanimous political agreement on: the General Product Safety Directive (with the UK receiving confirmation from the Commission that there would be no disproportionate burdens on charity shops); the Regulation on data protection within EU institutions; and on technical aspects, apart from the language regime, of the Community Design Regulation.

  The Council discussed the proposals for simplifying, clarifying and modernising the public procurement directives on works, supplies and services; work will continue on this dossier. The Council agreed a declaration on Services of General Economic Interest to be sent to the Nice Council and welcomed the Commission's proposals for a European Food Authority, also to be endorsed at Nice.

  The Commission gave a progress report on implementation of the eEurope Action Plan; the Council approved the Presidency's report and its list of indicators. Sweden and Belgium outlined Internal Market priorities for their Presidencies and the Commission presented the latest version of the Single Market Scoreboard, which records member states' performance in transposing Single Market directives.
  78W
  There was a series of progress reviews on: promotion of consumer confidence in electronic commerce; the Community Patent, where the Commission and a number of member states asked for speedy progress; distance marketing of financial services; and the labelling and traceability of genetically modified organisms. The Presidency reported the results of the Internal Market Forum on 28–29 November, which considered the participation of citizens and business in the Internal Market, and of the Lille conference on tourism and sustainable development.

  Parental Leave
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the findings of the Department's research into the impact of parental leave provisions on multinationals operating outside Britain, which he commissioned as part of the review of parental leave. [142025]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have published an account of the research and analysis underpinning the Green Paper 'Work and Parents, Competitiveness and Choice'. This draws upon two surveys commissioned by the Department to support the review although neither considers the impact of parental leave provisions on multinationals operating outside Britain. The full survey results will be published in Spring 2001.

  The published research and analysis paper is available on the Internet at: www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.htm.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research he has undertaken to identify the primary factors which influence decisions by women to return to work following a period of maternity leave. [141959]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Research evidence is summarised in the research and analysis paper published to accompany the Green Paper 'Work and Parents, Competitiveness and Choice' on pages 22 to 33. This suggests that the primary factors influencing the decision of women to return to work are the type of employer and job they had before childbirth. The timing of their return is influenced by financial considerations and childcare.

  The research and analysis paper is available on the Internet at: www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.htm.

  Post Office Regulator
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he intends that the Post Office Regulator will carry out his duties under the Postal Services Act 2000. [141957]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Postal Services Commission was established on 6 November 2000 under section 1 of the Postal Services Act 2000. It is an independent regulator required by statute to carry out its duties in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997; and what the total cost is to the Department of each publication. [141473]
  79W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: A list of those DTI publications produced since 1 January 1997 that have been notified to my Department's Publications Unit has been placed in the Library of the House. The listing includes the total cost incurred by the Department in publishing, preparation and production of each publication (where notified centrally), and excludes publications produced for internal use. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher the publishing, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his 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. [141441]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Excluding its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, the total expenditure on publishing, preparation and production of those official publications, which have been notified to my Department's Publications Unit by individual budget holders, is as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  5,176,892

  1997–98

  4,886,238

  1998–99

  7,208,674

  1999–2000

  4,552,019

  2000–01

  12,370,746

  2001–02

  23,324,136

  1 To 7 December

  2 Full year estimate, including proposed publications

  Information on planned expenditure for 2001–02 is not available centrally.

  These figures exclude the costs of publications produced for internal use. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher, the publishing, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publications.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to PQ 14173 for information on those individual titles included in the above costs.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which organisations have been shown a copy of the business case for a universal bank. [142249]

  Mr. Byers
  The Post Office is working with the High Street banks, other financial institutions, the British Bankers' Association and the Building Societies Association to develop the concept of universal banking services. All those party to the negotiation have seen the Post Office's business case for universal banking.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a breakdown of the sub-post offices which have closed since May 1997, by territory. [142467]
  80W
  Mr. Byers
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Household Cleaning Products
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the requirements on companies to disclose the chemicals which they use in household cleaning products. [142104]

  Dr. Howells
  The safety of chemical products, such as cleaning products, is governed by the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994. These Regulations require that manufacturers must assess a chemical product for its health effects (toxicity, irritancy etc.). If dangerous, the product must then be labelled with a warning symbol and phrases indicating the dangers. The particular chemical(s) which cause the product to be classified must be named on the label.

  The Regulations also require that all potentially dangerous chemicals supplied to the public must be in packaging which is properly labelled and contains warnings about the potential hazards, and gives brief advice on suitable precautions. Manufacturers or suppliers of cleaning products would also be required to give details of how to use the product safely.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Reference Books
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school budgets has been allocated to the purchase of reference books in each year from 1992 to 2000. [141943]

  Jacqui Smith
  We fully appreciate the value pupils gain from using reference books, and have supported the use of books in schools through initiatives such as the Books for Schools and National Literacy Strategy Standards Fund grants which provided a total of £115 million for the purchase of reading books in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. Individual schools, however, are responsible for deciding, within the budgets delegated to them, what provision to make for the purchase of books, and this information is not collected centrally.

  Autistic Children
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what recent research studies into the educational needs of autistic children his Department has funded; and if he will make a statement; [142028]

  (2) what guidelines have been issued to local education authorities on the provision of specialist teaching aids for autistic children. [142029]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: In September 1998 we published "Educational Interventions for Children with Autism: A Literature Review of Recent and Current Research; Jordan, Jones and Murray". A copy is in the Library.

  My Department has not issued such guidelines to local education authorities. The Department has established an Autism Working Group which aims to publish guidance,

  81W
  including pointers to good practice, next year. The Group plans to include pointers on good practice in the use of Information and Communication Technology aids with autistic children.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that head teachers of maintained schools agree performance targets with their governing bodies by 31 December. [142459]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The published regulations on performance management—The Education (School Teacher Appraisal) (England) Regulations 2000—require the appointed governors responsible for the head's review to meet the head and a trained external adviser to discuss objectives by 31 December. In order to allow governing bodies some flexibility for this first round, the Secretary of State has proposed to amend the regulations to extend the deadline to 6 April 2001.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many head teachers in maintained schools he estimates will have agreed performance targets with their governors by 31 December; and what percentage this constitutes of all heads of maintained schools. [142460]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As of 11 December 2000, 6,762 head teachers had agreed their performance targets with their appointed governors with the assistance of an accredited external adviser. It is estimated that a further 2,076 will have done so by 31 December 2000.

  This represents 42 per cent. of heads maintained schools. In order to provide flexibility in the first year of operation, the Secretary of State has proposed to extend the 31 December 2000 deadline until 6 April 2001.

  Nuffield Languages Inquiry
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will respond to the report of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. [142279]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will be producing a clear statement of response in the new year which takes account of Nuffield's main recommendations, and which highlights the positive languages policies already in place. We are already doing a great deal to promote learning in this field, for example by expanding our numbers of specialist language colleges and offering attractive incentives to teacher trainees. The statement will reinforce our commitment to broadening opportunities and will point to where there will be scope for development. Our Languages National Training Organisation has already indicated its readiness to participate in vocational language learning initiatives. Additionally we are working with our key partners to promote the programme of events for next year's European Year of Languages. We have recently broached these matters in discussions with our Nuffield colleagues and in formulating our statement we will be working in consultation with them.

  Departmental Directorates
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the establishment of, and 82W
  how many staff were in post in, (a) each directorate of his Department, (b) his Department's legal adviser's office and (c) Government offices for the regions on business relating to his Department, on 1 July; [142292]

  (2) how many staff were employed in each of the (a) Schools Directorate, (b) Lifelong Learning Directorate, (c) Employment Equality and International Relations Directorate, (d) Legal Adviser's Office, (e) Government offices for the region engaged on business relating to his Department, (f) Strategy and Communications Directorate,(g) Personnel and Support Services Directorate and (h) Finance and Analytical Services Directorate. [142293]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 November 2000,Official Report, columns 814–15W.

  Departmental Research Budget
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the research and consultancy budget for his Department for(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [142285]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 753W.

  School Funding (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much extra funding schools in Gloucestershire will receive as a result of the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Statement. [142100]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Schools in Gloucestershire Local Education Authority will receive an extra £2,030,684 Devolved Formula Capital as a result of the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Statement. Schools in South Gloucestershire Local Education Authority will receive an extra £848,866. This brings the total Devolved Formula Capital available to schools in Gloucestershire in 2000–01 to £4,345,860 and in South Gloucestershire to £1,815,936.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intelligence and Security Committee Report
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will respond to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual report for 1999–2000. [142684]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today laid the Government Response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report before Parliament.

HEALTH

  Embryo Cell Research
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation his Department has undertaken on pieces of research that offer an alternative to human embryo cloning for medical research; and if he will list those pieces of research that have been examined. [142037]
  83W
  Yvette Cooper
  The main pieces of research that were evaluated by the Chief Medical Officer's expert group when preparing their report are included in the key references listed at the end of their published report. The group also consulted a number of organisations and individuals with expertise in this area in preparing their report.

  Individual experts on the group keep abreast of published research in their specialist areas of interest. In September 2000, members of the expert group were also asked to look at key papers which had been published since the completion of their report, including the following:

  Galli R. et al., Nature Neuroscience 3, 986. 2000.

  Woodbury D. et al., J. Neurosci. Res. 61, 364. 2000.

  Sanchez-Ramos J. et al., Exp. Neurol. 164, 247. 2000.

  Alison M.R. et al., Nature 406, 257. 2000.

  Clarke D.L. et al., Science 288, 1660. 2000.

  The group's view was that the recent advances in research on adult stem cells, while being encouraging, do not invalidate the conclusions they reached earlier in the year.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with(a) the bioscience industry, (b) religious organisations and(c) other interested groups on the recommendations of the Donaldson Report; and what was the outcome of these discussions. [142039]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Chief Medical Officer's expert group sought information on the scientific and ethical issues from a range of outside groups and individuals. The group considered written submissions from over 100 respondents from all sides of the debate. A list of responders is in the table. The outcome of these consultations is reflected in the recommendations made in the Donaldson Report.

  Since the finalisation of the report, officials from the Department have had discussions with a number of groups interested in this issue, mainly from medical, ethics and patient support backgrounds. A number of these groups have provided briefing to hon. Members on the recommendations contained in the Donaldson Report.

  List of respondents to CMO's consultation on therapeutic cloning

  Number

  Respondent identifier

  1

  Neurology Department University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  2

  Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology Laboratory—Colorado State University, USA

  3

  E. Jones

  4

  The Data Protection Registrar

  5

  A. Robinson

  6

  R. Miller

  7

  Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine—Division of Developmental Genetics Baltimore, USA

  8

  Reproductive Genetics Unit—Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Sciences—University of California, San Francisco, USA

  9

  I. Barnes

  10

  P. Kemp

  11

  Medical Research Council—MRC

  12

  The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

  13

  Association of Medical Research Charities—AMRC

  14

  UCL/UCLH/NHNN Ethics Review Committee

  15

  M. McEwan-Reid

  16

  G. Spittles

  84W

  List of respondents to CMO's consultation on therapeutic cloning

  Number

  Respondent identifier

  17

  M. Shamblott

  18

  J. Scotson

  19

  J. Boffey

  20

  Church of Ireland—The General Synod

  21

  R. Cheesewright

  22

  Quaker Ethics and Genetics Network

  23

  Duplicate

  24

  Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland—Committee on Public Morals

  25

  Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

  26

  European Bioethical Research

  27

  Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy

  28

  International Underwriting Association

  29

  Duplicate

  30

  P. Perry

  31

  Centre for Applied Ethics—Canterbury

  32

  Duplicate

  33

  Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments

  34

  Institute of Biology

  35

  Biological and Biotechnological Science Research Council—BSRC

  36

  Catholic Bishops' Joint Committee on Bioethical Issues

  37

  International Right to Life Federation

  38

  E. King

  39

  M. Hobbs

  40

  F. Young

  41

  Department of Histochemistry—Imperial College School of Medicine

  42

  Centre for Early Human Development, Australia

  43

  PPL Therapeutics

  44

  Imperial Cancer Research Fund

  45

  Student LifeNet

  46

  J. Harvey

  47

  J. McCarthy

  48

  Department of Social Anthropology—Cambridge

  49

  Genetic Interest Group

  50

  B. Murray

  51

  R. Gilkison

  52

  M. Hendrickx

  53

  P. Houston

  54

  S. Tyler

  55

  Church of Scotland Society, Religion and Technology Project

  56

  J. Proom

  57

  L. Plant

  58

  C. Greeve

  59

  D. Morley

  60

  A. Baily

  61

  M. Arif

  62

  CAHGE—The Campaign Against Human Genetic Engineering

  63

  F. Pinto

  64

  Methodist Church—North Hertfordshire Circuit—Social Responsibility Committee

  65

  CORE—Comment on Reproductive Ethics

  66

  J. Bell

  67

  Medical Women's Federation

  68

  The Royal Society of Edinburgh

  69

  CARE—Christian Action Research Education

  70

  BMA—British Medical Association

  71

  Theology Department—Chester College of Higher Education

  72

  SPUC—The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

  73

  The Royal Society

  74

  Geron BioMed Ltd.

  75

  J. Hallett

  76

  W. Hansen

  77

  M. Grech-Marguerat

  78

  A. Burnett

  79

  D. Foley

  80

  T. Moris

  81

  E. Toye

  82

  D. Morley

  83

  R. Beale

  84

  F. Reid

  85

  S. Dias

  86

  C. Musgrave

  85W

  List of respondents to CMO's consultation on therapeutic cloning

  Number

  Respondent identifier

  87

  M. Hobbs

  88

  M. Kelly

  89

  A. Clark

  90

  T. Harte

  91

  I. Benson

  92

  N. Smith

  93

  Centre for Genome Research—Edinburgh

  94

  Guild of Catholic Doctors

  95

  Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

  96

  E. Souter

  97

  Wellcome CRC Institute

  98

  M. Sparshott

  99

  C. Bull

  100

  Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry

  101

  Special Parkinson's Research Interest Group

  102

  All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life Group

  103

  Australian Catholic Bishops Conference

  104

  D. Munroe

  107

  Name withheld

  LIFE

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated financial benefit to the bioscience industry based on the proposed extension of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. [142038]

  Yvette Cooper
  No such estimate has been made. An extension of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was recommended in the report "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility" on the grounds of the significant therapeutic benefits which could result from research across a range of possible sources of stem cells, including embryos.

  Intermediate Care Funding
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems are in place to ensure health authorities use resources from intermediate care funding for disability equipment and services. [141322]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities' revenue allocations for 2001–02 and for 2002–03 and 2003–04 will include funding both for intermediate care and community equipment services. Health authorities will be asked to agree joint plans with councils, setting out how they intend to deploy these resources and what the expected outputs and outcomes will be. Performance will be monitored and managed by the regional offices of the National Health Service Executive and social services inspectorate.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated towards the intermediate care plan for the financial year 2000–01. [141323]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the current financial year (2000–01) an additional £150 million has been made available, recurrently, for investment in intermediate care and related services, as confirmed in the National Health Service Plan.

  Autism
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued to NHS trusts on the provision of specialist health care for autistic children. [142026]
  86W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: In 1998, the Department published "Signposts for Success"—good practice guidance for commissioning and providing health services for people with learning disabilities, who include many with autism. In 1999 we issued "Once a Day" which sets out good practice in this area for primary health care teams.

  The needs of autistic people who also have a learning disability will be covered by the forthcoming White Paper on learning disability which we expect to publish early next year. We are also considering the recommendations of a review of the current issues surrounding children and adults with Asperger' s Syndrome which we commissioned late last year.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research studies into the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder his Department has funded; and if he will make a statement. [142027]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: There is a large volume of research on all aspects of autism. Details of projects can be found on the National Research Register (NRR) which also contains details of projects and trials funded by the Medical Research Council and other research funders. The NRR shows that there are currently 51 ongoing and 82 completed projects on autism. Of these, seven examined the diagnosis of autism.

  The Medical Research Council (which is funded largely by Government) has included an Autistic Diagnostic Interview study in its programme of work on autism.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the net change in the incidence of autism in the last five years. [142461]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of children identified as having autism is increasing. Although the full explanation for this is not clear, it is at least in part due to improvement in diagnosis by the clinical professions, including child mental health specialists and community paediatricians.

  Most experts agree that the estimated prevalence rate of classic autism is between four and five per 10,000 population. Prevalence of all autistic spectrum disorders is more difficult to estimate but could be as high as 91 per 10,000. We are in dialogue with the Medical Research Council over the autism agenda including the possibility of further work on prevalence and incidence.

  Child Protection Register
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each region of the United Kingdom are on the Child Protection Register. [141676]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The information requested, as at 31 March 2000, is shown in the table.

  Region

  Number as at 31 March 2000

  North East England

  2,106

  North West England

  2,798

  Merseyside

  1,251

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,388

  East Midlands

  3,135

  West Midlands

  3,598

  87W

  Region

  Number as at 31 March 2000

  South West England

  2,487

  London

  4,809

  East England

  2,885

  South East England

  3,833

  Wales

  2,416

  Scotland

  12,361

  Northern Ireland

  21,483

  1 As at 31 March 1999

  2 As at 31 March 1998

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many couples have been turned down by the NHS for infertility treatment(a) in Gloucestershire and (b) in the UK, in the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [142102]

  (2) what is the average cost per couple of providing infertility treatment on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [142101]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available. A report to the Scottish Office's Clinical Resources and Audit Group estimated the average cost of assisted conception treatment as £1,900. (Expert Advisory Group on Infertility Services in Scotland: "Evidence and Equity: a national service framework for the care of infertile couples in Scotland" April 1999.)

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on 30 November 2000, Official Report, column 895W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prostitutes' Cards
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further conclusions he has reached on the proposed new offence to deal with cards placed by prostitutes in phone boxes. [142559]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My officials have discussed the proposals in detail with representatives from local authorities, telephone operators, the police, CPS and other agencies. In the light of these discussions we have modified the proposals in two main areas.

  First, we propose a national, not an adoptive offence. Although this is as yet largely a local problem, an adoptive approach could lead to circumvention and be impractical. Secondly we favour a more limited offence which would cover advertisements for the services of prostitutes and other sexual services in telephone boxes in public places rather than a general offence of unauthorised advertising. We believe the offence should attract a power of arrest. There should be a power to extend the offence, by affirmative resolution, to other structures providing shelter to the public, in case the activity is displaced to, for example, bus shelters.

  As part of a co-ordinated approach, the Director-General of Oftel is consulting with the telecommunications industry on how best to bring in effective call-barring schemes to deal with the nuisance of prostitutes' cards. I believe that the co-ordinated action
  88W
  on call barring and the new criminal offence will enable us to crack down on this illegal and undesirable practice and protect local communities from the obvious nuisance that these cards cause.

  We are keen to make progress in this area and will bring forward proposals when Parliamentary time allows.

  Police Communications (Airwave)
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total allocation of funding to police forces which have, so far, signed contracts to take up Airwave in 2001–02. [142560]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total allocation to forces taking Airwave in 2001–02 is shown:

  £ million

  Capital

  72,056

  Revenue

  31,334

  I apologise that my reply to my hon. Friend on 27 November 2000, Official Report, columns 453–54W was incorrect. The figures given here correct the previous answer.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the sickness rate in terms of days per staff member for(a) prison officers and (b) other staff in each of the young offenders' institutions in the last 12 months. [142048]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Sickness absence rate per staff member for officers and other staff in each of the young offender institutions in the last 12 months

  Sickness absence rate:

  Prison name

  Per prison officer grade from 1 December 1999 to 30 November 2000

  Per other member of staff from 1 December 1999 to 30 November 2000

  Aylesbury

  20.50

  23.36

  Brinsford

  14.13

  13.57

  Castington

  18.17

  12.10

  Deerbolt

  13.04

  9.88

  Dover

  16.12

  17.35

  Feltham

  16.80

  17.68

  Glen Parva

  11.21

  7.80

  Guys Marsh

  13.18

  6.51

  Hatfield

  5.90

  10.43

  Hindley

  9.91

  17.18

  Hollesley Bay

  13.94

  7.97

  Huntercombe

  15.22

  11.70

  Lancaster Farms

  14.28

  16.09

  Northallerton

  17.13

  11.92

  Onley

  15.82

  13.50

  Portland

  20.59

  8.34

  Reading

  21.43

  14.17

  Stoke Heath

  17.32

  11.33

  Swinfen Hall

  7.55

  10.96

  Thorn Cross

  11.70

  8.63

  Wellington

  22.48

  6.82

  Wetherby

  10.83

  8.05

  Note:

  Prison officer grades include Prison Officers, Senior Officers and Principal Officers.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum application forms submitted in each month since 1 January have been returned because the applicant provided no proper address; and if he will make a statement. [142435]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since 31 August, postal applications submitted without the full address of the applicant have been returned with a request for the address to be given. This measure was introduced to ensure that basic information about the applicant was available to help deter fraudulent or multiple applications. The application is recorded once the address has been provided, except for applicants living in London who are first required to come to Croydon for screening. Reliable information on the number of applications returned for the address to be provided is not available, but is estimated to be about 450 a month on average.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being supported by each local authority; and if he will make a statement. [142468]

  Mrs. Roche
  The table gives records of the number of support weeks provided by local authorities to single adults and to families in the period 1 April to 29 September 2000. This information has been taken from the un-audited asylum support grant claims for the period and some authorities have not yet submitted claims.

  Number of support weeks provided 1 April to 29 September 2000

  Local authority

  Single adults

  Families

  Barking and Dagenham

  17,490

  14,386

  Barnet

  6,939

  9,188

  Barnsley

  1,584

  328

  Bath and North East Somerset

  131

  0

  Bedfordshire

  6,100

  1,168

  Bexley

  2,769

  1,674

  Birmingham

  12,487

  4,661

  Blackpool

  623

  0

  Bolton Metro

  1,125

  430

  Bournemouth

  3,035

  486

  Bradford

  897

  521

  Brent

  11,451

  13,002

  Brighton and Hove

  4,732

  554

  Bristol City

  6,425

  1,026

  Bromley

  3,630

  3,317

  Buckinghamshire

  1,097

  196

  Bury

  683

  340

  Caerphilly County

  156

  0

  Calderdale

  46l

  83

  Cambridgeshire

  4,827

  796

  Camden

  11,702

  9,335

  Cardiff

  1,993

  618

  Ceredigion CC

  1

  0

  Cheshire

  427

  217

  City of Newcastle

  6,255

  971

  Conwy CBC

  25

  0

  Cornwall

  46

  0

  Corporation of London

  3,086

  927

  Coventry

  2,134

  445

  Croydon

  3,624

  4,665

  Cumbria

  36

  26

  Darlington

  26

  0

  Denbighshire County

  26

  0

  Derby

  3,857

  720

  Derbyshire

  202

  0

  Devon

  914

  42

  Dorset

  926

  58

  90W

  Number of support weeks provided 1 April to 29 September 2000

  Local authority

  Single adults

  Families

  Dudley

  614

  290

  Ealing

  9,706

  7,119

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  184

  26

  East Sussex

  3,221

  593

  Enfield

  14,954

  15,533

  Flintshire

  26

  0

  Gateshead

  1,114

  52

  Gloucestershire

  3,150

  443

  Greenwich

  13,563

  6,925

  Hackney

  20,265

  13,248

  Halton

  26

  8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  16,449

  11,885

  Hampshire

  1,407

  290

  Haringey

  34,486

  28,777

  Havering

  5,938

  2,592

  Herefordshire

  89

  39

  Hertfordshire

  11,832

  2,227

  Hillingdon

  22,306

  5,828

  Hounslow

  3,903

  6,502

  Isle of Wight

  32

  6

  Islington

  60,840

  14,956

  Kensington and Chelsea

  20,109

  9,349

  Kent

  116,823

  14,867

  Kingston Upon Hull

  2,248

  378

  Kingston Upon Thames

  1,998

  1,641

  Kirklees

  1,290

  541

  Knowsley

  344

  405

  Lambeth

  20,676

  14,877

  Lancashire

  303

  136

  Leeds

  2,221

  585

  Leicester

  4,788

  1,853

  Leicestershire

  1,611

  642

  Lewisham

  25,305

  12,709

  Lincolnshire

  2,897

  447

  Liverpool

  4,928

  1,196

  Luton

  12,142

  3,850

  Manchester

  14,158

  4,989

  Medway

  743

  180

  Merthyr Tydfil County

  26

  0

  Merton

  5,482

  5,775

  Middlesbrough

  1,334

  285

  Milton Keynes

  4,980

  1,610

  Newham

  33,753

  35,168

  Newport County

  303

  111

  Norfolk

  4,199

  583

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,724

  170

  North Lincolnshire

  117

  26

  North Somerset

  351

  73

  North Tyneside

  606

  212

  North Yorkshire

  210

  47

  Northamptonshire

  36,584

  2,771

  Northumberland

  22

  0

  Nottingham

  2,741

  310

  Nottinghamshire

  845

  157

  Oldham

  246

  297

  Oxfordshire

  21,288

  5,206

  Pembrokeshire

  154

  0

  Peterborough

  1,707

  400

  Plymouth

  344

  254

  Poole

  64

  78

  Portsmouth

  7,655

  703

  Reading

  8,187

  2,140

  Redbridge

  25,193

  10,729

  Redcar and Cleveland

  948

  185

  Rhondda Cynon Taff County

  102

  17

  Richmond Upon Thames

  17,890

  6,134

  Rochdale

  572

  468

  Rotherham

  1,157

  494

  Rutland

  142

  26

  Salford

  1,920

  651

  Sandwell

  5,517

  1,041

  Sheffield

  10,997

  5,003

  Slough

  19,331

  9,180

  91W

  Number of support weeks provided 1 April to 29 September 2000

  Local authority

  Single adults

  Families

  Solihull

  462

  101

  Somerset

  246

  87

  South Gloucestershire

  380

  182

  South Tyneside

  26

  289

  Southampton

  10,662

  698

  Southend on Sea

  5,108

  2,238

  Southwark

  36,564

  15,351

  St. Helens

  46

  0

  Staffordshire

  2,553

  260

  Stockport

  603

  424

  Stockton on Tees

  87

  48

  Stoke on Trent

  1,453

  104

  Suffolk

  2,455

  274

  Sunderland

  1,013

  78

  Surrey

  7,797

  882

  Sutton

  5,180

  2,400

  Swindon

  1,785

  370

  Tameside

  546

  158

  Telford and Wrekin

  360

  26

  Thurrock

  6,520

  1,633

  Tower Hamlets

  9,234

  4,139

  Trafford

  410

  322

  Vale of Glamorgan

  156

  26

  Wakefield

  2,493

  318

  Walsall

  526

  187

  Waltham Forest

  21,360

  10,908

  Wandsworth

  4,841

  6,989

  Warrington

  143

  0

  West Berkshire

  179

  75

  West Sussex

  3,150

  572

  Westminster

  19,106

  12,203

  Wigan

  1,021

  123

  Wiltshire

  428

  135

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  80

  113

  Wokingham

  233

  155

  Wolverhampton

  814

  370

  Worcestershire

  1,327

  322

  York

  242

  27

  Cyngor Gwynedd Council

  5

  0

  The Home Office does not hold records for each authority of the individual asylum seekers receiving support.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost is of supporting(a) a single asylum seeker and (b) a family for seven days; and if he will make a statement. [142428]

  Mrs. Roche
  For the first six months of 2000–01 the average cost to the Home Office of supporting a single asylum seeker for seven days is estimated at £119 and £241 for a family.

  These figures cover single adult asylum seekers and asylum seeking families on social security benefits, as well as those supported by local authorities under the interim scheme and by the National Asylum Support Service.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's handling of the asylum application of N. Asur Saribal. [142427]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is the general policy of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate not to disclose any information it may hold on an individual to third parties unless requested to do so by, or with the written consent of, the individual concerned or their authorised representative.
  92W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many asylum cases since 1 May 1997 an applicant has been successful after the Home Office had pleaded that the application should be refused under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention; [142455]

  (2) how many applications for asylum awaiting an initial or appeal decision have been made by people who (a) have been convicted of and (b) have been charged with a serious criminal offence in their country of origin; [142453]

  (3) how many applications for asylum in each of the last five years have been refused under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention on the grounds that the applicant had been convicted of a serious non-political criminal offence outside his country of refuge. [142454]

  Mrs. Roche
  I regret that this information could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) family and (b) non-family asylum applications made since 1 April received an initial decision within two months. [142429]

  Mrs. Roche
  37,095 asylum seekers made applications between 1 April 2000 and 30 September 2000 of which 2,890 were families.

  Approximately two thirds of new substantive family applications lodged between 1 April 2000 and 30 September 2000 had an initial decision within two months. Information on non-family applications is not at present available.

  Prisons
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the population of(a) open and (b) other prisons in the United Kingdom. [142103]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 31 October 2000, the population of open prisons in England and Wales was provisionally 3,943, and the population for other prisons in England and Wales was 60,275.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in respect of each prison establishment at the latest date for which figures are available, the figures for(a) certified normal accommodation, (b) total accommodation and (c) the number of inmates. [142458]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest data available are for Friday 8 December 2000. The information requested is set out in the table.

  Prison

  CNA1

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Acklington

  782

  782

  735

  Albany

  446

  446

  439

  Altcourse

  614

  900

  810

  Ashfield

  400

  400

  369

  93W

  Prison

  CNA1

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Ashwell

  484

  494

  386

  Askham Grange

  132

  132

  125

  Aylesbury

  348

  352

  348

  Bedford

  352

  400

  369

  Belmarsh

  843

  869

  768

  Birmingham

  717

  1,079

  1,001

  Blakenhurst

  647

  850

  842

  Blantyre House

  120

  120

  106

  Blundeston

  424

  424

  403

  Brinsford

  477

  493

  473

  Bristol

  314

  432

  400

  Brixton

  692

  827

  770

  Brockhill

  166

  166

  152

  Buckley Hall

  350

  390

  357

  Bullingdon

  767

  891

  802

  Bullwood Hall

  180

  180

  165

  Camphill

  481

  545

  491

  Canterbury

  196

  300

  259

  Cardiff

  403

  657

  504

  Castington

  400

  406

  221

  Channings Wood

  594

  615

  586

  Chelmsford

  450

  501

  397

  Coldingley

  370

  370

  333

  Cookham Wood

  120

  150

  150

  Dartmoor

  691

  712

  664

  Deerbolt

  484

  488

  436

  Doncaster

  771

  1,111

  1,088

  Dorchester

  172

  272

  224

  Dover

  316

  316

  285

  Downview

  322

  338

  335

  Drake Hall

  267

  267

  163

  Durham

  670

  961

  789

  East Sutton Park

  94

  100

  84

  Eastwood Park

  295

  328

  298

  Elmley

  763

  950

  891

  Erlestoke

  326

  326

  308

  Everthorpe

  438

  470

  452

  Exeter

  315

  515

  395

  Featherstone

  597

  597

  591

  Feltham

  696

  729

  660

  Ford

  501

  501

  347

  Forest Bank

  800

  800

  717

  Foston

  174

  182

  164

  Frankland

  545

  557

  520

  Full Sutton

  595

  607

  581

  Garth

  633

  653

  632

  Gartree

  366

  366

  322

  Glen Parva

  678

  852

  675

  Gloucester

  235

  329

  289

  Grendon

  207

  201

  193

  Guys Marsh

  487

  524

  501

  Haslar

  160

  160

  155

  Hatfield

  180

  180

  165

  Haverigg

  554

  554

  451

  Hewell Grange

  193

  193

  181

  Highdown

  649

  714

  654

  Highpoint

  810

  812

  756

  Hindley

  519

  558

  428

  Hollesley Bay

  352

  358

  300

  Holloway

  477

  492

  461

  Holme House

  971

  971

  772

  Hull

  617

  635

  520

  Huntercombe

  360

  368

  336

  Kingston

  193

  193

  182

  Kirkham

  600

  600

  471

  Kirklevington

  183

  183

  167

  Lancaster

  139

  180

  156

  Lancaster Farms

  496

  536

  498

  Latchmere House

  193

  193

  180

  Leeds

  770

  1,254

  1,198

  Leicester

  219

  361

  347

  Lewes

  485

  496

  432

  Leyhill

  410

  422

  350

  94W

  Prison

  CNA1

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Lincoln

  360

  520

  432

  Lindholme

  613

  613

  597

  Littlehey

  624

  648

  615

  Liverpool

  1,216

  1,510

  1,210

  Long Lartin

  472

  472

  461

  Low Newton

  215

  245

  219

  Lowdham Grange

  504

  524

  498

  Maidstone

  549

  576

  535

  Manchester

  953

  1,163

  1,031

  Moorland

  740

  779

  754

  Morton Hall2

  208

  208

  0

  Mount

  705

  745

  737

  New Hall

  327

  385

  368

  North Sea Camp

  208

  208

  195

  Northallerton

  135

  264

  213

  Norwich

  545

  744

  641

  Nottingham

  519

  523

  464

  Onley

  640

  640

  582

  Parc

  800

  920

  878

  Parkhurst

  482

  522

  457

  Pentonville

  897

  1,175

  1,105

  Portland

  512

  572

  500

  Prescoed

  120

  128

  103

  Preston

  301

  570

  545

  Ranby

  725

  779

  748

  Reading

  204

  247

  225

  Risley

  793

  837

  792

  Rochester

  433

  444

  375

  Send

  220

  220

  217

  Shepton Mallet

  99

  152

  121

  Shrewsbury

  185

  342

  318

  Spring Hill

  256

  256

  249

  Stafford

  627

  627

  617

  Standford Hill

  384

  384

  322

  Stocken

  556

  582

  567

  Stoke Heath

  610

  610

  482

  Styal

  412

  455

  422

  Sudbury

  511

  519

  493

  Swaleside

  752

  782

  729

  Swansea

  251

  346

  267

  Swinfen Hall

  320

  320

  309

  Thorn Cross

  316

  316

  212

  Usk

  131

  220

  218

  Verne

  552

  577

  570

  Wakefield

  567

  586

  567

  Wandsworth

  1,128

  1,371

  1,251

  Wayland

  620

  648

  621

  Wealstun

  632

  632

  623

  Weare

  400

  400

  370

  Wellingborough

  518

  518

  501

  Wellington

  106

  106

  106

  Wetherby

  360

  360

  273

  Whatton

  264

  264

  256

  Whitemoor

  532

  532

  443

  Winchester

  456

  638

  518

  Wolds

  360

  405

  387

  Woodhill

  657

  735

  627

  Wormwood Scrubs

  812

  847

  798

  Wymott

  809

  805

  784

  1 In Use Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) excludes places taken out of use for refurbishment

  2 Morton Hall prison is being re-roled to a female prison

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners, expressed as a percentage of the average prison pop, are held two to a cell designed for one; and what was the average rate of such doubling over the period since 1 April. [142443]
  95W
  Mr. Boateng
  The number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one, expressed as a proportion of the average population for the financial year to October 2000 was 17.4 per cent. This figure is provisional and subject to validation.

  Probation Boards
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of reserves he intends to allow local probation boards to maintain; what arrangements he has made to permit probation committees to carry forward reserves into local probation boards; and if he will make a statement. [142451]

  Mr. Boateng
  Our expectation is that the new local probation boards will meet their current year's costs from within the 100 per cent. Home Office grant funding which they will receive under the new funding arrangements, and will not need to hold reserves. The new direct funding relationship will enable us to respond to the needs of individual boards to address circumstances where reserves might previously have been used. Boards will be able to carry forward up to 2 per cent. of their grant funding into a new financial year.

  The existing local probation committees will not be able to transfer unspent funding to their successor local probation boards, as the latter will be new corporate bodies. Arrangements have however been made which, subject to Treasury approval, will enable the current committees to give up predicted underspends, generally of up to 4 per cent. of their grant, and equivalent amounts to be paid to their successor boards.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of those members of probation committees whom he has designated to continue as members of local probation boards, their qualifications for office and their party political affiliations. [142425]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have tabled the names of those members of probation committees who have been designated to continue as members of local probation boards.

  Members

  Avon and Somerset

  John Sutton Dr. Jennifer Gunnings Malcolm Cotton Nicholas Bernard

  Bedfordshire

  Helen Sismey-Durrant Stephen Singh Alice Crampin Susan Squire

  Cambridgeshire

  Janet Jones Colin Lattimore Michael Sullivan Susan Morris

  Cheshire

  David Woulds Keneth McKinley Francis O'Freil Clare Hoy

  Cumbria

  Christine Egan Robin Brown James Coote Thomas Gordon

  96W

  Members

  Devon and Cornwall

  Nicola Taylor Sandra Shaw Lynda Price Richard Ellis

  Derbyshire

  David Ward June Lambert Ian Hurst William Kirkland

  Dorset

  Brian Whittingham Dorothy Cooper Jennifer Simm Roger Ketley

  Durham

  William Raine Anthony Woolfe Hilary Shaw Josephine Turnbull

  Essex

  Caroline Maiden Nicola Moulds Robert Eschle John Hilton

  Gloucester

  Christopher Marshall David James Alan Davies Rosemary Steele

  Hampshire

  Diane Thomas Simon Mantle Gabrielle Edwards Melanie Da Cunha

  Hertfordshire

  Anne Webster Jagtar Dhindsa Lillian Edwards-Hamilton Neville Wade

  Humberside

  Lesley Mole Roy White Darren Hale Peter Isles

  Kent

  Lady Julia Pender Michael Brown Brian Fernando Elizabeth Tullberg

  Lancashire

  Susan Hughes Prafulchandra Upadhyay Isabel Lea Valerie Burke

  Leicester

  Ivan Ould Uday Dholakia John Thomas Keith Smithson

  Lincolnshire

  Judith Parker Anthony Worth Sylvia Williams Max Winslow

  London

  Daphne Wickham Angela Chamber Max Telling Kenneth Ashken Carole Markham

  Norfolk

  Dr. Gwyneth Boswell Shiela Long Nigel Dixon David Pearson

  Northamptonshire

  John Tate Samuel Garden Michael Sawford Shirley Ogden

  97W

  Members

  Northumbria

  Brian Dodds Christine Tweedie George Mitchell Amanda Sita Main

  Nottinghamshire

  Wendy Start Kathleen Alick William Dargue Dr. Peter Pratt

  Greater Manchester

  Michael Harkin Sylvia Seddon Jon Hardy Peter Turner

  Merseyside

  Elizabeth Barnett Iris Shanahan Ronald Barker Stanley Mayne

  Staffordshire

  William Finney Linda Kemp Alexander Gribben Gerald Hindley

  Suffolk

  Sabhash Modasia David Rowe John McLoughlin Eileen Crane

  Surrey

  Michael Head Lady Thomas of Walliswood Lesley Myles Linda Hawkins

  Sussex

  John Shippham [Kenneth Melsom—subsequently withdrew] Christopher Crook Joan Fraser

  Teeside

  Keneth Bellamy Michael McGory Mavis Lacey Paul Whitehouse

  Thames Valley

  Lady Stephanie North George Dunford Brian Harper Dr. Gillian Cohen

  West Mercia

  Patricia Bradbury Colin Watkins David Williams Ruth Crofts

  Warwickshire

  Angela O'Boyle Abdul Salaam Ian Cronin Anne Henderson

  West Midlands

  Enid Showell Michael Ager Thomas Stone Colin Fishwick

  Wiltshire

  Malathy Sitaram Leslie Baker Jennifer Swift John Reynolds

  North Yorkshire

  Michael Doyle Jack Stephenson George Robson Dorianne Butler

  South Yorkshire

  Beryl Seaman John Hinchcliffe Ann Chapman Oswald Billings

  98W

  Members

  West Yorkshire

  Francis Colvill Earnest Clark Judith Poole Gillian Pratt

  South Wales

  Christine Lovell Peter Raynor Gareth Morgan-Jones

  Gwent

  Joyce Morgan Cynthia Parkes Robert Hatton-Evans Wilfred Phillips

  North Wales

  Brenda Roberts Carol Hughes Christopher Thomas Alison Lea-Wilson

  Dyfed/Powys

  Rev. Alan Charters Eileen Jobling Ina Williams Martin Morris

  Designation to continue into membership of the boards reflects the competency framework for board members, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Political affiliation was not one of the factors taken into account. The analysis of the make-up of the boards has not yet been carried out and is likely to be done after the board memberships are complete in mid January 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of the chairmen-designate of local probation boards whom he has appointed, their qualifications for office and their party political affiliations. [142424]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have tabled the names of chairmen-designate of local probation boards. In the case of Dyfed/Powys and Leicestershire those designated have yet to indicate their willingness to serve, so are not listed.

  Local probation board

  Chairman-designate

  Avon and Somerset

  John Christensen

  Bedfordshire

  Robin Fletcher

  Cambridgeshire

  Colin Lattimore

  Cheshire

  David Nelson

  Cumbria

  Mr. Gordon

  Derbyshire

  John Raine

  Devon and Cornwall

  Anthony Smith

  Dorset

  Margaret Topliss

  Durham

  Robert John Williams

  Essex

  Alan Tobias

  Gloucestershire

  David James

  Hampshire

  Dermot Sean Boyle

  Herefordshire

  Nicholas Moss

  Humberside

  Alexander Semple

  Kent

  Peter Alan Gammon

  Lancashire

  Leslie Robinson

  Lincolnshire

  Basheer Ahmed

  London

  Suhail Aziz

  Greater Manchester

  Lovranjan Kapila

  Merseyside

  Nigel Mellor

  Norfolk

  Charles Winstanley

  Northamptonshire

  Michael Prescod

  Northumbria

  Elizabeth Derrington

  Nottinghamshire

  Wendy Start

  Staffordshire

  Gerald Hindley

  Suffolk

  Gordon MacArthur

  Surrey

  Owusu Abebrese

  Sussex

  Christopher Cook

  Teesside

  Kenneth Bellamy

  99W

  Local probation board

  Chairman-designate

  Thames Valley

  Lorna Beckford

  Warwickshire

  Charles Jordan

  West Mercia

  Patricia Bradbury

  West Midlands

  Parmjit Singh

  Wiltshire

  Andrew Edwards

  North Yorkshire

  Jack Stephenson

  South Yorkshire

  Beryl Seaman

  West Yorkshire

  Miranda Hughes

  South Wales

  Richard Penn

  North Wales

  Brian James

  Gwent

  John Raymond Evans

  Their particular qualifications are various, but in each case they have demonstrated, through the appointment process, that they best met the demands of the framework of competences for chairs of probation boards, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Political affiliation was not one of the factors taken into account. The analysis of the make up of the boards has not yet been carried out and is likely to be done after the board memberships are complete in mid January 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of each probation committee applied unsuccessfully to continue as members

  Probation boards—cash limit allocations

  Cash limit allocation 2001–02 (£ million)

  1Cash limit allocation 2002–03 (£ million)

  1Cash limit allocation 2003–04 (£ million)

  Percentage increase 2001–02 to 2002–03

  Percentage increase 2003–03 to 2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  12.603

  12.793

  13.487

  1.51

  5.42

  Bedfordshire

  4.801

  5.018

  5.440

  4.51

  8.42

  Cambridgeshire

  5.184

  5.417

  5.873

  4.51

  8.42

  Cheshire

  8.616

  9.278

  10.060

  7.69

  8.42

  Cumbria

  4.816

  5.015

  5.438

  4.13

  8.42

  Derbyshire

  8.041

  8.403

  9.111

  4.51

  8.42

  Devon and Cornwall

  12.221

  12.772

  13.848

  4.51

  8.42

  Dorset

  5.119

  5.197

  5.478

  1.51

  5.42

  Durham

  5.943

  6.816

  7.390

  14.69

  8.42

  Essex

  12.218

  12.769

  13.844

  4.51

  8.42

  Gloucestershire

  4.547

  4.615

  4.866

  1.51

  5.42

  Hampshire

  13.694

  14.747

  15.989

  7.69

  8.42

  Hertfordshire

  6.831

  7.018

  7.609

  2.73

  8.42

  Humberside

  8.760

  9.646

  10.458

  10.11

  8.42

  Kent

  13.477

  14.084

  15.271

  4.51

  8.42

  Lancashire

  14.482

  15.135

  16.410

  4.51

  8.42

  Leicestershire

  8.048

  8.411

  9.119

  4.51

  8.42

  Lincolnshire

  5.263

  5.500

  5.964

  4.51

  8.42

  Norfolk

  6.196

  6.582

  7.137

  6.23

  8.42

  Northamptonshire

  4.740

  5.161

  5.596

  8.89

  8.42

  North Yorkshire

  5.455

  6.031

  6.539

  10.55

  8.42

  Nottinghamshire

  10.547

  11.022

  11.950

  4.51

  8.42

  Staffordshire

  8.602

  8.986

  9.743

  4.47

  8.42

  Suffolk

  4.965

  5.189

  5.626

  4.51

  8.42

  Surrey

  6.541

  6.640

  7.000

  1.51

  5.42

  Sussex

  10.238

  10.699

  11.601

  4.51

  8.42

  Teesside

  7.439

  7.786

  8.442

  4.66

  8.42

  Thames Valley

  15.641

  15.876

  16.737

  1.51

  5.42

  Warwickshire

  3.938

  3.997

  4.219

  1.51

  5.53

  West Mercia

  8.656

  9.046

  9.808

  4.51

  8.42

  Wiltshire

  4.636

  4.844

  5.252

  4.51

  8.42

  Greater Manchester

  29.972

  30.424

  32.909

  1.51

  8.17

  Merseyside

  18.072

  18.886

  20.477

  4.51

  8.42

  Northumbria

  16.443

  17.184

  18.631

  4.51

  8.42

  South Yorkshire

  14.638

  15.298

  16.587

  4.51

  8.42

  West Midlands

  30.416

  31.787

  34.465

  4.51

  8.42

  West Yorkshire

  23.353

  24.405

  26.461

  4.51

  8.42

  Greater London

  88.022

  89.347

  94.193

  1.51

  5.42

  Dyfed-Powys

  4.382

  4.943

  5.360

  12.81

  8.42

  100W
  of local probation boards; what are the party political affiliations of these unsuccessful applicants; and if he will make a statement. [142422]

  Mr. Boateng
  The analysis of members selected as continuing members from the existing committees has not yet taken place.

  Many committee members have applied to be members of the boards in the current round of recruitment of members and it is only when this is complete in mid January that the total number of members of committees going through to the boards will be known.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each local probation board(a) the proposed cash limit before property charges for (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04, (b) the percentage increase which the figures for (A) 2002–03 and (B) 2003–04 represent over the cash limits for the previous year and (c) his estimate of inflation for (1) 2001–02, (2) 2002–03 and (3) 2003–04. [142449]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is set out in the table. It is emphasised that the figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are provisional. The estimate for inflation in all three years is 2.5 per cent. per annum, using the Treasury deflator figure.
  101W

  Probation boards—cash limit allocations

  Cash limit allocation 2001–02 (£ million)

  1Cash limit allocation 2002–03 (£ million)

  1Cash limit allocation 2003–04 (£ million)

  Percentage increase 2001–02 to 2002–03

  Percentage increase 2003–03 to 2003–04

  Gwent

  5.471

  6.685

  7.248

  22.18

  8.42

  North Wales

  5.824

  6.765

  7.335

  16.16

  8.42

  South Wales

  14.146

  14.783

  16.029

  4.51

  8.42

  Total

  503.000

  525.000

  565.000

  4.37

  7.62

  1 Provisional

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the property charges to be deducted from the cash limit of each local probation board for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [142450]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total estimate for all local probation boards in 2001–02 is £3.3 million. This is based on a 6 per cent. charge on the estimated value of the property assets of about £55 million. Individual figures are not available for each probation board, because the property charge will reflect the value of the property occupied by each board during 2001–02. Local probation boards will be able to estimate these costs and the Home Office will be collecting the data required in the new year. In future years, the property charges will again depend on the property occupied in that financial year.

  Crime and Disorder Act
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue guidance to local authorities on the implementation of section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [142447]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is in the process of producing a guidance document for local authorities on the implementation of section 17. It is being developed with the National Association of Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders and the Local Government Association and it is expected that it will be distributed early next year.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which areas of his budget he has transferred the money to enable the budget for 2000–01 for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to rise from the level provisionally agreed in the Comprehensive Spending Review to that noted in the IND Business Plan 2000–01. [142431]

  Mrs. Roche
  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) was provisionally allocated a budget of £590 million for 2000–01, including £300 million for asylum support costs.

  Additional financial provision was made available as set out in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on 10 November 2000, Official Report, column 430W. In respect of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, £3 million was transferred from the Department of Health. Provision was not transferred from other parts of the Home Office budget.
  102W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the budget available for(a) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and (b) each unit and directorate within IND for the financial years (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04. [142430]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I provided on 24 July 2000,Official Report, column 450W.

  The settlement for the next three financial years has not been disaggregated to directorate and unit level in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff days he estimates the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will devote to training in 2000–01 as a result of(a) the Human Rights Act 1998, (b) the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and (c) the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [142463]

  Mrs. Roche
  Training in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) is provided in different ways according to need, including via guidance material and team briefings as an alternative to, or to supplement, formal training. It is therefore impossible to estimate the total number of staff days IND will devote to training in these areas. The position in relation to each Act is summarised as follows:

  (a) Human Rights Act 1998

  IND has now virtually completed a comprehensive training programme. All staff were provided with introductory guidance in April 1999, and detailed staff instructions were issued subsequently. From May 1999, nominated staff attended half-day seminars on the Act and its implications for the work of IND. The final stage of the programme was to provide a two-day training course for those staff requiring in-depth knowledge of human rights issues. Figures for formal training activity undertaken thus far are provided in the table, along with an estimate of the formal training commitment in the immediate future. Human rights issues will of course be reflected where relevant in all future training activities.

  Trained1

  To be trained1

  Half-day seminar

  1,255

  101

  2 day course

  358

  632

  1 Figures given in staff days

  (b) Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

  IND intends to implement an extensive training programme on the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Where possible, this will be integrated with other relevant training programmes planned for the new year, including induction training for 700 new recruits to the Immigration

  103W
  Service and race awareness training due to be delivered to over 1,800 IND middle managers between January and March 2001. In addition, IND plans to provide more detailed training on the Act to approximately 550 key staff in March 2001.

  (c) Freedom of Information Act 2000

  The Home Office plans to organise a half-day pilot training event in IND, involving more than 50 staff, before the end of this financial year. This will be used to assess the Directorate's wider training needs in respect of Freedom of Information.

  Immigration
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to entry clearance officers to ensure that visa applicants who do not clarify that the principal intention of their visit is to spend time with a family member can still be eligible for a right of appeal. [141734]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is for the applicant to make clear either on the application form or at interview that they intend to visit a family member in the United Kingdom. At interview the entry clearance officer will always seek to clarify the principal intention of the applicant and thus whether there will be a right of appeal against any refusal.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if visa applicants are expressly notified of their possible qualification for legal aid if they request an oral hearing for their appeal; and if he will make a statement. [141735]

  Mrs. Roche
  Visa applicants are not expressly notified that they may qualify for Legal Services Commission funding. The Joint Entry Clearance Unit are urgently looking into ways of providing suitable advice.

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff at each prison establishment in England and Wales were(a) on long-term sick leave and (b) on restricted duties in (i) December 1996, (ii) December 1997, (iii) December 1998, (iv) December 1999 and (v) the most recent date for which information is available. [142457]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested for long-term sickness absence is given in the table. Accurate recording of sickness absence centrally did not begin until 1 January 1999. There is no centrally held information of staff on restricted duties and this information could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Staff recorded as on long-term sick leave by establishment as at 1 January 1999–2000 and 1 December 2000

  As at 1 January

  Establishment

  1999

  2000

  1 December 2000

  Acklington

  14

  18

  7

  Albany

  6

  7

  3

  Ashwell

  5

  6

  7

  Askham Grange

  —

  5

  1

  Aylesbury

  19

  20

  22

  Bedford

  6

  6

  11

  Belmarsh

  25

  34

  58

  Birmingham

  22

  31

  50

  Blantyre House

  —

  3

  2

  104W

  Staff recorded as on long-term sick leave by establishment as at 1 January 1999–2000 and 1 December 2000

  As at 1 January

  Establishment

  1999

  2000

  1 December 2000

  Blundeston

  10

  11

  6

  Brinsford

  7

  9

  14

  Bristol

  29

  22

  16

  Brixton

  22

  31

  40

  Brockhill

  5

  7

  7

  Buckley Hall

  3

  4

  5

  Bullingdon

  10

  9

  15

  Bullwood Hall

  6

  9

  6

  Camp Hill

  8

  13

  4

  Canterbury

  5

  6

  7

  Cardiff

  12

  11

  7

  Castington

  8

  20

  16

  Channings Wood

  6

  6

  11

  Chelmsford

  12

  17

  8

  Coldingley

  5

  4

  7

  Cookham Wood

  4

  8

  3

  Dartmoor

  14

  12

  10

  Deerbolt

  10

  7

  7

  Dorchester

  5

  8

  2

  Dover

  9

  8

  8

  Downview

  5

  7

  5

  Drake Hall

  3

  5

  5

  Durham

  27

  18

  16

  East Sutton Park

  3

  —

  —

  Eastwood Park

  7

  8

  7

  Elmley

  14

  14

  21

  Erlestoke

  7

  8

  7

  Everthorpe

  7

  5

  5

  Exeter

  23

  17

  11

  Featherstone

  5

  7

  20

  Feltham

  20

  31

  31

  Ford

  6

  4

  7

  Foston Hall

  5

  5

  4

  Frankland

  21

  21

  24

  Full Sutton

  28

  26

  21

  Garth

  22

  17

  17

  Gartree

  8

  8

  4

  Glen Parva

  13

  9

  10

  Gloucester

  10

  7

  6

  Grendon

  7

  3

  9

  Guys Marsh

  9

  6

  10

  Haslar

  4

  2

  2

  Hatfield

  9

  1

  1

  Haverigg

  8

  7

  9

  Hewell Grange

  1

  2

  —

  Highdown

  13

  14

  17

  Highpoint

  10

  9

  10

  Hindley

  15

  12

  17

  Hollesley Bay

  8

  13

  11

  Holloway

  36

  34

  50

  Holme House

  25

  20

  16

  HQ

  24

  34

  30

  Hull

  10

  14

  6

  Huntercombe

  5

  7

  11

  Kingston

  3

  2

  3

  Kirkham

  9

  6

  13

  Kirklevington

  3

  4

  2

  Lancaster

  3

  8

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  12

  15

  11

  Latchmere House

  3

  —

  4

  Leeds

  22

  23

  23

  Leicester

  10

  12

  10

  Lewes

  5

  9

  8

  Leyhill

  6

  8

  6

  Lincoln

  14

  10

  12

  Lindholme

  9

  13

  10

  Littlehey

  10

  13

  19

  Liverpool

  35

  36

  29

  Long Lartin

  21

  23

  13

  Low Newton

  6

  5

  8

  105W

  Staff recorded as on long-term sick leave by establishment as at 1 January 1999–2000 and 1 December 2000

  As at 1 January

  Establishment

  1999

  2000

  1 December 2000

  Maidstone

  5

  12

  12

  Manchester

  30

  40

  38

  Moorland

  13

  10

  11

  Morton Hall

  4

  7

  1

  New Hall

  2

  8

  13

  North Sea Camp

  1

  1

  3

  Northallerton

  6

  9

  5

  Norwich

  5

  25

  10

  Nottingham

  12

  7

  11

  Onley

  12

  10

  13

  Parkhurst

  12

  10

  14

  Pentonville

  25

  26

  24

  Portland

  7

  10

  17

  Preston

  28

  14

  15

  Ranby

  13

  16

  11

  Reading

  14

  8

  11

  Risley

  24

  31

  21

  Rochester

  17

  11

  3

  Send

  3

  2

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  5

  3

  5

  Shrewsbury

  14

  4

  5

  Stafford

  14

  18

  8

  Standford Hill

  5

  9

  4

  Stocken

  3

  6

  9

  Stoke Heath

  13

  13

  18

  Styal

  16

  15

  14

  Sudbury

  3

  4

  4

  Swaleside

  8

  13

  16

  Swansea

  15

  20

  4

  Swinfen Hall

  5

  3

  4

  The Mount

  6

  9

  12

  A parliamentary question for written answer on Tuesday 12 December 2000

  Establishment

  Staffing target April 1998

  Staff in post 1 December 1997

  Staffing target April 1999

  Staff in post 1 December 1998

  Staffing target April 2000

  Staff in post 1 December 1999

  FTE 1 December 1999

  Staffing target April 2001

  Staff in post 1 December 2000

  FTE 1 December 2000

  Acklington

  299

  333

  380

  363

  366.5

  380

  377.5

  371.5

  374

  369.5

  Albany

  290

  284

  277

  283

  294

  292

  285.5

  281.5

  286

  278

  Aldington

  73.5

  76

  67

  77

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Ashwell

  198.5

  196

  216

  218

  222.5

  226

  220

  235

  218

  211

  Askham Grange

  72

  7.7

  74.5

  81

  75

  80

  76.5

  67.5

  80

  73.5

  Aylesbury

  252.5

  270

  334

  305

  335

  316

  309.5

  333.5

  307

  299.5

  Bedford

  244.25

  249

  246

  256

  255.5

  249

  239

  249

  248

  240

  Belmarsh

  913.5

  902

  947.5

  921

  939

  921

  903.5

  942.5

  894

  874.5

  Birmingham

  500.5

  512

  471.1

  502

  517.5

  520

  512.5

  499

  499

  489.5

  Blantyre House

  66

  68

  66.05

  67

  67

  70

  68

  68.25

  65

  64

  Blundeston

  276

  281

  281

  285

  272.5

  281

  275.5

  267

  277

  272

  Brinsford

  312

  325

  311.5

  322

  353.5

  362

  355

  362

  374

  361.5

  Bristol

  554.5

  561

  544.5

  557

  562.5

  549

  541.5

  548.5

  545

  538

  Brixton

  547.5

  539

  533

  553

  543

  530

  525

  501.5

  510

  506

  Brockhill

  134.3

  142

  151.5

  148

  154.5

  153

  149.5

  169.2

  163

  160.5

  Buckley Hall

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  182

  177

  Bullingdon

  399.5

  385

  418

  389

  420

  393

  388

  422.5

  408

  399.5

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  133

  134.5

  142

  149

  155

  148

  150

  154

  147.5

  Camp Hill

  240.06

  261

  263.5

  260

  258

  281

  275.5

  249

  270

  262.5

  Canterbury

  190

  210

  200

  203

  199

  214

  211.5

  224

  200

  196

  Cardiff

  375

  379

  386.5

  395

  393

  387

  377.5

  383.5

  393

  385

  Castington

  193

  194

  265

  253

  273

  307

  301

  346

  344

  341.5

  Channings Wood

  279

  273

  303

  305

  306.5

  317

  313

  310

  315

  311.5

  Chelmsford

  295.5

  310

  312

  317

  313.5

  322

  314.5

  324.5

  326

  317.5

  Coldingley

  175

  181

  197

  184

  202.5

  212

  209

  182.5

  200

  195.5

  Cookham Wood

  109.8

  106

  110.5

  110

  97.75

  100

  94.5

  95

  94

  91

  Dartmoor

  402.5

  395

  392

  398

  390

  396

  390.5

  386

  385

  378

  Deerbolt

  265

  269

  268.25

  284

  263.5

  290

  285.5

  275.5

  287

  281.5

  Dorchester

  134

  146

  137.5

  142

  144

  152

  150

  149

  154

  148.5

  Dover

  192.9

  192

  199.5

  204

  201.52

  212

  208.5

  204.5

  205

  200.5

  Downview

  198

  198

  199

  202

  203.5

  203

  198

  188.5

  206

  202.5

  Drake Hall

  123.7

  136

  132.9

  141

  139.5

  149

  142

  141

  149

  141

  Durham

  668.83

  682

  691.5

  705

  702.3

  702

  694

  705

  724

  715.5

  East Sutton Park

  53

  59

  53.5

  63

  54

  63

  60

  56

  61

  59

  Eastwood Park

  157

  166

  207.5

  202

  219

  224

  217.5

  212

  214

  207.5

  Elmley

  426

  439

  448.5

  455

  452

  462

  454

  445.5

  468

  461

  Erlestoke

  169

  184

  179

  188

  194

  190

  184.5

  201

  193

  183

  106W

  Staff recorded as on long-term sick leave by establishment as at 1 January 1999–2000 and 1 December 2000

  As at 1 January

  Establishment

  1999

  2000

  1 December 2000

  The Verne

  10

  8

  9

  Thorn Cross

  5

  7

  5

  Usk/Prescoed

  10

  —

  2

  Wakefield

  28

  15

  29

  Wandsworth

  22

  22

  33

  Wayland

  6

  13

  11

  Wealstun

  6

  7

  5

  Weare

  11

  10

  6

  Wellingborough

  6

  9

  8

  Werrington

  8

  6

  4

  Wetherby

  9

  5

  3

  Whatton

  3

  4

  3

  Whitemoor

  40

  32

  39

  Winchester

  24

  19

  11

  Woodhill

  27

  17

  31

  Wormwood Scrubs

  34

  38

  33

  Wymott

  21

  10

  12

  Total

  1,486

  1,530

  1,533

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) number of established staff positions and (b) number of staff in post in each prison establishment was in England and Wales in (i) December 1996, (ii) December 1997, (iii) December 1998, (iv) December 1999 and (v) the most recent date for which figures are available. [142456]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table.
  107W

  A parliamentary question for written answer on Tuesday 12 December 2000

  Establishment

  Staffing target April 1998

  Staff in post 1 December 1997

  Staffing target April 1999

  Staff in post 1 December 1998

  Staffing target April 2000

  Staff in post 1 December 1999

  FTE 1 December 1999

  Staffing target April 2001

  Staff in post 1 December 2000

  FTE 1 December 2000

  Everthorpe

  225

  249

  246.5

  249

  251

  254

  244.5

  240

  244

  236

  Exeter

  266

  288

  297

  305

  306

  310

  298.5

  295.5

  312

  296.5

  Featherstone

  320.5

  318

  321

  323

  319.5

  329

  323

  302.5

  317

  311

  Feltham

  510.5

  521

  533

  524

  627.9

  562

  543.5

  683.3

  639

  624.5

  Ford

  174.25

  175

  181

  173

  176

  178

  175.5

  175.5

  169

  166

  Foston Hall

  115

  110

  146

  130

  138.5

  144

  140

  184

  178

  172.5

  Frankland

  580

  608

  729.5

  740

  755.5

  781

  767

  757

  763

  752.5

  Full Sutton

  730.5

  729

  757

  753

  756.5

  768

  760.5

  781

  780

  774

  Garth

  401.5

  421

  413.5

  420

  407.5

  413

  403

  403

  416

  404.5

  Gartree

  260.5

  266

  259.5

  264

  272.5

  278

  274.5

  276

  279

  276.5

  Glen Parva

  477.25

  451

  465.5

  474

  489.5

  507

  496

  492.25

  485

  470.5

  Gloucester

  202.5

  218

  201

  208

  211.5

  210

  205

  209

  219

  213.5

  Grendon

  295

  300

  303.5

  311

  326

  326

  317.5

  330

  348

  0

  Guys Marsh

  209.17

  219

  232.5

  237

  245

  250

  244.5

  245

  251

  244.5

  Haslar

  78

  82

  77

  81

  80

  82

  80

  82

  84

  82

  Hatfield

  117.5

  123

  102.5

  107

  100

  100

  96

  95

  100

  95.5

  Haverigg

  311.5

  302

  292.5

  327

  294

  301

  289

  299

  309

  295

  Hewell Grange

  84.1

  84

  84

  79

  83.5

  81

  79.5

  81.3

  85

  83.5

  Highdown

  530.5

  518

  585.1

  564

  561.3

  524

  511

  546

  556

  543

  Highpoint

  348.5

  413

  457

  445

  465

  482

  471.5

  493.5

  496

  483.5

  Hindley

  330.5

  346

  346

  361

  351

  359

  353.5

  344.5

  354

  346.5

  Hollesley Bay

  280.5

  294

  276

  285

  285

  292

  278.5

  311.5

  325

  313.5

  Holloway

  501.5

  542

  531.5

  536

  562

  531

  524

  533.5

  532

  522

  Holme House

  486.1

  474

  490.5

  487

  491

  490

  487

  484.5

  488

  485.5

  Hull

  402.38

  408

  411.3

  420

  394.5

  409

  401.5

  390.14

  400

  390

  Huntercombe

  200.5

  172

  230

  215

  271.5

  235

  231,5

  275.5

  256

  253

  Kingston

  119.5

  127

  126

  122

  130

  131

  127.5

  129.5

  132

  128.5

  Kirkham

  231

  232

  234.5

  240

  229

  234

  228

  222

  236

  230

  Kirklevington

  76

  79

  83

  84

  84.5

  84

  80

  87

  90

  85.5

  Lancaster

  146

  147

  147

  152

  150.5

  163

  157

  154.5

  167

  160

  Lancaster Farms

  310.5

  320

  318

  322

  344.5

  354

  345.5

  334.5

  360

  347

  Latchmere House

  69.9

  71

  70.9

  77

  80.9

  78

  76

  81.7

  74

  72.5

  Leeds

  686

  677

  709.5

  694

  727.5

  711

  700

  709

  716

  706

  Leicester

  284

  286

  265

  280

  257

  259

  255

  239.5

  253

  249

  Lewes

  299.5

  307

  295

  304

  298

  316

  311.5

  293

  293

  289.5

  Leyhill

  174

  173

  182

  178

  180

  186

  179.5

  184

  187

  183

  Lincoln

  356

  365

  347.5

  355

  355

  362

  357.5

  347

  352

  348

  Lindholme

  349

  359

  360.5

  375

  376.5

  381

  374.5

  405

  428

  421.5

  Littlehey

  294.5

  299

  292.5

  297

  305.5

  296

  290.5

  295.5

  294

  290

  Liverpool

  798.5

  785

  774

  798

  806

  830

  821.5

  775.5

  815

  807

  Long Lartin

  557.5

  587

  661.5

  665

  680

  680

  676.5

  669.5

  688

  681

  Low Newton

  191

  192

  204

  213

  210

  221

  217.5

  207.5

  219

  215

  Maidstone

  304.7

  326

  322.5

  320

  327

  347

  341.5

  350

  344

  340.5

  Manchester

  3—

  892

  3—

  935

  3—

  924

  916.5

  925.5

  869

  864.5

  Moorland

  422.5

  418

  416

  427

  443.5

  454

  445

  427

  444

  434

  Morton Hall

  74

  81

  75.5

  79

  76.5

  81

  78

  76.5

  112

  109

  New Hall

  236.52

  219

  243.4

  239

  268

  264

  255.5

  274.3

  272

  265

  North Sea Camp

  94

  99

  98

  103

  102.5

  104

  99.5

  108.5

  105

  99

  Northallerton

  145.5

  160

  143

  159

  143.5

  147

  145.5

  150

  168

  167

  Norwich

  405.5

  406

  402

  414

  427

  430

  420.5

  413.6

  429

  419.5

  Nottingham

  280.5

  274

  301

  298

  301

  319

  307

  325

  318

  309

  Onley

  313.5

  326

  367

  357

  412.5

  389

  382.5

  389.5

  389

  383

  Parkhurst

  327.27

  349

  342.94

  353

  355.5

  357

  346

  332

  367

  354

  Pentonville

  567.5

  549

  578.5

  592

  577.5

  585

  579

  586.5

  577

  570.5

  Portland

  272.2

  275

  289

  286

  307

  310

  303.5

  314.5

  315

  306

  Preston

  426

  401

  404.5

  393

  395

  403

  400

  394.5

  406

  399.5

  Ranby

  324

  298

  359.5

  372

  370

  377

  367

  375.5

  390

  379.5

  Reading

  159

  173

  179

  185

  190.5

  190

  185.5

  189

  194

  188

  Risley

  520.5

  538

  494

  517

  481.5

  496

  487.5

  454.5

  479

  471

  Rochester

  270

  265

  256

  268

  284.5

  290

  285.5

  277

  321

  315

  Send

  110

  104

  143

  119

  140

  128

  125.5

  138.5

  133

  130.5

  Shepton Mallet

  130

  135

  132

  142

  129.3

  136

  131.5

  128

  147

  143

  Shrewsbury

  173.5

  206

  210

  218

  206.5

  214

  210.5

  205.5

  210

  207

  Stafford

  314.5

  328

  315

  330

  340

  342

  331

  319.5

  328

  320

  Standford Hill

  160.5

  164

  206

  214

  206.5

  211

  206.5

  204.5

  205

  197

  Stocken

  217

  233

  254.5

  264

  263.5

  275

  265

  267.5

  268

  260.5

  Stoke Heath

  311.5

  310

  334.5

  321

  361.5

  359

  355.5

  389

  388

  385

  Styal

  258.5

  237

  315

  323

  301

  336

  327

  337.5

  327

  317.5

  Sudbury

  182

  193

  181.5

  186

  186

  196

  187

  183.5

  187

  180.5

  Swaleside

  358.5

  371

  400

  366

  394

  410

  402

  395.5

  421

  412

  Swansea

  211

  218

  215

  225

  218

  219

  214.5

  214

  222

  217.5

  Swinfen Hall

  202.5

  203

  220

  218

  217.5

  230

  227.5

  224

  228

  223.5

  The Mount

  250.5

  274

  312

  281

  316.5

  323

  316

  321.75

  338

  332

  The Verne

  270

  281

  269

  276

  272.5

  287

  279.5

  260

  272

  263.5

  Thorn Cross

  190

  198

  195.5

  197

  210

  213

  209.5

  206

  221

  216

  Usk/Prescoed

  166

  175

  180

  182

  185

  183

  178

  183.5

  189

  183.5

  Wakefield

  597

  597

  619.5

  622

  620.5

  638

  629.5

  604

  644

  631.5

  Wandsworth

  663.5

  639

  686.5

  699

  689

  689

  683.5

  659

  699

  693

  Wayland

  267.8

  275

  279

  284

  278.75

  293

  286

  282

  290

  281.5

  108W 109W

  A parliamentary question for written answer on Tuesday 12 December 2000

  Establishment

  Staffing target April 1998

  Staff in post 1 December 1997

  Staffing target April 1999

  Staff in post 1 December 1998

  Staffing target April 2000

  Staff in post 1 December 1999

  FTE 1 December 1999

  Staffing target April 2001

  Staff in post 1 December 2000

  FTE 1 December 2000

  Wealstun

  288.5

  298

  299

  304

  301.5

  312

  304.5

  307

  310

  304.5

  Weare

  203

  195

  201

  203

  204

  206

  202

  200.5

  208

  203.5

  Wellingborough

  194.5

  212

  217.5

  220

  271.5

  291

  287.5

  268

  271

  265

  Werrington

  134.5

  129

  157.75

  154

  154

  155

  152.5

  158

  152

  149.5

  Wetherby

  223

  227

  235

  229

  250.5

  247

  242

  250.5

  240

  236

  Whatton

  128

  126

  130

  131

  139.5

  141

  135

  127.75

  140

  135.5

  Whitemoor

  707

  717

  720

  737

  738

  728

  723

  719

  740

  735

  Winchester

  350

  371

  339.5

  343

  352.5

  348

  340

  344.5

  349

  337

  Woodhill

  653.25

  638

  648.8

  656

  660

  656

  645

  664.5

  684

  675.5

  Wormwood Scrubs

  595.5

  571

  571.5

  579

  596

  557

  554

  610

  585

  578

  Wymott

  407.5

  404

  402

  409

  419

  428

  419.5

  421.5

  423

  410

  1 Closed

  2 Private Sector

  3 No target

  Note:

  1. Due to the change of IT system during 1995–96, specific staff in post details by establishment are not available prior to April 1997.

  2. Target Staffing figures are established and recorded at the beginning of each financial year (the earliest reliable figures are April 1998). Staff in post figures are available as at 1 December.

  3. Full time equivalent figures were not available from the system until June 1999. The data for December 1999 and December 2000 is provided on both a headcount and full time equivalent basis for easy comparison.

  4. Information about private sector prisons is not held centrally.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received from the Data Protection Commissioner about the accuracy of criminal records held on the Police National Computer; [142433]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) percentage of criminal records held on the Police National Computer which contain significant inaccuracies or errors. [142432]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  While there is no precise indication of the incidence of significant inaccuracies, we fully share the concerns that the Data Protection Commissioner has expressed about both delays in inputting data onto the Police National Computer, and inaccuracies on the system. We have therefore welcomed the Compliance Strategy which has been drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and which sets quantified performance indicators for police forces in terms of both timeliness and accuracy. Forces have been required to submit by February action plans for implementing the strategy.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what performance standards he has set for the operation by Capita of the Criminal Records Bureau's information systems; [142426]

  (2) what arrangements he has made to ensure that errors in records held on the Police National Computer and supplied to employers by the Criminal Records Agency can be corrected. [142434]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Certificates will be prepared by the Criminal Records Bureau only on the application of individuals. Certificates will be issued to the applicant, who will thus be in a position to challenge any inaccuracy. Arrangements will be in place to respond promptly to any such case. The contract with Capita, which was awarded after a rigorous competitive tendering procedure, specifies performance standards covering a wide range of matters. Further detailed standards are currently being defined.110W
  Standards include arrangements for checking the identity of applicants. They will take into account further discussions with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, which is being kept informed. Standards for service to the public will be published.

  Prisoner Activity
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of hours is which prisoners spent in purposeful activity in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) the period since 1 April. [142440]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average hours spent by prisoners in purposeful activity in the years mentioned are set out in the table:

  Average number of hours of purposeful activity

  1996–97

  23.8

  1997–98

  23.3

  1998–99

  22.8

  1999–2000

  23.2

  20001

  23.7

  1 April-October

  Prisons (Assaults)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on(a) staff, (b) prisoners and (c) other people took place in prisons and resulted in a positive disciplinary adjudication in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000, and (v) the period since 1 April; if he will express those figures (A) in terms of actual numbers and (B) as a percentage of the average prison population during the relevant period; and if he will make a statement. [142439]

  Mr. Boateng
  Data for positive assault adjudications for the years in question are set out in the table. Data since 1 April 2000 are provisional and subject to validation.
  111W

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  April to October 2000

  Assaults on prisoners

  2,747

  3,004

  3,131

  3,456

  1,943

  Rate of assaults on prisoners (percentage)

  4.8

  4.8

  4.8

  5.3

  5.1

  Assaults on staff/others

  2,531

  2,857

  2,998

  3,010

  1,808

  Rate of assaults on staff/others (percentage)

  4.5

  4.6

  4.6

  4.7

  4.8

  The Prison Service does not collect data on assaults on staff and others separately. Data on assaults have been previously published in Her Majesty's Prison Service Corporate Plan 1999–2000 to 2001–02, Her Majesty's Prison Service Annual Reports and Accounts 1998–99 (HC 748) and Her Majesty's Prison Service Annual Reports and Accounts 1999–2000 (HC 622).

  Self-harm and Suicides (Prisoners)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases of non-fatal self-harm there were in(a) young offender institutions and (b) adult prisons in each financial year from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 and in the period since 1 April 2000; [142437]

  (2) how many (a) convicted prisoners and (b) remand prisoners committed suicide in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000 and (v) the period since 1 April; how many suicides in each period took place in young offender institutions; and if he will make a statement. [142438]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available figures requested are given in the tables. Self-inflicted death figures are given both for young offenders under 21 and Young Offender Institutions (YOIs): the former is higher because many young offenders are not accommodated in YOIs. I regret that I am not at present able to provide reliable 2000–01 self-inflicted death figures by establishment type, but will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  I regret also that I am also unable to provide figures for the numbers of self-harm incidents for this year. The Prison Service is looking at putting in place a new system for recording such incidents, but this will not provide data for 2000–01.

  The Prison Service is reconsidering with Ministers its suicide/ self-harm strategy and an announcement will be made early in 2001.

  A. Self-inflicted deaths of sentenced and unsentenced prisoners between 1996–2000 in HM prison establishments in England and Wales

  Status

  Financial year

  Sentence

  Remand

  Judgment respite

  Convicted unsentenced

  Total

  1996–97

  28

  28

  7

  1

  64

  1997–98

  32

  29

  4

  9

  74

  1998–99

  27

  38

  6

  11

  82

  1999–2000

  34

  47

  3

  7

  91

  2000–011

  27

  28

  2

  —

  57

  Total

  148

  170

  22

  28

  368

  1 Up to and including 7 December 2000

  112W

  B. Self-inflicted deaths of under 21s in HM prison establishments in England and Wales

  Number

  1996–97

  16

  1997–98

  8

  1998–99

  14

  1999–2000

  15

  2000–011

  13

  Total

  66

  1 Up to and including 7 December 2000

  C. Self-inflicted deaths in HMYOI prison establishments in England and Wales

  Number

  1996–97

  10

  1997–98

  4

  1998–99

  4

  1999–2000

  7

  Total

  25

  D. Self harm figures 1996–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Adult male

  3,472

  4,597

  4,730

  Female

  730

  1,107

  1,228

  YOI

  1,171

  1,319

  1,439

  Total number of self harm incidents

  5,373

  7,023

  7,398

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much expenditure for 2001–02 for each local probation board will be ring-fenced for Drug Treatment and Testing Orders; what his policy is towards such ring-fencing for future years; and if he will make a statement. [142452]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information for each local probation board is set out in the table. No decision has yet been taken on whether expenditure on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) will continue to be ring-fenced after 2001–02. The roll out of DTTOs has occurred, and only from 1 October will it be necessary to consider the implications of this roll out before a decision is made for 2002–03 and beyond.

  Expenditure ring-fenced for DTTOs 2001–02

  £ million

  Avon and Somerset

  0.819

  Bedfordshire

  0.350

  Cambridgeshire

  0.378

  Cheshire

  0.647

  Cumbria

  0.350

  Derbyshire

  0.586

  Devon and Cornwall

  0.890

  113W

  Expenditure ring-fenced for DTTOs 2001–02

  £ million

  Dorset

  0.338

  Durham

  0.475

  Essex

  0.890

  Gloucester

  0.291

  Greater London

  5.900

  Greater Manchester

  2.115

  Hampshire

  1.028

  Hertfordshire

  0.489

  Humberside

  0.672

  Kent

  0.982

  Lancashire

  1.055

  Leicestershire

  0.586

  Lincolnshire

  0.383

  Merseyside

  1.316

  Norfolk

  0.459

  Northamptonshire

  0.360

  Northumbria

  1.198

  North Yorkshire

  0.420

  Nottinghamshire

  0.768

  Staffordshire

  0.626

  Suffolk

  0.362

  Surrey

  0.435

  Sussex

  0.746

  Teesside

  0.543

  Thames Valley

  1.013

  Warwickshire

  0.271

  West Mercia

  0.630

  Wiltshire

  0.338

  South Yorkshire

  1.066

  West Midlands

  2.215

  West Yorkshire

  1.701

  Dyfed-Powys

  0.344

  Gwent

  0.466

  North Wales

  0.471

  South Wales

  1.030

  Total

  36.000

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of convicted sex offenders held in custody at any one time during the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) the period since 1 April. [142441]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of sex offenders in custody in England and Wales on 30 June for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 is given in the table.

  Date

  Number of offenders

  30 June 1996

  4,043

  30 June 1997

  4,180

  30 June 1998

  4,937

  30 June 1999

  5,098

  This information is also published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (tables 1.7 and 2.8 of the 1996 edition, CM 3732, and tables 1.5 and 2.8 of the 1997 CM 4017, 1998 CM 4430 and 1999 CM 4805 editions), copies of which are in the Library.

  Provisional information for the year 2000 shows that there were 5,251 sex offenders in custody in England and Wales on 30 April 2000, and 5,190 sex offenders in custody in England and Wales on 30 October 2000.

  Rehabilitation Programmes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have completed(a) a programme accredited as being effective in reducing re-offending and (b) a sex offender treatment programme in the period since 1 April. [142442]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the period 1 April to 30 November 2000, a total of 2,981 prisoners completed accredited offending behaviour programmes, of which 216 were sex offender treatment programmes.

  Primary Purpose Arrangements
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement clarifying the comments made by a senior official of the Joint Entry Clearance Unit to the JECU user panel on 29 November on the primary purpose arrangements. [142243]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  A member of the Joint Entry Clearance Unit inadvertently used the words "primary purpose" when explaining that visit visa applicants qualified for the right of appeal if the main reason that they were coming to the United Kingdom was to visit a close family member here. She immediately corrected herself and apologised for any misunderstanding.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates was received in VAT from(a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000; and how much he estimates will be raised from each of these territories, in (A) 2000–01, (B) 2001–02 and (C) 2002–03. [141364]

  Dawn Primarolo
  VAT is a centrally collected tax and figures for receipts are available only for the UK as a whole (HM Customs and Excise Annual Report, Table Al). Similarly, projected receipts are available only on a UK basis (pre-Budget Report, Table B11).

  Objective 1
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Treasury of the halving of the rate of employer's national insurance contributions in Objective 1 areas of the UK. [141371]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate for Objective 1 areas.

  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in Don Valley constituency paying less in income tax and national insurance than in May 1997. [142057]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate.

  IR35
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent in legal costs defending the recent judicial review permission hearing of IR35; and what estimate he has made of the final cost of defending the judicial review if the case is concluded at(a) the High Court, (b) the House of Lords and (c) the European Court of Justice. [141663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 24 November 2000,Official Report, column 340W.

  Climate Change Levy
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what conclusion he has reached on the net impact of the climate change levy on the quarrying and aggregates industry; [142056]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the tax cost and (b) the value of the concession on national insurance contributions arising from the introduction of the climate change levy for (i) UK manufacturing industry, (ii) UK service industries and (iii) the public sector; [141435]

  (3) what estimate he has made of (a) the tax cost and (b) the value of the reduction in national insurance contributions arising from the introduction of the climate change levy for business, broken down by region of the UK; [141439]

  (4) what (a) cost in tax and (b) value of the related reduction in national insurance contributions will arise from the introduction of the climate change levy for the UK textile industry; [141437]

  (5) what estimate he has made of (a) the tax cost and (b) the value of the reduction of national insurance contributions arising from the introduction of the climate change levy for the UK (i) steel, (ii) chemicals, (iii) paper, (iv) cement, (v) glass, (vi) aluminium, (vii) food and drink, (viii) ceramics, (ix) farming and (x) foundries industries. [141389]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion in its first year, all of which will be recycled back to business via a 0.3 percentage point cut in employers' National Insurance Contributions and £150 million of spending on energy efficiency. We expect the levy to be broadly neutral between services and manufacturing. The effect on any specific business, sector or region will depend on a number of factors, including their future energy consumption, the level of employment, eligibility for discounts, use of renewable or combined heat and power energy, and take up of enhanced capital allowances.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what relief from the climate change levy is available for energy intensive businesses subject to international competition but not covered by the integrated pollution prevention and control directive. [141438]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The definitions within the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations as the basis to determine eligibility for a Climate Change Levy Negotiated Agreement allow rebates to be targeted at energy intensive sectors exposed
  116W
  to international competition. Sectors covered by IPPC have to operate in an energy efficient manner, a requirement to which other sites are not subject. IPPC also provides legal certainty and administrative simplicity and is compatible with EU state aids rules.

  All businesses, regardless of energy intensity, will benefit from the 0.3 percentage point cut in employers' National Insurance Contributions, the energy efficiency funding and the enhanced capital allowances for energy saving investments. They may also choose to benefit from the exemptions for renewable or combined heat and power energy.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in obtaining EU state aid clearance for(a) 100 per cent. capital allowances for energy saving investments and (b) his proposals for relief for business in respect of the climate change levy. [141436]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Several aspects of the climate change levy package require state aids clearance and the appropriate applications have been made. The most recent draft of the new EU state aid guidelines for environmental measures was published in October. We are continuing to work with the Commission to ensure a timely approval of applications.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list(a) the agreements granting relief from the climate change levy which he has entered into with energy intensive business sectors subject to international competition and (b) the extent of the discount in each case; [141427]

  (2) how many (a) small and medium sized enterprises and (b) enterprises have (i) applied for and (ii) been granted rebates in respect of the climate change levy, broken down by applications per region. [141538]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Energy intensive sectors exposed to international competition—as defined by the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations Part A—will be entitled to an 80 per cent. rebate on the climate change levy in return for entering into climate change agreements which will deliver demanding improvements in their energy efficiency.

  These agreements are entered into with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The process of agreement signing is ongoing. To date 1,541 applications for agreements have been received from companies of which around half are estimated to be from small and medium sized enterprises. No analysis by region has been undertaken.

  Low-income Households
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of households containing children in 2001–02 who will have no adult earning more than £7,400 per annum. [141709]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Estimates of the income distribution in the UK are published in Tables 3.3 and 3.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 2000", published by the Inland Revenue.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue which will accrue in the first six months of fiscal year 2000–01 from(a) seizures of tobacco made by additional staff and (b) seizures resulting from the installation of scanners. [141733]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimates have been made in this form. Estimates of additional revenue yields from the Government's anti-smuggling strategy for 2000–01 and subsequent years are included in the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" paper published in March 2000, a copy of which is available in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kashmir
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir. [141971]

  Mr. Hain
  While visiting India, I welcomed the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir during Ramadan, and called on militants and those supporting them to respond positively. I have welcomed Pakistan's subsequent announcement that its forces at the line of control will observe maximum restraint. We hope that these recent developments will create a climate which encourages dialogue between the Indian and Pakistani Governments.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir. [141979]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe),Official Report, column 477.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the British overseas territories. [141976]

  Mr. Battle
  Our policy was set out in the White Paper on Overseas Territories published in March 1999. In it we propose a renewed contract based on mutual obligations and responsibilities. Key elements are the offer of British citizenship to British Dependent Territories citizens, modernisation of the relationship with the territories and the encouragement of good governance in such areas as human rights, financial sector regulation, law and order, the environment and sustainable development.

  Nice Summit
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made on enlargement at the recent Nice summit; and if he will make a statement. [141980]
  118W
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the IGC negotiations in Nice. [141981]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Nice summit. [141986]

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been in qualified majority voting as a result of the Nice Council. [141992]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Nice summit. [141997]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Members to the statement on the outcome of the Nice European Council made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11 December 2000,Official Report, columns 349–51.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's support for the middle east peace process. [141982]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government continue to do all they can to bring about a just and lasting solution to the middle east peace process. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I are closely engaged and have been in regular contact with both parties. For example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met with President Arafat on 8 November and spoke to Prime Minister Barak on 14 November. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Israeli and Palestinian counterparts in Marseilles on 16 November.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process. [141988]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon),Official Report, column 461.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his policy of constructive dialogue with the Chinese authorities in respect of human rights. [141984]

  Mr. Battle
  Since the policy of critical dialogue started in 1997, there have been five formal dialogue rounds supplemented by regular ministerial contact with the Chinese. The dialogue has enabled us to raise our concerns on human rights directly and frankly with the Chinese, in a depth that was not possible before. It has also led to an increasing flow of information on issues related to the human rights situation, including on individual cases of concern. The dialogue facilitated the operation of a programme of human rights and legal co-operation projects, designed to improve conditions on the ground in China.
  119W
  Since the start of the dialogue there has been increasing participation by China in international human rights mechanisms. China has signed both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and we believe will soon ratify the latter. China is now co-operating more closely with the UN Commissioner on Human Rights.

  Brazil
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Brazil. [141985]

  Mr. Battle
  Bilateral relations are in excellent shape and continue to reflect the warmth created by President Cardoso's State Visit to the UK in December 1997, and the personal rapport established between Cardoso and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have all visited Brazil this year. I attended the annual UK-Brazil high level talks in Brasilia in September 1999, and hosted the talks in London in September this year.

  Pakistan
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Pakistan. [141987]

  Mr. Hain
  Britain remains one of Pakistan's oldest and closest friends. We continue to urge General Musharraf to produce a credible timetable for democracy. We are pleased that the first round of local elections will commence soon but are disappointed that they will be held on a non-party basis. We also welcome Pakistan's positive response to the Indian ceasefire announcement on Kashmir.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the new High Commissioner and representatives of Pakistan on steps to restore democracy in Pakistan. [141999]

  Mr. Hain
  I discussed the restoration of democracy with the new High Commissioner when we met on 6 December. I reiterated to him that the UK remained on hand to offer advice and assistance to the Pakistan authorities to help restore democratic rule.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the recent visit of the Minister of State, what assessment he has made of the conflict in Sri Lanka. [141989]

  Mr. Hain
  I hope that both sides can agree terms for a return to permanent status negotiations. We continue to do all we can towards this goal.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conflict in Sri Lanka. [141990]

  Mr. Hain
  I hope that both sides can agree terms for a return to permanent status negotiations. We continue to do all we can towards this goal.

  Burma
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EU/ASEAN meeting, with particular reference to Burma. [141991]

  Mr. Battle
  The EU/ASEAN meeting will help develop relations between these two dynamic regions.

  It is also a rare opportunity to put across directly to the Burmese leadership our deep concerns about the appalling record on human rights and democracy. The meeting will also be a chance to press ASEAN countries to do more.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often the recommendation of the British High Commission in India not to grant entry visas has been overridden, following a ministerial intervention, since 1 January 1997. [141993]

  Mr. Vaz
  Information on these decisions was not kept centrally until October 1999. Since then I have overturned 19 decisions to refuse entry visa at our posts in India following representations made by hon. and right hon. Members who regarded these cases as exceptional. During this period over 184,000 visa applications were made in these posts, of which approximately 20,000 were refused and 200,995 visas were issued.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Zimbabwe and on the situation of British subjects resident there. [141994]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to be deeply concerned by the situation in Zimbabwe. Through our High Commission in Harare we are in regular contact with the British community there.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken to improve air links between the Falkland Islands and South America. [R] [141995]

  Mr. Battle
  A principal element of the British Argentine Joint Statement of 14 July 1999 was the restoration of air links between the Falkland Islands and South America. The weekly link with Chile has been of important benefit to trade, tourism and fisheries. The introduction of a monthly link with Argentina has facilitated visits by Argentine next-of-kin to the graves of their deceased on the Islands. These arrangements have been working well.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on prospects for enlargement of the EU following the Nice summit. [141996]
  121W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Nice European Council agreed to give a new impetus to accession negotiations and ensured, by concluding the IGC, that the EU will be ready to receive new members from 2002.

  Israel
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK assistance to refugees housed in camps in Gaza and the west bank; and what representations he has made to Israeli officials on a lasting peace settlement for the middle east. [141998]

  Mr. Hain
  This year the UK contributed around £10 million to the General Fund of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). In October the Government also announced a contribution of a further £3 million to UNRWA's request to meet a cash shortfall. And on 1 December we announced an additional £5 million for UNRWA's special emergency appeal. We are in regular contact with Israeli and Palestinian officials to urge them to put in place further measures to end the violence and return to negotiations. We will continue working towards the goal of a just and lasting settlement in the middle east.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relations with the Government of Israel. [141973]

  Mr. Hain
  Our Government enjoy excellent relations with Israel in the course of which we have continued to urge an end to the violence and the resumption of negotiations.

  Israeli Service Men
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the three Israeli service men recently abducted on the Israeli side of the Israel/Lebanon border. [141326]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government condemn hostage taking in any circumstances.

  We strongly support the United Nations Secretary-General's and other efforts to secure the soldiers' release through active diplomacy.

  India
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers have visited India since May 1997; what was the purpose of each visit; by whom these Ministers were accompanied; and what was the cost to his Department of each trip. [141519]

  Mr. Hain
  There have been eight FCO ministerial visits to India since May 1997:Mr. Fatchett, June 1997: for bilateral discussion and to push for greater trade and investment. He was accompanied by Mr. E. Rose (Private Secretary), and Mr. H. Synnott (Director Asia). He also visited Pakistan. The approximate cost was £11,000.
  Baroness Symons, September 1997: for discussions on bilateral and consular issues. She was accompanied by Mr. W. Clare (Private Secretary). She also visited Pakistan. The approximate cost was £9,000.
  Secretary of State, October 1997: to accompany Her Majesty The Queen on a State Visit. He was accompanied by Mr. J. Grant (Principal Private Secretary), Miss E. Rea, MBE (PA/Mr. Grant),
  122W
  Det. Ch. Insp. R. Allen (Protection Officer), Det. Sgt. D. Malcolm (Protection Officer). He also visited Pakistan. The approximate cost was £16,000.
  Mr. Fatchett, November 1998: to attend the EU Foreign Ministers' Troika and to promote the Indo-British Partnership (trade). He was accompanied by Mr. F. Baker (Private Secretary), and Mr. R. Dixon (News Department). He also visited Sri Lanka. The approximate cost was £10,000.
  Mr. Hain, November 1999: for bilateral discussions and to launch the "Get Connected" IT initiative. He was accompanied by Mr. F. Baker (Private Secretary). The approximate costs was £12,500.
  Mr. Vaz, February 2000: to look at ways of improving entry clearance services. He was accompanied by Mr. N. Hopton (Private Secretary), Mr. E. Wallace (Assistant Private Secretary), Mr. D. Reddaway (Director Public Services) and Ms J. Battersby (Migration and Visa Department). He also visited Bangladesh. The approximate cost was £12,500.
  Secretary of State, April 2000: on a bilateral visit and to launch the UK-India Round Table. He was accompanied by Mrs. G. Cook, Lord Paul (Co-chairman of the UK-India Round Table), Mr. S. Cowper-Coles, CMG, LVO (Principal Private Secretary), Mr. A. Patrick (Private Secretary), Ms R. Marsden (Director Asia Pacific), Dr. M. Williams (Special Adviser), Mr. K. Darroch, CMG (News Department), Miss E. Rea, MBE (PA/ Mr. Cowper-Coles), Miss L. Beats (PA/Mr. Darroch), Miss R. Read (PA/Mr. Patrick), Miss C. Whitehorn (Visits Officer), Mr. S. Moore (Radio Engineer), Det. Sgt. A. Walsh (Protection Officer), Det. Con. R. Restorick (Protection Officer), and three Royal Military Policemen. He also visited Thailand and Nepal. The approximate cost was £170,000.
  Mr. Hain, November 2000: for bilateral discussions and to promote images of modem Britain. He was also accompanied by Mr. R. Gwynn (Private Secretary). He also visited Sri Lanka. The approximate cost was £7,000.

  Panel 2000 Task Force
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the members of the Panel 2000 Task Force; on how many occasions it has met since its establishment; who was present at each meeting; what was discussed; what work it is currently undertaking; and what conclusions it has reached to date; [142074]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the work of the Panel 2000 Task Force; [142075]

  Mr. Battle
  Panel 2000 set up in 1997 has included the following:
  Sir David John; Lord Alli; Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge; Mr. John Sorrell; Ms Zeinab Badawi; Ms Frances de Souza; Mr. Mark Leonard; Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque; Sir Martin Sorrell; Lord Levy; Lord Paul Marylebone; Ms Judy Simpson; Mr. Martin Bell MP; Mr. Mark Fisher MP; Lord Clinton-Davis; right hon. Peter Mandelson MP; Baroness Blackstone of Stoke Newington; Baroness Chalker of Wallasey; Mr. Tom Buchanan; Mr. Andrew Fraser; Mr. Roger Liddle; Dr. David Quarmby; Ms Ruth Mackenzie; Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Sir John Kerr; Sir Michael Jay; Mr. Tom Harris; Ms Claire Evans; Ms Priya Guha; Ms Vivien Life; and Ms Harriet Ware-Austin.
  The committee has met five times in plenary sessions, and in working groups on 14 occasions. The majority of Panel 2000 members participate in the main meetings, discussing a strategy to improve the way the UK is seen overseas; looking at the methods and tools to achieve this; examining ways of ensuring that the public and private sectors work together; and considering how the FCO might communicate in a more modern way with the public.

  123W
  Panel 2000 has produced a total of 21 recommendations. A key proposal was the creation of a "Britain abroad task force", to foster more co-ordinated presentation and projection of the UK. We are now establishing such a group. A joint Chair has been appointed as well as a Director and two staff, and an initial strategy for the new organisation is planned to be produced in March 2001.

  Visas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown of the number of family visit visa applications(a) received, (b) determined, (c) allowed and (d) refused by each entry clearance post since 2 October. [142088]

  Mr. Vaz
  The breakdown that follows covers information received from the largest 100 entry clearance Posts which submit monthly statistical returns. I regret that the information for the remaining 64 small Posts is not available centrally. Some of the figures need to be checked with the Posts concerned. When this has been done, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Family visit applications: October

  Post

  Received

  Determined

  Issued

  Refused

  Abidjan

  18

  18

  18

  0

  Abu Dhabi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Abuja

  73

  73

  73

  0

  Accra1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  378

  Addis Ababa

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Almaty

  19

  19

  19

  0

  Amman

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Amsterdam

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ankara

  16

  16

  16

  0

  Bahrain

  15

  8

  4

  4

  Baku

  13

  13

  12

  1

  Bandar S B

  4

  4

  4

  0

  Bangkok

  284

  284

  258

  26

  Banjul

  71

  86

  71

  15

  Beirut

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Belgrade

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bogota

  44

  44

  33

  11

  Bombay

  624

  624

  501

  123

  Bratislava

  72

  72

  72

  0

  Brussels

  39

  45

  39

  6

  Bucharest

  122

  116

  116

  0

  Budapest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cairo

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calcutta

  110

  110

  109

  1

  Canberra

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Casablanca

  88

  88

  80

  8

  Chicago

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colombo

  38

  38

  34

  4

  Copenhagen

  69

  69

  66

  3

  Damascus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dar Es Salaam

  111

  111

  97

  14

  Dhaka

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doha

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dubai

  92

  92

  65

  27

  Dublin

  58

  0

  58

  0

  Dusseldorf

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ekaterinburg

  12

  12

  11

  1

  Geneva

  83

  77

  77

  0

  Georgetown

  39

  39

  33

  6

  Guangzhou

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hanoi

  13

  13

  6

  7

  Harare

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Havana

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hong Kong

  43

  43

  39

  4

  Islamabad

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Istanbul

  161

  161

  159

  2

  Jakarta

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jedda

  20

  20

  14

  6

  124W

  Family visit applications: October

  Post

  Received

  Determined

  Issued

  Refused

  Jerusalem

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kampala

  55

  55

  27

  28

  Karachi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kathmandu

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Khartoum

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kiev

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston

  77

  77

  58

  19

  Kuala Lumpur

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kuwait

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lagos

  2,785

  2,785

  2,582

  203

  Lima

  34

  34

  30

  4

  Los Angeles

  n/a

  1

  0

  1

  Luanda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lusaka

  57

  57

  55

  2

  Madras

  251

  251

  235

  16

  Madrid

  40

  40

  40

  0

  Manila

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Minsk

  17

  17

  17

  0

  Moscow

  267

  267

  267

  0

  Muscat

  62

  62

  59

  3

  Nairobi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  New Delhi

  932

  932

  574

  358

  New York1

  n/a

  3

  0

  3

  Nicosia

  190

  190

  180

  10

  Oslo

  51

  51

  51

  0

  Ottawa

  371

  371

  369

  2

  Paris1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  Peking

  42

  42

  40

  2

  Port Louis

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Port of Spain

  7

  7

  6

  1

  Prague

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pretoria1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  Quito

  14

  14

  13

  1

  Riga

  4

  4

  4

  0

  Riyadh

  48

  48

  34

  14

  Rome

  51

  51

  49

  2

  Sana'a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sarajevo

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shanghai

  29

  0

  0

  0

  Singapore

  7

  7

  2

  5

  Sofia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sto Domingo

  4

  4

  4

  0

  St. Petersburg

  71

  71

  71

  0

  Stockholm

  122

  122

  122

  0

  Taipei

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tashkent

  13

  13

  13

  0

  Tbilisi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tehran

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tel Aviv

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tirana

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tokyo

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tunis

  112

  112

  83

  29

  Valletta

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Vienna

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warsaw

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Washington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wellington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yaounde

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Zagreb

  119

  119

  114

  5

  1 Figures being queried. We recognise that the numbers of refusals and issues do not tally

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with his American counterpart regarding the creation of a European rapid reaction force; and if he will make a statement. [141972]
  125W
  Mr. Vaz
  Madeleine Albright and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the European security and defence policy in the margins of the OSCE ministerial meeting on 25 November 2000. We set out our common vision in a joint article printed in 126W
  The Observer on 26 November 2000. This made clear our support for improving European military capabilities so that Europe can make a more effective contribution to crisis management operations through NATO and the EU.

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

Immigration: Clandestine Entry by Rail
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Pursuant to the draft Immigration and Asylum Carriers Liability (Clandestine Entrants) (Application to Rail Freight) Regulations 2000, whether SNCF (French railways) has agreed safeguards to prevent clandestine entrants gaining entry to the United Kingdom by rail freight through the Channel Tunnel and, if not, how United Kingdom companies can protect themselves against liability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the consultation process with the rail freight industry on the extension of civil penalty to rail freight has involved a wide range of interested parties, including SNCF, the French Ministry of Transport, the DETR, and English, Welsh and Scottish Railways. A consultation document, which included drafts of the regulations, code of practice and regulatory impact assessment was sent out on 13th November. Consultation continues until 25th December.
Our aim is to encourage industry members to work with us so that we can develop a code of practice which is both practical and achievable.
We are providing a defence against penalties where an effective system to prevent the carriage of clandestine entrants is operated. SNCF retains overall control of the rail freight operation at the Calais-Fréthun freight yard. But since it and EWS in practice share responsibility for the Channel Tunnel rail freight operation, we think it reasonable that both should incur liability for any clandestine entrants who arrive here.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full Answer. I declare an interest as Chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
The document to which he refers also states that French railways have not agreed to co-operate. Under those circumstances, is it not somewhat unfair to penalise British companies, which have no control over the French side and cannot, therefore, stop the emigrants getting on the trains?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware of a statement that the French companies will not co-operate. We believe that it is right and proper for all companies involved as operators, employers, and so on, to share liability. We are, of course, entirely open
212
to representations on the issue. That is the reason for an extensive consultation process and period. We are willing to receive comments and notes on consultation up until Christmas Day. I hope that all concerned in the industry will avail themselves of that cheerful seasonal opportunity.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the consultation document states that the SNCF does not intend to comply with these regulations, why is the Minister not aware of that? Should not Her Majesty's Government note this great gap in their commercial regulation and do something to fill it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, statements that a company may make are one matter; enforcing the law is another. We are seeking compliance. We are working co-operatively with our partners across Europe to common standards and common objectives. That remains the Government's aim and objective. We think it right and proper to do so if we are to have effective controls on immigration, in particular as regards asylum. That is why these civil liability measures were put in place. We shall seek compliance to that end.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there does not seem an adequate degree of co-operation with our partners across the Channel; and that if adequate co-operation is not established the viability of the Channel Tunnel is brought into question?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not accept that we do not have adequate co-operation. We are working in close relationship with our European partners on this issue. It has been a long-standing policy development. It is in everyone's interest that we work closely. So far as I am aware, we intend to proceed in that way. It is the best way to proceed and will ensure that measures we have adopted in our domestic law are effective and that we block this appalling trade in human misery—because that is exactly what it is. Only through adopting the civil liability measures can we have a meaningful impact on that trade. We have already demonstrated that. It is an issue on which we should have widespread support.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, if immigrants enter this country illegally from France, are we entitled to return them to France?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we may well end up doing so. However, we have to go through the proper procedures. That is exactly what the Government have done. We carry out our international obligations and stick to the protocols to which we have agreed.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, when will the Government start to return immigrants to France if that would be the simplest way to resolve the issue?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we have to go through all the proper legal processes and appeal systems. Indeed, his Government were instrumental in putting many of those measures in place.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a wider problem relating to the Hatfield incident? The growth of rail freight has been disappointing. This matter is another obstacle to growth in the cross-Channel rail freight industry. An early agreement which takes that into account is highly desirable.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the question is wide of my policy field. However, it is to be welcomed that rail freight has grown over the past few years. I do not accept the noble Lord's presumption that this is a brake on that development. It is important that rail freight operators with access to rail freight vehicles, and so on, accept their liability in controlling documentation. That must be part of their responsibility; it is one that we believe in. It helps us to have effective controls on points of entry.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, given that all the inbound trains are operated by French railways, the English companies cannot have proper inspection procedures without the co-operation of the French. Unless French railways accept their responsibilities, how can the English operators do anything about the problem? Would it not be unfair if they are fined and French railways are not?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is a contractual relationship between EWS and SNCF, but the details are somewhat vague in business terms. Sometimes SNCF trains are driven by EWS drivers. In other circumstances, EWS drivers are not in place, but EWS assists SNCF. We believe that there is joint and several liability. The regulations that we are seeking to put in place will ensure that that liability is carried into effect. We think that it is an effective deterrent—it certainly appears to have been so for other transport operators. P&O now employs people to carry out detection work. That is what we are seeking to establish. If companies face liability, they will pretty smartly ensure that they have effective detection methods in place at points of departure.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that countries of first entry of illegal immigrants into the EC are carrying out their duties properly?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are not at all complacent. We seek the utmost co-operation to ensure that there are no breaches in our defences, as it were. Co-operation is the best way to secure a better system and a more rational approach. We must continue that close working relationship to ensure that that is the case.

Police Response Vehicles: Fatal Accidents
2.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are considering to reduce the number of deaths from accidents involving police vehicles in the light of the report by the Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority recording that there has been an annual increase, since 1997–98, in such accidents.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these are tragic incidents that concern chief officers of police as much as they concern noble Lords. Reducing all such casualties is an operational matter for the police service. The 1998 Association of Chief Police Officers' report on police pursuit driver training—the Lind report—has been accepted in principle by all 43 police forces in England and Wales. Its recommendations are being taken forward nationally. We shall continue to monitor developments with ACPO to see that it is put into effect.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The report urges action on the lines proposed in my debate of 25th March last year. Will the Minister confirm that Home Office figures show that about 2,000 people a year are injured in police car chases or when the police are responding—at excessive speed and often going through traffic lights—to emergency calls, many of which prove to be false alarms?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the most recent statistics available, from 1998–99, show that there were 1,863 injuries sustained. One force was missing from that total, so I guess that the noble Lord's assumption is right. However, the detail of the statistics gives some interesting background. Some 73 per cent of the vehicles involved in those accidents were travelling below the local speed limit. Some 20 per cent of the incidents occurred during routine patrols, 23 per cent arose from responses to emergency calls and 45 per cent occurred during pursuit and follow situations. The picture is mixed, but the important point is that the incidents arose as a result of the police properly carrying out their important duties, some of which were emergencies.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, do not the police follow strict guidelines? If they go through a red light in an emergency, they do so with caution. Is there any breakdown of whether more accidents occur in rainy weather because of the reduced visibility for pedestrians and drivers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is no such breakdown, but 55 per cent of the accidents occurred during the hours of darkness, and that may he significant. The noble Baroness is right that the police are under strict instructions in such situations. They

215
can travel at speed only when they are properly going about their police business and when it is important for them to get to an incident rapidly. We are looking for improvements as a result of the Lind report. It is too early to tell how profound those improvements will be, but we are working closely with ACPO and all the police forces in England and Wales.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the figures for the number of people injured are shocking and unacceptable? The police may have guidelines, but they are clearly not keeping to them. Although we admire the work of the police and support them in every possible way, their attitudes to driving must be changed. Those changes can be made with strong advice from the Government.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's confidence in the effects of strong advice from the Government. The Lind report contained 33 important recommendations. Many relate to improving the quality of training. That will provide us with a long-term answer to some of the problems. That is why we fully support all aspects of the report and want to work closely with ACPO to reduce the number of tragic incidents and accidents, which lead to far too many deaths as a consequence of police work.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, have there been any cuts in expenditure on training police officers for highspeed chases? How many successful prosecutions have been brought against police officers in connection with the 1,800 or so incidents that he mentioned?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the figures that he seeks this afternoon in relation to prosecutions. I believe that the details are sketchy. It is also a complex area. Many accidents will have occurred not as a direct result of the police giving pursuit or going to an emergency situation; they may have been a by-product of a police vehicle travelling in a particular direction. However, we are concerned about this matter, and one of our concerns related to the standard and quality of training and the lack of uniformity nationally. That issue is being pursued as a result of the Lind report.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when a police officer is called to an emergency, it is only with hindsight that it is determined to be an emergency? Does he also agree that if in a pursuit and follow situation people are unfortunately killed, had they followed their legal obligation to stop when ordered so to do, those deaths would not have occurred?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is difficult to give a blanket summary of each and every situation which involves police officers who are in pursuit or attending to an emergency. Some involve life and death situations in themselves and that is why the police adopt such urgency. I can only say that greater
216
care is now being given. We are on the case and are encouraging improvement through greater training and access to training. We are seeking to ensure that police drivers involved in this dangerous work are trained to the highest possible level. I believe that in the longer term that will reduce the number of incidents to which I have referred.

Residential Care Workers
2.51 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the number and quality of applicants for training in social work and for work in residential care homes for children and, if not, what action they propose to take to improve terms of service and recruitment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are concerned about declining application rates for social work training and about staff shortages in residential child care. We have made £41 million available to fund future students and boost applications for training. We convened a workforce summit and are working closely with employers to tackle recruitment and retention problems.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful for and encouraged by the noble Lord's reply. Does he agree that in many social services departments today social workers are grossly overloaded and demoralised? They have heavy caseloads; indeed, I have heard of one social worker who had as many as 80 cases, which is clearly totally unmanageable. Does the Minister agree that more than 80 per cent of the employees in residential children's homes have no relevant training whatever and that increasingly those who run old people's homes encounter problems in recruiting care workers? If we as a society really believe that the state should look after these disadvantaged people, do not the Government—particularly a Government who have so successfully generated a budget surplus—have a responsibility to do something about these recruitment problems?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that we need to do everything that we can to increase the number of qualified staff working in the social care field. I believe that the national training strategy and the development of the general social care council over the next few years will enhance our ability to raise the number of qualified people who work in social care.
I also agree that many of the staff work under considerable pressure. Although many social workers have been lambasted in the media over the past few years, the fact is that the great majority do a good job of work and we need to support them.

217
So far as concerns funding, in the next financial year we expect personal social service resources to increase by 6.2 per cent. In addition, all councils will receive a minimum increase of 3.2 per cent in central government grants. I hope that that will allow for the development of services.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister referred to £41 million extra to be spent on training of social workers. How much of that will be available to those in the voluntary and independent sector who, after all, have an extremely valuable role to play in social work? Furthermore, does the department have plans for a national advertising campaign to attract more social workers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a national advertising campaign is one issue that we are considering in the light of the summit that I mentioned in my first Answer. We have also discussed with the Local Government Association the ways in which we can encourage recruitment and retention in the future.
So far as concerns access that voluntary and independent organisations have to training, local councils may use training support programme funding to support the training of staff in agencies which provide statutory services under contract to the local authority. At the moment, the take-up of that option is fairly patchy and we would certainly encourage a greater take-up. In addition, the national training strategy recommends that all employers should spend a target of approximately 3 per cent of their staffing budget on training. I believe that that should apply to independent employers as well as to social service authorities.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what the shortfall is in this area?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that it is possible to pinpoint a precise shortfall in the number of staff in the whole social care field. Quite simply, those statistics are not robust enough to display any confidence in them. Many of the decisions are not taken by the Government but rely on the work of individual employers in social services and also of those who are largely in the independent sector. It is clear that a number of employers are under considerable pressure. The difficulties of recruitment certainly came to the fore in discussions about winter pressures which we held with the NHS and with the directors of social services.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem arises from the low status accorded to residential social work staff? Does he agree that, as two-thirds of children looked after are now in foster homes, that means that children who are in the care of residential staff are those with the most acute problems and that therefore priority should be given to training residential staff?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I fully agree. I believe that the status of residential care workers has perhaps always been at a disadvantage as compared with other people working in the field of social care. They have undergone considerable criticism, and one cannot discount the impact of the number of inquiries which have been held over the years into the various aspects of running residential homes. I believe that that has had an adverse effect on the image of the sector. I agree that one answer to the problem would be to encourage more people in the field to undertake training. However, the sector also needs to be enhanced by better management and better support from local government.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord said that, where the figures involve the private sector, they are not sufficiently robust. Can he tell us what the figures are for the public sector and how robust they are in relation to the shortfall?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have specific figures for shortfalls in the recruitment of staff within local government. However, I believe that the survey which the Local Government Association undertook a few months ago was extremely helpful in pinpointing some of the issues that need to be tackled. I certainly accept that in the whole field of social care a great deal more work needs to be done to scope out the specific problems of recruitment, to tackle the shortfall in the number of people who undertake training and to ensure that, as we develop new national training strategies and the general social care council, we have a clearer idea of the gaps so that we can then deal with them.

Minimum Income Guarantee: Take-up Campaign
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many additional pensioners of the 2.3 million whom they are seeking to persuade to take up the minimum income guarantee actually applied for the guarantee in the August quarter of this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the full effects of the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign will not be known until it comes to a conclusion and all the claims have been processed. However, we know that this campaign has reached more pensioners than any other campaign. We have written to 2½ million pensioners, promoted the MIG through television advertising and, so far, have received nearly 750,000 responses.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I am not surprised that the Minister is reluctant to give a detailed Answer to my Question. I gave her a specific period so that she could not hide behind that formula, "Oh, it is not all finished yet". I asked her for the figures for the quarter ending August of this year. Is it not a fact that the Government's own figures, given to Parliament in various forms, show that for that period, the quarter ending in August, the number of additional pensioners applying for and receiving the minimum income guarantee was 23,000?
I can understand the Minister being reluctant to give that figure but it is a fact. She claims the right to give us further as yet unverified figures for the whole period. Are the Government not aware already of the reluctance of the 2.3 million pensioners they are attempting desperately hard to target for MIG who are deeply hostile to the whole principle of means testing? Pensioners want instead the right to an adequate pension to which they have contributed all their lives.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend asked for the statistics for August; it is now December. However, I am happy to give her the statistics for August. Indeed, 23,000 pensioners made successful claims. At the time, only 49,000 claims had been processed. So my noble friend's Question and my Answer were in the best Whitehall traditions: entirely accurate and, by now, entirely meaningless.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, could the Benefits Agency staff be more proactive in finding people and helping them to apply for the MIG. For example, could staff be sent to post offices on the days when pensioners are drawing their pensions, answer their questions and help them fill in their forms? Could home visits be arranged for people who have difficulty getting out?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, those are helpful suggestions. We have had 750,000 responses. Half of those have been through telephone inquiries and half through local offices. That suggests that the campaign is going very well. On the assumptions we have been able to make so far in relation to take-up, processing and satisfactory claims, it looks as though we shall reach as many pensioners as are reached by other income-related benefits; for example, reductions in council tax payments. I shall take up the noble Lord's proposals because, obviously, we want all pensioners to claim the money to which they are entitled. The sums outstanding tend to be about £20 per week. That can make a significant and useful difference to the lives of all pensioners.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister really satisfied by the response of 750,000 out of 2.5 million? Furthermore, will she say what proportion of that 750,000 has qualified successfully?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has perhaps become slightly baffled by the exchange of statistics I have had with my noble friend Lady Castle. There are 1.6 million pensioners already successfully claiming MIG. Of those, half are single older women, a quarter are couples and a quarter are single older men. We believe that there are somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000—say, for the purposes of discussion, 500,000— pensioners who may be entitled to but are not claiming the benefit. We believe that we have reached a sizeable proportion of those who should be eligible through the existing scheme. But we are finding that half of those making claims are not eligible for MIG. That is because half of those people have savings just above the threshold, which is why we are raising the savings cap. The other half have a small, modest occupational pension which takes them just above the income level for MIG. That is why we are introducing the pensioner credit.
We believe that as a result of the campaign, we shall reach a significant proportion of pensioners who have the entitlement. But, as I say, we need to follow up all possible suggestions to extend our reach.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, as there seems to be real concern, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, that there is a stigma attached to the minimum income guarantee, is it possible for the Minister to say what steps have been or might be taken to reduce that stigma so that people really feel that it is a guarantee to which they are entitled?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords. the right reverend Prelate is exactly right. It really does not help pensioners to come forward and claim what they are entitled to if what they are entitled to is described as "means testing", "charity" and "stigma". If something is described as being stigmatised, it is not surprising that it becomes stigmatised. If my noble friend and others in your Lordships' House wish to see pensioners claiming their entitlement, they should start talking the language of entitlement and rights in relation to MIG and not the language of means testing and stigma.
The right reverend Prelate is exactly right. It is precisely for that reason that we have chosen to use telephone inquiries, postal forms and so on. No pensioner needs to go into a Benefits Agency office to claim his right. We will contact the pensioners concerned.
I have a letter from a pensioner in Newton Abbot who is almost blind—and I realise that the House may not want to hear about a pensioner being appreciative of the efforts that the DSS are making but I want to give a balanced picture—who, having dealt with the matter over the telephone, said:
"The person I spoke to was extremely friendly and most helpful. I usually dread having to fill things in but it really couldn't have been easier and I would recommend calling the helpline to anyone. It is simple, straightforward and stress free".

Business of the House: Appointment of Select Committees
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, unless any Lord objects, leave be given to the Chairman of Committees to move the five Motions standing in his name relating to the appointment of Select Committees en bloc.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I notice that this list of Select Committees does not include the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and such a committee is long overdue. We have had a legal adviser to the Select Committee on the payroll for several months without a committee to advise. I understand that the latest snag in setting up the committee was the fact that on 30th November, a Motion in the other place to approve the remit of the committee was talked out by a number of Conservative MPs.
What are the plans to overcome that snag in the other place? When can we expect to see the appointment of that committee?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I share his frustration about this matter. As your Lordships will be aware, this House passed a Motion that it was expedient to set up such a committee in July and sent a message to another place. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is correct that on 30th November, a Motion to do that, which is what we need to respond to now, was on the Order Paper in another place and was, indeed, talked out by Members of the Opposition party.
I understand that yesterday a revised Motion was tabled in another place on the remaining orders and that the business managers in another place hope to take that very shortly. But I am afraid, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, that there is nothing that we can do in this House until the Commons has agreed our message. We can only hope that that is done very speedily.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness how it is that on two of the Select Committees, no Peeresses are serving at all? One is the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and the other is the Statutory Instruments Committee.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as your Lordships know, in this House we do not exercise any rules of quotas or positive discrimination.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bank of England Monetary Policy: Select Committee Delegated Powers and Deregulation: Select Committee European Union: Select Committee lb/>Science and Technology: Select Committee Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved,
Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee—That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the operation of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and to make recommendations;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee—

L. Barnett,

L. Burns,

L. Cuckney,

L. Elder,

L. Forsyth of Drumlean,

B. Hogg,

L. Newby,

B. O'Cathain,

L. Paul,

L. Peston (Chairman),

L. Roll of Ipsden,

L. Taverne;

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee.
Delegated Powers and Deregulation—That a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents laid before Parliament under Section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft orders laid under Section 1(4) of that Act; and to

223
perform, in respect of such documents and orders, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Alexander of Weedon (Chairman),

L. Dahrendorf,

L. Goodhart,

L. Hogg of Cumbernauld,

L. Mayhew of Twysden,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

L. Prys-Davies,

L. Tombs,

L. Waddington;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the committee or a sub-committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee shall, if the committee think fit, be printed and delivered out.
European Union—That a Select Committee be appointed to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union.
That the expression "European Union documents" shall include the following documents:

(i) Any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;

(ii) Any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;

(iii) Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and security policy) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;

(iv) Any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI (provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

(v) Any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;

(vi) Any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

B. Billingham,

V. Bledisloe,

L. Brennan,

L. Brooke of Alverthorpe,

V. Brookeborough,

L. Goodhart,

L. Grenfell,

B. Harris of Richmond,

L. Hope of Craighead,

L. Jopling,

L. Lamont of Lerwick,

B. O'Cathain,

B. Park of Monmouth,

E. Selborne,

B. Stern,

L. Tomlinson,

L. Tordoff (Chairman),

L. Williams of Elvel,

L. Williamson of Horton;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.
Science and Technology—That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

L. Haskel,

L. Howie of Troon,

L. Jenkin of Roding,

L. Lewis of Newnham,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. Methuen,

L. Oxburgh,

L. Patel,

L. Perry of Walton,

B. Platt of Writtle,

L. Quirk,

L. Rea,

L. Wade of Chorlton,

B. Walmsley,

L. Walton of Detchant,

B. Warwick of Undercliffe,

B. Wilcox,

L. Winston (Chairman);

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the committee or any sub-committee;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed and delivered out.
Statutory Instruments—pursuant to Standing Order 73 and the resolution of the House of 16th December 1997, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments:

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Greenway,

L. Hardy of Wath,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Thomas of Gresford,

L. Vivian,

L. Walker of Doncaster.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.9 p.m.
Adjourned 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 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it is a privilege for me to open this important debate on the gracious Speech. I am sure that the House is looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft.
The gracious Speech contained a number of commitments which demonstrate that this Government are determined to continue to deliver a
226
radical, modern and forward looking foreign and security policy and international development programme.
That programme requires full and active engagement in the international community. It can be pursued only in partnership with others. Through our membership of the European Union, the UN Security Council, the G8, NATO, and the Commonwealth, Britain can exercise far more influence over events in the world than we ever could by acting alone.
Britain is in a unique historical position to be a force for good in the world. But in an increasingly interconnected world old ways of working, such as traditional diplomacy, are no longer enough. The Government need to be able to act coherently in a world in which international events touch on the work of every government department and influence the lives of every individual. It is a world in which NGOs, civil society groups, and businesses increasingly operate across borders and a world in which people travel more than they ever have before.
The Government are determined to use Britain's position and influence to the full, drawing upon our diversity, our active NGO and business communities and our overseas contacts and friendships to help build bridges to a better future. Nowhere is the need to work with our partners clearer than in Europe. The contrast between the leading position and influence that Britain now has in Europe and the splendid isolation of four years ago could not be more dramatic.
Since 1997 the Government have amply demonstrated the benefits for Britain of constructive engagement in Europe. The issues at the top of the EU's agenda are Britain's priorities: economic and institutional reform, enlargement, and European security and defence policy. We are making significant progress in all those areas.
I am also pleased to be able to tell the House that only last month the Development Council agreed that EU aid should in future be focused more closely on poverty reduction. The UK was again a driving force behind that agreement.
The outcome of the Nice European Council was a tribute to four years of active engagement and hard work in building common positions and common understanding with our partners. Working together, we secured three strategic goals: by agreeing reforms to European decision making procedures, we opened the door to enlargement, thus paving the way for Europe to be re-unified after over forty years of artificial separation; by securing a re-weighting of votes, including more votes for Britain, we secured Britain's influence in the wider Europe of the future; and by securing agreement to the new security arrangements for European crisis management, we guaranteed a safer continent embedded in the transatlantic alliance.
This is the first time in an IGC that an increase in Britain's voting weight has been agreed. Although the weight of the smaller member states has been reduced, I can assure the House that Britain will remain a friend and a champion of their interests. I hope that those achievements will be welcomed by all in this House.

227
Recently in the press there has been much comment about the European security and defence policy and much scare-mongering by the party opposite about its implications for the transatlantic partnership. Let me make one thing clear: this Government want to see Europe's military capabilities strengthened so as to improve Europe's contribution to the collective security provided by NATO. NATO is, and will remain, the cornerstone of Britain's defence and security.
But we also want to give Europe credible military options where NATO as a whole is not engaged. Let me stress, there is no question of a European army. We are working with our partners for a progressive modernisation of European armed forces so that they are more deployable and sustainable. The recent Capability Commitment Conference identified a pool from which forces can be drawn on a case-by-case basis. Europe needs the capability to take military decisions and to take political control of crisis management operations where NATO as a whole is not engaged. We therefore welcome whole-heartedly the agreements reached at Nice.
The Government will continue to improve the effectiveness of our own Armed Forces. This year's three-year spending review includes the first real terms increase in the defence budget each year for over a decade. The Smart Procurement Initiative is driving down costs and cutting the time for new technologies being introduced into the front line. We have announced a massive building programme for warships and are looking forward to the roll-out of Euro-fighter.
Britain has a vital interest in strengthening the international institutions and the framework of international law. Together the international community can achieve far more than any one country acting alone. Environmental degradation, crime, disease, and financial instability know no national boundaries.
The Queen's Speech underlined the practical steps that this Government are taking to reinforce our partnership with the rest of the international community. We are committed to improving the United Nations' capacity to undertake peace-keeping operations. The Government have made it clear that they will work for the implementation of the Brahimi Report. We shall also continue to work to make the UN Security Council more effective and representative.
The trafficking in weapons must be brought under tighter control. The Government have already acted to tighten criteria for arms export licences, banned the export of landmines and torture equipment, and significantly increased transparency by publishing an annual report on strategic export controls.
As a further step, this Session the Government will publish in draft an export control Bill. That Bill will replace legislation that has been in place since the 1930s. It will introduce controls on trafficking and brokering in weapons, prohibit trafficking and brokering of equipment used in torture, and introduce
228
controls on the transfer of technology by intangible means, such as e-mail or fax. The Bill will also strengthen controls on weapons of mass destruction.
Acting together, the international community must prove that the writ of international law runs even where chaos and lawlessness have had the upper hand. That is why the Government will bring the International Criminal Court Bill before this Session of Parliament. Passage of the Bill would allow Britain to be among the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty and thereby bring the court into existence. It is no longer acceptable to claim, as Milosevic and many others have, that crimes against humanity can ever be a purely internal matter. We need a new architecture of international law and practice that allows us to deal effectively with war criminals. Under this Government, Britain will be at the forefront of efforts to construct it.
Playing an active role in world affairs sometimes means talking to people with whom we do not share a common purpose. Even though we may have profound disagreements, where we believe that dialogue can produce benefits, we have followed a policy of critical engagement. Unfortunately there are still regimes whose values are so repugnant and whose repression of their people so cynical that serious dialogue is impossible. Continued isolation and international pressure are the only way to force a more responsible attitude from the rulers of Burma and Iraq.
But with Libya, with Iran and with Cuba we have upgraded relations and broken the logjam of diplomatic disputes left over from the previous government. That has brought benefits, including the extradition of the Lockerbie suspects and the lifting of the death threat against Salman Rushdie. While securing tangible benefits for Britain, we have put across our concerns on human rights issues and will continue to do so.
Today we have announced the opening of diplomatic relations with North Korea. We are following the advice of the South Korean President, Kim Dae-jung, who deservedly won the Nobel Peace Prize this year for the way in which he has put into practice his firm belief in democracy and in pursuing peace through dialogue. I hope that we shall make our own contribution to easing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
We in Britain, in Europe, and in the international community must reach out to embrace the people of the Balkans now that they have put conflict behind them. By clearing the path for the next waves of EU enlargement, the Nice European Council has brought them, too, closer to the goal of full reintegration into the European mainstream. There is now new hope, following years of anguish and suffering for the people of the region.
Milosevic was wrong to think that he could get away with the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. The NATO action halted the tide of hatred and helped to turn it back so that public anger eventually consumed Milosevic himself. But it is, above all, the courage and

229
determination of the people of the region themselves which have opened up the prospect of completing the democratic map of Europe. Even a few months ago, a summit of EU and Balkans leaders similar to the one we have just had at Zagreb would have been unthinkable.
The Government have watched with grave concern the deterioration in the Middle East peace process since 28th September and the resulting escalation of violence. There can be no doubt that at the end of the day the only way the participants can settle their differences is through negotiation. We have been actively involved in urging the parties to step back from violence and return to negotiations on the basis of UNSCR 242 and 338.
When we sent British troops to Sierra Leone earlier this year, the rebels were threatening to take Freetown and once again plunge the whole country into chaos and anarchy. Within days, we had got British nationals out, got the UN troops in and driven the rebels back. I have no doubt that we did the right thing.
The Government had hoped that all sides of this House would agree on our responsibility to help save a Commonwealth country from falling under the control of people who commit horrendous crimes. But in this, I am sad to say, we have been disappointed.
Let there be no doubt about the purpose of our presence in Sierra Leone. We are standing up for the old core British values of common decency, humanity, fairness and justice. Make no mistake; we will not abandon those values.
Our efforts in Sierra Leone are an excellent example of how we are maximising the impact of British assistance through the close co-operation of the FCO, MoD, and DfID on the ground.
As Minister responsible, I am particularly heartened by the success which we have had in strengthening the partnerships between Britain and the countries of the Caribbean. The second UK/Caribbean Forum took place in London earlier this year. This led to several new initiatives which will be undertaken in partnership, including on inward investment, law enforcement and the establishment of a UK/ Caribbean Jurists Association. I was particularly struck by the open, friendly, and constructive exchanges that took place.
We also held the second Consultative Council with the Oversees Territories this year. I am particularly proud of the way in which we have forged a partnership not only between the Foreign Office and the territories, but a partnership across Whitehall in dealing with the territories and a partnership between the territories themselves offering mutual support, advice and expertise.
I would like to express my understanding for the disappointment that will be felt about the absence of the Overseas Territories Bill from this Sessions' legislative programme. I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm that the Government remain committed to introducing this legislation as soon as possible to ensure that our offer of citizenship,
230
outlined in the White Paper, is delivered. We recently initiated a consultation process with the Overseas Territories on issues relating to the Bill and its implementation. This process puts us in a prime position to act as soon as the Bill becomes law.
Of all of the challenges facing the world community, the task of eliminating poverty must surely be one of the most daunting. The Government have increased their assistance for programmes in reforming countries. We are working to improve the quality of public expenditure management and reduce corruption. Yesterday the Government published a second White Paper on International Development entitled Making Globalisation Work for the Poor.
If globalisation is to work for poor people we need not just strong and vibrant private sectors, but also effective governments and strong and reformed international institutions. 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.
The White Paper sets out the Government's policies in all these areas. It also announced the untying of all British development assistance. This will increase its effectiveness and put pressure on other countries to follow suit.
The Government share the deep concerns of the hundreds of thousands of people who have campaigned on debt, demanding that the rich countries address the huge mountain of unpayable debt carried by some of the poorest countries in the world. The UK has played a leading role in agreeing such action—we were a driving force behind the G8 debt initiative, agreed in Cologne last year, to cancel 100 billion dollars of debt. Twenty countries are expected to have qualified for the exceptional debt relief provided under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative by the end of this year. This would mean debt relief of around 50 billion dollars being agreed.
In today's dynamic and fast moving world, government must have a modern policy-making process in order to be able to deliver our objectives effectively. Success is dependent upon working closely with other government departments and non-government actors, both in the UK and abroad. This requires an approach going beyond traditional diplomacy. One concrete example is the establishment, together with MoD and DfID, of two joint conflict prevention funds; one dealing with Africa and the other with the rest of the world. This is a new approach to pooling resources and will lead to more effective programmes.
The Foreign Office is opening up its policy-making process to benefit from the expertise which exists in the wider community. We have brought in experts from leading NGOs, including Amnesty, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and WWF, to bring fresh thinking and expertise on cross-cutting issues. We are also

231
increasingly involving NGOs and the business community in setting the agenda for the G8 and other international fora.
Diversity is one of Britain's greatest strengths. This is an asset, which can be used abroad as well as at home. We are working to strengthen linkages with ethnic minority communities in the UK in order to feed their views and concerns into the policy-making process.
We are also seeking to increase recruitment from the ethnic minority communities. The Foreign Office should reflect the face of modern Britain. I am pleased to say that the number of ethnic minority staff has risen by 50 per cent since 1997. And there are now more women ambassadors and heads of post and more women at director level than ever before.
The early 1990s saw the end of the Cold War. New states sprang up all over Europe and beyond, and with them new tensions and rivalries. The same period saw a revolution in globalisation with explosive growth in world trade and investment flows. The response of the previous administration was to squeeze the Foreign Office budget, cut staff and spread resources ever more thinly across an ever expanding network.
Things have changed under this Government. We are determined to give the Foreign Office the resources it needs. The latest spending round devotes an extra £¼billion for our diplomatic effort. This includes £64 million for the BBC World Service, which will allow it to expand and innovate; World Service Online now receives more than 31 million page impressions a month. We have also agreed a real increase in resources for the British Council of 9 per cent, £40 million in current terms, over the next three years. Together this represents a significant boost to public diplomacy.
Increasing resources and improving working methods has one goal: improving the standards of service that we can offer. Consular work is the main point of contact between the Foreign Office and the public. Every day, British people turn to our embassies for help when they run into trouble overseas. We take our obligations to them very seriously.
We are helping parents whose children have been abducted overseas to get them back. We are encouraging states to join the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction and to fully meet their obligations under it. But often the hardest abduction cases are with countries not party to the Hague Convention, particularly Shari'a law states such as Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon. We are in the process of negotiating limited bilateral arrangements with these countries. Following an initiative through our embassy in Cairo, we are now working to improve the advice we give to those who wish to marry in other Shari'a law states.
We work with minority ethnic communities in the UK, human rights groups, the courts and the police to help young people who are forced into marriage overseas to get back to the UK. We have established a community liaison unit and launched an action plan
232
with the Home Office. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friends Lady Uddin and Lord Ahmed for their work and support in this difficult area.
We are standing up for the human rights of British nationals in prison overseas. We have improved the quality and speed of our travel advice so that British people know that they can rely on it. We make increasing use of the Internet and have established call centres so that the public can expect help 24 hours a day. We offer a consular service that meets the needs of all of the people of Britain regardless of race, colour or creed. This year we became the first historically Christian country to open an office for the benefit of the 20,000 British Muslim citizens making the hajj. It helped over 2,000 of them directly.
The Foreign Office must continue to change to reflect the way that Britain is changing. I hope that all sides of the House join me in recognising the qualities of the Foreign Office which have not changed: the resilience, courage and professionalism of its staff. In October we unveiled a plaque to Brigadier Stephen Saunders, the defence attaché at our Embassy in Athens who was murdered by terrorists earlier this year. This was a tragedy for his family and a reminder to us all that the staff of our overseas posts are often in the front line of any threat to British interests abroad.
This Government have enhanced the respect in which Britain is held as a partner around the world. We have built on Britain's natural advantages as a pivotal player in the world's key networks: the EU, the G8, the Commonwealth, NATO and the UN Security Council. We lead the way in developing a true partnership with developing countries in the fight against poverty. Our influence makes us a key partner in western Europe for Russia, China and Japan. Our influence in the EU makes us the bridge between America and Europe. This Government will not opt out of Britain's international responsibilities or surrender its national interests. It is this Government who are equipped to lead Britain into a confident future.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, clearly this will be a mammoth debate with the usual input of experience and wisdom that your Lordships bring to bear on world and international issues. I join the noble Baroness in saying how much I look forward to the first speech of my noble friend Lord Ashcroft. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on the huge coverage of her speech in a reasonably short time. I shall not be so successful because I intend to concentrate on the four issues mentioned in the gracious Speech in the order in which they emerged: the EU, NATO and defence developments, international peacekeeping and globalisation. Those are more than enough to fill any speech, and I hope that mine will not be too long.
I begin with the European Union which we discussed yesterday in considerable depth. One difficulty about further comment is that we still do not know the details. I do not believe that the draft treaty is available: certainly, I have not been able to lay my

233
hands on it. Therefore, no one, including the Government, knows the full detail of what was agreed at Nice. Our debate will be somewhat limited by that lack of knowledge.
Clearly, what occurred over the weekend was only the prelude to a prolonged and massive debate that may go on for years about the future shape and structure of the enlarged Europe which we all hope lies ahead. I reiterate what I said yesterday. If the treaty which emerges consists only of the mechanical and institutional details necessary to facilitate that part of the enlargement process, which is not the major part, it is probable that we shall have quite a quick agreement without any particular worries. However, from what has already been said about the events at Nice, it appears that the treaty, which will certainly be full of integrationist baggage, will delay enlargement.
It is also fairly clear—we cannot be absolutely sure at this stage—that the decision-making procedures, far from being simplified, which was necessary, we were told, to streamline the sausage machine of more regulations, are to become more complicated. One does not know whether to laugh or cry about what emerges. It is difficult to determine whether it will make life easier or more difficult for the bureaucrats. What is certain—I and other noble Lords of my party on this side of the House have said as much—is that the integrationist model, in the sense of ramming more and more matters together and centralising decision making, is out of date. That belongs to a previous era of politics and management and will not produce the results we all want to see in the Europe of tomorrow. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Mandelson, said yesterday that he thought the whole thing was dead and we could say goodbye to ever-closer union and the sacred words of the original Treaty of Rome. I believe that he is wrong. Although it is out of date and will not work, it is not dead. There is an apparent wish around to push people deeper and deeper into a sea of controls. It is completely Alice in Wonderland to describe that kind of development as "progress", "advance" or "faster track": it is slower track, regression and is certainly not an advance.
The other great debate concerns whether or not there is to be a superstate. The Prime Minister has assured us that that will not happen. Commissioner Chris Patten, my former colleague, has stated with his usual elegance that such a suggestion is bilge. I hope that those gentlemen are right and that they and others will help in the struggle to prevent the creation of a superstate, which is an out-of-date concept in the network world of tomorrow. The concept of a superpower, which crept into the Prime Minister's speech at Warsaw, also belongs to yesterday's thinking. Tomorrow's network world probably does not need superpowers—we already have a vast one—any more than it needs superstates.
The point that must be grasped by those who always seek to complete Europe, find solutions to it, achieve finalité and so on, is that there is no completion. The process of modernising Europe in a world of global information and networks will be subject to constant
234
debate and negotiation. The task of those concerned with the interests and democratic values of this country and the free and independent set of states in Europe is to keep fighting, as far as possible, for an open Europe and a modern intergovernmental approach, which is what we favour.
As I said yesterday at this Dispatch Box, I confess to a little unease about the fact that somehow the big boys have ganged up on the small states. I am not sure that that is a healthy position from which Europe should develop. I am glad that Germany did not push its insistence on having a dominant position in the voting system. It was unwise for anyone in the Germany policy-making system to suggest to the Chancellor that that should be so. The German Chancellor was wise enough to withdraw the suggestion.
There is no doubt in my mind that the net outcome of the weekend is not very good for Europe. This morning many commentators in newspapers throughout Europe, including those in Germany and France, have said what perhaps should have been said more frankly yesterday; namely, that Europe is the loser from the developments over the weekend.
I move to the next issue on which the noble Baroness spoke at some length: NATO and the new European defence initiative. Obviously, the two issues are closely related. It has been made clear again and again, not in your Lordships' House, or in London at all, but elsewhere, that this is necessary for the further development of the political dimension of the European Union. I believe that the greatest worry of the military is that that somehow, quite aside from the intense need for better European co-operation and interoperability which we all recognise, is being used as part of a political chess game which does not necessarily relate to better defence for Europe.
I pointed out yesterday that so far as we can work out what was decided at Nice, the issues posed by Secretary Cohen about the future of defence in Europe seem to remain unanswered. I asked whether we were going to have a single command structure, a single operational planning system and a single headquarters; without those, as Mr Cohen observed, NATO becomes a relic.
This morning I had drawn to my attention a remark made by General Wesley Clark in the Washington Post last week. He said:
"At best, the Europeans will remove the deputy commander, planners and key staff from the NATO chain of command headed by the American supreme allied commander, Europe, in order to plan and head missions by a purely European rapid reaction force... At worst, the Europeans will create a new headquarters with additional planners that will simply be redundant and competitive to those within NATO".
We can all produce quotations on what the Americans have said about the matter. This shows that the Americans are extremely worried. It is a little naughty of Ministers to mislead us into believing that the Americans are absolutely on board and not worried at all. They were worried; they are worried. That should be recognised. Perhaps it would have been better if it had been recognised from the start.

235
There is then the answer I received yesterday to the questions I asked concerning what Secretary Cohen had asked in a more public way. The answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was,
"No, no. no".—[Official Report, 11/12/00; col. 129.]
I am not sure whether I have heard that phrase before, but that is what she said. I accepted that at the time. However, as the papers began to appear from Nice, I received a document which is Annex VII to the Presidency Conclusions about the defence arrangements—Standing Arrangements for Consultation and Co-operation between the EU and NATO. That document appeared today. It is signed by the Prime Minister and other European leaders. The document states:
"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".
That is NATO and the EU. So there is to be a separate chain of command. It is not accurate to tell me that the answer is No, there is not to be one. With all fairness to your Lordships' House, that needs correction. I am sorry to have to identify that clear error.
Perhaps I may strike a more constructive note. We need to recognise that NATO is not perfect or entirely attuned to the needs and defence problems of the next 20 or 30 years. As no doubt experts in your Lordships' House will tell us today, there has been a revolution in military affairs which means that, among other things, new technologies can completely undermine the traditional assumptions upon which defence is organised. Our enemies will be completely different. They may not even be nation states. We are left wondering how vulnerable Britain is today to the latest missile technology which may be deployed not by openly hostile power blocs or even by nation states. Are we still safe under an umbrella where we have lived in safety for 50 years, or should we join the Americans who, under President-elect Bush—if that is the outcome—or President-elect Gore, are bound to push ahead with SGI? That seems to be overwhelmingly agreed. Is our plan to give them facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, or would we be better defended if we joined with them in the new strategic technology? These are issues that those concerned with defence policy in the Government should be addressing and possibly sharing with us. They are not tomorrow's issues; they are today's issues.
I want to say a word on peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions referred to in the gracious Speech. Here the international debate is in fascinating turmoil. We have moved into an era of humanitarian warfare and intervention in domestic jurisdictions. That takes us well away from the traditional stance of the UN and indeed the UN Charter. The decisions to put troops into Kosovo and then bomb Serbia were turning-point decisions in the handling of international peacekeeping and affairs. In my view, and it is the view of many people, the intervention changed everything. It changed everything because it raised the question of what is lawful. If it was lawful, what was the basis of the legitimacy of the Kosovo intervention? I share the view of the noble Baroness
236
that it was the right thing to do and that the outcome, although it will be a long time before we see it fully, will be a positive one.
But it was not the UN Security Council which gave us that authority. To get that authority 19 NATO nations had to be called together by Washington on the initiative of the State Department. They agreed that it would have a go at the project. The UN Security Council could not do anything. It was paralysed, as it had been throughout the Cold War when China and Russia took a different view and were not going to play. Therefore, it was a decision taken without any UN resolution behind it: it relied only on an interpretation of Article 32, which really stretched the point. It was quite unprecedented. It was a clear invasion of nation state sovereignty. The question that we have to ask is whether it is none the less a precedent for the future.
It is easy to describe why intervention might be necessary—genocide, massive human rights abuse, the atrocities that were going on in Kosovo and threats to international stability. The criteria for intervening have been spelt out again and again. They were spelt out by a committee I chaired in 1994. They were repeated last year by the Prime Minister in Chicago and also by the Foreign Secretary. We can all list the reasons why good and well-intentioned people should intervene in the horrors of the world. But who will decide when intervention is justified if the UN cannot get its Security Council act together, unless we reform the Security Council, which many hope will happen?
Every situation is different. The noble Baroness mentioned Sierra Leone. We are there. We are not part of the United Nations, although one government department wants us to be and another department does not. At the moment we are not, although, as we have been told by the noble Baroness, our job is to ensure that the UN activity is a success. It is also our job to retrain the Sierra Leone army and we have various other tasks. It must be a good thing. As the Foreign Secretary candidly said, if people go around cutting the limbs off children, that revolting action must be stopped. One cannot disagree. In the future we shall need to think more carefully about the basis of collective action, bearing in mind the lessons of Kosovo.
In Zimbabwe matters go from bad to worse. There we have probably rightly decided to do nothing, certainly nothing on the military side. But we also decided to say nothing. I feel less happy about that. The group of gangsters formed around Mugabwe do atrocious things and defy the rule of law. Perhaps the Government, who rightly pride themselves on their concern for human rights, should speak out more clearly.
The whole question of the legal basis for intervention is made more crucial now that we have, or it looks as though we shall have, a new player, the European rapid reaction force. By what criteria, and under what law, will it intervene with the Petersberg tasks? That will be very difficult. I note the allusion of the noble Baroness to the Bill on the International

237
Criminal Court. We are not opposed to that but we shall need to look carefully at the details to ensure that it does not generate huge expense and add to the existing efforts to chase after the criminals and international atrocity-mongers who certainly should not escape.
I have a further point to make on international intervention. In his final days in office, President Clinton is moving on to the world stage. Only yesterday the White House put out a huge fact sheet on President Clinton's foreign policy, reminding us of all the achievements of American foreign policymaking. In a way it is a disturbing document because it is entirely American. It does not seem to recognise that this is now a collective business in a global setting and that almost every move—even for a superpower like America—has to be closely co-ordinated with the rest of the world. I suspect that this "America first" idea of projecting its policy and bringing along the allies afterwards may not be the best approach for calming the deteriorating Middle East crisis, to which the noble Baroness referred, where the real trouble is that there are no leaders. Both sides are now leaderless. The grim thought emerges that the only leader who is leading in the Middle East is our old enemy, Saddam Hussein, who is mounting new efforts to disrupt the entire Middle East scene, beginning with Jordan. We need to focus on that very worrying development.
Finally, I turn to the huge, almost theoretical, area of globalisation in the new foreign policy context. The White Paper on the elimination of poverty, although it does not contain many policies, strikes some rather good chords, at any rate for me. It recognises that globalisation is not divisive or polarising in social terms. At worst, it is neutral; at best, it can be a great leveller and a vast instrument for overthrowing caste, class, status and vast poverty disparities and bringing help, benefit and prosperity to the 70 per cent of the world who are not in on the global act at present and are not even in on the legal global economy in most cases. They have assets but they do not have the means to turn them into wealth or to attract the foreign investment that is flying around the rest of the world.
I agree with the White Paper that globalisation does not create poverty. The World Trade Organisation is the engine that should be supported, although it has not been very skilfully run so far. The White Paper is also suitably critical of the European Commission's efforts at dabbling in overseas aid. It does not quite go as far as Clare Short's earlier observation that the European Commission is the worst aid agency in the world, but it gets very near it. I believe that it is on to a good point.
The same forces that are driving globalisation are putting more power than ever in the hands of a mass of lobbyists, interest groups, giant transnational pressure groups, overnight alliances, web-linked communities and informal organisations—some good and some very bad and very sinister. We have seen the first fruits of that; in Seattle, Prague and the City of London, in our home-grown tax revolt and in Nice over the weekend. What we are seeing is the world's new
238
nervous system—the constellation of world-wide and continuous communication—which is not under media or government control or indeed anyone's control. That, in turn, creates a new texture of international relations in which it is immediately apparent that the linkages are no longer confined to officialdom and formal relations between foreign ministries and government bureaucracies.
The international background to our discussions is changing its shape. Asia is rising again after the turmoil years, although Japan is still stagnating, and geographical blocs and alliances are beginning to lose their meaning. In this new world, the conditions are especially favourable to bodies such as the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, which we used to regard with affection but not as a major resource, actually turns out to be ideally organised as a network—a mass of non-governmental as well as official bodies stretching across 53 nations—to suit the age of information technology. In this new and different world a clear alternative vision is badly needed for protecting our country, projecting our influence, furthering our interests and networking with our friends, who are many, although some are sadly neglected.
I conclude on this note. In the new conditions imposed by the global network, the first priority of national government leaders must be to define with much greater clarity and national confidence those interests which involve our absolute territorial security, which is in question, those which offer maximum commercial advantage and those which offer the most effective and practical contribution to the international order through the transgovernmental network. Given the enormous dispersal of contact points between nations which make up the modern patchwork of international relations, a government who can refine, contain and focus their aims in that way will have their work cut out. The underlying principle to which to adhere is that clearly defined national interests, soberly but firmly pursued, reinforce rather than weaken the global order. It is the nation state which wants to do everything, which sees everything as a challenge, which intervenes on every issue and which pronounces great principles and then cannot follow them up, which makes the poorest contribution to international peace and stability and to the open markets and trade we all want to see. A foreign policy which starts from that hard truth will capture respect and democratic support.
Contrary to the conclusions of many pundits who profess expertise about public opinion and foreign policy, people know perfectly well what is realistic and what will be effective in today's world, and they will support it. They are ready for illumination of an immensely complicated and fast-changing world, but that illumination must be open and accurate and not smothered with generalities or submerged in spin. Nowhere is the need for this light and realism greater than in the European Union, of which we are a part, and its institutions. Nowhere is there more need for a new vision which accords with the characteristics of a network world.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I look forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, whose maiden speech will follow very soon and who has great knowledge of foreign affairs. Perhaps I may also apologise to the House if I am absent for about an hour. I greatly value these occasions and try to be present the entire time, but I must attend a memorial service for a very close friend. I hope that the House will forgive me. I shall return as soon as I possibly can.
We have heard a remarkable tribute to the Foreign Office, paid appropriately by one of the Foreign Office's outstanding Ministers. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will forgive me if I turn to some questions about the record which she set out, although I share much of her enthusiasm for what her department does. I should like also to commend the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on a thoughtful speech. I shall do my best to comment on it as I follow the same structure that he laid out—the structure within the Queen's Speech.
I begin by referring briefly to the Nice Summit. The Nice Summit achieved the minimal requirements necessary for enlargement. I do not think that any noble Lord who has carefully read the Nice statement and the various items and annexes that go with it could believe that there has been any long step forward in the integration of Europe. What we have seen is a painful, difficult and extremely long-winded effort to agree on what is necessary simply for enlargement to take place and, when it does take place, to ensure that it is workable.
I deeply regret the position adopted by the Leader of the Opposition in another place. For the UK to refuse to ratify the Nice treaty at a time when countries which have emerged from the shadows of communism are waiting impatiently to be allowed to join Europe, have swallowed the acquis communautaire, have devoted themselves for several years to trying to meet the requirements that we have laid down—incidentally, those requirements have been difficult and tough—as regards human rights, democracy and opening up free markets, is wrong. Suddenly to slap them across the face by refusing to ratify Nice would be an act of breathtaking irresponsibility. I hope that, on reflection, the Leader of the Opposition in another place will perhaps more closely pursue the more thoughtful and measured position taken by his colleague in this House. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on that wisdom.
I cannot pretend to be anything other than rather disappointed by some of the outcomes of the Nice Summit. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that Europe was possibly "the loser". I believe that there are two ways in which Nice was not quite as good for Europe as perhaps it was for some of its larger member states. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it is damaging to leave out the smaller countries of Europe, whose record of working towards a sound basis of union and co-operation within
240
Europe has been outstanding. Countries like the Netherlands, Ireland and, more recently, Portugal have pursued these aims. It is not, I think, helpful to leave them with a sense of deep injustice. I cannot help but feel that they might have been dealt with somewhat more diplomatically.
Secondly, I regret the language adopted by our media. Their words would be more appropriate to celebrate the outstanding achievements of the British cricket team in Pakistan than to address a sensitive and difficult area of international politics; that is to say, their use of the crude language of victory and defeat. Surely the whole purpose of the European Union was to recognise that, after two centuries during which balance of power politics had brought us into war after war, we needed to find a politics of mutual advantage in which we no longer sought victories or feared defeats, but rather pursued policies that would bring a win-win situation for a large number of countries. It would be better for our media to seek to break away from the traditional language of adversarial politics and to address instead the new politics upon which, in the 21st century, we need to embark.
I shall make a few further points about the Nice Summit. I wish that our Government, who rightly lecture us all on the need for transparency and openness, would address the issue of the continuing secrecy surrounding the Council of Ministers in its legislative form. It is simply outrageous that only in North Korea and in the Council of Ministers of the European Union is total secrecy the rule by which everyone tries to abide. That is deeply inappropriate to a Union which is attempting to become more democratic and to act more in league with its own people. I plead with the Government and press the Minister to respond to this. We need to hear from her a little more as regards our policy towards the secrecy that still obtains in the Council of Europe.
We on these Benches agree that taxation is primarily a matter for nation states. As regards income tax, that is overwhelmingly the case. However, I should like to offer a word of warning: the crimes of fraud and money laundering are now becoming widely extensive within Europe. That is also the case outside Europe. Where there are proposals directed at trying to prevent fraud and money laundering, which is getting out of control—anyone may read, for example, the Congressional study of the money laundering of Russian assets, or for that matter, the more recent accounts of General Abacha's success in removing billions of dollars from Nigeria, the second poorest country in the world, to spread it around for his personal benefit and for that of his family in Swiss and London banks—the Government need to think very seriously about whether an ethical foreign policy can totally disregard such aberrations and the proposals to deal with them. I find it appalling that, while the Swiss banking association has named 29 banks involved in handling Nigerian "bad money", those responsible in the Home Office in this country for pursuing that money—national funds stolen by Mr Abacha, one of the world's more disgusting dictators until his recent death—have not been able, so far, even to offer any

241
indications of help to Mr Obasanjo, the President of Nigeria, a man who has suffered infinitely for his own belief in democracy and human rights.
In my final point on Nice, I should like to commend the proposal for a new IGC in 2004 and I pay tribute to the German Government for their part in pressing for that. Why? To put it bluntly, as the Prime Minister has said, setting out the respective competences of the European institutions and of the nation states, and below them of the regions, is absolutely vital in order to deal effectively with the suspicions, threats and stories that abound, many of them without any foundation. We need to be clear about the position as regards the "no man's land" that exists today between the powers of Europe and the powers of the nation state. I believe that, in setting out the competences, we would progress a long way towards the aim of consoling and comforting those who do not want to see the nation state disappear. Indeed, there is no need for the nation state to disappear; rather, it is necessary only for the nation state to co-operate on issues such as the environment and global financial movements; namely, areas of policy where no individual country can act effectively on its own.
I turn now to the matter of the row on defence and security. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to Ministers having been "a little naughty" for suggesting that there was no great degree of American concern on this matter. Although I have already indicated my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Howell, perhaps I may in this case describe him as "a little naughty". He quoted extensively from an article written by General Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander in Kosovo and the leading American general during that confrontation. The article appeared last Saturday in the International Herald Tribune. Under the heading,
"US Actions Push the EU to Its Own Military Force".
General Clark stated, in the early part of his article:
"Let's face it. We Americans encouraged the Europeans to believe that in future security crises in Europe, we might not be there to help".
He went on to say that,
"we are now arguing about how to plan and organize for future crises in which the Europeans will send their forces but we won't participate".
The balance of the article forms a plea for the United States to be more willing to continue to intervene in European crises, but it is expressed in the tone of voice of a man profoundly disappointed. Indeed, he even states that in Kosovo, the United States deliberately chose—that is his comment rather than mine—to police the easiest sector and was, as we all know, reluctant to involve any ground troops at all until the end of the campaign.
We must be absolutely honest about one of the issues that confronts us. I speak as someone who has worked for years in the United States, lecturing from California to Massachusetts, and as someone who is the only British adviser to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the Century Foundation in the same city. On those occasions, both of which
242
took place within the past month, the issue at stake was US unilateralism. I heard Americans deplore the fact that the US Congress held up the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the fact that the US Congress has not found it possible even to suggest that it might ratify the International Criminal Court—I am delighted that that court has been mentioned in the gracious Speech; the fact that the United States appears to have launched on a national missile defence plan without, to be frank, consulting its allies in any detail on the impact of such a plan on the whole fragile structure of arms control, peacemaking and so forth.
I do not condemn the United States—it is a great country; the greatest democracy in the world, in my view—but I would be misleading the House if I failed to recognise that, since the end of the Soviet threat, there is a very different mood in the United States. There is a sense that that country can retire within its own sacred borders and wash its hands of what it sees as the squabbles and silliness of a Europe that it has been used to watching as a source of major wars. We would be making very foolish mistakes if we did not recognise that the next administration will pull back from its commitments in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
No one needs to take my word for it. The article in Foreign Affairs by Mrs Condolezza Rice, who is likely to be the senior adviser to any Bush administration, sets it out as clearly as anyone could, in effect saying,
"We do not believe the United States should be involved in rows in Africa, in rows in the Balkans'', and she then set out certain other parts of the world.
How are we supposed to deal with such rows if we have no effective way of providing, at least for the "Petersberg" tasks, peacekeeping, human aid and disaster relief? Are we going to sit there, washing our hands like Pilate, and say, "There is absolutely nothing we can do"? That would be an utterly irresponsible and unsatisfactory position for a British government to adopt.
Let me very quickly turn to the issue of peacekeeping. We see a world in which ethnic conflicts, failing governments and more and more battles for land and resources are creating a whole new threat: not the old threat of a great power enemy—the Soviet Union—but the new threat of desperate peoples who do not know where to look for the way out of their difficulties and their problems.
As to the globalisation White Paper, I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in saying that globalisation does not itself bring poverty. But one of the points that was made by the Secretary of State for International Development last night in launching the White Paper was that the imbalance between the poor and the rich in this world has doubled over the past 30 years. The top 20 per cent now enjoy an average income 74 times greater than the bottom 20 per cent. One cannot divorce the issues that flow not only from poverty but also from desperation from the issues of order, law and democracy in the world. That is why there is a seamless dance between

243
foreign policy and international development policy, as the presence of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, clearly indicates.
All of that feeds into areas of strain and crisis. I want to mention briefly a couple of them. The EU is paying heavily for the Balkans stability pact; it is paying more than any other country in the world or any other group of countries in the world. But next to the Balkans stability pact we desperately need a Balkans political plan, which treats the Balkans not as a set of separate countries but as what it is, a region whose future depends on the ability of those countries to work together.
In that context, perhaps the Minister can say something about the very troubling problems that have arisen on the Albanian/southern Serbian border, particularly in the Preshevo Valley. I believe that we must make it clear that we do not play ethnic favourites and that we do not accept a Kosovan incursion into Serbia at a time when the Serbians have, for the first time—by electing Mr Kostunica—broken away in the direction of a genuinely democratic state. From these Benches, I commend Mr Kostunica on the extraordinary restraint that he has so far shown.
In the case of the Middle East we face a terrifying situation. Again, we must be honest. It is very troublesome that in Israel's budget for next year more money is put by for settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. All of us in this House—certainly including me—deeply believe in Israel and the brilliance of its people. But they cannot establish settlements in an area which will one day be the Palestinian homeland and hope for peace—because peace must depend on two genuine states being able to co-exist side by side.
Lastly on the issue of troubles—my noble friend Lord Avebury will say a good deal more about the recent peace in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone and elsewhere—I commend the Indian Government on having proposed a cease-fire in Kashmir. I hope and pray that the Pakistani Government will respond in a way which will bring peace to that very troubled part of the world.
Let me say this in response to the great statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. It is of course the case that all of us in this House would support the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development in arguing that debt, disease and war must be prevented; in arguing for support for the United Nations, peacekeeping and the "Petersberg" tasks. But two things need to be said. First, we need in this respect joined-up government. To put it very bluntly, some of the Home Office responses to these very fine, splendid and inspirational objectives are, to say the least, falling a bit short. I shall say clearly and loudly that today it is almost impossible for a genuine refugee, who has suffered for his beliefs, to get to this country legally in any way.
Finally, I remember a time, years ago, when I was visiting a remote part of Romania. I came across a distant hotel and handed over my passport, which indicated that I was a Member of Parliament. The clerk behind the desk looked at the passport, held it up
244
and said, "Magna Carta liberorum". I was profoundly touched. He turned out to have a PhD from the University of Vienna, and was exiled in a distant part of the Carpathians. That is what I want our country to be—Magna Carta liberorum. That is the influence I want it to have on the European Union. That is why I believe that Britain within the European Union can be a very great model for freedom and peace in our world.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the prominence of international development in the title of the debate properly recognises its significance as an effective contribution to world poverty elimination within our national budget. I have only one regret today. Although the speakers' list again shows the wide interest that there is in overseas subjects, this House has again decided not to have its own committee on foreign affairs and development. I very much hope that this decision will be reconsidered in the future.
I congratulate the Government on their White Paper, which shows that at least two lines of promises in the gracious Speech have been kept in less than a week. The White Paper again reflects widespread public support for the Government's commitment to halve world poverty. This is a most urgent priority—much more so than anyone here can appreciate. We are enjoying unprecedented prosperity in western Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said List week that we were a "seriously rich economy", which could well afford to look after the poor in the United Kingdom. I know that the noble Lord is generous. He would, I am sure, enlarge that statement to include the still growing number of poor around the world, now about 1.5 billion, living at a level below one dollar a day. They are the most exploited, marginalised, vulnerable and oppressed in society.
The proportion of the very poor has fallen very slightly in Asia—China included—but the absolute numbers continue to rise, as does the gap between rich and poor. The World Bank has said that the average income in the richest 20 countries is now 37 times the average of the poorest 20. This is double what it was in 1960 when the world first woke up to these problems.
Such growing inequality is immoral, in my view. It is an uneasy prospect for a government whose aim is more equality, if not redistribution. Our leaders spend a lot of time in places like Nice worrying about how many will sit around the European table. Has the infatuation with European wealth become so absorbing that we are ignoring the very real dangers which follow world poverty, starvation and migration—dangers that are bound to affect our own future?
The White Paper is, of course, designed to widen the canvas of development, and this must be welcomed. World trade will have increased by 10 per cent in volume this year and the WTO forecasts strong growth next year. We must, we keep saying, ensure that developing countries receive a larger share of this growth. But we must not delude ourselves that an EU

245
trade initiative like the Cotonou agreement is more than a tiny step towards redistribution. For instance, the White Paper states that ACP exports under Lomé fell between 1985 and 1994. Unpayable debt relief, however important, is hardly a step forward in aid or investment.
Growth is, of course, essential—but it depends what is growing. It is oil exports, manufacturing, office equipment, telecommunications and IT—not the items which the poor themselves need, but things other people want them to make, preferably under licence and at minimum cost.
Who exactly are the poor? On the Dickensian world model, they are the families who are forced to send their children aged between five and 14 out to full-time work. That was known in this country not so long ago. There are 120 million such children world-wide: 32 per cent of all children in Africa and 61 per cent in Asia. Like it or not, we have to accept that on the backs of many of these young people sit the new idols of free trade and globalisation. Let us admit that it will be a long time before globalisation reaches them or until per capita GNP in those regions rises sufficiently for those families to escape from poverty.
Educational enrolment, another requirement for greater wealth, will rise only as the necessity for child labour declines. We must press governments through the UN and the WTO to implement the regulations. But no international conventions or core labour standards will have as much impact as the strength of the economy in which these families live. This is not always an effect of freer trade, more of inward investment, entrepreneurial skills, local labour conditions, rising private consumption and other economic factors within that community. DfID is doing a great deal to encourage microcredit in the poorer communities, to support women in small businesses and to promote new enterprise, especially in information technology. But even with the backing offered by the new White Paper, the Government will have to move mountains to make a real difference to world poverty and attain those not very distant 2015 development targets.
Many of these families live in Africa. Two weeks ago, the Financial Times backed up the initiative by the South African President and other African leaders for African recovery, calling for new efforts to attract foreign trade and investment and to speed up debt relief. One vital sector is agriculture and the need for Europe to ensure wider access for African products. Unfortunately, the history of investment in African agriculture is not encouraging to Africans. It shows that in a country like Tanzania, donors still tend to favour their own interests. Even the World Bank, under its post-HIPC lending programme, has been unable to give up a grandiose about-to-be-privatised 270 million dollar power project in favour of schemes which help the rural poor. Studies by the FAO and the Churches in 1999 found that trade liberalisation in countries such as Kenya, Tanzania and Ghana had helped exports, but they had had a negative impact on the incomes of small farmers. The White Paper is
246
ambiguous on this, but it does admit that trade has adverse effects on some people. DfID may claim that everything will change in the wonderful new world of poverty reduction strategies. I hope that that is the case.
Meanwhile, aid and diplomacy will have to focus on the groups which globalisation is unlikely to reach, especially the victims of AIDS, floods or conflict. The Government have taken several new initiatives on conflict and arms control in Africa, notably their venture in Sierra Leone. I wish them success with these. I merely add a word of caution. Sierra Leone is looking a little like a shop window of ethical foreign policy in which some of the goods further behind, such as our policies in the Congo or Sudan, or even Zimbabwe, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, are less shiny. What has happened, for example, to our support for the facilitator in the internal dialogue in the DRC? Should we not admit that Lusaka has been a failure? Why have we been so reticent in the diplomatic manoeuvres over Sudan? Is it because we are still holding the hand of the US? I strongly agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. If so, why do not we, like the US, support development in the south—which, as I learnt from a recent visit on behalf of Christian Aid and Save the Children, we have long neglected?
I know that the Foreign Office has been working on this matter and that we shall return to it in a future debate, but these may be positive issues which the Government could highlight in future. Similarly, we are in danger of over-promoting a few favoured HIPC or "post-conflict" countries such as Uganda, Rwanda and Mozambique where grave internal problems persist. We all hope that the visit of President Chissano today will renew our friendship and solidarity with that country, which has, as it were, risen directly from the ashes of civil war and then floods. But we must also recognise the limits of his democratic mandate and support his efforts towards reconciliation.
In northern Uganda—another of our aid favourites—the Acholi people have suffered silently under the present administration. What is our Government doing to promote development in Gulu and Kitgum, along the DRC and Sudan borders, where conflict has left whole communities displaced and impoverished in so-called protected villages. This is the area where the Lord's Resistance Army has recruited thousands of child soldiers—some of the 300,000 soldiers aged under 18 who are under arms world-wide.
Last week, Trevor Phillips handed the annual award of Anti-Slavery International to George Omona, an aid worker from Gulu whose organisation has rehabilitated hundreds of these children, many of whom have committed appalling atrocities. Such valiant work on the ground must be backed up by measures such as the UN's optional protocol which sets the minimum age of soldiers at 18, and which Uganda has not signed. The FCO's human rights report is full of such promises and I shall only remind

247
the Government of their opportunity to sponsor an EU resolution in March on bonded labour, following our debate last January.
I shall he glad when the fog of catch-all globalisation passes over and we return to actual development policy. I welcome the untying of aid, the drive against corruption and the renewed commitment to the UN target, or at least half-way to that target—but we have been trying to do that for about 30 years. I wish the Government success.
In conclusion, I understand the point of the White Paper, the critical role of trade in development and the advantages of joined-up government, which I do not minimise. However, I look forward to a more positive declaration in the manifesto in which the Government can demonstrate how they are actually changing the lives of people in the third world. The public will, as always, want to see fewer policy statements, less gloss and more visible and genuine results.
4.28 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may say how much we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, and to his adding wisdom to our debates.
Her Majesty's Government have chosen to pursue an ethically based foreign policy. Although such an aim opens them easily to ridicule and the charge of hypocrisy, the alternative for the Government and for us is far worse. Unless public policy is directed towards a proper moral vision, it will collapse into shallow self-interest and short-term pragmatism.
This House needs to know that the Christian community across the world judges our policies here in the light of our Christian history. It was surely not for the sake of rhetorical flourish that Her Majesty's gracious Speech ended with a prayer for God's blessing upon us as we deliberate the policy aims it contained. It is, therefore, part of the task of this House to scrutinise policy in the light of moral principle. It is especially the duty of those on these Benches to offer reflections and experience rooted in our Christian faith and our profound sympathy with all other faith communities.
I want to comment on two broad areas that raise several matters of policy. First, with regard to the White Paper that was published yesterday, I declare an interest as chair of the board of Christian Aid. I congratulate DfID on it and I add my own voice to those who call for time to be given to its study and hope for a full debate on it in this House.
The commitment to work on the issues of trade, investment and international finance, with a view to their contributing to the aim of reducing absolute poverty by at least 50 per cent by the year 2015, is bound to be welcomed by the churches. The Government have made a strong response to the deep commitment of large numbers of Christian people to the task of removing the intolerable burden of international debt on the poorest nations of our world. I warmly thank them for their endeavours in that direction in recent times.
248
That, as we all know, can only be a first step. The moral duty that we hold for the poorest must be met by a concerted reform of the imbalance of trade and opportunity in our world. I hope that the Government will not yield to the notion that the liberalisation of trade is a substitute for giving the poorest opportunities to produce their own food and to be protected from the imbalances of present trading relationships. As we have already heard, the gap between the richest and poorest nations is growing larger. It is also growing larger in this country. Free trade cannot be allowed to mean the unfettered right of the strongest to dictate the terms of economic relationships between rich and poor. Trade can be truly free only if it is conducted between partners among whom power and opportunity is shared. The jury is out on whether the present structures of globalisation and the liberalisation of trade will deliver for the poorest of our world. But we look forward to working with the Government in the pursuance of those objectives.
Secondly, I hope that the House will forgive me for commenting on our policy on the Middle East. In the gracious Speech, Her Majesty spoke of the Government's intention, which I am sure we all share, of making the United Nations Security Council more effective and representative. However, the question that I want to ask is whether there is any moral or ethical coherence to our policy in the Middle East. In the faith communities of the Middle East, there has been a severe loss of confidence in western policy. They fear that there is a weakness in our commitment to the United Nations resolutions with regard to the rights of the Palestinian people, and an excess strength as regards the impact of United Nations resolutions on the people of Iraq.
Such has been the loss of confidence among ordinary Palestinian people in the effectiveness of the international community to defend their basic human rights that despair is setting in. Despair leads young and old alike to think that the only way to protest their dignity and to keep hope alive is to throw stones at the might of the tanks and sophisticated armour of Israel. The stones represent a moral protest by people who feel so disenfranchised and oppressed that they know not what else to do. If the throwing of stones and the firing of bullets is to stop, we need to hear their voice and to act on it. Such damage has been done to the peace that there are now many in the Middle East and in Israel and Palestine who think that Oslo is dead and cannot be brought back to life.
Last week I received a copy of a letter from the Bishop of Jerusalem, who had sent it to one of my own clergy in the Diocese of Guildford. It states:
"Last week a delegation of clergy, mission workers in the Diocese and members of the Arab congregation of St George's Cathedral paid a visit to the village of Beit Jala, just minutes from Bethlehem. Israeli helicopter gun ships and tank mortar lire have attacked this picturesque Christian village 15 times in a three week period. In a community of 15,000 people, over 200 homes have been damaged—some so badly that they must be destroyed".

249
The Bishop goes on to say that, despite reports to the contrary, United Nations vehicles carrying humanitarian aid have been refused entry to the Gaza Strip.
There is now a deep doubt in the minds of ordinary Palestinian people—a doubt that feeds their persistence in an unequal struggle on the streets—as to whether the United States of America and its western allies have the will to use their undoubted influence on the government of Israel to continue moving down the courageous road of establishing a just peace with their Palestinian neighbours. We know that such an endeavour is bound to involve the complex business of diplomacy, but we need reassurances that those efforts will be vigorously pursued.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke searchingly and deeply about the impact of questions of law. In her opening speech, the noble Baroness spoke about the need to add to traditional diplomacy. It seems that in Iraq diplomacy has been abandoned. It has been replaced by a policy of sanctions and bombing. Building on other people's contributions, it is important that moral questions are raised about these policies.
In January 2000, the Select Committee on International Development in another place, reporting on the future of sanctions, said:
"We find it difficult, however, to believe that there will be a case in the future where the UN would be justified in imposing comprehensive economic sanctions on a country. In an increasingly interdependent world such sanctions cause significant suffering. However carefully exemptions are planned, the fact is that the UN will lose credibility if it advocates the rights of the poor whilst at the same time causing, if only indirectly, their further impoverishment".
The moral question is whether it is right to punish the people for the sins of their leaders. After the 10 years in which this policy has led to the degradation of the economic and social life of this people, with no sign of anything but the strengthening of its leadership, the utter demoralisation of all opposition and the collapse of all serious weapons inspection work, what have we to show for our policy? Moral debate is bound to raise questions of proportionality. Does the end justify these extreme means, especially if there is no sign of that end being reached? The Government will know that the Synod of the Church of England passed resolutions on these matters at its session in November. That occasion was informed by the reports of delegates from the Church who had visited Iraq earlier in the year.
By scrutinising policies in these ways, we are underlining our shared commitment to the pursuit of policies that are ethically and morally defensible. In this second week of Advent, as the churches prepare themselves penitentially for the message of the coming of the Lord, I am conscious that we still seek to join those Wise Men who came from Arabia and Africa to follow the star that led them to, of all places, Bethlehem. There, may we seek today the wisdom that leads us away from death and seek instead a renewed vision for policies that bring Shalom, Salaam, the peace of God, to our global village.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Ashcroft: My Lords, I am grateful for the honour of addressing this House for the first time. I am also grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in a foreign affairs debate, as it gives me a chance to speak about Britain's four overseas territories in the eastern Caribbean—Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
I should point out, lest anyone should not have noticed, that I have certain business interests in the Caribbean, including interests in the Turks and Caicos Islands, where I am proud to be able to say that I am a "belonger". I should perhaps explain that "belongership" is a privilege normally reserved for those born in the Turks and Caicos Islands, but which is granted to those individuals from outside who are considered to have made a contribution to the islands. I am also proud of the Ashcroft School in the Turks and Caicos Islands, which has state of the art computers in order to give the children in that school the ability to learn the technology that is necessary in globalisation.
Following a lengthy review, the Government last year announced their intention to extend British citizenship to all those from the four territories that I have mentioned. At the same time, they renamed them Overseas Territories, rather than Dependent Territories, along with the Falklands and Gibraltar, which already enjoyed rights of citizenship, and the seven other territories, such as Bermuda, which did not. As part of the review, all the Overseas Territories had confirmed that they wished to retain their constitutional links with Britain. None preferred independence.
Speaking at the time, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, stressed the underlying relevance of security to everything in the White Paper. She said:
"The world is a threatening place. Especially if you are from a small territory with a narrow economic base, vulnerable, as so many of the Overseas Territories are, to the vagaries of fashion in international tourism, the impact of information technology, the spread of global business the threats from drug traffickers and other international criminals. And, as was seen so dramatically on Montserrat in 1997. the dangers of natural disasters".
The Minister was right to highlight the importance of security, and we in Britain face, I believe, a difficult and considerable question—that is: to what extent are we prepared to recognise and live up to our responsibilities as a Caribbean power?
The Foreign Secretary has said that Britain,
"will not shirk its responsibilities".
to the Overseas Territories. But he has also said that he is looking for a "modern and efficient partnership", which some might interpret as a desire to reduce costs.
Britain has for some years maintained the West Indies Guard Ship in the Caribbean. In normal service, this splits its time between exercises against drug traffickers and the provision of training to the defence and law enforcement offices of the Caribbean Overseas Territories. It has also proved invaluable in

251
assisting with natural disasters, such as the Montserrat emergency and the havoc wrought by hurricanes. But the presence of the West Indies Guard Ship is, I would suggest, barely enough. If the people of these islands are British citizens, Britain has a responsibility to defend them—and not just, as in the Falklands, against the threat of invasion.
The Caribbean Overseas Territories are not drug-producing countries, but they do sit astride some of the most prolific drug trafficking routes in the world. The threat of powerful, organised crime is ever present. Those who deal in drugs are a cancer on the societies in which they operate. Through my business interests in the Caribbean, I am mindful of the constant vigilance that is necessary to interrupt the supply line; and from my work in Britain as founder and chairman of Crimestoppers and formerly as chairman of Action on Addiction, I see the damage done by the drugs that manage to slip through the net.
As a personal aside in my maiden speech, perhaps I may, wearing my hat as chairman of Crimestoppers, acknowledge the help that I have received from two Members of this House as trustees of Crimestoppers. I have in mind the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, from the Benches opposite, and the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, from the Cross Benches, who I am very pleased to see in the Chamber today. Over the past 10 years, both as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and as a trustee of Crimestoppers, he has given me incredible support. On a personal level, I should just like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, "Peter, you are a great pal".
Britain should recognise that its responsibilities in the Caribbean are important, and must be taken seriously. We, after all, expect a good deal of the territories themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said in this House last year:
"Partnership is fundamental to our relationship with the Overseas Territories. We have obligations to them which are central to our foreign policy. They enjoy security, protection and prosperity from the United Kingdom. However, partnership is a two-way street. Partnership brings with it expectations and obligations on both sides".
The obligations are clear. The Overseas Territories are required to respect basic human rights, to adhere to the rule of law and democratic government, to fight international crime, to adhere to international standards of financial regulation and to apply British standards of public service and law enforcement.
These are reasonable obligations, judged against the standards of contemporary life in Britain. But one must measure these obligations, and the changes that must be made in order to meet them, against the religious, social and political convictions of the territories themselves. We should recognise that, in creating these obligations, we are asking in some cases for change which is causing profound political discomfort.
All the more reason, I suggest, for us to be serious about our commitment in return, and all the more reason for Britain to be reconsidering its attitude to recent proposals from Brussels. The proposals in question, known as OCEAN 2000, would change for
252
ever the relationships that both Britain and the Netherlands have with their respective overseas territories.
In stark contrast to the continuing absence of UK legislation, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, earlier, to modernise the relationship with our Overseas Territories—legislation which was promised by the Foreign Secretary almost two years ago—we now have a draft decision of the EU Council which, if agreed, could take effect at the end of March. The OCEAN proposal would establish a direct relationship between the Caribbean and the European Commission, requiring the Overseas Territories to manage their relationship with Brussels direct. It would in principle provide financial support but, at the same time, would require the territories to make fundamental choices on trade relationships arid on currencies. In short, despite Britain's continuing responsibilities in the Caribbean Overseas Territories, Britain would no longer be in the driving seat in terms of its relationship with them.
On the one hand, Britain appears to be encouraging self-determination for the territories and, on the other hand, could be ceding to Europe an ever-increasing responsibility for our relations with them. I suggest that this recipe for confusion should be avoided. As Britain discovered in the I 970s with the Caribbean Associated States, having power without responsibility does not work. Retaining responsibility for foreign policy, defence and good governance, while encouraging territories to act in almost every other sense as sovereign, is a path to independence. That is not what any Caribbean Overseas Territory wants and, I hazard to suggest, would not be in Britain's long-term interests in the region.
In my experience, too many people consider the Caribbean nations to be of little or no account—bankrupt, populated by the indolent, and useful only for the acquisition of a suntan. That is not my view, neither it is my experience.
I mentioned the Turks and Caicos Islands earlier. Its people are proud and hard working. With limited natural resources and with the odds and scale of global food production stacked comprehensively against them, they are adapting their lives, sometimes painfully, in order to guarantee the future of their economy. It is my belief that we should recognise their value, and work with them.
In conclusion, I should say that Britain is uniquely advantaged to play a major role in the future of the Caribbean region—to the benefit of British citizens wherever they may live. Now, I suggest, is perhaps not the time to accede to yet another territorial initiative from Brussels.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, it falls to me in accordance with the traditions of this House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, on his interesting maiden speech. The noble Lord. Lord Ashcroft, comes to this House with a formidable

253
record of work in political and public service and clearly has a great deal to contribute to our debates. I am sure we all look forward very much to hearing from him in the future.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on foreign affairs and defence. I have always supported the declared aspiration of the Government to operate an ethical foreign policy. This aspiration has from time to time been ridiculed in certain sections of the media, but it is an honourable aspiration nevertheless, even though circumstances may sometimes make it difficult to fulfil.
I believe that it should involve a refusal to supply oppressive regimes with weaponry. I am glad that the gracious Speech indicated that there will be a draft Bill designed to control arms trafficking, including dealing in small arms. I understand that some 500,000 people are killed each year by small arms. My concern is that it has taken such a time to introduce and operate such legislation. I know that bans on the sale of weaponry to regimes regarded as undesirable could have an effect sometimes on jobs in Britain, but nevertheless it is right and should be done. The Government are to be congratulated on facing up to this difficult problem.
I understand that the European rapid reaction force, to which the Government are committed, is to be used for peacekeeping and humanitarian functions only. NATO apparently is still to be relied upon for more warlike purposes. NATO clearly had a Cold War function but it was supposedly entirely defensive. What about the new European force? Will it have a role outside Europe? What will be its role? When and in what circumstances would it intervene—this question has already been raised sharply by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—and under what law? Would it be bound by UN resolutions; in other words, would it be bound by international law? My next point is important. What about relations with Russia? It is surely important that Russia should not imagine that the new force represents any kind of threat to what may be perceived as Russian interests. Will there be any effect upon the conflicts which, unfortunately, are still with us?
It is clear that, whatever the outcome of the present problems with the United States presidency, there is little enthusiasm in the United States for what the public see as overseas intervention. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, dealt with that at some length in her powerful speech. I agree very much with what she said. This is particularly the case if it is felt that US troops may be at risk. This is entirely understandable as memories of the Vietnam war are still strong in the public mind.
The reluctance to put troops at risk is shared, I believe, by our European partners. Again, this is understandable. However, it has one unfortunate consequence for civilian populations. In recent years military interventions have tended to be carried out by high level bombing. We saw examples of that in the attack on the former Yugoslavia. My noble friends on the Front Bench will know that I and some other noble Lords were critical of that involvement, and I remain
254
so. It turned out eventually that little harm was done to Serbian military forces, tanks or installations, but a great deal of damage was done to civilians and the civilian infrastructure. Moreover, the objective of a multi-ethnic Kosovo seems a long way from being realised—one kind of ethnic cleansing seems to have been exchanged for another—as non-Albanians are now under threat from the KLA or its breakaway now operating in southern Serbia.
Of course, I applaud the speed with which the EU has undertaken to repair bridges on the Danube and to provide funds to rebuild the shattered infrastructure. However, the new President will need all the help he can get from the EU and compensation really should be paid to the civilian victims of NATO's acknowledged "mistakes".
Another major conflict that is still with us is that of Iraq. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has already referred to that. Other noble Lords may speak of that from a greater base of knowledge than I possess. Nevertheless this is another instance in which Anglo-American aircraft have conducted a bombing campaign with hardly any notice being taken by the British press. Some 6,000 sorties are said to have taken place by the end of 1999 and thousands of bombs have been dropped. There is currently a campaign afoot opposing the continuation of sanctions and I must say that I am inclined to support it. There seems ample evidence that the sanctions have led to illnesses and deaths among children at a truly horrifying level. However, Saddam Hussein continues in power with no sign of any viable opposition.
Again, the tactics adopted, while claiming to be directed not at the people but at their rulers, have had the effect of damaging the civilian infrastructure and destroying civilians. It also seems fairly clear that our European partners are not particularly keen on the policy being followed by ourselves and the USA. It seems likely that if we and the USA were to change policy, this would meet with approval from our EU partners. Why are we continuing with the bombing? Do we know what the cost is in terms of civilian deaths and injuries? Is it not apparent that bombing from 15,000 feet is unlikely to be extremely accurate and that the amount of what is known as "collateral damage" is likely to be great? I say here that I am the widow of a former RAF pilot and the last thing I want to do is to put pilots' lives at risk. But on the other hand I query whether this should be done at all. These two conflicts highlight some of my doubts about intervention.
I hope that the Government may feel that the time has come to review policy, particularly in regard to Iraq. This should not be taken to mean that I in any way support the present Iraqi leadership, any more than my opposition to the Kosovo policy implied support for Milosevic. It is simply that intervention of this kind can end up making things a great deal worse for the unfortunate civilian population, who then have to bear the brunt of the horrors that modern weapons of war can inflict upon them.

255
An example of how interventionist policies can go wrong is Afghanistan. Under the former pro-Soviet regime women at least had the right to education, healthcare and childcare and had the right to work. They have none of those rights now under one of the worst regimes in the world, yet the rebels' success in that country was due in no small measure to the covert assistance, including weaponry, received from the West, notably ourselves and the United States, and conveyed to them via Pakistan. Of course, the present Government had no role in that but it highlights my view that interventions can sometimes have unlooked for results.
As I said earlier, I fully support the aspiration of the Government to operate an ethical foreign policy. I know that my noble friends on the Front Bench are motivated by humanitarian concerns and I would never dream of suggesting anything different. Certainly the Government's record, as recounted to us this afternoon by the noble Baroness, has a great deal to be applauded. But, on the other hand, some of us have worries of the kind that I have voiced this afternoon and I hope that they will receive consideration.
4.58 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, although the gracious Speech makes scant reference to Her Majesty's Government's foreign affairs policy, I wish to devote my brief remarks to current developments in South Africa and Zimbabwe.
Last year much world attention was focused on the escalation of unrest in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sierra Leone. This year the run-up to the elections in Zimbabwe was marred by mass intimidation of the opposition MDC and the onslaught on white farmers by the so-called "war veterans".
President Thabo Mbeki's statements earlier that there was no proven link between HIV and AIDS, as well as his lack of condemnation of the invasion of farms in Zimbabwe, resulted in widespread disillusionment within South Africa as well as among members of the international community and resulted in the exodus from Zimbabwe of much-needed professionals—doctors, lawyers, accountants and engineers. President Mbeki has, thankfully, now clarified his statements on AIDS and satisfied many concerns, but the damage has been done.
Her Majesty's Government, in particular DfID, have played an invaluable role for many years not only in accelerating the process of bringing democracy to South Africa but also in promoting greater economic, social and political co-operation in the region. When South Africa became a democracy and emerged from isolation, it was widely expected to become Africa's superpower. The hope was that its new rulers, using the country's muscle, would lead the continent towards a new era of peace, democracy and growth. The world marvelled at the manner and style with which Nelson Mandela took over in South Africa, preaching reconciliation and implementing
256
comprehensive, structural and political reform. And what a messiah he is. After so many years of incarceration and with apartheid having inflicted massive social, economic, cultural and psychological damage on black South Africans, Nelson Mandela's vision and leadership led to massive inflows of capital into the country.
Since he stepped down, there have been a number of negative features. I, having spent most of my life in South Africa, always like to look on the positive side of things. There is no doubt that the finance Minister, Trevor Manuel, and the governor of the Reserve Bank, Tito Mboweni, have been extremely successful both in keeping down inflation and in implementing fiscal and monetary discipline which has led to ongoing investment in the country. However, the investment has been mostly in bonds and equities rather than in much-needed capital infrastructure which is so desperately needed in a country with almost 40 per cent unemployment.
Sadly, my optimism does not extend to the style and manner in which Thabo Mbeki has taken over the presidency. Signs of alarming racial polarisation are emerging from his leadership. There is growing frustration among many black South Africans that expectations have not been met coupled with a sense of lack of action and insufficient redistribution of economic wealth.
On the other side there is much fear and anxiety among many white South Africans over what I might call dramatic reverse discrimination and the fact that President Thabo Mbeki has been playing the race card. The recent local elections in South Africa showed a clear shift in support away from the president's leadership. Most South Africans of all racial denominations applaud non-racial democracy. The country desperately needs top level international policy advisers on healthcare, urban regeneration, education and other sectors needing structural reform.
One of the greatest tragedies affecting the region is the dramatic increase in the spread of AIDS. According to a recent United Nations report, in South Africa alone over 4 million people are HIV positive. That figure is the highest of any country in the world. Within 10 years it is estimated that it will take 17 per cent off the GDP, with disastrous economic implications. Up to 20 per cent of the population are likely to die from AIDS within the next 10 to 15 years. Sadly, there is no united or co-ordinated government programme to tackle the problem. The issue is far too politically charged. The South African Government appear to be in a state of denial with few death certificates acknowledging the cause of death as AIDS. It is largely a hidden disease. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to the measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist in tackling the problem?
I wish briefly to touch on current developments in Zimbabwe, mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Howell. Until a week ago, there was a strong rumour that President Robert Mugabe would be standing down at the ZANU congress meeting. As a result of

257
this speculation the opposition MDC agreed to call off the national strike and mass action day. However, quite the opposite option has emerged. It looks highly likely that Robert Mugabe plans to stand again in the next presidential election which invariably, I fear, will result in another spate of mass intimidation of opposition supporters, invasion of farms by the war veterans and the corruption that follows.
Only one word describes the country that I know so well—catastrophic. In a country blessed with high educational attainment, a recently stable economy has been devastated and destroyed by the greed, corruption and personal aspirations of one man, Robert Mugabe. I do not refer just to the mining or tobacco industries; I refer also the tourism industry and the basic economic infrastructure of the country. In her closing speech, can the Minister outline what measures, if any, Her Majesty's Government are taking or plan to take to assist in achieving democracy, respect for human rights and stability in Zimbabwe?
In conclusion, I fear that the gap between the developed and developing world is widening rather than closing. Sadly, President Thabo Mbeki's vision of an African renaissance has not yet materialised. I believe that President Thabo Mbeki, whom I have known for many years, can turn the tables and achieve long term stability in South Africa but he must be receptive to the concerns of his critics and the international community. Africa's economic development is inextricably linked to political development and peace.
I applaud our Chancellor's recent announcement to write off third world debt, as well as the publication of yesterday's White Paper on eliminating world poverty. The challenges facing southern African are enormous. The Department for International Development will play an important role in meeting those challenges. I still believe that Thabo Mbeki's African renaissance will not turn out a pipedream but could ultimately be a reality.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I am more than usually pleased to address the House from the Back Benches today, because my comments on Europe will be rather less stateswomanlike—or statesmanlike—than those that we heard from the Front Benches this afternoon.
The trouble with Europe—I mean organised Europe; the European Union—is that it produces visionaries and plumbers, but very few in between in the sphere of democratic politics. The visionaries fire the dreams or nightmares of those who are so inclined, while the plumbers work away at the mechanics of the pipes and valves of Brussels, if not at a directive for clean bathing water.
Sometimes the visionaries try their hand at plumbing. The result is Heads of Government solemnly trying to work out how many Commissioners are one too many—26, 27, 28? By way of compromise, they settle for 27.
258
A little while ago, I asked one of the cleverest Europeans, the former Belgian Vice-President of the Commission, Etienne Davignon, how many Commissioners a community of 20 members needed. He replied like a shot, although not without irony, "Three". When I told former Commission President Jacques Delors the story a couple of weeks ago, he said, "Davignon is too strict. There is enough to do for seven Commissioners, though not for more". Both responses were more appropriate than that of the visionaries, who want a Commission president chosen by Europe-wide direct elections, or that of the plumbers, who settled for 27 Commissioners.
Between the visionaries and plumbers, one simple question gets lost: what is it all about? Why should there be ever-closer union? When I first heard that question, almost half a century ago, the answer was not so difficult. I was living in Saarland in the years before the referendum on whether the territory should return to Germany or be Europeanised. I was for the latter and lost, which may explain in part my aversion to referendums.
At the time, the integration of the Saarland in the young Federal Republic of Germany was an even more effective expression of the fact that Germany and France—and the Europe that they had created—had put an end to a century and a half of what now can be called civil war.
Similar arguments are still used, but times have changed. Even when Britain joined the European Community in 1973, the decision had more to do with the future than with the past. Spain and Portugal, as well as Greece, became members not to bury an ancient hatchet, but to stabilise their new-found democracy. At the beginning of his first term as Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzales said that he had looked at the international bodies on offer and found that the European Community was the only one that had never tolerated a member violating the rule of law or the principles of democracy. It is not irrelevant to add that he later came to regard Spain's membership of NATO, which has had members of dubious democratic credentials, as at least as important. The countries of east central Europe have followed him on that and sometimes wonder why NATO found it possible to take them in while the EU prevaricates over secondary matters.
When the countries freed from the yoke of nomenklatura communism in 1989 thought about their future, the people said that they wanted to return to Europe. They meant a Europe that represents and defends democracy, the rule of law, a rule-based market economy and openness to the world.
Does the European Union offer that? It is difficult to answer that question with a straight "yes". The Union has done two sets of things. First, it has created a common market, which was redefined in 1985 as a single market. Almost everything that emanates from "Brussels", including the supranational institutions, belongs in that category. The other development began in 1969 and has led to a number of mostly intergovernmental ventures: with economic and monetary

259
union straddling the two, but elements of a common foreign and security policy, and most recently co-operation in justice and home affairs, largely belonging in the inter-governmental category.
What does that add up to? Not, I suggest, to a superstate. I have not mentioned money so far, but it is striking that no one at Nice asked for the ceiling of EU expenditure to be raised. It remains firmly fixed at 1.27 per cent of gross domestic product. It is laughable to describe an entity responsible for a mere 1.27 per cent of GDP, half of which is automatic—it is agricultural expenditure—as a superstate. Real states account for 30 or 40 times that share of GDP.
Nor does Europe show signs of being a superpower. Statistics—adding up people, GDP or anything else—may produce size, but not power. The euro has no political power to back it up. That is one of its weaknesses. Who would Mr Greenspan be without a president? Some have asked that question during these weeks of uncertainty in the United States. He would be no more or no less than Mr Duisenberg. Similarly, who would Mr Kissinger have been without a president? Mr Solana is an impressive man, but his presence at important events does not mean that he can muster great power.
It may be unkind, but not false, to say that in so far as Europe is "super", it is a supermarket. However, that is not my main point. The European Union does not comply with the values sought in its candidates for membership. It is sometimes said that if the European Union applied for accession to the European Union, it would have to be rejected. I am actually ashamed to belong to a community in which legislation is not subject to democratic control. I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said on that subject.
The conclusion is clear and simple. Democracy in Europe is the biggest medium-term task for the Union. Nice has contributed little, if anything, to that task. Those who, like me at the time, advocated British accession expected a more democratic Europe. The issue is now indissolubly linked to the forthcoming enlargement. We have to make sure that concern with an acquis communautaire about packaging waste, rules governing nursing and midwifery, gambling and machine games, or even cinematography—all those are quoted from the recent Polish position paper—does not destroy the hopes of those who want to be a part of a peaceful, free and open Europe. I quote from the recent bulletin of the Centre for European Reform:
"The EU has an accession process, but still needs an enlargement strategy".
This must include not only an early date—certainly one before the EU once again changes its own institutional structure—but, above all, a joint effort by old and new members to democratise Europe.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, the gracious Speech states that the Government believe that those who commit crime against humanity should be brought to justice. I welcome the Government's commitment to ratifying the statute of the International Criminal Court.
260
Today, dozens of conflicts are occurring within the boundaries of individual states. Many, such as Kosovo, Xiuxiang, Chechnya, Palestine and Kashmir, are concerned with self-determination. Many brutal, tyrannical dictators and even so-called "elected" governments are engaged in the elimination of their political and religious opponents.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that war criminals, such as Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic should have no place to hide and should be brought to justice forthwith. But I would urge the international community seriously to consider the prosecution of people who are responsible for the crimes against humanity in Chechnya, Palestine and Kashmir and in other places, too.
My noble friend Lord Judd, rapporteur on Chechnya to the Parliamentary Assembly o f the Council of Europe and chairman of the Assembly Sub-Committee on refugees, recently wrote in the House Magazine that in Chechnya:
"There are still indiscriminate bombardments, even if more limited in number; there are too many checkpoints where harassment and extortion are the norm; there are reports of secret prisons, holes in the ground, abuse of detainees and torture; disappearances still occur. The conditions faced by refugees and displaced people is deplorable".
Amnesty International has reported beatings, rape and torture of detainees in the most notorious camp of Chernokozovo, where Chechnyans have no access to relatives, lawyers or the world outside. The most common methods of torture are beating, including the use of hammers and clubs, rape and the use of electric shocks.
A Russian non-governmental human rights group, Memorial, estimates that only 10 per cent of those detained by Russian forces in Chechnya are officially registered. The other 90 per cent are kept in milltary detention centres, secret locations or have been extra-judicially killed. Although Russia claims that it is fighting terrorism in Chechnya, the brutal and illegal methods being employed by its forces can only be called "state terrorism" on an unprecedented scale.
I make no secret of the fact that I am a Kashmiriborn British parliamentarian. I have visited the line of control in Azad Kashmir and the refugee camps and have met with hundreds of families who have been victims of oppression in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Your Lordships may have seen the Human Rights Watch annual report last week which pointed out that Hindu nationalist policies of BJP—the party in government—encourages attacks on lower caste individuals and minority Muslim and Christian communities.
Attacks against Christians have increased significantly since the BJP came into power in 1998. Ministers, including the Home Minister, Mr Advani, were responsible for inciting and encouraging the destruction of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya and for killing scores of Muslims. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether she is prepared to say whether charges can be brought against politicians who deliberately encourage and order the killing of innocent civilians.

261
The US State Department report on India, published earlier this year, noted that:
"Serious human rights abuses included faked encounter killings and death of suspects in custody throughout the country and excessive use of force by security forces in Jammu and Kashmir. Problems are acute in Jammu and Kashmir where judicial tolerance of the Government's heavy handed anti-militant tactics, and the refusal of security forces to obey court orders have disrupted the system".
In 1997 the UN rapporteur on torture noted that:
"Torture methods used by India in Jammu and Kashmir included beating, rape, crushing the leg muscles with a wooden roller, burning with heated objects and electric shocks".
Recent developments—for example, the ceasefire called by the largest militant group inside Jammu and Kashmir, Hizbul Mujahideen—offered hope to the long-suffering people of Jammu and Kashmir. The ceasefire was to be three months long but lasted two weeks because India refused to accept the call for inclusion of Pakistan in tripartite talks.
The ceasefire offered hope after the terrible events of 20th March this year in ChittiSinghpura, near Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir. There, on the eve of President Clinton's visit to India, 36 Sikh men were butchered. The killing of the Sikhs was blamed by India on "Pakistan-backed militants", to use the Indian phrase. The fact that the massacre came so close to the presidential visit was extremely beneficial to the Indian Government.
I myself sent your Lordships a report by the Punjab Human Rights Organisation which squarely pinned the blame for the atrocity on Indian-sponsored militant cadres known as "renegades". The renegades are former militants who are armed and paid by the Indian authorities in Jammu and Kashmir. Amnesty International also reached the same conclusion in its investigation, as did the Guardian newspaper in an article called "Valley of Death". Will the perpetrators of this crime against humanity ever be brought to justice?
On a more pleasant note, I welcome the recent Indian Government ceasefire announcement and the reciprocal Pakistani gesture urging maximum restraint along the line of control. For that gesture to become more meaningful, perhaps I may call upon the Indian Government to announce a permanent end to the policy of repression and violence, a reduction in armed forces, respect for the fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people and the release of all detainees.
I hope that the Ramadan ceasefire announced by India and the Pakistani response—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to that earlier—will lead to a true, meaningful and lasting dialogue which will end with a settlement that is acceptable to the three parties in the conflict: Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris. I am hopeful that the recent talks announced in New Delhi between representatives of the APHC and the Indian Government will reinvigorate dialogue and diplomacy between the parties to resolve the conflict.
262
The people of the British Kashmiri community, along with myself, have decided to start our own confidence-building initiatives here in the UK. We hope to run a bus service from Muzaffarabad to Srinagar from outside this Parliament. I hope that in her reply the Minister will endorse the British-Kashmiri community's efforts to bring peace and prosperity to that part of the world.
My last point concerns the crisis in the Middle East. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about Palestine and Iraq. The current uprising was initiated by the deliberately provocative visit of Ariel Sharon, the Likud leader and alleged war criminal, who, escorted by hundreds of Israeli soldiers, went to the Haram Al Sharif on Thursday, 28th September. It was clearly an effort to gain support within his party for fear of an impending leadership struggle against Benjamin Netanyahu. In the current atmosphere, Sharon's typically insensitive actions made it almost a certainty that violence would follow.
The Israeli armed forces have adopted disproportionate means to quell the uprising. There was no excuse for the use of tanks, missiles and helicopter gunships. There has also been an excessive use of live ammunition, including the often lethal rubber-coated metal bullets.
The actions of Israeli Jewish settlers in the violence are also disturbing. Many have been given further weapons and ammunition by the Israeli army over the past two and a half months. Settlers do not have the same operating restrictions as do Israeli soldiers and are largely immune from legal proceedings for violence against Palestinians.
The Israeli Government have failed to acknowledge that only by withdrawing from the occupied territories could there ever by any chance of a fair and sustainable peace. The maintenance of policies such as settlement building—and I remind the House that there has been a dramatic rise since Ehud Barak was elected: 13,600 more settlers last year alone—demolition of houses, use of Israeli undercover assassination units as seen most recently in August of this year, the detention and torture of political prisoners, the closure of the entire Gaza Strip, the cutting off of Jerusalem from the West Bank, the withdrawal of Jerusalem residency rights from over 3,000 Palestinians, the theft of Palestinian resources, especially water, the failure to acknowledge and take responsibility for over 4 million Palestinian refugees.
The Oslo process has not led to an improvement in the situation for Palestinians in terms of national and human rights, nor their economic condition. The current crisis has its roots in one more dominant, powerful side, attempting to impose a peace agreement on the other party. That has cemented Israel's position as occupier of Palestinian land and still subjects the Palestinians to humiliation and poverty.
The policies of Israeli governments over the past 50 years towards their Palestinian Arab citizens have led to violence inside Israel itself. As at 3rd December,

263
13 Arab citizens of Israel have been killed. That follows the continuing confiscation of their land and resources.
Furthermore, the Arab sector still receives less funding per capita than Jewish areas and has a far higher rate of unemployment. Human rights agencies have pointed to rampant discrimination for non-Jews. Unless that is redressed, there will be increasing tension and clashes.
There should be a serious independent inquiry into the recent clashes. That does not mean a US-led inquiry but an impartial team of experts, preferably a UN-led investigation.
Israel cannot object on the grounds of sovereignty as it does not have sovereignty over Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel has failed in its legal duty to provide security to the people of the territory that it has occupied illegally for 33 years. It is legally incumbent, under the fourth Geneva Convention, for the international community to intervene.
The British Muslim community remains concerned that Her Majesty's Government have not seen fit to condemn or deplore the Israeli disproportionate use of force. I should like to see a serious re-evaluation of the Middle East peace process, whereby respect of international law, Security Council resolutions and human rights law were paramount.
It must he remembered that the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem, remains territory under belligerent occupation. Israel, as the occupier, is responsible for the welfare of the occupied. It is now time for the international community, especially the European Union, to insist that Israel must abide by the principles and resolutions of international law, and also that Israel, in co-ordination with the Palestinian authorities, should, with immediate effect, make every effort to calm the situation through non-lethal means.
Finally, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government are using their good relations with the Israeli Administration to encourage confidence-building measures to produce a climate of calm in the region. In my view, a complete freeze on settlement building, including in East Jerusalem, should be enforced until the implementation of a permanent status agreement. Israeli leaders must desist from any provocative actions over the future of the Haram Al Sharif. Such measures should be encouraged.
While I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on and thank them for the excellent way that they have shown leadership and interest in international affairs, I remain cautious about the role of other international players. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that more will be done to support the oppressed and those who are seeking the right of self-determination from oppressive regimes.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I intend to speak about only one issue: the European rapid reaction force. Ever since the strategic threat to Europe was totally transformed by the withdrawal of Soviet forces from
264
the centre of Germany and the break-up of the Soviet Union, I have advocated, in this House and elsewhere, a fundamental reorganisation of NATO's armed forces.
My suggestion has been to organise them into three elements: first, the United States forces stationed in or assigned to Europe under their own national command, as in fact they always are, although that is camouflaged by the existence of large headquarters, manned by inflated allied staffs, most of whom have nothing significant to do, and every expansion of NATO makes that worse; secondly, an integrated European organisation capable of exercising command and organising common training, preferably backed by common logistics and procurement. Germany, ourselves and France must be included in it. Other members of the alliance could join it if they wanted to—I expect most would—but they need not do so. Those who did not would form the third element. Their forces would remain under their own national command, as all would, and are, under NATO, until committed to an operation. But they could always commit their forces to the integrated command if they wished to take part in an operation.
I envisaged that integrated European command as part of NATO, rendering the large bureaucratic allied headquarters superfluous. If the Americans were participating in operations, the integrated organisation would act under their overall command, as every member of NATO would in fact have done if NATO had been engaged in operations. American command is the price that one has to pay for their support, as we did in Korea, in the Gulf and in Kosovo. But if the Americans did not participate, I envisaged the integrated organisation taking its orders directly from the NATO council because, of course, the standard NATO command system could not apply to orders coming down from the Supreme Allied Commander Europe because he is the commander in chief of the United States forces in Europe.
I favoured that organisation not only in order to meet the persistent American demand that the Europeans should make a greater effort—they have been saying that since the alliance started; I know because I was there—but because I believe that it would give better value for money and manpower devoted to the defence and security of Europe than the existing system, which is out of date.
However, I have come to recognise that, unfortunately, the French, unable to escape from their anti-American obsession, would not agree to participate in such an organisation, although it would meet many of their objections to NATO. Nevertheless, I am convinced that there should be some such European defence organisation which must—I repeat, must—include the French. Therefore, I accept the proposed European rapid reaction force as the best practical way of involving them.
It has a further advantage. Previous attempts to bring together the European members of the alliance, such as Eurogroup, for various purposes, including response to American pressure that they should carry

265
a larger share of the burden, have failed for the lack of any political body to back them partly, ironically, because of American suspicions that the Europeans, if organised together, would gang up against them.
While I support the European force, I am convinced that its development must be kept under firm control. In this respect, I welcome the proposal which I understand has been adopted, that the national military representatives in Brussels of the 11 nations which are members of both NATO and the European Union will be accredited to both organisations and that NATO's deputy supreme commander Europe will attend the European Military Committee. The more double-hatting in this field, the better. I regret to see yet another military bureaucracy established, but I hope that, as it develops, the inflated NATO headquarters will be significantly reduced.
My second anxiety is that the new organisation, and especially its political masters, should not be too ambitious. It must remain restricted to the "Petersberg" tasks that were defined as humanitarian intervention, crisis management and peacekeeping. In Bosnia we have seen how those matters can creep and stretch to peace-enforcement and in Kosovo to more than that. I am seriously concerned about the wording in the Helsinki resolution that the force must be capable "of the full range" of those tasks,
"including the most demanding in operations up to corps level (up to 15 Brigades or 50–60,000 persons)".
If that is to be interpreted as implying that all that force might be deployed at the same time in the same operation, it should come under the responsibility of NATO.
As I understand it, the forces that have been declared as our contribution represent the maximum that the force's planners can assume that we would commit to an operation, but that, unless committed, they remain under national command and available for other tasks. I hope that in reply the Minister can assure the House that that is the case.
What are the operations in which the Americans would not want to participate and in which we would not want them to participate? Apart from the Balkans, what could those operations be? In anything that could cause serious concern to Russia or that affected the Middle East or North Africa, the Americans would be concerned and we would want them to be.
What about the Balkans? The impetus for such a force came from the difficulties in which Europe found itself in Bosnia. There is no doubt that we shall be stuck in Kosovo and Bosnia for quite a long time. When the force has developed sufficiently to do so, should it take over responsibility from NATO in that area? That would please the Americans and it would make it easier to co-ordinate with the European Union's efforts in other areas there. However, I believe that we should be cautious in suggesting that. We do not want a repetition of what occurred in Bosnia before Dayton, when the Americans were not involved, but pursued their own policy of favouring the Croats, to Europe's considerable embarrassment.
266
One further advantage of the development of a European security and defence identity is that it will be possible for European nations which are not members of NATO to participate, if they wish to do so, in "Petersberg" task operations, replacing NATO's rather dubious association known as Partnership for Peace. That should relieve some of the pressure for a further expansion of NATO, which I view with considerable misgiving.
I welcome the establishment of the force, and the political means of controlling it, as a first step in generally the right direction. It does not call for the rabid reaction that the Conservative Party leadership has displayed. However, its development will require careful control, which those nations which are members of both the European Union and NATO should be able to exercise. They seem to have done so fairly successfully at Nice.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I take his general position as a guarded welcome to the development to which the Government have put their hand.
The matter of nuclear weapons appears to have been put on one side. The countries that will make up the new organisation comprise some that have nuclear weapons and some that do not. The Government have not mentioned the issue of nuclear weapons at all. One may say, "Why should they?" If I am asked to say what is the single most important change that has taken place over the past century, the greatest change affecting the future of mankind, I would say—I know a number of others would too—that for the first time in human history mankind is now in a position to destroy itself. In other words, we live in a highly dangerous world. In our efforts to create new organisations that will in some way preserve the peace, inadvertently we may create a situation in which that peace may be destroyed.
I venture to doubt whether by entering into a peacemaking war, peace can be created by that war. In Sarajevo we were supposed to be involved in peacemaking, and ultimately we killed many civilians and left behind a situation about which most of us are unhappy.
We do not always achieve the results to which we put our hands. One has to face the possibility that in the new set up that we are discussing, matters may go the way we expect and want them to, but equally they may not. The dire situation that may arise in Europe between countries both of which are in possession of nuclear weapons is one that can barely be contemplated—and the Government have not contemplated it. Possibly the reason that they have not mentioned nuclear weapons is that they have no answer to the problem.

267
I bring to the proposals before the House tonight the same rather guarded welcome that has just been expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. To that I add another one. I would give priority to nuclear disarmament. I do not believe that it is safe to try to transfer political influence and military control when many of the countries concerned are armed to the teeth with weapons that, once exchanged, may lead to a loss of control. In other words, we are creating a new situation and we do not know the effect of that in regard to nuclear disarmament.
By all means let us proceed carefully and slowly with organisational changes, but similarly and simultaneously let us proceed rapidly towards nuclear disarmament. I do not believe that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, would disagree with me on that point. I do not believe that it would be sensible to proceed rapidly and to create uncertainties in relation to the new situation while nuclear weapons proliferate all over the world.
I must pay tribute to the Government. They have made a change to their position in the United Nations which is not widely known—and that is partly their own fault. Perhaps they are not as proud of it as they should be. They now support, and have supported, the new agenda. I was not aware of that; neither was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I believe that he wanted to table a Question to ask whether the Government would pursue the new agenda, which is a more hopeful and a more constructive movement towards nuclear disarmament, but my noble friend on the Front Bench was in a position to claim that they have just done it.
Within the United Nations, we are in a more constructive position than has been the case for some time. Nuclear nations and non-nuclear nations are together able and willing to proceed in the direction of nuclear disarmament.
That process must continue. We have the structure, but we are not moving forward. The new agenda, which we support, has a series of progressions which lead to nuclear disarmament. We must continually move along that route before we can safely make the structural changes which might leave us unable to control the consequences. In other words, I am anxious about the change of the present shape of power in Europe in particular and about the consequences of that across the world and on America. Incidentally, its policies have broken away from the other nuclear nations and no one can foresee the consequences of that.
For those reasons, I take the view which I have already expressed; softly, softly and go carefully. By all means proceed along the lines which the Government are now recommending but, alongside that, and more urgently, let us proceed towards the goal of nuclear disarmament. While that threat remains over the world, together with the power which the nuclear weapon gives us to destroy all that we have created, we must be careful about what we do so as not to end up with a situation we did not intend when we began the discussion.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I want to concentrate my brief remarks on two issues which have been raised tonight; the European Union in the wake of the Nice summit and greater European defence capability.
In plain sight of the historic enlargement of Europe, Europe stands at a crossroad. As the work programme of the French presidency acknowledged, it is a crucial point in the development of the EU. The question is not whether Europe needs to change but rather how it will change under the guiding light of democratic accountability.
From these Benches, I have always been a passionate and vigorous supporter of European enlargement. It is clear that what was truly required to drive forward the enlargement process was agreement on the "Amsterdam Triangle" of issues; namely, the future size of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers and the extension of QMV. On that note, the Government's deal on the reweighting of votes in the Council guarantees the legitimacy of Council decisions and is to be welcomed. However, I share the unease of my noble friend Lord Howell that our failure to act as champions to the smaller countries of Europe could upset the delicate scales upon which the European Union has been balanced.
At Nice, the Government had a golden opportunity to put forward the kind of far-reaching and visionary changes needed to speed up enlargement and to accommodate the inherent diversities of national interest in a European Union of perhaps 27 members or more without undermining the spirit of the European project but at the same time without attempting to shoehorn Europe into a rigid straitjacket of uniformity.
A two-way street made up of interlocking and overlapping groupings, of nations combining in different combinations for different purposes arid to different extents, as in the case of the present opt-outs on borders and the single currency, would enable that to happen and would strengthen Europe by finally allowing it to move away from the damaging cycle of "lowest common denominator" negotiations which hamstrung the European Union and continue to do so.
Last week, the Economist asked why such two-way-street flexibility should pose a problem. I ask the same question of the Government tonight. Yet the Treaty of Nice did not rise to the challenge, for while it paves the way for enlargement to happen it does not pave the way for it to work. The distinction is critically important. For example, during the weekend no mention was made of CAP reform. It was not even on the agenda. The Minister may say that a treaty is not required for CAP reform and so it did not need to be discussed under the auspices of the IGC. Yet plenty was discussed at Nice which did not require an IGC and, even more seriously, was not critical to the enlargement process.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights was on the agenda. The rapid reaction force was on the agenda, as was the European social agenda. All were discussed

269
but none will make an iota of difference in hastening enlargement. The omission of CAP reform was a serious one. It was not discussed at Nice; it should have been discussed at Nice.
Before the summit, the Government promised to protect and promote Britain's national interest. That brings me to the second topic on which I want to focus tonight; namely, the establishment of the European rapid reaction force, which of late has been the subject of debate and much newsprint. The preservation of the stability of Europe and a stalwart commitment to defence have always been proud and strong Conservative traditions. I want to make one thing clear from my perspective. Greater European defence co-operation is not optional; it is obligatory.
A stronger Europe through a stronger European commitment to NATO is vital if we are to have a more balanced transatlantic partnership, able to address real security challenges in the 21st century, particularly in view of the increasingly isolationist post-Cold War America. Recognition of that fact was indeed the raison d'étre for the creation of the European Security and Defence Initiative in 1994.
I respect this Government's ability to create a starburst of favourable publicity at the time of major political events, but it has been notably weaker once that detail has emerged, is analysed and questioned, not least in your Lordships' House. We have two of the Government's finest Ministers participating in the debate, but tonight even they may have difficulty in arguing the case for Annex VII. Yesterday, we were told that the next step is for the European Union and NATO to agree on the necessary arrangements for planning and operational procedures. That next step is a crucially important one and it is far from clear that whatever ultimately emerges will be consistent with NATO.
The documents which emerged from Nice, which the Foreign Secretary was proud to state took only eight minutes to agree, do little to allay my concerns. Most particularly the standing arrangements for consultation and co-operation between the European Union and NATO (Annex VII) declare that there must be "full respect" for the "autonomy of EU decision-making"; that each organisation will be,
"dealing with the other on an equal footing";
and, to reinforce the quotation of my noble friend Lord Howell, 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. That is exactly what the French wanted.
In that framework, the operational commander will report on the conduct of the operation to European Union bodies only. NATO will be informed of developments in the situation by the appropriate bodies. That hardly sounds like European defence co-operation under the NATO umbrella.
270
In the light of President Chirac's remarks last week, and in the absence of hard fact, reassurance is urgently needed—to these Benches, to the United States and to the six non-EU members of NATO, in particular Turkey. The statement signed at the summit might be bland enough, although much of the detail of the lengthy annexes is still not available. But there is ample reason for concern. It should not be forgotten that three years ago similar reassurances were asked for, and given, that the WEU would not be merged with the EU because, in the words of the Prime Minister, that would undermine NATO. Yet the WEU is now to be wound down and the rapid reaction force will be under the aegis of the EU.
A separate strategic and operational planning capability outside NATO which duplicates resources is pointless. Why reinvent the wheel by developing such a capability? It is unnecessary, undesirable and unaffordable. Yet the draft presidency report on European security and defence policy, which speaks of the establishment of a political and security committee, a military committee of the EU and a military staff of the EU, states 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".
At the end of the day, every nation has but one defence budget and one set of forces. There is only one pool of resources from which NATO and the European Union can draw in future military operations and to asset-strip the one to clothe the other is absurd. The Government are proud to boast that Britain took the initiative in proposing the rapid reaction force and have kept the lead throughout. Yet last week the International Herald Tribune reported that in American eyes Britain was blamed for endangering NATO's role for the sake of a British voice in the European Union. I am sure the Minister agrees that that is a most damaging perception. In conclusion, I hope that the Government will be able to act to rebuff it, in particular at the NATO ministerial meeting this week and the summit between the European Union and the United States next week.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the brief time at my disposal I should like to concentrate on one sentence in the gracious Speech:
"My Government will continue to ensure that NATO remains the foundation of Britain's defence and security".
That is an unexceptionable sentiment, but how much does it really mean in the current political environment? As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, suggested, we have witnessed a radical transformation of the international structure which involves the gradual disappearance of the sovereign nation state as its basic building block. That has an inevitable effect on the role and relevance of regional pacts of sovereign nation states. My reaction to all this is very different from that of my noble and gallant friend. The United Nations now believes that the international community has not only the right but the duty to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign

271
states. In turn, that gives rise to, or is reflected by, a new NATO strategic doctrine. If one goes back to the 1999 summit, the doctrine envisaged that the alliance, which used to be purely defensive in nature, might have to deal with a wide range of contingencies, including humanitarian emergencies. Therefore, NATO has already changed out of all recognition as the international structure is transformed.
The concept of a new world order now emerges as the main rationale for the famous—or infamous—European security and defence initiative and the European army, or rapid reaction force, as its military manifestation. To what is the reaction force intended to react? It is not to react to any attack on its members because that is a function of NATO, which we are repeatedly assured is the linchpin of our defence arrangements. As Romano Prodi has clearly said, the force is intended to be a joint effort for peacekeeping missions. Others clearly see it, in the words of a document published recently by the Institute for Public Policy Research, as,
"a rapid reaction humanitarian force, able to provide humanitarian and other resources at overnight notice".
The Prime Minister confirmed in his statement yesterday that that was the main aim of the rapid reaction force.
Unlike my noble and gallant friend, I do not welcome this development. The arguments against this half-baked and ill-conceived project have already been canvassed widely, and I do not take up your Lordships' time in any detailed repetition of them. Briefly, it will be costly in manpower and resources, so much so that it will probably never materialise unless European countries spend far more on their defence budgets than they seem prepared to do at the moment. But, if it does materialise, all the rhetoric about an autonomous European capability will be seen to be empty because it will have to use NATO's resources for weather reconnaissance, electronic warfare, satellite imagery and all the other things which European countries, separately or in concert, cannot provide for themselves. If it tries to acquire its own capabilities in all those fields, it will seriously undermine the cohesion of NATO and our relations with the United States of America. I hope that no government Minister will say again that the Americans are comfortable with that. William Cohen, US Defense Secretary, has comprehensively blown that fiction out of the water. The Americans regard the European strategic defence initiative as having no military credibility or use. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested that the Americans regarded it as a political manoeuvre with some very obvious motives.
One may differ fundamentally on the general approach to this issue, but on whichever side of the argument one may be there are some practical matters which need to be examined, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. The words of the Prime Minister following Nice about NATO's role in European defence was a statement of principle with which few could disagree, but behind the attractive headlines there is a great deal of small print which we should study very carefully. In that context, perhaps when the
272
noble Baroness replies to this debate she will tell us a little more about the interim European Union military staff, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred, that has been set up apparently to prepare for the introduction of a permanent military staff of the European Union. What is to be the exact relationship between that military staff and the military staffs of NATO? What will be its links with national governments? As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested, is it to be part of a completely separate chain of command? We need precision as to that. That is especially important in the field of intelligence.
I ask the noble Baroness to go into a little more detail about how all this is to be organised. I understand that the intelligence division of the European Union military staff is to have at least one intelligence expert from each member state. Apparently the task of that expert is to contribute defence intelligence from the member states to the European Union and to provide a channel from the European Union back to national defence intelligence organisations. Have the Government really agreed to that arrangement and to provide such an intelligence expert? If so, what access will he or she have to our total national intelligence product?
What is the function of the division? I understand that the Foreign Office has said that the EU military staff is a secretariat, not a planning organisation or command staff. If so, what is the secretariat doing with an intelligence division? Intelligence is not some kind of exotic activity that is carried out in some shady and mysterious vacuum; it is central to almost all external political activity. No coherent foreign or defence policy can be formulated without effective intelligence machinery. That truth is at the heart of our relationship with the United States of American. I hope that no one will forget that. It is at the heart of American concerns about the European security and defence initiative.
It is one matter for the Americans to have special bilateral relationships in the intelligence field, as indeed they have with Japan, with Israel and with ourselves, but alarm bells start to ring in Washington when the possibility arises that Britain might become a channel for passing intelligence to the European Union and its member countries. I repeat—I ask this question genuinely for enlightenment and information—if the European Union military staff are not to be involved in military planning, why does it need an intelligence input from its member states?
Britain has one of the most sophisticated intelligence capabilities of any European country. Its effectiveness depends to a substantial extent on our special relationship with the United States. That is a highly sensitive and explosive issue. There are those in Europe who believe that the new European army can have a free ride on the back of the British intelligence capability. The Americans will not tolerate that. Nowadays there is a good deal of facile and ill-informed anti-American sentiment. We have heard some in the debate today. But the Government, whatever those sentiments may be, will have to make up their mind about the matter. Are we really willing to

273
jeopardise a relationship which is vital to our national security in order to contribute to a project which has nothing to do with national security at all and everything to do with European political empire-building? Perhaps the noble Baroness can give the House some reassurance on that matter.
I have a final point. I return to the transformation which is taking place in the global structure and in its strategic doctrine. We know that our Armed Forces are professional, committed and highly effective. They are among the best in the world. We know that and do not need to be told it quite so often. Even among those who are complimentary about our Armed Forces there is a mindset which believes that we can enjoy all the self-indulgences of ethical foreign policies and global humanitarianism without having to pay for them.
In conclusion, I should like to say that if we want to posture on the world stage and despatch expeditionary forces to deal with ethnic cleansing, oppressive regimes and the denial of human rights, then expenditure on our Armed Forces and their equipment will have to have a much higher priority than it has had for many years.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to mention a common interest between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and to depart most emphatically from what he has said. Both he and I had the honour of serving on the European Commission. He was then a Free Democrat from Germany. I was a Labour Party member. I was nominated by Neil Kinnock, himself a Commissioner.
The noble Lord has forgotten substantially what was said at the Commission from time to time. Certainly I do not know exactly what happened in his day; but in mine it was not uncommon for criticism of the Commission to be taken on board and to be the subject of discussion and debate among the Commissioners. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was here: he served with me. He could back up what I say.
To say that the Commission is not subject to democracy is impossible to sustain. I speak only of my own experience. There was plenty of criticism of the Commission from the noble Lord. Some of it was justified, but in large measure it was not. There is no alternative to there being a Commission. That should be said loud and clear. One can criticise it. One can say that it does not have its finger always on the pulse. But to say that there is no case for a Commission, which is what he was saying. The noble Lord shakes his head. That is how I interpreted his view. A Commission does count.
My noble friend Lady Scotland spoke about the role of the organisations within the Commission. If I criticise at all, it is that the Commission was partially left out of the discussions which have taken place. As time goes on, I hope that the Prime Minister will show by his words—he is not incapable of expressing himself—that the Commission has a vital role to play.
274
If the Commission fails in its duty, I believe that the Prime Minister has the duty to inform this country and the wider world where it is going wrong. He has not done that effectively.
I do not propose to enter into the arguments about a rapid reaction force. But I do not think that it undermines NATO at all. That is all I have to say about it.
I was delighted that my noble friend Lady Scotland spoke about ratifying law enforcement. That is desperately needed. I believe that the Commission should pay more attention to that issue. Nevertheless, we are making progress—and thank heaven for that.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was in marked contrast to that of his Leader in another place. I am glad that it was, because if the Leader of the Opposition in another place has any role to play he has determined that it should be a destructive one. That is not the role that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has chosen for himself.
What has emerged from Nice is far removed from the bogey of a monolithic superstate with which the Eurosceptics tried to scare the public yesterday. If anything can be read into the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in another place, it was that. What has emerged of course is compromise. All successful summits have to end that way. Ever since I was a Commissioner, the Commission has not had the last word in anything. That is in the very nature of things when 15, let alone 27, nations participate in international debate. The question is whether the outcome advanced or retarded the European Union, not whether all outstanding questions were satisfactorily dealt with. Judged from that point of view, the Nice Summit was a success. Tony Blair has not been mugged, as the Opposition predicted.
The wider interests have triumphed over the essentially nationalistic ambitions of some. For example, Chancellor Schroder—this is not the first time his name has been mentioned in the debate—deserves our congratulations, rather than our condemnation, on his abandonment of the reweighting of votes in favour of Germany. Logically, the reweighting was sound, but it was unacceptable politically to France, Spain, Italy and ourselves; and so it was not pursued. Why should we not congratulate Chancellor Schrõder on being more pro-European than some of his friends?
Britain has set out where the veto can be used. For us, for example, the issues of taxation and social security are essential. But others have had their say. The fact is that Europe today is determined to work towards a stronger, more democratic and greatly enlarged Community. That is the big picture which has emerged from the summit. Emerging from the summit, too, is a more constructive engagement, which all of us should welcome.
Of course, I should like to see some different policies. I should like to see a more co-ordinated immigration and asylum policy. That is what I would have argued for as a Commissioner. It is clearly needed in the interests of all member states. It is something

275
that we in this House should debate before the next summit. There are problems for Austria and Germany from the east. Italy, Portugal and Spain face similar problems from north Africa. These issues will not easily go away. Debate is of the utmost importance. I hope that, in this place at least, we shall avail ourselves of that opportunity.
We need a common and planned policy based on fairness. We also have wider interests within the OECD as well as in the EU. We have to achieve a more effective diminution of poverty in the world. We can help to reshape international markets. I welcome what Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, has set out in her White Paper. What are the essential issues? In an interview with the Guardian, she said:
"The goal is to ensure aid is well spent and [to] help developing countries to build successful economies, not waste money on goods and services which are overpriced, unsuitable and supplied with national contracts in mind rather than the needs of the poor".
She went on to say:
"We want aid donations to be seen as investment in the future of developing countries, not charity".
That is the case for which she and the Government stand in international affairs.
We have made a start. We have already reduced from 30 per cent in 1997 to 8.5 per cent in 2000 the amount of financial aid tied to the purchase of British goods and services. Yes, we have tied in consultancy work worth about £200 million, but we use local consultants where we can; and from April 2001, it will all be untied.
Will not this help us in the OECD? When I went to the OECD, I had a hand tied behind my back because I could not say all those things. They were not all in my brief. Today, I am glad to say that they are. As Minister of Trade, I wish that I could have said all that mattered in that respect, but I could not. Are the donee countries likely to benefit? Of course they are. I welcome what the Government have said in that respect.
In conclusion, we have made some progress in the EU. We have taken a bold, perhaps unilateral, initiative in international aid. That is a considerable advance. I welcome it unreservedly.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the gracious Speech says little about defence, but I welcome the Government's commitment to ensure that,
"NATO remains the foundation of Britain's defence and security".
I shall say more about that in a moment.
First, I wish to refer to some defence topics, at least some of which should have a place in any Queen's Speech if only to underline the key role defence plays in the nation's affairs. One of the helpful and informative documents which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, sent to me a couple of weeks ago is the Defence Investment Strategy document. I thank the
276
noble Baroness very much for that and for a stream of informative letters and briefings which she has kindly provided.
The Defence Investment Strategy document contains a host of encouraging and informative nuggets about future procurement and investment strategies. I was pleased to note that the MoD is actually valuing its assets and depreciating them over time rather than following the former long-term costings approach where the newly acquired ship, tank or aircraft effectively had no financial value from the day it entered service.
Ten and more years ago, during the last five years of my time in the Ministry of Defence, I tried, as we embarked on what was then known as the new management strategy, to persuade those who looked after our financial affairs to develop ways to show what our in-hand asset values were, instead of effectively writing them off financially from the day they entered service. I was unable to move the MoD financial dinosaur then. I am pleased to see that at last this more logical and coherent approach is now the practice.
I was interested in the development of public/private partnerships which is reported in the strategic document. So far this arrangement seems to be giving satisfactory results, so much so that it is to be taken much further into programmes as large and critical to frontline needs as the future strategic tanker for airborne refuelling.
To be attractive to the market, a PFI deal must give the private sector participant added value. Effectively, this will be their return, year after year, of a lease or rental value over the operational life of the programme paid to them by the Ministry of Defence. In other words, there will be an unavoidable sum to service the private funds for which the MoD must budget over many years. In the old Long Term Costings regime, and still today of course, a significant percentage of the annual defence budget is committed from the very first day of the financial year. That cannot be avoided; pay and allowances, pensions and, of course, payments for contracts already entered into for new equipment. After taking all these into account, there used to be only a relatively small percentage of the annual budget which could be "veered and hauled", as it were, to accommodate unexpected or new higher priority needs.
I wonder what additional constraints PFI deals will impose in the years ahead? Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure noble Lords that the further loss in flexibility, which is one of the disadvantages of the new investment strategy, is not going to be a major problem for the future. Regrettably, the controls on capital funds are already causing problems in funding the running and operational activities envisaged in the Strategic Defence Review and in the essential training which all three services must undertake if they are to sustain their quality and cutting edge for the operations they face.
I regret that no reference is made in the gracious Speech to the operational deployments which the Armed Forces are engaged in to further Her Majesty's

277
Government's policies. Many servicemen and women are involved, or are likely to be involved, in live operations. These continue almost daily in the skies over Iraq with aircrew who have not had extended training, such as Green and Red Flags, which the US Air Force and Navy learnt from bitter experience were vital in Vietnam if they were not to take heavy losses. A shortage of operational crews affecting both the RAF and the Royal Navy may account for some of these problems.
But it is frankly unacceptable to be committing to the exposure of live operations individuals who do not have the benefit of extended training, which is so essential to their effectiveness and their self-confidence. Is it a lack of funds for the training, or is it the pressure of overcommitment and undermanning which is causing these problems? I hope that the Minister will be able to say that there is no restriction on the essential training for their varied live operational roles anywhere in the three services.
None of the operations to which the Armed Forces are today committed can be said to be of such overriding national importance, so critical to the safety and defence of this country and its people, that short cuts in training and preparation for live operations have got to be forgone or curtailed. We have been lucky in the past with live operations; thankfully, over the past decade, casualties have been very few. But even a peacekeeping or a peace-enforcing operation can descend into conflict with casualties and losses on both sides. If, tragically, that were to happen, I do not want it to happen to those who have been short-changed on their preparation and training. That would be a moral outrage. Ministers must ensure that they are aware of the extent of the preparation of those they seek to involve in operations. It is difficult for the forces themselves, if tasked to meet a political commitment, to try to back off because they have not been fully trained for the missions which will confront them.
In response to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the European rapid reaction force, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, stated:
"European Union nations and others (including European members of NATO and EU candidate countries) are making forces available and improving their capabilities for possible EU-led crisis management operations (e.g. humanitarian relief and peace-keeping). They will act militarily only where NATO as a whole is not engaged. They will not act in collective defence, which remains for NATO".—(Official Report, 29/11/00; col. WA140.]
I had to read the Answer several times because I thought its message confusing. One construction seems to be that if a Petersberg operation degenerates into conflict, the Euro nations involved will act militarily if NATO as a whole is not engaged, but they will not act in collective defence. The outcome of Nice seems to support this concept, as reported by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal in yesterday's Statement.
I hope that, in any thinking and planning for Petersberg tasks, there will be the closest interchanges between the FCO and the MoD. The latter must stress
278
that it would be foolish in the extreme to plan on the assumption that there is never a risk of Petersberg tasks degenerating into conflict. The highest military levels in the MoD have put this point across graphically by reminding us that the Armed Forces must be trained and prepared for war and that training suitable merely for handing out aspirins and TLC to refugees will not suffice.
In the event that the Euro nations were caught up in military action, by which I mean conflict, I hope that the necessary contingency planning for such an eventuality will have been done. Indeed, if those with whom we may be collaborating on Petersberg tasks are not prepared to think and act in this way, then there must be very serious reservations about the whole idea. It is not merely an increase in military spending which this whole process is supposed to encourage, but a willingness to contemplate and plan for the unexpected. In all that I have read and heard about this new initiative, there still seems to be a lot of fuzziness—fuzziness which does not arise if the activities are shared beneath a NATO umbrella. Much work is still required to turn this very political EU aspiration into practical military sense.
I worry, too, at the assurance that there is no new burden for the Armed Forces. Surely, there is a risk of that. A collective approach brings its own obligations which may be impossible to resist or resile from without the most serious political consequences. While I do not doubt that there are many political imperatives to this latest attempt in a very long list of past endeavours, spreading back over many years, to bring greater strength and value to a Euro contribution, I am not so confident in its success. How often has it been tried and, so far, how rarely—even at much lower levels of complexity—has it achieved anything of lasting value?
While it is no doubt politically desirable to continue to try and try again, all these efforts must not undermine or weaken the strength, value and transatlantic commitment which is embodied in NATO. This is a difficult circle to square. It will need constant vigilance and the closest co-operation at all levels of government. Reading what has been said in recent days by Ministers and by the Prime Minister about European defence co-operation, I sense that there is still room for refining their mutual understanding and commentary on the way ahead. The message is not yet clear. Many noble Lords, in what they have said today, have underlined that only too clearly.
6.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, in the gracious Speech we were told that there was to be a White Paper outlining how the Government would work to shape the forces of globalisation to benefit the world's poor. I am among those who were delighted to see that paper published yesterday. I warmly welcome the paper and the statement written by the Secretary of State for International Development, with its particular pledges to untie development assistance, to

279
help eradicate disease, to support world environmental initiatives and to tackle intellectual property rights and stolen assets.
What concerns me most, however, is what the White Paper says about trade strengthening initiatives in developing countries. What kind of globalisation are we seeking, and how might we be able
"to hallow and direct it aright',
as some of us might say in other contexts?
The definition of globalisation with which the aid agencies work is the, "increasing inter-connectedness of individuals, groups and communities". But others see the world as a single market without barriers. There you can see the reason for my concern. While the aid agencies' definition reflects something of the mutual interdependence that I long for—reflecting that interrelationship of the persons of the Trinity at the heart of the Godhead—the single market language of John Madeley's definition, a single market without barriers, should give us cause for concern.
If globalisation is essentially about the market, it has signally failed to achieve improvements in equality or mutuality. Here I disagree with the comments made in paragraph 27 of the White Paper. The World Bank's development report for 2000 to 2001 indicates that the average income in the world's 20 richest countries is 37 times the average in the 20 poorest, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said. Like him, I believe that this increasing gap is immoral. It is growing, and what are we doing?
The gap is dangerous because it undermines trust and, without that trust, there is no hope of the partnerships we must seek to build between those who live on different sides of the world, who have access to different standards of justice and different ways of entering the global market. This gap, which has doubled over the past 40 years, shows us that the benefits of globalisation appear to have gone very largely to those who have the most already, while the poorest have failed to benefit fully or, in many cases, become poorer.
The Human Development Report 1997, published by the UN Development Programme in New York, states that the prescription of globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation is,
"presented with an air of inevitability and overwhelming conviction. Not since the heyday of free trade in the 19th century has economic theory elicited such widespread certainty".
This certainty has been expressed more confidently since the collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1989 and the retreat from the so-called socialist models of economic organisation since then.
But we have to recognise that the main beneficiaries of the trend towards globalisation have been the big trans-national corporations, largely based in the countries of the north—that is, western Europe, northern America and Japan.
In the area of the developing world that I know best—the Sudan—there is a new oilfield now in production. The securing and opening of that pipeline in September 1999 was achieved only by a large-scale
280
clearance of tens of thousands of people from their homes in Upper Nile state. The principal beneficiary is a consortium of Canadian. Chinese and Malaysian companies, which has brought in Sudapet, the Sudanese petrol company, and given it a 5 per cent stake. Noble Lords may remember that there was an attempt to engage British business interests in this project as well.
The majority holdings in this venture are looking to take profits outside the country to their shareholders. Will what is left for the Sudan—a tiny 5 per cent in rare foreign currency earnings—bring any long-term benefits to the country as a whole? There are fears that this currency is not being used for healthcare or education but to resource the continuing internal conflict with the south. Global integration at this level will not help the Sudan's people.
For me, that raises the question of what kind of globalisation the Government have in mind. Globalisation is a given, but who is driving it and for what reason? Many trans-national corporations are far wealthier and more influential than Third World governments. Their interests are in those who can buy their goods and services, not in those who are without purchasing power. The aid agencies believe that the current strategy of "third way" globalisation—market liberalisation accompanied by more attention to human capital formation—is insufficiently redistributive to reverse the trend of rising inequality.
How will governments, including Her Majesty's Government, encourage—even make—the transnational corporations address these important questions of equity? What voice do we have where it counts most? How is the World Trade Organisation to monitor and regulate the global financial architecture so as to maximise its impact on poverty reduction? How can we encourage our partners in the European Union, of which we have heard so much in the debate, to support the development of an international agreement on competition? According to the White Paper, that is why it is so important to design economic strategies. Yes—but who is to do it and how can we take part in it?
How do these questions relate to the announcement that a new infrastructure financing facility for Africa will complement the Department for International Development initiated World Bank facility to encourage public-private investment in infrastructure? Will these links with domestic and international partners be on terms that are fairer and more generous than the package put together to exploit the Sudan's oilfields?
Will the Government tell us how they can influence the forces of globalisation so as to benefit the world's poor—so that we have a visible, practical and honourable strategy around which we can unite—as well as taking the welcome practical steps proposed? Unless we have that visible strategy around which we can unite, we will not be delivering to them the model of co-operation and trust they badly need—and the lack of which will divide us even further.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the interconnectedness referred to by the right reverend Prelate is interrupted in many parts of the world by conflict—not least in the area of Sudan where the oil companies are busy developing the projects he mentioned. If we are to have globalisation that benefits everyone, we have, first of all, to solve the conflict situations which prevent those in southern Sudan, for example, from obtaining the benefits which accrue to the richer countries.
Perhaps I may begin by referring to another conflict in Africa where we have been successful in bringing the fighting to an end—that is, the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia. That conflict has caused immense loss of life and destruction of property, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and I saw when we were there last January. We visited the front line near Tsorona, where dead bodies were spread out all over the front. There were burnt-out tanks and destroyed villages on a vast scale. The conflict was similar to those in the First World War. Tens of thousands of men attacked on both sides—particularly the Ethiopians, who used the human wave tactics of the First World War.
It is an enormous relief that the conflict has now been brought to an end. Yesterday the peace efforts of President Bouteflika of Algeria were finally crowned with success when the two countries signed the Algiers agreement for a permanent end to hostilities between the two countries and the appointment of a neutral boundary commission to demarcate the borders.
The first point I should like to put to the noble Baroness about the lessons of this conflict is that the OAU needs better indigenous conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms of its own. President Bouteflika is to be warmly congratulated; he has done a tremendous job. But that was partly with the help of the United Nations and of the US, which put a lot of technical resources and manpower into the background. The OAU needs to have this capacity for itself. I hope that the international community will see that need and that the Britain might take a lead in offering to assist the OAU in that respect.
It was also very encouraging that Mr Ian Martin, who had given the United Nations such invaluable service in East Timor and before that in Haiti, is now the deputy special representative of the Secretary-General in Asmara. I hope that we shall continue to give full support to the reconstruction effort, as the Secretary-General has requested. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, will agree with me that Eritrea suffered disproportionately in the war because the whole of the west of the country was occupied by Ethiopian forces in the final offensive and they destroyed a large number of towns and villages there, displacing a quarter of a million people. The total number of people displaced in Eritrea as a whole has been estimated at 750,000—something like a quarter of the population. The scale of the problems that they face is enormous. But the Eritreans are amazingly resilient; given the support, they will recover. To evaluate their needs effectively, we need a permanent representative in Asmara. If Foreign Office resources will not allow a
282
full embassy to be opened there, will the Minister at least assure the House that the embassy in Addis Ababa will make available a permanent official at senior level to stay in Asmara the whole time, instead of visiting it once a month or thereabouts?
I turn now to another area of conflict which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed; namely, the state of Jammu and Kashmir. I visited Azad Kashmir in April, and in November I spent two days each in Jammu and Leh, talking to leaders of political parties, the military, minorities, students, humanitarian agencies, journalists, academics and people in the street. There was an almost universal demand for peace. Even the leaders of the political parties which are opposed to Indian rule were positive about the Ramadan cease-fire, although as one would expect they wanted it to be followed or accompanied immediately by talks on a political solution to this 53 year-old problem. Others said that they wanted the cease-fire to be made permanent. A group of young unemployed men said that their main anxiety was the lack of economic activity—an effect of the tension between India and Pakistan which erupted into an armed clash across the Line of Control in the spring and summer of 1999. A military source in Kashmir told us that 100,000 shells were fired by both sides in the course of the conflict. At a cost of 150 dollars each, the shells fired would have been worth an enormous amount. In Jane's Defence Monthly last June it was estimated that the Indians had spent 49 million dollars on replacing the shells fired. If we double that figure, taking the Pakistani contribution into account, we see that 100 million dollars went up in smoke on shells alone, to take no account of the loss of life and the other damage caused.
The only elements which did not approve the ceasefire in Kashmir were the armed groups. They have continued their operations and have recently been hitting soft targets, civilians and members of minority groups. Among the recent victims have been Agha Mehdi, the distinguished leader of the Shi'as in one part of the territory, five Sikh lorry drivers and five Hindus from the Doda area. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, mentioned an earlier case, the massacre at Chitti Singhpura, where large numbers of Sikhs were killed. This is a new phenomenon in the territory. Until recently, members of minority groups were immune. Those crimes are not calculated to end Indian rule in Kashmir, but serve to intimidate those who want to engage in a political process. Yesterday, Mr Abdul Ghani Lone, one of the Hurriyat leaders, said that militants should respond to the cease-fire and that, in any case, all foreign mercenaries will have to leave Kashmir once a dialogue has started. I hope that the violence does cease; but, as we learnt in Northern Ireland, if people want peace badly enough, they are not going to be deterred by atrocities or by the few bombs and bullets that the armed groups continue to fire.
I hope that we shall now see inclusive round table conferences of Kashmiris, first in Srinagar, then in Muzaffarabad, to enlist the forces of the whole community on either side in taking a political process

283
forward. If there is a permanent peace, there is no reason why the Line of Control should not be opened, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, suggested; not just one bus, but a regular service, might be opened between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar. We shall have to see how best we can help these processes, while recognising that any decisions are entirely a matter for the people of Kashmir themselves. There are possibilities for "track two" initiatives, such as the conference which I had the privilege of attending in New Delhi, organised by the International Centre for Peace Initiatives. Meanwhile, we should encourage India and Pakistan to extend the cease-fire and to compete with each other in devising new confidence-building initiatives that would help to give some momentum to the development of a purely Kashmiri process, to enable the people themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said, to take part in these initiatives.
My third area of concern is the troubled province of Aceh in northern Sumatra. It seems a long time since your Lordships debated Indonesia, in April 1999. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then: President Habibie has disappeared and East Timor is on the way to independence. But a year after President Abdurrahman Wahid was elected, there is still widespread violence in Indonesia, in West Timor, Maluku and West Papua as well as Aceh. Aceh has the worst record of human rights abuse of any province in that vast state. The Aceh Human Rights Care Forum reports 841 deaths in the past 11 months, including 676 civilians. The latest victims, last Wednesday, were three humanitarian activists working for a Danish-funded NGO on the rehabilitation of torture victims.
President Wahid probably wants to stop the human rights violations in Aceh as much as we do; but I suspect that he is no longer in full control. When the army said on 5th December that troops would be deployed into the villages in Aceh (and in West Papua) for what were described as "social programmes" but what in fact represented a further crackdown against the pro-independence movement, the President's spokesman said that he was concerned about the army's motives but he had no choice but to agree. The spokesman said, "It's really hard not to allow the military to do anything".
The "humanitarian pause" agreed between the government and the Free Aceh Movement has not led to any reduction in the violence, and another 2,500 troops are now being deployed to the province, ostensibly to provide security for president Wahid when he visits Aceh on 19th December. The local commander said that before the arrival of these forces, 10,000 troops and police were already engaged in a crackdown on the separatists. That does not sound like the cessation of military activities that was projected in the "humanitarian pause".
If the Indonesians are serious about a political solution to the problems of Aceh's constitutional status, they must first address the disjunction between the elected leadership and the TNI. The lack of control over the military which resulted in the total devastation of East Timor, necessitating a huge
284
international operation to put the embryo state back on its feet and left 130,000 refugees in the camps of West Timor, will, if not corrected, lead to similar emergencies in Aceh and indeed West Papua.
I have three suggestions. The first is that Britain and the EU work towards a resolution at next year's Human Rights Commission on Indonesia in general and Aceh in particular, starting with the joint declaration by four rapporteurs and the working group on arbitrary detention. The second is that the UN Secretary-General should be asked to consider sending a special representative, who might be a military man, to Indonesia to discuss the growing levels of violence in many parts of the country and in Aceh in particular, and to see whether the United Nations might be able to offer help in restoring peace and stability. The third is that the Indonesian Government should be asked to extend the ICRC's mandate so as to cover observation of the military's compliance with common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and inspection of places of detention.
As my noble friend Baroness Williams has said, we cannot do these things by ourselves. I strongly endorse her suggestion that we should, in partnership with the rest of Europe, pursue all the issues of peace in the world, so as to prevent and resolve conflicts, wherever they occur, and promote human rights and democracy throughout the world. Only by enhancing our own capacity through joining with the rest of Europe can we make a positive contribution to that end.
7 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, the domestic political crisis in Israel, against the background of an escalating second intifada, might prove a complicating factor, but it might also reopen a narrow window of opportunity for a resumption of peace talks.
The paradox of the situation is that Ehud Barak has gone further than any previous leader, and further than any future prime minister of Israel on the horizon, in meeting the Oslo terms. Already 98 per cent of Palestinians from the West Bank live in territories assigned to Palestinian authority rule. Between 92 and 95 per cent of the West Bank land had been reliably held out to become an independent state of Palestine. Some thoughtful arrangements on the refugee question, some notions of shared sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem, were believed to have been traded at Camp David in exchange for a peace treaty, for normalisation and for a declaration to end the conflict. Even the vexed question of the settlements was and is open for debate and compromise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was seriously concerned about the budgetary provisions for further settlements or for the extension or security of settlements in Israel. She is well informed about the domestic politics of Israel. The present government of Ehud Barak has a very precarious majority or no majority at all, but he has on very many occasions made it quite clear that the public must prepare itself for very hard facts and difficult decisions. Given good faith on both sides, everything is open for negotiation, including a settlement.

285
I also recall that not only was it a Likud prime minister, Menachem Begin, who, when he saw and realised the good faith on President Sadat's side, ordered the razing of the settlements in Sinai, but the man who dynamited the largest of them, Yammit, was General Sharon, the leader of the Likud of today. As for Lebanon, Israel withdrew in accordance with UN resolution 425, which was acknowledged by the United Nations. Even the Golan Heights were to be returned to Syria through the personal intervention of President Clinton with late President Assad.
None of these concessions was taken up and responded to by Arafat or by President Assad senior or President Assad junior. On the contrary, as Ehud Barak advanced step by step towards a solution, his Arab interlocutors turned into increasingly combative adversaries. Far from conceding that the Israeli side was ready in negotiations, however tenacious, to address every single issue, a new perception seemed to have gained ground in the Arab streets and mosques, and certainly in the militant movements throughout the Arab world, all fanned assiduously by the rogue states of the region—a perception that the Jewish state was perhaps now more vulnerable than ever, more susceptible to pressure and surrender.
By internationalising the conflict, and thus downgrading the United States as the main peace broker, by demonising the Israelis as the perpetrators of crimes, by organising terror within Israel and outside, a Palestinian state could be born not at the conference table but on the battlefield. Even the more moderate version of these strategies relies on a combination of creating a hostile international media climate around Israel, combined with diplomatic pressure, in the hope of producing a kind of mid-eastern Munich, followed by the erosion of the Jewish substance of the state with the help of a hostile Arab minority. The more radical rhetoric calls for the total elimination of the Zionist entity.
The illusion that Israel would allow itself to be cornered without robust resistance is a dangerous one. If the international community, especially Europe, is to intervene in any range of contingencies, from observing to peace-keeping, it can do so only with the overt agreement of the parties and in the full awareness that the United States remains the chief protagonist capable of brokering either an interim agreement or a final accord.
I have recently returned from the United States. Once the delay caused by the electoral deadlock has been overcome, I believe that Washington is determined to continue its efforts. What Europe could and should do is act with compassion and evenhandedness in the evaluation of these tragic events. Whatever one's views are of the history of the Holy Land in the past 50 years, or in the 19th century, we must now focus on the present, on the future and on the chances of peace.
So far, the Oslo process has been not only the best but the only avenue for a final agreement. When we look at the events of the last phase, there is no doubt
286
that the Palestinians, as well as Hezbollah, have initiated the violence and that the Israelis have reacted. Whether or not they have over reacted may be established by the Mitchell commission, a team of distinguished observers due to start their work on the spot.
I should like to mention an argument that seems to weigh heavily in the discussion and figure regularly in United Nations and European resolutions—namely, the perceived imbalance and the asymmetry of casualties between Palestinians and Israelis. Statistics of terror have to be weighed very scrupulously. We must surely condemn murderous intent, meticulously planned and calculated terror, as well as the end result, or else we could come to wickedly absurd conclusions. Would we feel less distressed about this asymmetry of casualties if, for example, the young Hamas suicide bomber on his bicycle, instead of blowing himself up, had succeeded in his mission and had massacred all the inmates of a hospital or mid-day shoppers in the marketplace, thus bringing the total of Israeli casualties up to a higher percentage, or would we feel more sympathetic towards Israel if last Sunday's ambush had ended with the murder of Israel's chief rabbi?
This is not a conflict between the burghers of Luxembourg and the farmers of Belgium. It is a conflict between a country that tries to be democratic, warts and all, and neighbours who—and I say it in the most complimentary sense—have an emergent civil society. The stark fact is that on the Israeli side there is much heart searching and frank discussion, open debate, self-criticism, and a genuine will to walk more and more miles towards the peace goal. Alas, on the Palestinian side Chairman Arafat now sports his sub-machine gun as his new symbol. The leader of the militant Tanzin, Barghuti, proclaims open war. The imams preach jihad and sanctify assassination by all means—by knives, by bullets, by bombs.
In various declarations, the European Union has urged the parties to return to the conference table. Under the French presidency in Biarritz, Marseilles, Paris and Nice, they have reiterated this appeal. The Israelis are aware that Her Majesty's Government and the government of the Federal Republic of Germany are among those who generally wish to achieve a just peace and who recognise America's role. But it cannot be denied that Israel and her sympathisers perceive the posture of the French government, especially that of President Chirac, as distinctly less friendly—partly, as they see it, because of their desire to distance themselves from everything that smacks of American influence.
In Israel, and also in America, it is noted that the French, who had promised peace-keeping personnel in Lebanon, did not live up to their promise. Nor have their interventions with the governments of Lebanon and Syria been very effective. The Lebanese frontier is still hazardous ground; Hezbollah still dangerously roams around. The present violence in the region could either become a chronic state of affairs, a killing ground, which, as one military critic laconically put it,

287
could last up to six years, as did the first intifada, or could lead to a regional war with incalculable consequences.
The British Government are pursuing a very responsible and constructive policy. It must be acknowledged that they are trying to convince the parties to return to the conference table. But the opinion-forming media have to face up to their grave responsibility to report the conflict fairly and not let objectivity be obscured by sensationalism. The challenge of the next 60 days, the existing opportunity, must not he missed. The struggle for peace must never be abandoned.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I shall refer to two aspects of the gracious Speech that I welcome. First, like the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, I shall refer to the commitment to bring those charged with crimes against humanity to justice. Secondly, I shall refer to measures to improve the transparency of export controls. I shall link these to the Government's commitment to an ethically-based, human rights oriented foreign policy. I base my concerns on direct evidence of recent visits to the Karen and Karenni people in Burma and in the camps on the Thai-Burmese borderlands; and to Sudan. I understand that an Unstarred Question may soon be tabled on Sudan. However, I believe that it is appropriate to refer today to those issues relating to the gracious Speech, as they are important and urgent.
I begin with the tragic plight of the people of Burma. The military junta with its Orwellian name, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), is eloquently challenged by the courageous opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Less often heard are the voices of the ethnic minorities in eastern Burma—the Karen, the Karenni, Mon, Shan, Chin and Arakan. Just three weeks ago I and colleagues from Christian Solidarity Worldwide, or CSW, were with the dignified, gracious Karen and Karenni people in the camps for those who have had to flee across the border into Thailand. We also crossed into Burma and saw the conditions in which the internally displaced people (IDPs) were hiding in the jungle.
The SPDC claims that it has achieved significant improvements in its human rights record, in response to an investigation by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). But the evidence gives the lie to those claims. The tragic litany of abuses continues unabated. Widespread use of forced labour, involuntary relocation, military offensives against civilians, murder, torture and rape, as well as the destruction of crops and livestock, have all combined to force tens of thousands of Karen and Karenni to flee their homes and homelands.
Many of these people are condemned to a fragile and uncertain life as IDPs in the jungle, with only temporary shelter, insufficient food and virtually no medical care. They dare not build permanent homes, or even light fires, as detection by government troops will bring death and destruction. Those whom we met
288
had suffered attacks by ground troops and shelling twice this year. Those who have fled to the camps in Thailand are demoralised because of lack of employment opportunities; denial of any legal status or formal recognition as refugees; and the Karenni are deeply worried by Thailand's stated intention to repatriate them within three years.
Sometimes individual stories illustrate reality more powerfully than generalities. I shall give the House just one example. An Indian Muslim ethnic community in Burma was attacked just four months ago. A mother and her six-year-old daughter had to flee after their village was destroyed by a bulldozer. The mother said that the trouble started when they were told they had to eat pork and convert to Buddhism. Her husband died after a severe beating. She said that government troops had placed heavy bamboos on his chest and jumped on them, resulting presumably in internal injuries. She also spoke about the SPDC's policy of forced labour, describing how women are used as porters even when pregnant—and children, too, if they can carry a minimum of two kilograms. Soldiers beat women, children and old people if they try to rest.
Many people who have just fled to IDP locations inside Burma or crossed the border into Thailand told us that the situation with regard to forced labour in Burma is getting worse. We therefore strongly endorse the ILO's criticisms and its commended measures. We suggest that it is particularly important to support these signals, as Burma is enjoying strong support from China and may, therefore, feel able to continue its brutal policies with impunity. Moreover, the China-Burma connection should worry the Government beyond the implications for human rights. From Burma in the west to southern China and the South China Sea in the east, China can threaten with a pincer movement the Straits of Malacca that are crucial to world trade, as well as the stability of such close allies and important commercial partners as Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. The Chinese presence in Burma is crucial for its grand design in this strategically crucial and energy rich region. Beijing is all too happy to secure its presence in Burma by shielding the Rangoon regime and its abhorrent record in human rights from Western pressure and sanctions.
Therefore, perhaps I may ask the Minister just three questions. First, can the noble Baroness say what steps the Government are taking in view of the ILO report? Secondly, can she say whether the Government will urge the SPDC to ensure that the whole of Burma is opened to human rights monitors and humanitarian organisations, to allow aid to reach IDPs? Thirdly, can she say whether the Government will consider bringing the leaders of the SPDC to account for their continuing crimes against humanity?
I turn now to Sudan. The Islamist National Islamic Front (NIF) regime is generally referred to as "the government of Sudan". However, it took and retains power by military force; it represents no more than about 7 per cent of the people of Sudan, and it is deeply loathed and feared by the vast majority of Sudanese people. It continues to bomb civilian targets, including hospitals and schools, and is still carrying out massive

289
ground offensives against innocent civilians, with mass murder, abduction into slavery of women and children, scorched earth policies and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Africans who live around the oil fields. That point was also made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
A few weeks ago, the United States authorised a visit to southern Sudan by Under-Secretary of State Dr Susan Rice. She saw the evidence of these crimes against humanity. Her experiences are entirely consistent with those we have had to endure on numerous occasions. In August, I and colleagues from CSW were near the area visited by Susan Rice. We obtained totally convincing evidence, yet again, of the barbaric practice of slavery endorsed and encouraged by the NIF regime. President Clinton subsequently condemned the NIF for its brutal policies, including slavery, and said he hoped that European nations would do the same.
Therefore, it is my fervent hope that the Government here will prove themselves to be a listening government by changing their policy towards the murderous regime in Khartoum. In stark contrast to the robust stance taken by the US, with its adherence to the spirit of the current UN Security Council sanctions, the United Kingdom has been implicitly and explicitly encouraging trade with Sudan, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of the NIF regime, promoting its economic well-being and enabling it to use its resources more effectively to kill its own people. This summer, for example, the Government invited the NIF Foreign Minister to London, gave him red carpet treatment and encouraged commercial transactions. The DTI has produced a publication, which provides very helpful information for British firms interested in investing in Sudan.
But perhaps most puzzling of all, permission has been given for exports to Sudan of potentially dual-use materials and equipment that could serve civilian or military purposes. They include chemicals that are known precursors for chemical weapons. This is despite a great deal of circumstantial evidence that the NIF regime may have used chemical weapons. In a recent film, which was the runner-up for the prestigious Rory Peck award, a leading expert on chemical weapons, Julian Perry-Robinson, emphasised his concern over the serious nature of the evidence and his strong conviction that there should be a full investigation into the possible use of chemical weapons by the NIF.
By contrast, earlier this year the Government were very pleased to announce and to publicise widely the fact that samples from areas where possibly unconventional weapons had been used did not produce evidence of the presence of toxic substances. But I should stress that the samples in question were collected, stored and handled under harsh climatic conditions for a long period of time before they reached Britain. Therefore, the "no find" could be
290
attributed to deterioration over time. There are also many other reasons why the samples may not have tested positive.
That is why independent experts have emphasised that those negative findings do not in any way prove that the NIF has not used non-conventional weapons. That is why it is so deeply disturbing that there has been no investigation into the cumulative, consistent and convincing reports of unusual types of shells, associated with pathological effects on humans, animals and the natural environment and consistent with scientifically known consequences of the use of chemical weapons. This relates to areas where both local people and Western humanitarian workers have reported unusual military activities and air strikes by the Sudanese Government's military forces.
Therefore, given all this, perhaps I may repeat that it is particularly surprising that the Government authorised the export to Sudan of dual-use toxic chemical precursors that can be used to manufacture mustard gases. Moreover, when I tabled a Written Question seeking information on end-user accountability and assurances that these chemicals would not be used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, I was informed that confidential information is involved and that disclosure would depend on the consent of the companies concerned. Two of the companies have objected to such disclosure.
This lack of commitment to obtaining information is most peculiar given the nature of Sudan. There is virtually no civilian industry or industrialised agriculture in the country. Moreover, the oil industry and related infrastructure development are all in foreign hands that take care of their own importation of technology and material. Thus the legitimacy of any major purchase of dual use chemicals and other technologies should be easily verifiable and, if not, promptly blocked.
I am almost lost for words. I am amazed how a government who pride themselves on their commitment to an ethically based foreign policy and concern for human rights can so flagrantly violate these commitments in their relationship with the brutal regime in Sudan.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I speak with passion. I do so because in the 1980s I worked as a nurse among the Arab Muslim people in northern Sudan, in remote area desert work, living with the local people as friends and developing an immunisation programme. Subsequently since the NIF took power and declared its jihad against all who oppose it, I have visited many other parts of Sudan: Bahr el Ghazal, where I have seen how the people suffer from the brutal slave raids; Western Upper Nile, where the African tribes who have lived there from time immemorial are being subjected to ethnic cleansing for the sake of oil; the Nuba Mountains, where just a few days ago a school was destroyed by aerial bombardment; southern Blue Nile where the NIF carries out scorched earth policies; and the desert areas in the east where the Beja Muslims, driven from their

291
own fertile lands, have to scavenge for a living in harsh conditions. I and my colleagues have witnessed the suffering inflicted by the NIF on all these people of Sudan.
We may soon have an opportunity to discuss more aspects of this suffering in the near future, assuming that I survive the hate campaign being waged against me by the NIF with all that that means. But in the meantime I finish by asking the Minister two questions which follow directly from Her Majesty's Government's commitments in the gracious Speech.
First, will they provide a more satisfactory answer to the question of export controls and end user accountability for the export of dual use materials to Sudan? Secondly, will they reconsider their overall policy towards Sudan? In addition to the so-called "critical dialogue", which seems to be long on dialogue and short on effective criticism, will they consider a stance more in line with that adopted by the United Nations Security Council and by the United States? Might they even consider the possibility of helping to bring to account, as being guilty of crimes against humanity, those responsible for the genocide, the ethnic cleansing and the slavery which are well and widely documented in Sudan today?
7.22 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the coming Bill to ratify the statute of the International Criminal Court. I regret, however, that the gracious Speech said nothing about the present situation in the Middle East which, not for the first time, is dangerous and threatening not only to the local inhabitants but also to British interests and to world-wide peace.
I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Weidenfeld that no one on either side should be demonised. Too many Israeli and Palestinian lives have already been lost or injured for any complacency to be permissible. If any noble Lords were surprised at the sudden new eruption of violence, fear and hatred, they should reflect that it is eight years since the Madrid Conference and seven years since the Oslo Agreements. We still seem, alas, to be no nearer to a permanent and comprehensive settlement. Final peace agreements have yet to be negotiated between Israel and Lebanon, between Israel and Syria, as well as between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and people. We should reflect also on the fact that East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza have been for 33 years now under military occupation. The difficulties of living under occupation are almost unimaginable in Britain which has not suffered a successful enemy invasion since the Norman Conquest.
Some noble Lords may have thought that the Israeli offer at Camp David last summer was generous and that Mr Arafat was unwise to reject it on behalf of the Palestinians. I regret that I cannot agree. The West Bank and Gaza comprise as little as 22 per cent of old mandated Palestine. That area would have been diminished by four small localities to be removed from the West Bank. The remaining land would have been
292
split into five by roads remaining under military and settler control. Israel's forces would have stayed in the Jordan valley.
Since Oslo, the settler population has increased by some 50,000, almost as fast under Mr Barak as under the previous Prime Minister, as was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. A system of control is still in place confining 1 million Palestinians to Gaza without even access to their airport. In Hebron, 40,000 Palestinians are under curfew for the benefit of a mere 500 Israeli settlers. Jerusalem remains closed to most Palestinians. The settlements control the water supplies so that the average Israeli consumes nearly 30 times as much water as a Palestinian, The Palestinian economy is in tatters, with unemployment rising towards 50 per cent. In real terms, the Palestinians are worse off than before Oslo. As a member of the Knesset recently told us in London, the safety of 6 million people in Israel—including, of course, 1 million of Palestinian origin—is being put at risk for the sake of some 200,000 settlers.
Underlying the sudden upsurge of violence, however, is the humiliation of continued occupation and military control. A Bantustan existence must be deeply offensive to a proud people who have been mocked by endless haggling over the details of partial withdrawal. When any people's identity is denied, we know that they are likely to become violent.
On a more positive note, in 1977, in his historic speech to the Knesset, Anwar Sadat spoke of a peace agreement based on,
"ending the occupation of Arab territories, the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and their own state, and the right of all states to live in peace".
Those are the first principles to which we must return. They were, I am glad to say, accepted and recognised in 1988 by the Palestinian National Council when it accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338. They were recognised again in 1992 at the Madrid Conference.
I believe that there has to be a real, independent Palestinian state, sovereign, democratic and probably virtually demilitarised. Such a state must control its own roads, frontiers and share of water supplies. As the latter are a tangible asset, their use should be the subject of binding arbitration in the absence of agreement. I believe that the United Nations was wise as long ago as 1947 when it proposed the principle of a "corpus separatum" for Jerusalem. That principle should endure in the form of independent international control and supervision over the sites sacred to the three great monotheistic religions. That is the principle wisely upheld by successive Popes.
The way forward has to be based on clear principles, universally acceptable and to some extent applicable to all conflicts. I am very pleased that Her Majesty's Government have confirmed that big majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians want serious negotiations for permanent solutions. I welcome the Government's commitment to facilitating such a process. I want to see everything possible done to reduce the current level of violence. Will the Government consider whether some change in the

293
existing mediation would be helpful, with perhaps a long-term contact group made up of more than one nation? Might conflict analysis and assisted conflict resolution assist the achieving of the essential United Nations principles? Professor Arnon, speaking for Peace Now, an Israeli group, said recently,
"Most of the settlements will have to be dismantled. The Oslo accords promoted the illusion that we could have both settlements and peace".
A considerable number of other groups work alongside Peace Now. I commend particularly the constructive efforts of the New Israel Fund and of the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information whose specialist publications over a number of years have been excellent. Professor Goldblum declared recently:
"Most Israelis do not regard the settlements as security assets any more, contrary to what the settlers' leaders say. Most Israelis don't regard them as home. Most of them must be dismantled".
The present stalemate cannot be allowed to drift on, poisoning all relationships. I ask Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind the total disparity in negotiating strength between the parties. It may account for the length of the negotiations. The balance has somehow to be redressed. The economic power of the EU may provide a means towards that. I urge the Government to work consistently towards a two-state solution, with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and special arrangements for the holy places. Of course we must recognise how real and genuine are the fears of many Israelis but, equally, we should seek to end the injustices which Palestinians have suffered for far too long.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I warmly welcome the gracious Speech, in particular the commitment within it by Her Majesty's Government to international development. I especially welcome yesterday's White Paper entitled Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. By way of comment I would say—in the hope that it may be taken up at some other stage—that the White Paper is worthy of a more extensive debate in its own right. I hope that that can take place. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Howell, agrees with that proposition. It is an excellent paper.
Globalisation is a challenge for the poor countries of the world but there are opportunities as well as risks. Those who seek to present globalisation as the enemy of the poor are in danger of short-changing the very poor for whom they profess concern. Those who, like some latter day Canute, would try to stop the tide of globalisation will succeed only in making world trade less liberal and more protectionist—and that inevitably to the disadvantage of the poorest people and the poorest countries.
Globalisation must be managed, therefore, in order systematically to reduce poverty. Economic growth must be promoted on the basis of it being both equitable and environmentally sustainable. The White Paper is not only one of the most comprehensive ever
294
produced; it is one of the most radical. It remains constantly focused on poverty elimination while addressing the whole panoply of issues which need to be resolved. Respect for human rights and combating corruption are tackled in the White Paper. Investing in people and harnessing private finance are dealt with alongside the need to use trade to reduce poverty by promoting a pro-development European Union policy on trade involving fundamental reforms of the World Trade Organisation.
The White Paper addresses our responsibility to global environmental problems and the need to strengthen international systems. I particularly welcome the attention in the White Paper to the imperative of using development assistance more effectively. The White Paper goes through the panoply of issues. Debt relief, aid delivery systems, the untying of aid, reform of the European Union aid system, and reform of the World Bank receive welcome attention.
My right honourable friend Clare Short deserves our congratulations on pushing forward the poverty-oriented programme. But equally important is the support of my right honourable friend Gordon Brown the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By his priorities for government spending, we also have the means to implement the imperative programmes of international development. Gone are the days when international development was an uneasy and rather dishonest combination of sympathetic rhetoric on the one hand and spending cuts on the other. This Government are delivering both on the policy and the resources necessary to put the policy into practice. In that respect I believe that they deserve the support of all Members of the House.
On matters relating to Europe and the Intergovernmental Conference, it is clear that the Intergovernmental Conference was badly run. Poor preparation and clumsy handling are charges which can easily be laid at the door of the presidency. We must all agree that it is in no one's interest for any other IGC to drag on for quite so long over key issues which had already been left over from a previous IGC. However, despite the problems, the overall outcome is positive. Enlargement is set to proceed. European unification is set to become a reality. The basis for an enlarged single market securing not only our peace but our prosperity is agreed. Enlargement can now be foreseen for some applicant countries, with negotiations being completed by the end of the year 2002 and entry into the EU of those countries in time for the June 2004 European elections. I was pleased that when discussing today the outcome of the IGC with the Select Committee my right honourable friend Mr Keith Vaz was able to confirm that timetable.
Against that background, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition fails to recognise the historic opportunity or grasp the seriousness of the failures that could come from an IGC were we so misguided as to listen to his advice. I would not presume to judge whether in that respect he is a fool or a knave. All I know is that by his words and deeds he disqualifies himself from serious consideration as a national, let alone an international, leader. Mr William Hague

295
would refuse to ratify the Treaty of Nice. No treaty: no enlargement. That is a simple consequence, one on the other. Of course anyone can quibble with the details of the agreement of Nice. I would have preferred to see a reduction in commissioners agreed now rather than postponed until we have 27 member states. I do not welcome the breaching of the 700 ceiling for Members of the European Parliament. Seven hundred is already too high a ceiling. To breach it sends out entirely wrong signals. But such niggles are small by comparison with the framework for enlargement, the progress of Europe, and the simultaneous defence of our national interest that was secured in the Intergovernmental Conference.
There has been too much hysterical response from parts of the Opposition—mostly in another place or outside your Lordships' House. I welcome the much more reasoned and moderate approach of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I hope that I do not damage him by saying so, but I think that it is universally agreed in the House that he has taken a much more moderate view, albeit one with which I disagree in some respects. His views have been presented with an element of reason that has been absent in another place, where we hear talk of a secret agenda for a European superstate. Imagine the concept of anything secret emerging from the briefing and counter-briefing that constitutes any IGC, let alone one that lasts for four days. I note that Mr William Hague is still ignoring every fact of the outcome of Nice and talking about a European army.
The Conservatives are most discomforted when they question the move towards qualified majority voting for the election of a Commission president. The veto in that area has been used only twice—both times by British Conservative Prime Ministers. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, took such exception to that nice Mr Claude Cheysson that he was blackballed and in his place we got Jacques Delors. Mr John Major equally could not stomach Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene and was responsible for getting us Mr Jacques Santer. Which of those two outcomes are the Conservatives most proud of—the deeply integrationist father of the social chapter, Jacques Delors, or the president of the most discredited Commission that was eventually forced into resignation, Mr Jacques Santer? That has been the consequence of the lack of qualified majority voting for the election of Commission presidents.
We are in Europe, of Europe and constructively engaging with Europe. We are building the basis for enlargement and creating institutions for it. I encourage my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to continue to show that we serve British interests best by engaging positively at the heart of Europe and even contemplating further economic and monetary engagement. I hope that now that he has got the IGC out of the way, he can lend his undoubted talents to furthering that debate, which we certainly have to face. I hope that he can start to address once again the problems of CAP reform, without which enlargement will be a financial impossibility. All those things have to be done by a government at the heart of Europe, working in Europe and working for Europe. I contrast that with the attitude of Her Majesty's
296
Opposition, skulking on the sidelines and trying to stop progress on any matter that seems to link our destiny to that of the continent of Europe.
I welcome the Queen's Speech and in particular the outcome of the IGC. I look forward to the progress that we can make on putting the White Paper on international development into full effect as speedily as possible.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, although there was no reference in the gracious Speech to the Middle East—like other noble Lords I regret that—I join others in drawing attention to the serious and dangerous situation in Israel and the occupied territories. I have listened with particular interest and respect to the differing views of the noble Lords, Lord Weidenfeld and Lord Hylton.
A year ago, many of us—even those of us with long experience of and involvement in the Arab world—were much encouraged by the way in which Prime Minister Ehud Barak, unlike his predecessor, Benyamin Netanyahu, appeared genuinely to be trying to achieve not only a just and lasting settlement with the Palestinians, but even a peace settlement with Syria, under its new president, Bashar al Asad.
Contrast that moment of hope with the situation today. Following the predictable outburst of Palestinian frustration and resentment in the wake of the deliberately provocative visit by Ariel Sharon on 28th September to the Dome of the Rock, the Israeli security forces have exercised an inappropriate use of force. Often that has been done to protect Jewish settlements in Gaza and other parts of the occupied territories, established in flagrant defiance of international law. Hundreds of victims, the vast majority of whom are young Palestinians. have lost their lives in the past few weeks. Of course we deplore all loss of life, Israeli or Palestinian, but many Palestinians have also lost their livelihood, either because they have lost their heads of families or because their homes, their olive groves and their orchards have been bulldozed by the Israeli army. Palestinians, but not Jewish settlers, living in parts of the occupied territories, such as Hebron, have even been subjected to 24-hour curfews for weeks on end. One Palestinian boy was quoted in the Financial Times on 3rd December as saying that his father had not been allowed out to work for two months.
Some of your Lordships have said in previous debates that Israel is the only law-abiding democracy in the Middle East. While I question that claim to uniqueness, I wonder what impression of democracy or adherence to international law is given to Israel's Arab neighbours by its shameful treatment of the Palestinian population under its protection and of its Arab-Israeli population over the past few months. Many would no doubt argue that President Arafat has not lived up to his side of the bargain, by failing to restrain Palestinian attacks against Israelis, but given the way in which their human rights have been violated, is it any wonder that Palestinians continue to air their grievances by violence in the streets?

297
My purpose in speaking today is not primarily to criticise the behaviour of the Israeli Government—criticism that has been voiced by many Israelis, some of whom have risked their safety by trying to protect the lives and property of their Arab neighbours from attacks by settlers and by their own army. It is more to express my despair that the windows of opportunity that appeared to be opening a year ago have been so brutally slammed shut. All of us must have hoped that President Clinton would fulfil his ambition to go down in history as the statesman who had managed at last to bring about a permanent and just settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute. Although we should acknowledge his attempts to bring about a ceasefire at Sharm al Sheikh, the fact is that successive United States governments have been so blinded by their bias towards Israel—their so-called strategic ally in the Middle East—that they have lost almost all credibility in the eyes of the Arab world. Only one president in recent years—George Bush—has even been prepared to criticise Israeli settlement policies as illegal. I now read in the press, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us, that, before his resignation two days ago, Prime Minister Barak even set aside yet more millions in his budget for new settlements in the occupied territories.
However politically difficult it may be, the time has come for the Israelis to dismantle all their settlements in the occupied territories, as their earlier settlements were dismantled from Sinai when that occupied territory was handed back to Egypt. Obviously, such dismantling would best be achieved by negotiation and agreement between both parties. But unless the vast majority of existing settlements are removed, I can see no end to violence and confrontation in the occupied territories and no hope for a just and permanent peace in the area. It can certainly not be in Israel's own security interests to allow new settlements to be built.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister can confirm yet again that Her Majesty's Government still regard Israeli settlement policy to be illegal and the Israeli claim to Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel to be unfounded. I hope that she can also confirm that no arms or weapons provided to the Israeli security forces by Britain have been, or will be, used in the present conflict.
More importantly, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what the British Government are doing and propose to do, both bilaterally and with our European partners, to bring the present violations of human rights and international law, including the imposition of 24-hour curfews and the refusal of access to the occupied territories by international humanitarian organisations, to an end.
The Government rightly supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 1322, which,
"called upon Israel, the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War".
298
Is it not incumbent on us, as a high contracting party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to act now to ensure the protection of these civilians from excessive and inappropriate use of force?
I hope that the Minister can also confirm that Her Majesty's Government are ready to take action, both in the United Nations and with our Americans friends, to respond to justified Palestinian resentment at the way in which their rights and livelihood are being eroded. We must all hope that there is still a slim chance—or an open window, as the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, referred to it—that peace can be restored, even in the present political uncertainty in Israel and the United States, and that urgent progress can be made towards a peace settlement before the prime ministerial elections which Mr Barak has now called. However, it will require a more even-handed approach than that followed so far by successive United States administrations.
Britain and the European Union must become more deeply involved. We have an historical duty to do so. After all, it was the Balfour Declaration which stipulated that nothing should be done,
"Which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish Communities in Palestine".
They are being abused daily.
In conclusion, I refer back to those British qualities which the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, mentioned in her opening speech: common decency, humanity, fairness and justice. I can think of few areas of the world where those qualities are more needed today.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, among so many and varied contributions, and particularly following the wise and clear words of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, it is difficult to know what one can add. Much as I would wish to talk about the European Union and Nice, or indeed to deplore the omission of a Bill on the Overseas Territories, we shall no doubt have other opportunities to return to those topics.
Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to Latin America—an important part of the international community, not specifically mentioned in the gracious Speech or, indeed, by the Minister in opening the debate. It was not mentioned other than by reference to Cuba and the upgrading of our relations, about which, I hasten to say, I am delighted and to which I hope I have been able to contribute. I feel sure that we can and should continue to improve and build upon what has been achieved with Cuba.
I must declare an interest as the president of Canning House, the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council, and as a non-executive director of a Latin American investment trust.
In numerical terms when we talk of Latin America, we are referring to countries which have combined populations of some 450 million people, from Mexico in the north through Central America and South America to the tip of Patagonia—currently, I am pleased to see, under massive media attention because of the presence of Prince William on the Chilean side.

299
As an aside, I am happy to say that Prince William is one of a growing number of British students who are completing a gap year in Latin America, either before or during their university careers. That has to be the way forward for better understanding and appreciation not only of the Spanish and Portuguese languages but of the culture and role of a part of the world which is rich in natural resources, rich in its population potential and very European in its inheritance and approach.
However, it is not simply a matter of numbers and populations; it is a matter of growth of the economies. Both Brazil and Mexico figure among the top 10 of the world's countries for the size of their economies. It is an interesting but little known fact that the state of São Paulo in Brazil, one of 11 federal states, has the same GDP as India.
Therefore, the opportunities for trade and investment are huge. It is fair to say that we already have a presence in Latin America. Our traditional industries are as much household names in, let us say, Chile, Brazil and Venezuela, to name a representative three, as they are here. Therefore, ICI, Unilever, Glaxo, BP and the big banks are all there and their brands are well known. Our privatised utilities have also been at the forefront and are involved in some of the joint ventures in water, energy and other projects.
However, an adverse trade balance still exists. Those of us who wish to do more are encouraging not only the big players. We also wish small and medium-sized businesses, professionals and other individuals to get to know new markets by going on trade missions and fact-finding visits. This means providing ready information when it is needed. In that context, I reiterate the hope, expressed on other occasions, that the newly formed British Trade International, which combines the export drive of the Foreign Office and the DTI, will recognise the importance of those markets and will also resolve the future of LATAG, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, which in the past has forged so many important links and generated many initiatives to improve our trade.
I note the reference in the gracious Speech to a Bill to improve the transparency of export controls. As explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, this sounds a most commendable piece of legislation. Greater transparency is always desirable. However, I hope and trust that such a Bill will achieve its objectives without imposing the type of extra regulation and additional hurdles which can be so off-putting to the potential exporters we are trying so hard to encourage.
While on that subject, perhaps I may commend the Government on the fact that the Foreign Office is now,
"better resourced than ever before",
to quote the noble Baroness. I express the hope that some of the resources find their way to bodies such as Canning House and LATAG, in its new guise, which operate on tiny budgets with ever more restricted government contributions.
300
If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, I also welcome the fact that embassies and overseas residences are to receive increased resources. That is richly deserved. I cannot emphasise too much the importance of prestigious embassies or praise too highly the support and efforts, particularly of the ever more focused commercial sections of many embassies, which I have experienced not only in Latin America but also in many other parts of the world.
In that context, as the British Council is also to receive an increase in funding, I am all the more sorry that it has chosen this moment to announce the closure of operations in Ecuador. The Guayaquil centre was closed down two years ago; now apparently it is the turn of the main centre in Quito. I only hope that the British Council's involvement with the British School in Quito will continue. Most of all, I hope that this decision may be revised and reviewed.
A few years ago we were celebrating the fact that as well as having successfully fought the battle against galloping inflation, all the countries of Latin America were again democracies. I am happy that that is still the case. But democracy can be a fragile flower. It is vital to recognise that the countries of Latin America need encouragement and need to he aware that they have an important role to play in the international community. In achieving that, we should continue to encourage parliamentary and institutional links, as we do through the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
It is not only important to enhance and improve bilateral relations. The United Kingdom also has a leading role to play in developing relations and being involved in negotiations between the European Union and the region. We can be a bridge to that part of the world, just as Spain is. It seems to me that that is entirely in line with the intention expressed in the gracious Speech to shape the future of the European Union.
A trade agreement between the European Union and Mexico already exists and negotiations have just been completed with Chile for a similar agreement. But there seems to be some delay in the negotiations between the European Union and MERCOSUR, more complex, of course, because four countries are involved—Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay.
The major problem in all those countries, however, is the effect of the common agricultural policy since most of them are primary agricultural producers. I believe that our interests coincide in that regard. We want reform of the common agricultural policy. That is why we see enlargement as helping us in that respect. But we should also see those trade agreements with developing economies as another reason for reform and shaping the forces of globalisation to benefit the world's poor.
I have tabled a Motion for debate on Latin America and the Caribbean and I hope for good fortune in the ballot. We shall then be able to return to those themes and develop them so that we can make the best possible use of Britain's ability to be a bridge not only between the European Union and Latin America but

301
also between the Commonwealth and Latin America. As the noble Baroness said in opening, together we can achieve so much more than one country alone.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, in her opening remarks, the Minister highlighted many matters of import. But it is often those receiving less recognition that have the potential to cause serious future havoc.
This evening, I propose to touch on a few matters which fall squarely into that category: self-determination as unfinished business, the situation in Colombia and Afghanistan, the merits of regionalism as exemplified by West Africa and—dare I say it?—the European Union, all from the perspective of the importance of Britain's contribution as a world-class player in the 1st century.
It is, of course, difficult and unrewarding to ignore the undeniable global trend towards regionalism. Shared responsibilities and shared resources are the only way forward. Yet the European vision is fast becoming an area of competing regions, and rightly so. Erecting barriers to European integration denies the possibility for successful joint action on internal difficulties such as asylum and effectively camouflages such benefits as freedom of movement, employment, business development, trade and a rich culture with everything which flows from it. The long-term benefits of a committed involvement are being held hostage to short-termism.
I am pleased that we appear to be moving away from, or at least diluting, the fixation on per-member-state Commissioner representatives. Our national representatives are our Ministers who man the Council of Ministers with the European Parliament as the scrutinising body but requiring, I believe, a far greater role for national parliaments in general engagement and monitoring. The Eurocrats are there to serve the Union impartially and with transparency and must do so.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the Council of Ministers must also now conduct its affairs in a more open manner. On the other hand, it could be suggested that the only way that the European Union is now able to offer the very benefits for which we all wish, such as enlargement and the modus operandi to make it happen, has been as a result of a degree of obfuscation.
But one thing is abundantly clear. Taking the hearts and minds of the people of the Union, essential if we are ever to achieve ultimate objectives, can be achieved only by the Council of Ministers promoting debate through transparent and accountable decision-making.
The recent furore about the Eurocorps, I believe, is in greater part ill-conceived. Many consider it to be merely a matter of time before the American people or potential congressional deadlock ensure that the United States' military involvement overseas is reduced to politically and financially affordable levels. First in line for reduction would be regions where the
302
issues fall well within the responsibility and interests of nations possessing the capability and/or the prosperity to cope unaided, thereby leaving the United States, through NATO, for worst-case scenarios. That puts Europe firmly in the spotlight.
NATO has developed and evolved over 51 years. Conducting operations with Eurocorps outside the control framework of NATO could prove to be significantly ineffective. To alienate the United States would also risk losing the ultimate security deterrent and the wherewithal to deal with worst-case, high intensity conflicts.
In principle, Europe must do more, but strategically, with the United States as its principal ally, and efficiently, through NATO. However, before serious commitments are undertaken, it may well be worthwhile to consider the following: British troops pursue national objectives in areas like the Falklands and Sierra Leone; are deployed under the NATO umbrella in Bosnia and Kosovo; and are currently committed to six United Nations' missions around the world. In view of current recruitment levels, to create yet another force might seem like overstretch to some. Will the 2003 targets of assets, human and material, be reached or will capabilities be required from NATO?
The issue of duplication brings to mind another area which has attempted integration. West Africa established an economic grouping of 16 states in 1975—ECOWAS—only to discover that it was competing with at least 30 or more other intergovernmental groupings or organisations chasing the same diminishing resources for approximately similar ends. The risk of atrophy was apparent and rationalisation duly followed. ECOWAS is a grouping rich in mineral and human resources but lacking in political and financial stability. It continues to be plagued by debilitating civil wars in Sierra Leone, an uneasy calm in Liberia, Guinea-Bissau and Senegal, a slow-to-recover Nigeria and an ailing Côte d'Ivoire.
Why is the viability of ECOWAS relevant? Britain has long-standing, historical ties with the region. Four countries—Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Gambia—are fellow members of the Commonwealth and boast Britain as their biggest trading partner. The success of ECOWAS would expand and deepen other opportunities across the region. Britain's acclaimed defence of democracy in Sierra Leone has made us a force for good in West Africa. What is vital now is to build on that foundation by helping with democratic transitions across the region and the efforts of those democracies to achieve economic integration.
Britain's leadership in reducing the debts of highly indebted poor countries shows what can be done where political will exists. But the HIPC initiative does not relieve the debt burden of any West African country. There is unfinished business there.
Perhaps ECOWAS, through the European Union that it seeks to emulate, can be helped to achieve much-needed harmonisation between the CFA zone of countries—11 of the 16—and the remaining five. That would, not least, ensure currency stability through

303
being associated with the euro. Those are all much-needed steps to foster West Africa's peaceful and orderly development.
Another area where we must do more is in Afghanistan. The United Nations mediated effort (the six plus two process) to encourage negotiations between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance is in deep trouble and a variety of diplomatic initiatives have made little progress. The Taliban now control over 95 per cent of the territory of Afghanistan.
Several central Asian states now engage with the de facto Kabul regime: Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are all in discussions with Taliban representatives, attracted en passant by the lure of future trade routes across Afghanistan. Broader diplomatic isolation of the Taliban has therefore been rendered ineffectual. Do I understand from the Minister's opening remarks that we are now on a course of critical engagement with the Taliban?
Afghanistan is in the grip of a full-scale drought, with widespread famine. Pressure on the Taliban endangers relief operations and the most deprived and innocent in Afghanistan suffer. Importantly, Mullah Omar has issued an edict against the cultivation of the poppy and although that merits closer evaluation, it could indicate an important shift in policy with significant implications for Afghanistan's neighbours and the West.
Britain should take account of the bin Laden issue, but without allowing it to eclipse all other considerations in developing policy towards a state which remains of pivotal importance to central Asian security and to our long-term interests.
In Colombia, where drugs and conflict have also been exported, we are better placed to assist. Colombia needs our support for its investment projects designed to allow the destruction of peasant-owned, small-scale, illegal poppy and coca leaf crops by the police and their substitution with commercial crops. That is an ambitious and expensive undertaking. The scheme needs funding from the international community to supplement the Colombian Government's own outlay.
We have a moral duty to co-operate internationally to deal with the various aspects of the illegal drug problem: production, transportation, distribution and consumption. We know only too well the seeming futility of dealing with only the after-effects of consumption. It is much more effective to deal simultaneously with the problem at source by cutting off supply. Colombia has taken those first steps. We must help her if we are to help ourselves.
It would be wrong to suggest that because those problems are afar we should not do what we can to lay the foundations for a more equitable world, by addressing the complex reasons promoting discontent and eventual conflict. We have begun a new century with all the baggage of the old. It is time to take stock, to delete superfluity and obfuscation and to ring in some changes; for example, the UN charter is in need of modernisation. Of considerable significance is the omission in the United Nations' guidelines adequately
304
to reflect President Wilson's vision of self-determination. Recent reminders make it imperative to send clear messages on the relative importance of self-determination and territorial integrity.
That is dangerous unfinished business, as evidenced in the Balkans and as we see in Kashmir, Nagorno-Karabakh, Irian Jaya and, closer to home, in the Basque area of northern Spain. In the interests of clarity, I put the Minister on guard that I intend to encourage positive government opinion further on that thorny issue. The formula for future conflict resolution is incomplete and governing principles sometimes appear to be a moveable feast.
Why, for example, is Britain a supporter not only of the United Nations' proposed plebiscite for the Kashmiris, but also of bilateral resolution, thereby excluding the Kashmiris themselves, as reflected in the Simla agreement, again in Lahore, and more recently in the G8 Cologne communiqué?
If the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, had been in her place, and before she had become too comfortable, I would have reminded her of the "Tireless" circumstance. In Spain there is disquiet about perceived cavalier British attitudes to safety and territoriality. Perhaps the Minister will use this opportunity to counter Spanish reaction, particularly Andalucian parliamentary opposition, by providing a definitive statement on Spain's preference for Gibraltar—rather than it being a UK base—and explain what understanding, support or otherwise has been forthcoming from the Spanish Government. I do not want to see that matter get out of hand and so harm our hitherto good relations.
Finally, the United Kingdom has an important niche to fill and a lot with which to fill it: an indomitable spirit, solid Commonwealth ties, Security Council permanent membership, the English language, a world hub for communications and finance, but perhaps not transportation just for the moment! While national interests should remain paramount, there is much merit and tangible reward in being focused, targeted and pro-active in forging ahead to develop Britain as a world-class competitor and contributor, a worthy team player in the new globalised world.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in her speech the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, touched on a wide range of countries, nationalities and international groupings, but for obvious reasons she did not touch on one particular area on which I want to speak: the relationship between the Republic of China arid Tibet.
China has a population of about 1.3 billion people, more than twice the size of the total population of Latin America. Tibet has an overall population of about 6.5 million, and I believe that the country has lost 1 million people in the past two years. Tibet is now included within the boundaries of the Republic of China. In 1949, Tibet was a peace-loving nation with traditions going back hundreds of years, at least to the 14th century which saw the appointment of the first

305
Dalai Lama. Its territory was invaded by 40,000 Chinese troops, against which the Tibetans were able to produce about 400 soldiers to greet them at the frontier. The Tibetans had no chance. From 1950 through to the year 2000 its population has grown by the incursion of about 7.5 million Han Chinese.
The present situation in Tibet is becoming more and more oppressive for the Tibetan people. They now suffer from being unable to run their own country; employment goes to Chinese workers; there is discrimination in healthcare and education and there is the suppression of the freedom of speech. All those rights that we take for granted in this part of the world and which are protected by law are denied to the Tibetans in what was their own country.
That constant repression is typified by the ongoing visiting of Chinese police to the individual homes of Tibetans to check on their conduct and specifically to prevent them hanging pictures of the Dalai Lama on their walls. To that extent, the Chinese police interfere in the daily lives of the Tibetans. There has also been the closing down of schools that teach the Tibetan language.
While in recent years the standard of living has generally been rising throughout China, it remains lower in Tibet than in the more wealthy regions of China, such as the coastal regions, but it still remains double that of the resident Tibetans.
So what is the future for Tibetans still living in the TAR (Tibet Autonomous Region)? Unfortunately, in the past two years more repressive measures have been imposed by the Chinese, contrary to what was happening in the late 1970s and early 1980s when there was a more relaxed effort as regards the treatment of Tibetans. Furthermore, there have been systematic attacks on human rights, using torture and indescribably cruel measures. One case in particular comes to mind. Five nuns in Drapchi Prison, north of Lhasa, suffered so much under torture that they committed suicide as a release from further cruelty. Of course, many other cases could be cited.
The change in the tactics of the Chinese Government—an increase in the attacks on individuals—during the past two years must be countered with measures from western democracies, including our own, in the world's international fora.
China has recently embarked on developing international relations through its forthcoming possible membership of the World Trade Organisation. However, it was severely criticised in the recent 10th report of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee. It suggests that pressure can be placed on the Chinese Government through international co-operation. One welcome event has been its signature of the two UN International Covenants on Human Rights—civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights—although neither of those have been ratified. If the provisions of the covenants were recognised in domestic law before ratification—as in the United Kingdom—that would indeed be a major change in China.
306
The Government are faced with a challenge as to their role in maintaining the dialogue they have been pursuing with China. Should they carry on alone or join together with other EU member states and thereby seek to strengthen the pressure on the Chinese Government? It is sometimes wondered whether it is wise to carry on with dialogue with China while it is behaving in such an atrocious manner to its own citizens, specifically to Tibetans. However, it should be added that in recent years many Chinese individuals have also been tortured and have suffered considerable restraint and imprisonment.
The Government have an opportunity early next year to adopt a resolution by the UN Human Rights Commission. Indeed, other noble Lords have raised other issues which can be raised by the Human Rights Commission in February/March next year. They should seek to pass such a resolution, having failed since 1990 either by losing the vote or by not participating at all. The Chinese threat to withdraw from dialogue with the European Union should that resolution be passed should be overlooked. That should not be a reason for failing to try to carry the resolution. As I said, since 1990, such attempts have been made in that forum but they have never succeeded. By 2001, it is time for the United Kingdom, with its fellow EU members, to try to defeat the Chinese on their own ground.
China is attempting to become a member of the World Trade Organisation—that has been one of its long-time aspirations—as that is essential for the development of its market economy. It will need the support of EU member states and therefore it is worth while to seek to pass a resolution in the UN Human Rights Commission
Just as eastern Europe has evolved in the past 10 years since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it is not impossible to look forward to a period when a Chinese Government will loosen their hold on people now living within their regime who seek the benefit of a restored autonomy.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, no one listening to this long debate can have any doubt that our Armed Forces are continuing to play a key and indispensable role in this country's foreign policy. Such a commitment represents a proper role for Armed Forces and of course they do it superbly well.
Recently, they have been swept up into a wider political argument because of the Government's initiative over European defence co-operation. And one of the sadder aspects of that has been the vilification in some quarters of the Chief of Defence Staff. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House would condemn that public attack in a newspaper on a most distinguished soldier who has served his country well and who naturally cannot answer back.
There is of course nothing wrong with the CDS having a good working relationship with a Prime Minister or Secretary of State for Defence; in fact,

307
quite the reverse. There have been many good historical examples of that over the years, particularly in and since the Second World War. Moreover, none of those who criticised the CDS can have had the slightest idea as to exactly what advice he had tendered.
It is important to remember the constitutional position. Chiefs of Staff are public servants who can and should advise, clarify any ambivalence, point out implications and caution where necessary. But, ultimately, in our society the political will of Her Majesty's Government must prevail. Chiefs of Staff can of course resign on matters of principle, if they feel strongly enough, but that has seldom been resorted to—and quite rightly, in my opinion—and has never done any good.
No, their job is to make the Government's legitimate policies work. And in any case, the Chief of Defence Staff would, I believe, have had no difficulty at all in supporting European countries using their own national contingents better to get their act together in order to deal with limited military situations in Europe or near its periphery and strengthen Europe's contribution to NATO. All of that, as I understand it, is the basis of the Government's thinking. And that is all a long way off from a European army, which is no more sensible, practicable or necessary in this context than a conglomerate alliance army has been in NATO.
As I have said previously in your Lordships' House, I, too, support that sensible and, some might say, overdue initiative. And not for the first time I find myself in full agreement with my noble and gallant friend. Lord Carver. I do not want to repeat much of what he said. Like him, I do not see that it need be any threat; rather an enhancement to NATO which, as the gracious Speech made clear, must remain the cornerstone of any defence of Europe against a wider threat or any major fighting by any of the nations in the NATO area.
Of course we must be careful not to raise expectations on an improved European capability and then find, because the European countries have not allotted the necessary extra resources, that we have little more than a piece of political symbolism. My noble friend Lord Chalfont made that point. Of course, we must also make sure that we do not waste money on an over ponderous and top-heavy command organisation—using a sledgehammer to deal with a flower, which, as my noble and gallant friend said, has recently beset NATO.
Furthermore, we must be clear—and your Lordships' House will require continued reassurance, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont pointed out—as to exactly how any European operation will be managed politically. Will it, at least initially, be controlled by the NATO Council of Ministers through the NATO chiefs of staff, or their representatives? That would be far the best, as the United States would be kept in the picture and might be able to offer peripheral assistance in the field of logistics and even in the sensitive area of intelligence, even if its combat forces were not
308
involved. Alternatively, at some stage, would it be the European Council of Ministers through the European Union chiefs of staff?
In either case, we must be certain that, just as happens in NATO, a British Cabinet decision would be required before any quick reaction force could be committed to such an operation and kept operating in it should circumstances change. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will be able to enlighten us on the question of political control which, after all, is the absolute key point.
Above all, at the back of my mind is the belief—I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—that in the years ahead some incident may occur inside Europe, or near its borders, in which the Americans, with all t heir other preoccupations, show little interest. They may feel, not unreasonably, that it is Europe's business and it should use its own forces and money to deal with it. There must be the machinery to handle that kind of situation. For that reason, I believe that, if we proceed sensibly, this initiative should be looked upon as a positive step forward in an ever-changing world.
But that is not the only matter for which I believe the Government deserve support. The Armed Forces continue to impress with their efficiency and professionalism. The rescue operation in Sierra Leone was a model of its kind, and the ground forces in Kosovo did more than was expected of them. All of that, incidentally, reflects great credit on the CDS and other chiefs of staff. Then, saints be praised, the Government agreed to discharge the debt of honour to former prisoners of war in the hands of the Japanese and, egged on by the helpful and persuasive powers of my noble friend Lady Strange, to continue to pay pensions to war widows who had remarried. In the case of the former, I had always believed that it was not Japan but the British government, in whose service they had suffered so much and who 50 years ago treated them so inadequately, which should do something about it. They have now done so But it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could make clear whether that debt of honour applies also to former British, Indian and Gurkha members of the old Indian Army, and, if so, how it is to be administered. After all, they suffered equally in the service of our King and country and should not be discriminated against.
All in all, the Government can take pride in some solid achievements. It would, therefore, be particularly unfortunate if they followed the occasional tendency of the late Viscount Montgomery, who, in the midst of overall success, often insisted that everything had gone exactly according to plan when clearly it had not. That caused some loss of credibility. In the case of the present Government, the defence programme and the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review—we have been round this buoy many times—are still manifestly under-funded. The Government lose credibility by failing to acknowledge that; even more so, but with less justification, by insisting that the 3 per cent so-called efficiency saving imposed by the Treasury is not, however it is presented, at least in part

309
an exacerbating and damaging cut when everyone from the Chief of Defence Staff down to the vote holders in all three Services knows that it is.
All that impinges on the equipment programme, service housing, which the Secretary of State has described as totally unsatisfactory, and the medical services which this Government inherited. Some of this was brought home to me and others in your Lordships' House when we visited in the field the British Army's newest and most boasted about formation, the Air Assault Brigade. The men were of the highest quality and were splendidly commanded and led. All showed immense enthusiasm for what they and I believed to be both an innovative and correct concept of operation. But it was also clear that many pieces of equipment were missing, and even when all the Apache helicopters finally arrived—which is still a long way off—there will be inadequate communication equipment properly to control the complicated mixture of helicopter regiments and infantry battalions, the Bowman project being well behind schedule.
The 3 per cent cut in cash flow clearly fell heavily on their shoulders, as did the new disciplinary procedures emanating from the European Convention on Human Rights. As noble Lords are aware, the French secured a partial opt-out for its armed forces. One came away rather mystified as to why the Government did not fight harder to get something for our own forces, which, on behalf of this country, have such unique obligations and duties that must inevitably curtail some personal freedom and place a different emphasis on the enforcement of discipline than would be appropriate elsewhere. A good commanding officer who is capable of creating high morale in his unit will make the system work, but it will complicate the chain of command and the authority of the commander, and will not make military life any easier just at the time when he and his troops are stretched to the limit.
As for accommodation, as expected, the wholesale sell-off of the married quarter estates carried out as a result of an earlier defence cost study has not proved an unqualified success. In any case, it was dependent on a set amount of money being set aside to bring married quarters up to the proper standard. Because of under-funding, that has not been possible; nor has there been enough in the defence vote to bring barracks and single accommodation up to the standard which the Secretary of State presumably considers to be satisfactory.
Finally, much needs to be done to repair the damage done to defence medical services and to restore to them and their reserves in the Territorial Army an adequate capability which can support and sustain the kind of operations which our combat forces are organised and trained to carry out, and, more immediately, can provide timely professional primary, secondary and specialist consultancy for the serving population. The present inadequacy of that provision has greatly increased the number of servicemen who are not fit for duty because of the time that they must wait for appointments, and has exacerbated the serious
310
manning crisis. Much hangs on the new so-called centre of excellence, and I and other noble Lords look forward to visiting it in the early summer to see exactly what it amounts to.
While I congratulate the Government and MoD on what they have achieved, I urge them not to be complacent and to realise that, without obtaining some increase in funding and ensuring that the Treasury small print does not invalidate any improvement which comes their way, the things which so badly need to be done just will not happen when they are needed. Then the admirable Strategic Defence Review will start to unravel; the brain drain, which at the moment is high, particularly at key ages and in key appointments, will continue; and the effectiveness of this jewel in the national crown will gradually erode so that our assigned forces, with their "quick reaction" tag will no longer be able, at the drop of a hat, to support our foreign policy at the time and in the way that this Government so clearly intend.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I cannot think of anything more daunting than to follow my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall, if I may so describe him.
I should like to raise three issues: effective scrutiny and accountability in Europe; the need to develop a relationship with Russia that will serve our interests as well as hers; and, not least, how to continue to prevent France and Russia from achieving their common aim; namely, the unravelling of NATO, with all its implications for enlargement. Xavier Solana moved from being Secretary-General of NATO to High Representative of the EU. Since then the EU has established common positions on Russia, the Ukraine and the Mediterranean which are binding on all members. Under the CP on Russia he is mandated to discuss both European security, not just foreign affairs, and the Middle East. I should like to know how, and indeed if, we have any control over what he negotiates, especially with Russia.
The Russians have some very clear objectives: one is the perfectly respectable aim to develop good relations with the EU. But another is to reduce the power of NATO and, if possible, to destroy it. In doing that they automatically bring about the withdrawal of the US as a key element in the defence of Europe. If NATO goes, Russia will become once more a credible threat, not necessarily of outright war but of pressure, for instance on the Baltic states and possibly even Poland and Hungary. The safeguard of Article 5 would no longer exist and that would affect other asymmetric threats. It would remove our strategic defence. The statesmanlike gesture which created the Founding Act and the Russia-NATO Permanent Joint Council and made Russian co-operation in Kosovo possible could thus be nullified.
Mr Solana has moved on to become EU High Representative. Whereas in NATO there was a structure which presumably enabled some control over his actions to be effective, what is there now?

311
Mr Putin and his Foreign Minister may not think, as he apparently told the French at the EU summit in Paris in October, that the time is yet ripe to join the EU, but on the same day he also said that the causes which gave rise to NATO no longer existed but NATO still existed. He evidently wonders why. He does not accept NATO expansion but has no problem with European expansion. President Putin has said that Russia, France and the EU share the same view on the ABM, and Russia offers its own alternative to US missile defence plans, which is the creation of a global system of control over the proliferation of missiles. Meanwhile, Russia constantly increases her nuclear capacity and sells it abroad. Not least, President Putin and the French President discussed "an all-European policy on defence security".
On 20th November the Russian Foreign Minister was asked, "Since the EU had made another move towards setting up its own armed forces", whether Russia would regard the new structure as an opposing or friendly organisation. Mr Ivanov replied that at the last Russia-EU Summit in Paris—presumably the October meeting—
"a document was approved in which Russia expresses readiness to co-operate with the EU in the fields of defence and security. We think this is very important in order to create a single security system in Europe. The European Union has not yet passed the Founding Document, but when relevant structures are set up"—
he continued—
"when we clearly know the legal basis of the EU in this field, we will start discussing specific spheres for our co-operation".
It would be interesting to know at what stage before the Nice conference we were informed and saw this document.
Many noble Lords will wonder what objection there could be to Russia talking about the preservation of peace or to making overtures to Russia to take part in EU peacekeeping operations. Of course there should be none. But my concern is that the present Russian strategy of talking to the EU about defence and security—for example, rather than economic matters—is directed also, and perhaps largely, at weakening NATO. At least, it will have that effect.
If we were talking bilaterally to Russia, as the Secretary of State for Defence has just done, we would be doing so, I hope, with the full advantage of diplomatic and intelligence briefing and in line with our national policy. Why does the High Representative need to talk to the Russians about security and the Middle East? Who briefs him? What detailed knowledge do we, as one of the members of the EU for whom he speaks, have about the conversations? It will be a sad irony if what the Russians cannot learn about our strengths and weaknesses from a NATO well-trained in security, they learn from a largely unmonitored relationship through one man in the EU. I want to know, therefore, what are the formal arrangements for scrutiny and direction of the High Representative's actions under the common position?
312
It does not seem right or even sensible that we should be bound by understandings or agreements on which there may have been neither prior consultation nor a proper record. That would not be the case in any potentially delicate bilateral relationship.
The whole question of scrutiny and accountability is further bedevilled by the proliferation of new committees, staff, institutions and bodies which have been formed by the CESFP. The only common factor is that these new institutions are to operate through the office of Mr Solana. Who decided what their functions should be? I believe that, if we are to judge by the Prime Minister's reported comments on how EU business should, or rather should not, be conducted, the Government are already painfully aware that the CESFP is a slippery, hydra-headed collection of committees which it will be very difficult to hold to account. But it is our over-committed and, to judge by Kosovo, often under-resourced troops who are to be involved. No one should be allowed to exploit them politically without proper national control.
We have seen the annexes to the Presidency Conclusions on a number of the issues discussed, but not yet the agreed protocol on the defence and security arrangements as distinct from the presidential proposals put forward at Nice. I welcome the Government's success in negotiating to ensure that any significant operation will be planned at NATO by the planning staff at SHAPE. But past experience suggests that the small print may not say the same thing. I hope that I am wrong.
Finally, I think that the Poles and Czechs will be equally anxious to be reassured that there will be no independent, autonomous EU army and that NATO alone, to which they are already signed up, will be responsible for command and control and for defence. As the Poles have already pointed out, if they are to enhance their ability to manage crisis they cannot waste their limited resources on creating new parallel structures. Countries, they say, do not wish arid cannot afford to create two separate kinds of force, one dedicated to the European headline goals, the other to meet NATO alliance requirements. There are, therefore, important implications for enlargement in the need to assure the unquestioned priority of NATO.
When I was learning Russian I lived with a family in Paris. They took me out to dinner. No one was allowed to speak anything but Russian to me. That rather limited conversation. At my first dinner party I sat next to a delightful old Russian. He spoke beautiful English. But under orders, he asked me very slowly, clearly and carefully in Russian: "What is your favourite sport?" I could think of none. Then, less fortunately, I thought of swimming. So I said to him that I was very fond of swimming. He looked absolutely horrified. I thought that perhaps women did not swim in his young days. Then unfortunately I remembered the word for "long distance". So I said that I was particularly partial to long distance swimming. With that he looked so horrified, he turned his back on me and would not speak to me any more.

313
Afterwards, breaking the rules because no one was supposed to speak to me in anything but Russian, my hostess asked me why I had said such an extraordinary thing to poor Count so and so, who was only trying to give me practice in the Russian language. I said that I could only think of swimming. She replied: "Oh, that is what you thought you said!" I asked her what I had said. She answered that I had told him I was very fond of spitting and that I had gone on to say that I was particularly fond of long distance spitting.
I tell that story not only to cheer us up but also because I believe that one of the biggest problems with all these multifarious structures, committees and bodies within the EU is that they are not clearly explained. We do not know enough about what is happening and why it is happening. I hope that something can be done about that.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, will forgive me if I do not follow the important issues she has raised in her contribution today. We shall return to some of them in the debate on Thursday. I hope that today I may address some wider issues.
The debate has shown that Britain's international responsibilities and the Government's external policies go much wider than our European commitments, important though they are. The debate has, therefore, been a clear answer to those who accuse people within the European Union of merely being inward looking. We have been looking at Britain and Europe's responsibility on the world scene.
I should like to relate my remarks to a number of the aspects of government policies toward Africa and the possible impact of measures in the Queen's Speech on that relationship.
Before I turn to that, however, perhaps I may make a passing reference to the Armed Forces Bill, which has already been introduced in another place. I would ask the usual channels, in view of the expertise that exists on this subject in your Lordships' House, to examine whether the Bill could be considered under the procedures for a Special Public Bill Committee, as set out in paragraph 6.96 of the Companion. I feel that that would be an appropriate way to examine it on this occasion.
In Africa we have both the short-term problems of crisis prevention and conflict management and a number of much longer-term problems of good governance. In particular there is the problem, to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, of the destabilising influence of the AIDS epidemic.
The Minister in her opening speech referred, as one of the examples of joined-up government which now occur, to the group operating under the leadership of the Department for International Development, but involving the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which will deal with crisis prevention within Africa. As of next year it will have a
314
budget of £50 million per year as of next year for that purpose. The noble Baroness made reference to that body, but perhaps in her response we can have details of how it is developing. How far are the cultures which operate in different ministries in Whitehall working together in practice? Does the organisation provide us with some value added in relation to crisis prevention?
Unfortunately the recent history of peacekeeping in Africa is a depressing one. In spite of the speeches made by almost all the heads of state and of governments at the United Nations Millennium Summit in New York in September, there is still a depressing shortfall of contributions to the various peacekeeping operations in Africa.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred to our contribution and presence in Sierra Leone. Although part of that is outside the structure of UNAMSIL, it is in a context of a considerable shortfall in the other UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone and therefore makes the task of British forces much more difficult than it would otherwise would be.
The other example of where the members of the United Nations have willed the end but not the means is the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I did not intend to discuss today in detail the European Union's rapid reaction force, apart from saying that I am not sure if that is a particularly good name for it. I feel that the phrase used by the noble Baroness of "crisis management capabilities" is probably a more useful one. But as the tasks for which it has been set up include the peacekeeping missions within the Petersberg tasks, I wonder whether it will enable the Europeans collectively to make more effective contributions to UN peacekeeping activities.
The European Union countries already contribute financially very substantially to any UN peacekeeping activity. Thirty-nine per cent of the costs of any UN peacekeeping activity is paid for by European Union countries—more than 50 per cent more than what is paid by the United States. But we are not necessarily contributing enough to the UN peacekeeping forces. I hope that one of the early tasks that the new capabilities which we are developing will be able to carry out will ensure that we can go back to the situations where Europeans, including, for example, some of those who are not members of NATO, such as the Finns, the Swedes and the Irish, will contribute to UN forces under the framework of the new European arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred to the United Kingdom's training of the Sierra Leone armed forces. The UK has a long history of training forces in southern Africa, a piece of what is now called "defence diplomacy". Should we not begin to examine whether we could not start doing this task collectively among European Union countries? A few years ago there was discussion within the Western European Union about providing support for crisis management capabilities to the Organisation of African Unity. Could we not consider ways in which that could be done in the future?

315
The conflicts in Africa depend very much on the supply of arms which either come from this country or are brokered through this country. I was therefore pleased to hear from the Minister that a draft Bill will be introduced. That of course is not the same thing as a Bill. I believe that this House and another place should have an early opportunity to consider and to pass such a piece of legislation to replace, as the noble Baroness said, a law which has been on the statute book since just before the second world war.
I turn to another point covered in the gracious Speech. The private security industry based in this country also operates externally under the name, used somewhat pejoratively, of "mercenaries". Legislation on the private security industry is promised in the gracious Speech. When I heard the reference, I thought that it might include its external as well as its internal dimension. However, on examining the Bill, I see that Clause 24 restricts it for almost every purpose to England and Wales, and for a few others only to the whole of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, it would be useful if Ministers were able to give some assurance that the Green Paper on mercenaries, to which reference has been made from time to time, could' be forthcoming in the near future.
Europe is very close economically to Africa. As my noble friend Lady Williams said, many of the deposits of President Abacha passed through London or are in London. As a witness to the Select Committee on International Development in another place said recently,
"if you are in the business of trying to hide needles you look for a large haystack, and the blessing or curse that the United Kingdom [financial markets] have is that they present a very large haystack".
The gracious Speech does include proposals for proceeds of crime legislation and to deal with money laundering. But will that include the,
"restraint of assets at an earlier stage of the investigative process",
and the commitment to,
"greater co-operation with developing and transition countries to help them recover funds that were illegally acquired through criminal activity or corruption and subsequently deposited in the UK",
as referred to in the DfID White Paper published yesterday? Is that coming forward? Will this legislation enable us in the United Kingdom to implement the second European money laundering directive?
More generally on corruption, the World Bank provides on the world wide web a list of firms and individuals that are ineligible to be awarded a World Bank contract because they were found to have violated the fraud and corruption provisions of the World Bank's procurement or consultant guidelines. In the most recent list dated 25th October, of the 52 firms, 27 are domiciled in the United Kingdom and a further seven in the Isle of Man. That is a shameful record for this country, even if many of them are rather small consultancies. The Home Office paper last June on the prevention of corruption recognised the need for legislation to criminalise the bribery of foreign public officials and to assume jurisdiction over our nationals for offences of corruption committed abroad. That will enable us to comply with the
316
commitments we have undertaken under the OECD anti-bribery convention. The commitment to legislation is repeated in the DfID White Paper published yesterday, but there is no explicit reference to such legislation in the gracious Speech. Perhaps the Minister in replying can tell us what is intended.
I had intended to say something about the issue of AIDS and the problems that it will cause in destabilising Africa and perhaps having effects further afield. However, in view of the time, I shall seek a further opportunity to deal with that point.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their emphasis on the importance of NATO. Like many of your Lordships, I have very clear memories of the war which engulfed Europe 60 years ago. Although not old enough to fight, my only brother was killed in Holland. One of my cousins was killed in North Africa; another cousin was shot down over Malta. My marine engineer aunt served in convoys crossing the Atlantic and sailing to Russia. My grandmother ran a convalescent hospital. My other aunts were air raid wardens in Lambeth. My father was a sergeant-major in the Home Guard, my mother packed parcels for prisoners, and I knitted orange helmets for shipwrecked sailors. It is not something through which I would ever like to live again. But it was 60 years ago. And for the past 60 years it is NATO which has kept Europe relatively peaceful.
I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister reiterate the importance of NATO after the Nice Summit. But I am uneasy at the thought of creating a rival to NATO in Europe. So, I believe, is Mr Putin. And so are the Turks, who have one of the best armies I have seen, though not, I hasten to add, anything like as good as ours. Nothing could be. Nor, indeed, are our good friends in America happy about it. My daughter, who lives and works in Washington, has found much in the American press on this subject—in addition to the endless reports about the Florida recounts—which she sends to me.
Nor, indeed, is the US Defense Secretary, Mr Cohen, happy about this proposed development: he has said so in the bluntest of terms. Of course we are all anxious for our European friends and allies to contribute a greater share of men, equipment and money to NATO. But we do not want to create a doppelganger, a twin ghost, with a rival chain of command, rival loyalties and yet, apparently, manned by the same people. Are we, at a stroke, going to increase our Armed Forces in men and equipment to run this new rapid reaction force? From where are all the people going to come? Who is going to pay them? To whom are they going to be responsible? We must remember that our forces comprise splendid and dedicated people. But they are already stretched to the limit. Furthermore, the distance in time between unaccompanied overseas tours is far from the promised 24 months. It is not a game of musical hats: today, NATO; tomorrow, the European rapid reaction force. They are still the same people.

317
On a visit to NATO headquarters at High Wycombe a few years ago I was delighted to see how well the different European nationalities got on and integrated, even the French—not in fact a part of NATO at all, although they were working with it. On an earlier visit to NATO in Belgium, an enthusiastic civil servant who was not part of NATO nevertheless told us what good contingency plans he had. There had been some internal reorganisation and he feared that he would lose his nice, heated office and car. But he had kept hold of both and there he plotted his very good contingency plans. "But what will you use to implement them?" he was asked. "What forces do you have?". His face fell slightly. "We could borrow them," he said. He had not thought as far ahead as that, but he had very good contingency plans. I fear that by now the office and the car may have multiplied, may have grown like dragons' teeth, with the initiators of very good contingency plans looking around avidly for forces to implement them. They will not be new forces; they will be taken from somewhere else.
Many noble Lords have spoken of the importance of NATO and of the drawbacks of creating a rival force, even if only in name. I can only reiterate and reinforce those sentiments. I fear that I cannot compete with my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth in long-distance spitting, but I can point out that if you want to have a family it is never wise to throw out the baby with the bath water.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and many other noble Lords, I am delighted that Bills were announced in the Queen's Speech to ratify the International Criminal Court and to improve transparency on export controls. The White Paper on poverty and globalisation is also welcome, but I shall reserve judgment until we have an opportunity to debate it fully. By then, I should have been able properly to read and digest it.
In my contribution I wish to concentrate on the Middle East. As my noble friend is aware, I was one of a small group which last month accompanied George Galloway MP on a flight to Baghdad. Tonight I should like to share with the House some thoughts which have arisen from that visit. I should declare at the outset that the flight was financed by two businessmen, one a Jordanian and the other a British naturalised Iraqi of Assyrian Christian descent. I was fully aware that I was likely to hear only one side of the argument.
My noble friend knows, together with many other noble Lords, that I have been asking questions about the humanitarian effect of the sanctions on Iraq for more than six years. She should know also that I am perfectly aware that the current regime in Iraq is one of the harshest in the world. Any opposition to the government is likely to lead to imprisonment, torture and, most likely, execution. In case of any doubt in Baghdad, the ubiquitous portraits of Saddam make it very clear who is in charge. It should be pointed out,
318
however, that flagrant abuse of human rights continues in several countries surrounding Iraq, with which we maintain diplomatic relations or with which we are in "constructive engagement".
I had expected to be shown evidence of the effects of sanctions on the humanitarian situation and I shall discuss those shortly. However, what I had not expected to see was the extent of the reconstruction and new development going on in Baghdad. Several of the much-reported palaces are in fact government administrative buildings built on rather a grand scale. The luxury resort being built on Lake Tharthar, 50 kilometres outside Baghdad, was, we were told, not particularly for Saddam's chosen élite, but to encourage the new rich class of Iraqis to spend their money inside the country, rather than visiting resorts overseas. Some of that rich class, who comprise around only 5 per cent of the population, have made their money out of the misery and poverty of the rest of the population, who have had to sell their homes and possessions. Other members of that wealthy set have been involved in smuggling, with state approval and encouragement.
It is now possible to buy almost anything in Baghdad, if one knows the right person. I was told that the imported technical hardware needed for the new prestigious buildings was all smuggled into the country. When I raised the question of why such buildings were being constructed when pools of dirty, stagnant water were lying in many of the sidestreets in the poorer districts, I was told that so much damage had been done to the infrastructure of the water, sewerage and drainage systems by the Gulf War and subsequent sanctions on the importation of spare parts, that only massive investment could deal with the problem. Thus, funds from the Oil for Food programme were being used for this, but only a fraction of the necessary equipment was getting through, and that only recently. The impressive new buildings were being constructed mainly from local materials and provided employment in a difficult economic climate.
I wondered whether, given that so much smuggling was taking place, perhaps some military supplies were also getting through. However, doubtless my noble friend or her department has more information about this than do I. The House of Commons Select Committee on International Development report on the future of sanctions referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, received evidence about the widespread semi-official smuggling that goes on through Turkey. No doubt other frontiers are also leaky.
Turning to the effect of the sanctions on health, all that I saw confirmed paragraph 8 of the conclusions of the House of Commons Select Committee report to which I have referred. It states:
"Even those who wish to maintain these sanctions accept that children, the ill, the vulnerable in Iraq society are suffering. It is as obvious that Saddam Hussein and his ruling elite continue to enjoy a privileged existence".
I was certainly able to confirm that.

319
A conservative estimate by UNICEF is that from 1990 to 1998 an additional 500,000 children under five died compared with the number expected according to the pre-1990 improving trend in child mortality. Mrs Anupama Rao Singh, UNICEF's representative in Baghdad, whom I met, described to me in detail how this high mortality rate has come about mainly as a combination of malnutrition, consequent lowered resistance and contaminated water supplies—diarrhoea being by the far the commonest cause of death. This was due very largely to the sanctions, since before the Gulf War Iraq had become dependent on imports for 70 per cent of its food supply. Income from copious oil exports had before the war allowed the economy to depend perhaps overmuch on imports, including technical expertise. So the sudden cutting off of supplies had a particularly severe effect.
Before summing up and putting some questions and suggestions to my noble friend, I should like to discuss another rather controversial area—the possible residual effect of the use of depleted uranium-tipped bullets and shells in the Gulf War on military personnel of both sides and on the civilian population of Iraq.
When it hits a hard object at a high velocity, depleted uranium self-ignites and disintegrates into dust. Some of this dust becomes airborne and can be carried by the wind for some kilometres. Some of these particles can he inhaled; they can penetrate deeply into the lungs and cannot be eliminated by the body; they get stuck there. Although depleted uranium is only 40 per cent as radioactive as uranium—and alpha radiation, which is its main emission, can hardly penetrate intact skin—it can, however, when inside the body, penetrate four centimetres and damage the DNA in its path, potentially triggering malignant change. It also emits small amounts of beta and gamma radiation, which have a higher penetrative power. It has an exceptionally long life of 4.5 billion years and has chemical toxicity as well as radioactivity.
Several doctors I met at the leukaemia ward of the Saddam children's hospital in Baghdad and elsewhere were quite clear that there had been a sharp increase in cancer at all ages in Iraq since the Gulf War, particularly among children, leukaemia being the most common. In Baghdad children's hospital there had been a fourfold increase, comparing the decades before and after the 1990 Gulf War—350 before and 1,400 after, in round figures.
Some of this increase is likely to come from referrals from outside Baghdad, although the medical staff were convinced that there was also an increase in Baghdad City itself, which perhaps raises the possibility that there might be some cause other than depleted uranium. In and around Basra, the reported increase was also about fourfold, with some evidence of a greater increase in districts nearer to the battlefield. The same picture seemed to be emerging for congenital abnormalities in new-born children.
Although I was not very impressed with the standard of the epidemiological reports I was given, I remained impressed by the clinical knowledge and
320
sincerity of the doctors and nurses I met. As well as an increase in incidence, they also reported an increase in severity, of both malignancies and congenital abnormalities. The paediatric oncologists treating the children with leukaemia and lymphoma said that, although they could sometimes get modern chemotherapeutic drugs—they demonstrated a very good knowledge of modern medical oncology—the supply was intermittent, so that often the most effective combination of drugs could not be given at all or not for long enough. Because of a lack of cell separators and transfusion equipment they could not give the life-saving bone marrow grafts or transplants which many leukaemia or lymphoma patients need. Most patients with leukaemia in Iraq therefore die, as compared with the UK where up to 90 per cent survive.
The suggestion that this might be due to administrative delay by the Iraqi government was thought laughable by the doctors, who reported that it was due to the need for the Iraqi Ministry of Health to make new contracts with suppliers every six months, combined with delays in getting clearance from the UN sanctions committee each time. Some of the equipment needed is classified as dual use and therefore not allowed in—for example, radiotherapy machines—and some is put "on hold" for up to six months so that new contracts have to be drawn up and the process started all over again.
UNICEF was not able to give me any data on childhood malignancies in Iraq because any investigation into possible effects on health due to radiation has to be handled by the International Atomic Energy Agency rather than the WHO or UNICEF. I suggest that these findings have a direct relevance to the Gulf War syndrome reported by troops serving in the Gulf War, and at least part of which could possibly be due to exposure to depleted uranium. I have previously asked, and now again ask, my noble friend whether the UK will call for a full expert investigation into the reported increase in cancer in Iraq, to be carried out by the World Health Organisation, not the IAEA. That is important, because the IAEA is an interested party, given that the nuclear industry supplies the depleted uranium as a by-product of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons production. I hope that my noble friend agrees that it is extremely important that these claims should be confirmed or denied by an expert independent team of investigators.
In summing up, I should like to echo the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and ask what we are achieving by continuing with our present policy. The weapons inspectors have been expelled, so we have lost the ability to monitor Iraq's military development on the ground. Mr Scott Ritter, the last but one head of UNSCOM has said that 90 per cent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been eliminated. However, a monitoring role would still be very useful. Iraq has indicated that if the current comprehensive sanctions were ended—not

321
"suspended" as in SCR 1284—and the current over-flying and frequent bombing of Iraq were stopped, it would be prepared for a return of a UN monitoring team of some kind.
With regard to the bombing, perhaps my noble friend can tell me which UN resolution permits the continued low-intensity war on Iraq from a great height, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Turner, in which civilian casualties and damage to property occur regularly. To say that the no-fly zones are for humanitarian protection of the Kurds or the Shias is long out of date. This bombing gains nothing for us, makes ordinary Iraqi people bewildered and angry, and increases rather than reduces popular support for Saddam. It also feeds the smouldering resentment of the Arab world against the Western powers, especially the United States and the UK. The excessive Israeli response to the current intifada in Palestine has a similar effect.
To stop the bombing, to replace the current sanctions regime with something more appropriate and put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in accordance with UN resolutions would open up the way for a more permanent settlement for the whole Middle East. This should include an agreement on arms limitation—perhaps making use of our new proposed legislation—especially weapons of mass destruction, although, realistically, I do not see Israel giving up its nuclear weapon until we do. That leads me to support the position of my noble friend Lord Jenkins, who wants the whole process speeded up. I suggest that Britain could take an imaginative lead in initiating this wider process, together with other states in the European Union. To continue with present policies is not only perpetuating the suffering of vulnerable Iraqis—and Palestinians—but is stirring the embers of a more widespread conflict in the future.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I suppose that this debate is in reality about the two simple words, "peace" and "prosperity". When I flew back from Nice yesterday, I was reminded of the symbols of peace and prosperity: those great cypress trees, so elegant and beautiful—like the noble Baronesses on the Benches opposite. I thought that that might wake them up slightly—but women have an ability to talk and think at the same time.
Cypress trees were usually planted in pairs in the ancient world, often near graveyards. One grows taller than the other and is normally known as "prosperity". It moves in bursts. "Peace" is usually shorter, is sometimes deemed to be feminine, and moves slowly. They have always been the symbols of peace and prosperity.
In this debate some noble Lords have concentrated on trying to help as regards the poverty and prosperity of others. I want to concentrate on the prosperity and peace of ourselves. The dangers to that peace and prosperity are, above all, politics and bureaucracy.
322
While I was in Nice—on a private visit, but watching carefully what was going on—I noted first the large columns of dark blue Citroen cars led by dark blue, highly polished motor-cycles, followed by dark blue vans—all French—loaded with security men. At each roundabout there were dark blue Frenchmen, four to a roundabout, all holding sub-machine guns, no doubt of French manufacture, and controlled by plain-clothes Inspector Clouseau look-alikes directing traffic down one-way streets and keeping all those who were not bureaucrats or politicians out of harm's way. I was told that that was because the "Pink Panthers" of international socialism were in town for another socialist rally to decide how the whole of Europe could be bureaucratised.
I wondered what the results were of this great meeting, naturally. I was given by my friends—both French and of other nationalities—and on television, some useful pieces of information. The first was about the weather. Your Lordships may not be aware that there is more rain in Nice than in London, and it all falls in a short period of time. We must think for a moment that often the weather has caused calamities throughout the world. However, the weather is not the subject of my intervention today. Your Lordships may wonder what it will be.
The second was that when I returned I was told by a Frenchman that we had won at cricket. I thought that that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has pointed out, was not really relevant. But, as a weapon of international diplomacy, cricket is of considerable importance. Very few people in the EU, other than Corfu, play it.
The third point is to recognise that sport has an important role to play. There is no clearer example of that than the remarkable success of our Commonwealth cousins in Australia in bringing the world together in the Olympic Games. We have one thing in commonwith the French, that is that they play rugby rather well. Therefore, sport is another weapon.
I return to the point about where the loyalties and the future of our country lie. Possibly because we are so British, we pretend to be extraordinarily unselfish, whereas the French and our continental allies or friends are overtly selfish, often score points and win. I do not believe that we won anything in Nice. Even when I was there, I suddenly found myself uncharitably thinking of Petain, the great hero of Verdun, of le Pen, of the bombing of the French fleet, and of the divisiveness in war that has been caused by politicians for a long period of time. I was then moved by the reminder of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that we have had peace in our time. Many who did not know the horror of war will probably never fully appreciate the value of peace. That point must be driven home.
We need to think forward 50 years. Fifty years in the life of a cypress tree, or any reasonable tree, is not a long time. First, I want to go back 100 years, to 1900, when the population of the United Kingdom was 40 million and the population of the British Empire was 350 million, totalling 400 million people. I then

323
want to move forward 50 years. I think that the current population is 60 million and the population of the British Commonwealth 1.7 billion. Are Commonwealth citizens British? Do we, or should we. have a more special relationship with them than with the continent of Europe? I believe that we should and do.
I then recall the contribution to peace made in the past 100 years by the citizens of the Commonwealth or the Empire: 10 per cent (900,000) of those who fought in the First World War and 3 per cent (350,000) of those who fought in the Second World War were killed. They were great armies—people who gave for a fatherland or another land across the sea; for whatever reasons, they were brought together, fought for us and gave us peace.
I wonder what weapons we have today for peace, other than diplomacy. Of course, we have the problem of bureaucracy, to which I shall refer again and again, but we must look at the role of the armed forces of the world. We will, of course, seek peace in all major countries, but there will always be conflict somewhere. I am told that there are always seven conflicts, one for every day of the week, at any one time.
What defence weapons or weapons of peace are available to us? The United States has armed forces of 1.4 million men. NATO and the EU, excluding the United Kingdom, have armed forces of 1.5 million men. Other countries of NATO, other than the EU, have forces of 1 million men. We have forces of about 200,000 men—fewer than we lifted out of Dunkirk. The Commonwealth has forces of 2.5 million men. But when we look at the expenditure on armed forces, the United States exceeds all of those other countries put together. Is it a matter of expenditure on men or technology?
In terms of expenditure, it is acknowledged that we probably have the best armed and most effective servicemen of any navy, whether it be on the 3:1 ratio, it does not matter. But when we come to the days of peacekeeping, we need men and women, not necessary high-tech equipment. In order to keep peace in many parts of the world, we do not need a few men on the ground; we need hundreds of thousands of them. Where are they available? That is one of the problems about which we may need to think in the future. We need men, but do we have enough?
How do we harness and bring together these men, and what will they become? In the old days, they would have been called an "expeditionary force", in the same way that a cricket team travelling abroad would be called "the tourists" because they were touring. Now, suddenly, such men are called "task forces" or even "rapid reaction forces", which can react rapidly; but I know not whether the politicians and the bureaucrats can react as rapidly as we would like.
Then we come to this doubtful business of change in political thinking, or the "turncoats" of this world—such as, with respect, noble Lords sitting opposite. When we first decided that we would be going into the European Union or the EC under a Conservative government, I well recall that the Labour Party
324
strongly objected and refused to co-operate in any way. It refused to be in the heart of Europe to negotiate and plan and sent no delegation to the European Parliament. However, the Liberals, the Conservatives, and others, were fully supportive. When, ultimately, the Labour Government came to power and decided that they could only support it with a referendum, we had the biggest result in favour than had been the case with any other proposal; indeed, I believe that it even exceeded the support received for the abolition of hanging. That, if anything, is "turncoatery".
As for the Conservative Party, one of the concerns was the surrender of sovereignty and the dominance of bureaucracy. We have seen the most remarkable increase in bureaucracy in our time. We have also suffered because we moved from being a successful agricultural nation to one that is now dying and starving in the rural areas, with minus 9 per cent yield on agricultural land. We were a great industrial nation, but have seen the collapse of manufacturing industry and the inability even to make the necessary equipment for our Armed Forces.
We need to give some thought to the future. I am convinced that we are, arid must be, global. I hate the word "globalist", but I declare an interest as far as concerns relations with the United States. I was exported with my sister to the United States during the war for safekeeping. We later returned wearing labels round our necks. I learned to speak English with an American accent, which it has taken me a long time to change. I was two years old at the time and my sister was aged just nine months. She has just returned from serving with a peace corps in a small village in Senegal. The last job of one of my nephews was to get Senator Glenn into space, another served in the rangers and one heads his own Navy Seal team at the moment. I also have another nephew in our Armed Forces.
My family was brought up to believe in military and public service in the interests of peace. I respect and like the American relationship. A certain comment has been driven home to me: why, in order to be pro-European, is it necessary to be anti-American?
9.28 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, in the gracious Speech the Government confirm the United Kingdom's role and practical approach to the European Union in shaping its future, which I interpret to mean that they will continue to build on the strengths of the Union in our national interest. This is not surprising as, for more than half a lifetime, membership of the European Union, with membership of NATO and of the Commonwealth, have been the cornerstones of our external policy.
Since the gracious Speech was delivered, we have had the results of the intergovernmental conference at Nice. I am sure that there will be much more discussion about that because it requires ratification by the United Kingdom Parliament and by all other member states. Therefore, I hope this evening to gain the award for the briefest or, at least, most compact comments on the Nice results.

325
There has been a good deal of reference to Nice. As far as I am concerned, the results are in line with our pre-announced position on qualified majority voting. In my view it has done enough as regards voting and the commissioners to give impetus to rapid progress on the enlargement negotiations, referred to in the gracious Speech. This is greatly to be welcomed and is definitely a step forward. There is obviously no enlargement crisis and the headline in yesterday's Times was out of date before it appeared on the news stands.
I wish to respond to the question: how do we go on from here? I do not want just to consider what happened at Nice but to look ahead at where we go from here in terms of our relations within the European Union and in terms of the repercussions of our Union membership on some other aspects of external policy. I look at this matter in the framework of the Government's statement of policy in the gracious Speech and the results of Nice.
Despite the actual or alleged disagreements and crises which afflict, or are reported in the media to afflict, our policy within the Union, the principal medium-term objectives of the Union have almost never been more clear than in the past few years. There are three such objectives which are quite evident. Of course, you do not get this impression from much of the comment in the United Kingdom.
First, there is the question of enlargement to include the countries of central and southern Europe which have requested membership. I am not at all sure that the magnitude of this step change has been fully appreciated in Britain. We do not just have to discuss the technical question of when they complete the negotiations, when they come in or how many chapters they have accepted in the acquis communautaire. What we have to consider are the opportunities for British citizens in this huge enlargement. What are the prospects for trade, for commerce and for people-to-people contact? That is what is opening up in central and eastern Europe and in parts of southern Europe. That is what it is all about. There are about 108 million people in the countries I am discussing, so obviously this is a big change. It is not just a change in political terms—although that is important—but a change in terms of direct contacts between Britain and these countries. In economic terms the European Union powerhouse becomes stronger and, more importantly, its responsibilities for the health of the world's trading system and its responsibilities for international development and towards the less developed countries must be even more evidently accepted and carried out. We are a bigger Union and our responsibilities are greater. That should be seen and reflected in all we do in the future years.
In political terms the enlargement is for many in the Union and outside the natural and desired consequence of the end of the Iron Curtain and the return of free democratic societies in central European sovereign states. It is good to see the welcome which those sovereign states gave to the results of Nice. As far as I can see, this is a worthwhile objective which we
326
need to get across to the British people. This is an objective of the European Union which we are proud to support and one which is not technocratic or bureaucratic but which constitutes a link between us and other peoples and other countries to our benefit and to theirs.
I always regret that the sole term "European Community" for the total entity that we are in seemed to be abolished at one stage because the enlargement highlights again that this is for Britain a community, a soon to be enlarged community, of friendly nations. In this, as in all other matters, all the ships will rise with the tide.
Objectively, history may perhaps judge that the changes agreed at Nice are not so important as all that in the pursuit of Union enlargement which is already well and truly launched. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will get a "wigging" from Sir Humphrey or Sir John or someone if she agrees with me. Therefore I shall not push the point too much. But, objectively, I think that that is none the less the case. However, political perception is everything and that has been achieved. Therefore, in reality, the enlargement is now going forward very evidently.
In the course of further discussions, the real problems relating to some issues will be raised: the movement of people; the length of the transition period; and, to a lesser degree, I believe, although not in the view of some noble Lords who have spoken today, agricultural support. Those problems remain to be settled. I think that as a consequence of what has been achieved in the past week those problems will be solved. That is the first major objective.
The second major objective is to make a success of economic and monetary union, as agreed at Maastricht. The United Kingdom is a full participant in the economic policy of the Community under which member states regard their economic policy as a matter of common concern and co-ordinate them within the Council, although on monetary policy the UK public will decide in due course what they will do about the common currency. However, because of our full role on economic policy, Britain has an important objective: not simply to maximise the advantages from our own continuing sound economic policy but also the consequences of sound economic policies throughout the Community. Whatever their views on the euro, I think that the British public will see that as a worthwhile objective on which we, and the Union as a whole, are engaged.
The third major objective is to carry forward the action in the fields of asylum, immigration and the fight against drugs and crime on which the Maastricht Treaty established a form of co-operation on a broadly inter-governmental basis and on which the Amsterdam Treaty "communitarised" some but not all of those responsibilities. That was probably the most important decision at Amsterdam. It is now moving towards some form of implementation. There is much positive action to come following through the agendas of Maastricht and Amsterdam in the area of justice and home affairs. It is an area where the co-operation between the member states and the

327
Commission seems to be working well. Hidden among the documents that we received recently, in the presidency conclusions, a number of issues are being pushed forward. They are good issues for Britain. I refer, for example, to the area of freedom and security, the recognition of court decisions and greater operational co-operation between member states on the external frontiers.
Those three main Union objectives are all worthwhile. They can easily be sold to the British public. It is important that we make clear those positive points and the direction in which the Union is going. After all, it is our Union; it is not someone else's. It is our Community; it is not someone else's. The British public can easily understand and support that.
Finally, it is somewhat depressing to note how often people in Britain think that in the European Union the most important legislative and policy decisions are taken by bureaucrats. They are not taken by bureaucrats but by the Ministers of the member states, often in co-decision with the European Parliament.
Nice has been described as a circus but the important question is this. Who were the performers? The performers were the Prime Ministers of the sovereign member states. It may help to bring home to the British public and the media that in the European Union it is the member states, their Prime Ministers, their Ministers and, where ratification is required, their Parliaments or their people who "rule—OK".
9.39 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, one of your Lordships' House's great oracles on matters relating to the European Union has just sat down, which makes it difficult for me to stand up, particularly at this late hour. but there are still one or two things that could be said, so, with your Lordships' indulgence, I shall get right to them.
The gracious Speech could not have put it more plainly. It said:
"My Government will continue to work with our partners to shape the future of the European Union".
At Nice, Her Majesty's Government gave proof of their determination to pursue that agenda vigorously and achieved most, if not all, of their objectives.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was right to deplore the way in which the European Council is condemned to conduct its affairs and reach important decisions and I am glad that the Government intend to make proposals to reform the current procedures. They would certainly benefit from a good dose of transparency for a start.
At the risk of displeasing my noble friends on the Front Bench—this will not be the first time that I have done so on matters relating to Europe—I have to say that the ferocity with which the Government manned the red veto line around all matters relating to taxation still puzzles me. For example, will we for ever ring-fence such matters as combating tax fraud against public finances? I think that we should not. I would even go so far as to predict that at some time in the future we shall not.
328
That said, the draft Nice treaty is a big step forward and has helped to allay the worst fears of the candidate countries. Peter Gottfried, who is the chief negotiator for Hungary in the accession talks, said yesterday:
"There is an overall feeling that the prospect of membership is becoming more tangible, predictable and credible".
That is an improvement on what he has said in the past. The Prime Ministers of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia, who were meeting in Bratislava, also gave a warm welcome to the result. There seems to have been a collective sigh of relief among the candidate countries that things might be on track.
I was sorry to have to leave the Chamber before the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, had finished her excellent introductory speech. I had to go to the European Union Select Committee, where, as my noble friend Lord Tomlinson said, we were engaged in a conversation with our Minister for Europe. I fully share the incredulity that she and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, expressed at the unwillingness of the leader of the Tory party to see the treaty ratified. That will have earned him no friends in the candidate countries whose accession his party has so long championed. I am mystified by his approach.
It is equally puzzling that Mr Hague seems so certain that a European superstate is in the making. Surely he cannot be blind to what happened at Nice. If he had been there to see the bargaining that went on, he would have realised that the nation state is alive and well across Europe and shows no sign of disappearing.
We should be grateful to the German Chancellor for his statesmanship in not insisting on more votes for Germany than for France. Of course, he got one or two things in return, but he materially helped to save the treaty. I also take my hat off to the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr Verhofstadt. Not only did he champion the interests of the smaller countries, which were not always treated with great politesse, from what I have heard, but he was prepared to accept a lower vote than the Netherlands even though there had previously been parity. His reported comment as he left the meeting—that it would probably be easier for him to be elected Prime Minister of Lithuania than for him to be re-elected Prime Minister of Belgium—showed his excellent good humour.
Germany got its agreement on the new IGC in 2004. I welcome that in principle. It is right that we should seek to simplify the treaties without changing their meaning, so as to make them more coherent and understandable. It is absolutely right that we seek to strengthen the role of national Parliaments in the affairs of the Union and to look at one of the proposals made by the Prime Minister in Warsaw for a second Chamber for the European Parliament made up of national parliamentarians. Above all, it is right to establish and define precisely the respective competencies of the EU, its member states and its

329
regions. After all, to put it in the plainest language, setting out just who governs whom and from where is simply plain, good common sense.
I very much welcome the Nice decision that candidate countries which have signed accession agreements will participate in the new IGC and that those which have not yet reached that stage will certainly be observers. That is vital. However, even after discussing the matter this afternoon with my right honourable friend Keith Vaz, I confess that I am a little concerned about what happens immediately following Nice where candidates' interests are at stake.
The treaty will contain a declaration that, under the guidance of the Swedish and Belgian presidencies, the European Union will embark on a deeper and wider debate about the future development of Europe, and that at the final Council of Ministers of the Belgian presidency, which will take place in Lachen in December 2001, the content, calendar and working methods of the IGC will be agreed. That in itself is unobjectionable, but the assurance given in the declaration that,
"candidate countries will be associated in ways to be defined",
in the Swedish/Belgian initiative gives me pause for thought. I trust that those "ways to be defined" are as inclusive as possible and not the opposite, but I fear that they may not be.
The Nice Summit confirmed the growing attractions of more inter-governmentalism to the majority of EU countries, particularly to the major countries. Commission President Prodi's disappointment with the results are certainly evidence of that. In our commitments to inter-governmentalism we must be careful not to undermine the institutions of the European Union. The IGC must make sure of that. The smaller countries will surely not want to see the Commission progressively weakened, nor must more inter-governmentalism increase the opacity, already excessive, of the Union's decision-making. That is no way to gain the confidence and support of Europe's citizenry, which is so utterly indispensable.
Nice may have turned out better than many feared, if not as good as others hoped. But the enlargement process, although given a fairer wind, is not out of choppy waters. Perhaps I may mention two problems that I see ahead.
First, will the European Parliament agree to the treaty? Ominous sounds are coming from it already. Elmar Brok, the senior German Christian Democrat MEP, one of the two MEPs representing the Parliament at the Council, together with his Greek colleague, Mr Tsatsos, is reported to have warned that their institution might refuse to vote for the proposed treaty of Nice if the final version did not contain radical measures to extend majority voting and ease decision-making in the European Union. That remark was apparently made after the results were known.
Herr Brok also attacked the decision to raise the numbers of MEPs in the European Parliament, despite the fact that Germany is one of the beneficiaries of that
330
increase. He attacked the idea of going above the current ceiling of 700 when new members join the European Union. I quote him:
"To raise the numbers means that with further enlargement we might get more again, and end up like the Chinese People's Congress".
We must earnestly hope that there will be a good majority in the European Parliament for approval of the treaty.
A second problem concerns agricultural policy. That has been referred to already by a number of noble Lords and was raised pointedly by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, yesterday during the discussion on the Statement. One asks oneself whether a country such as Poland has to be offered second-class treatment, excluding direct subsidies, because of a failure to reform the CAP. Cynics say that that would goad Poland into being a more ferocious advocate of radical CAP reform in 2006. I am not sure that that is the right attitude to take to this. Indeed, I do not really think that we can wait until 2006 for a proper reform of the CAP. It must come much earlier.
An editorial in Le Monde yesterday said that Europe had made formidable progress in many areas, including in the fields of the single currency, defence and others. But it added that it was failing to provide itself with the institutional means to manage itself and that in that area of governance, it had regressed.
That might be music to the ears of the Eurosceptics but for those of us who want to see a more efficient, peaceful united Europe of nation states co-operating ever more closely, it is a warning and we ignore it at our peril. I believe sincerely that Nice was a good step forward but there are miles still to go. I am convinced that Her Majesty's Government understand that, and that is greatly to their credit.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in the course of her wide-ranging, excellent and entertaining speech, suddenly fired out some extremely useful information about the BBC World Service. She gave the House some very interesting statistics. I may return to that matter at the end of my brief remarks. However, it was interesting to hear the Minister deal with that particular aspect.
The Minister went on to speak about the new concept of the Euro army and the Euro defence initiative and how those had become muddled up. However, the noble Baroness, noble and gallant Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, among others, all stressed what is agreed, I believe, unanimously; namely, that NATO is the cornerstone of the defence and security of this country and that of the other member states of the European Union and NATO. Therefore, I was delighted to hear, in the remarks of the noble Baroness and others, of our strong commitment to NATO.
That is fine. We have discussed NATO and matters military and political at a fairly high level. But when the Minister replies, I hope that she will combine that with the need, stressed by the noble and gallant Lord,

331
Lord Bramall, to improve our extremely effective and professional forces. We must squeeze out every pound that is needed to help with both the men and women and the equipment required.
I do not believe that any members of our Armed Forces would worry in any way about joint training with other members of NATO and, indeed, other member states of the European Union. But I hope that the main thrust will continue to be that of improving NATO's capability in all fields.
I believe that I alone in your Lordships' House have had the honour to spend nine years as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly. That is the political arm of NATO. It is the unofficial parliament of the member states of NATO. Indeed, in that capacity, I was appointed as rapporteur to two committees which did not deal with major political or military affairs; rather they dealt with how to explain what NATO did in all fields. During my last incarnation there, I was rapporteur to a scientific and technical committee, which was going some since I have not one O-level in science. However, I received some help. At all times it was clear to us that we should stick together and ensure that we made a contribution, both through our own parliaments and personally, to the effectiveness of NATO.
When the Minister replies, I hope that she will take on board the concern which is in my mind and, I believe, the minds of others, that the excellent words which have been spoken both here and outside do not in any way impinge upon the question of overstretch and the capacity of the men and women of our Armed Forces and their equipment.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred to a visit made by the House of Lords defence group to 15 Air Assault Brigade. I was honoured to be with him. At one time, such was the keenness of the noble and gallant Lord that I worried whether he would disappear from South Cerney somewhere over the north of England and that I too may be catapulted along to assist him. On that day, sadly, as today, my noble friend Lord Vivian was not able to be with us.
I stress to your Lordships that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has lost nothing of his effectiveness over nearly 50 years serving King, Queen and country. Indeed, his remarks were particularly relevant this evening. He made all the points in relation to the strength of NATO that I could possibly want to make.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, can reassure me and all members of the Armed Forces that what I understand is called the plot—the rotation in relation to the Army—will not be disturbed by what is planned tonight or in the longer term. The three parts of plot are training, a specific term of duty and what I understand is called "rest and re-assignment" which has to take place afterwards.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, referred to the rotation of Army units. As a member of the House of Lords defence group, I have seen rotation, I shall not say strained, but approaching
332
some visible limits. I hope that the Minister will be able to take that matter on board, if not tonight. perhaps over the next year.
Already it is apparent to me that there are one or two major gaps in the Army plot. That was referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Braman. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Park and myself have a continuing interest in the Defence Medical Services. I am concerned about the tight schedules and the lean aspect of what I call the paramedics who look after members of the Armed Forces. The paramedics in the Army are dependent on members of the Territorial Army. They are good, tough specialists who fill in in a special area. Perhaps at some time in the future—not tonight—the Minister can tell me how many men and women serve as Territorial Army members of the paramedics with our regular forces and how that affects the overall plot of the defence services.
Some time in the spring I had a quiet word In the Prince's Chamber with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and she raised her eyes to heaven and said, "Lyell, kitchens". I do not believe that that was a reference to myself as being a furnisher of excellent equipment. I simply raised the point that had come to my notice the day before on a visit with the House of Lords defence group on board a frigate at Portsmouth. I am grateful to the Minister for taking that on board as I understand that swift remedies were carried out in that particular case.
It will not surprise her that the subject of kitchens also came up in relation to another visit made by the group to Cyprus. That also has been taken care of. My thanks and the thanks of I he battalion on Cyprus go to the noble Baroness and her colleagues, who consider smaller aspects at battalion, at regimental and at ship level. It is good to know that there is support at that level.
In Cyprus, which is just within the NATO task area, one thing that considerably helps members of the Armed Forces is the BBC World Service. I declare an interest as last Thursday I was given a most delightful lunch by that service. I appreciate how hard those in the service work, how successful they are and how grateful they are for every extra pound of funding that comes from the department of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland.
The department which was kind enough to entertain me covered sport. That was so well referred to by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. The service teaches English and gives lessons in sport. Nothing would be better than for our Armed Forces in Kosovo and Bosnia to be able to give youngsters quiet lessons in English and tell of the great triumphs of our cricket and football teams. The BBC World Service is of enormous help and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will continue to give it as much help as possible.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will ensure that the capabilities of the men and women in our Armed Forces are considered first and last during all her waking hours. I also hope that she and all noble Lords will be able to salute the professionalism of our Armed Forces and support them, but above all do so within the framework of NATO.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, yesterday I was in Budapest considering an investment in its steel industry. It was a fine day and I was reminded of the traumatic events of 1956 which, as a young student, had a profound effect on my political outlook. I believe that what happened in Nice restored momentum to the process of enlargement. It is true that enlargement has been under way for some time, but it was giving the appearance politically of stalling. It is vital now to build on that.
Furthermore, I do not share the criticisms made about the difficulties and political horse trading which went into the weighting of votes. That was always going to be an extremely difficult issue and a number of countries had to swallow some unpleasant and difficult decisions. It was not easy, but it was the prerequisite to enlargement. I believe that, broadly speaking, the resulting formula is a good one.
I hope that we shall see enlargement in 2004. It would be a great pity if it slipped into 2005. It is vital that all those in the next tranche of enlargement feel that at all stages they have a major say—I agree with what was said about the early stages of the Swedish and Belgian presidencies—in the IGC.
I am pleased that we are beginning to clarify the relationship between the nation state, the intergovernmental aspects of the European Union and the supra-national institutions and elements within that unique Union. I believe that the Nice Summit moved some way forward the case for open espousal of the honourable nature of intergovernmentalism.
However, in the nature of the European debate there will be a backlash, and it will probably begin in the European Parliament. It has already begun, with the President of the Commission being extremely scathing about the retention of some of the vetoes and showing, as he has done in his role during the past year, an extreme inability to understand the democratic pressures which are building up in many of the member states. They may not be building up in his own country—Italy may be one of the few exceptions—but they are building up slowly and steadily in all the other member states. I believe that the Commission must take that on board, particularly the Commissioner for External Affairs.
I looked at what the Prime Minister said in another place yesterday, particularly in answer to questions. It was most revealing and extremely welcome that he said:
"The important thing about this new debate is that it is about the issue of subsidiarity and the definition of the competencies between the European Union and the nation state".
Referring to the European Union, he went on to say,
"There are, indeed, areas in which some of its powers could be returned to the nation state".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/00; col. 358.]
I believe that that is so, although its achievement would require some very hard negotiation.
334
The Prime Minister went on to say at col. 364:
"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".
That is a very important new statement by the Prime Minister. He admits that there is an argument about the role of a federal superstate and that we must engage in it. What I have sought to do in a modest way in the past two years, particularly in helping to create an organisation called New Europe, is to stimulate that essential debate. If that debate is not being conducted by the political élite it is certainly taking place among the public in member states, including the UK. Often we focus only on our tabloid press and what is said in our debates, but this matter is being discussed in most of the countries of the European Union.
The result of the referendum in Denmark was a wake up call to democratic politicians in the European Union, and in that sense it is a new debate. I am not frightened of the debate. The decision to hold an intergovernmental conference in 2004 is right, but I hope that following it we stop the endless tampering with the constitution and development of the European Union. We shall have four years of fairly intense political debate in which, no doubt, the pressures and arguments will wax and wane.
It is a fairly good time for those of us who hold that the European Union must have limits to its institutional unity. It was clear from the outcome of Nice that neither Chancellor Schröder nor President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin believed in a single state. Those gentlemen—one German and the other two French—are likely to be still around in the year 2004. There is to be an election in the UK to determine Britain's leadership. But there is clear evidence that some important leaders in the European Union are beginning to define the limits to the ever-growing unity of the European Union. As to the words "ever-growing unity of the peoples of Europe", I believe that Europe can grow and grow. There was deliberately no reference to the ever- growing unity of states, but for all good Europeans there will always be a legitimate question as to where the limits lie. I believe that they will now be defined.
Some of the Prime Minister's comments about taxation were more forthright than any of his previous observations. At col. 361 he said:
"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".
I agree with him. The stance of the Prime Minister on social security was part of that. I do not believe that the all-important political debate about redistribution within a country, which after all goes to the root of tax and benefit levels, is a matter to be determined in Brussels or at European level. That is a political decision as a result of debate, classically between left and right, which must take place in the member states. Different decisions will be taken at different times in different countries.

335
The Prime Minister also referred to the Amsterdam protocol which deals with home affairs and judicial issues in which Britain has a right to determine at what pace it proceeds collectively and to reserve its position. We are beginning to define clear-cut limits. If it goes on like this, by the year 2004 there may even be a fair measure of agreement across the European Union on that matter. If we succeed in that the European Union will be immensely strengthened and well able to take on the challenges of enlargement, which will be extremely difficult.
A few weeks ago I was in Romania looking at a possible investment in the steel industry. We have already taken the decision to do it. There is no question that that country, like many which have emerged from soviet communism, will require a great deal of assistance. We underestimated the cost of absorbing the East into the West—no one more so than the Federal Republic of Germany. I often think it was fortunate that Chancellor Kohl was not very good on economics. To adopt one to one parity between the West German and East German marks was a clear mistake in economic terms, but in political terms it allowed for the reunification of Germany, which was an essential step to enlargement. All of these things are good.
Finally, I turn to NATO and the whole question of the European defence initiative. I have been a strong advocate of such an initiative for more than 20 years. Nevertheless, when I was asked about the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to write a letter to warn about the need for utmost caution I was happy so to do because I was getting, as happens, cries of extreme anguish from senior military officers—people in Washington, in Brussels and here in London—and no one seemed to be taking their concern seriously. I kept on saying particularly to Americans that they should go to their politicians. I think that the decision of Defense Secretary Cohen to spell out his anxieties as clearly as he did was a great credit to him personally and will give him an abiding legacy, because that was a warning none of us could ignore. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, the Secretary-General of NATO, wrote to one of the newspapers making it clear that NATO was not yet signed up to this agreement. The Prime Minister, in one of his answers, made it quite clear that NATO is still to sign up to this agreement and that it will take a few months. My advice to the Minister, for what it is worth, is that we should not be hurried on this matter. We should get it right. It is fundamentally important.
We were expecting in the statement to have much greater clarification from Deputy SACEUR. That has not been included in the statement, nor have I been able to track it down. But that is one of the most crucial relationships. What exactly is his role in the planning function, and when will he come in to control this operation if it becomes such a large humanitarian intervention?
These are serious military questions that need to be addressed. If they are not addressed in the next few months and the right decision is not reached, what is a potentially conceptually good initiative will have
336
profoundly damaging consequences. The Prime Minister was right to stand firm when President Chirac tried to use the word "independent". The German influence was very important in the debate. There is still much to play for in this argument. It is not the case that it has all been settled in Nice. We are to have a new American president. But if we are to have a new Republican president, there will be even more questioning of this position. We would be well-advised to wait until the new administration in America has had time to absorb what is going on and to make a firm and clear agreement.
In the process we should also handle Turkey better than we have done. We have never handled Turkey as well as we should. It is a very sensitive question and it needs the utmost care. So, all in all, Nice has been a significant step forward in defining the new Europe with which we shall have to live in this new century. There is not a case for false boasting or anything like that.
Mention has been made of the leadership shown by the Chancellor of Germany in letting his perfectly legitimate claim to a higher weighting of voles fall and also to the Belgian Prime Minister. A number of people contributed to the success of the Nice Summit, not least our own Prime Minister. I think that we can build on it.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been an unavoidably broad debate, dealing with British interests and British responsibilities in a rather disorderly world of 190 member states. Last night I warned the Minister who will reply that I would raise some particularly obscure questions and that I would demand a reply on the political situation in Vanuatu and on bilateral relations between Nepal and Bhutan. I see her worried face as she looks at me.
A number of difficult situations have been raised in the debate: the problem of Kashmir, which is a particularly delicate problem because we have communities of British citizens who are themselves engaged in and feel passionately about this issue from different sides; and the problem of Indonesia which I think will trouble us actively in the next two years if Indonesia manages to stay together. Clearly we face an overloaded Foreign Office with overworked Foreign Office Ministers. We have to recognise that the Government cannot handle all these problems always at the same time.
I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft. I look forward to asking him whether it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, once told me, that the name "Belize" is derived from the plagiarisation of the name of the famous Scottish pilot, Captain Wallace, whose base was on the coast of Honduras in the early years. I must check with the noble Lord whether that is fact.
I agree strongly with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that we should take rather more seriously the issue of whether we should leave HMS Tireless" in Gibraltar. After all, if a foreign nuclear submarine

337
was anchored off Devonport for an extended period, one can imagine what the British press would make of that. I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Roper that we should consider a special committee procedure for the Armed Forces Bill. I note in passing my slight horror that, possibly for the first time, a noble Lord—my noble friend Lord Roper—made a speech using electronic notes.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the treaty of Nice. I welcome the constructive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. I think that we shall move rapidly on to the post-Nice agenda, which is, "What about the next four years?" and "What do we do next time?". The question of enlargement is extremely important. I am sorry that we do not yet have a timetable and deadline for enlargement. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to press for that. I hope also that Her Majesty's Government will invest more time, even at the prime ministerial level, in promoting the importance of enlargement inside the United Kingdom as well as in Warsaw, the rest of the European Union and in other applicant states.
As a number of noble Lords have said, policy reforms are needed to prepare for enlargement, of which a shift in budgetary expenditure and in agricultural policy is clearly very important. A number of institutional reforms are also needed, of which the most important conceptual shift is to start thinking now about how to manage a Community of 25 to 27 member states and get away from trying to fiddle with a Community still assumed to number 15. As a "plumber", I disagree a little with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who thinks that three or seven Commissioners will be enough. I think that there is enough work for nine and possibly even 11, but certainly not for 27. That is a French suggestion which the British should be taking on board. We need a small, efficient, central capability to make a larger Community work. The White Paper on governance, which the Commission is now preparing and which some of us discussed with one of the Commissioners last week, is an extremely important exercise. I understand that it will be presented to the Gothenburg European Council in June next. I hope that noble Lords, and perhaps even your Lordships' European Communities Committee, will want to have a thorough inquiry into the White Paper.
I agree strongly with the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Howell, about the importance of getting right the relations between large and small states and not moving towards a concert of big powers in Europe. In looking at the French presidency, I wonder whether one of our proposals should be that in future the largest four states should not take part in the rotating presidency. Remembering the 1992 British presidency, I am not sure that we should be entirely proud that we have always got it right, although the 1998 British presidency was a little less accident prone than the previous one.
Relations with the near neighbours—the states that will not be joining in the next five years—are also extremely important. Russia is an important partner.
338
I regret that I shall not be present on Thursday for the debate on the common foreign and security policy report. I shall be at the third EU/Russia forum in Berlin which will discuss how we define a more constructive relationship between Russia and an enlarging European Union.
Relations with south-eastern Europe, in the western Balkans, to which the European Union has committed itself through the south-east Europe Stability Pact to a long-term commitment which will cost a great deal of money and will take a great many people—including British police, whatever may be said by the Daily Mail—over 15 or 20 years, will be pursued to build a peaceful order in that region. That probably will need to end with their eventual membership of the European Union.
Then we need to consider Turkey. That is an extremely difficult issue, because the Turkish Government tend to talk in terms of "all or nothing" rather than in terms of adaptation to Europe. I am afraid that there is also a real danger that the Turkish Government may pretend to move towards the conditions for membership, while governments in the EU pretend to negotiate—with the question of Cyprus rather explicitly left behind. As regards the Mediterranean and Africa, about which a number of noble Lords have spoken, the United States has made it quite clear that it sees the problems of Africa as a part of the global burden which Europe should shoulder alone.
Most important, however, is the transatlantic relationship itself. If I heard him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, commented that there is a good deal of uninformed anti-American sentiment around, including that expressed within this House. I have spent much of my professional life on transatlantic relations and I hope that the noble Lord does not include myself and some others in that suggestion. Nevertheless, we face a bumpy period ahead. Transitions from one US administration to another are always difficult periods, in particular when it moves from one party to another. Months of uncertainty follow, with hundreds of new appointees coming over to the capitals of Europe to tell us the new message and why we should forget everything we knew before. Indeed, that process has already begun. In the month of October alone, I was invited to three meetings in London, Copenhagen and the United States by teams of Americans who had been advising the Bush team or Congress on what should be the new strategic objectives for American foreign policy.
As I watched television last night and saw the familiar face of John Bolton speaking on behalf of the possible President-Elect Bush about the current court case, I recalled the vigorous way in which he told us that, "A Bush administration would have an Americanist foreign policy rather than a globalist foreign policy. The allies have got to understand that they should follow it". That is an uncomfortable message. However, it is not shared by many others who have been advising the Bush team. Perhaps it will be a comfort to many of us that a number of familiar faces comprise the Bush team, if that is to be the group

339
which we shall face. They know Europe well and we can deal with them. However, we need to remember from times past that new administrations tend to want to launch initiatives in which they can redefine the transatlantic relationship. President Kennedy famously did that in 1961–62; James Baker did it on behalf of the new Bush administration; while the Clinton administration rapidly decided that it would entirely reverse US policy on the enlargement of NATO and launch NATO enlargement.
I suggest that it will be a priority for Her Majesty's Government to invest in building up a relationship with the new administration once it takes office, because maintaining a close transatlantic relationship is one of the keys to a successful British foreign policy. I suggest also that this will have to be a joint European initiative. Furthermore, I suggest that it should respond to a far more important speech made on 18th October by William Cohen in Birmingham, in which he called on foreign and defence Ministers to define a new relationship between NATO and the European Union. I suggest that the British Government ought to propose that the meeting between a new US President, when he comes over, and the European allies should be held exactly in the context of a joint NATO/EU summit involving all 23 member states on an inclusive basis to demonstrate that this is one of the most important ways of redefining transatlantic relationships and not, as has happened during previous transitions, wait for the Americans to take the initiative and then for European governments to fall apart while they decide how to respond.
The main task in transatlantic relations is the successful management of different priorities and different perceptions. It is not anti-American to say that; it merely recognises that, by and large, the American élite—and certainly the congressional élite—see the world differently from the way it is seen by most foreign policy makers in Europe.
As people in Washington clearly state, American security priorities are now largely extra-European. They are to do with China and the Taiwan Straits, with Korea and with what they call "rogue" states in the Middle East, whereas European governments are rather more focused on "failed" states in Africa rather than on the Middle East. America's priorities relate to American perceptions of threats from weapons of mass destruction and, therefore, the need for a national missile defence. I have heard two briefings in the United States in the past year on this. Each time I came away less convinced of the case for a national missile defence than I was before.
There are now a third as many American forces in Europe as there were 10 years ago. Let us look another 10 years ahead. Do we expect there to be more than 30,000 then? Will it matter? Can we manage it? Given the American priorities, if I were a senator I would be arguing to put American troops elsewhere, not defending Europe.
As we have been told, it is also possible that a new administration might go for a "big bang" NATO enlargement. Some advisers of candidate Bush are
340
arguing that at the 2002 NATO summit the United States should present its allies with a plan for all candidates for NATO to be allowed to join.
There is much to manage. It seems to me that it is entirely wise and practical in these circumstances to pursue what was, after all, a British initiative for a European security and defence policy. It is not a French plot. I met the head of the military staff last week, a British major-general. For all I know, he does not even speak French; he certainly does not wear jackboots.
We also have difficulties with the United States in regard to attitudes towards the Middle East. American perceptions are very different from ours. I have been depressed at various briefings to hear several American foreign policy experts refer to the European "bias" on the Arab/Israeli conflict and to the "balanced" American approach. That is, apparently, how they see it. As one sees as one goes across the Atlantic, there is a clear divergence in the way that the media in the United States and in Europe report what happens in Israel and Palestine; and so information and perceptions continue to diverge.
I find that there are worrying misperceptions on oil dependence. The other weekend I heard one of the leading foreign policy advisers of candidate Bush refer to European oil dependence—and thus European vulnerability to the Arab states—as one of the reasons why the Europeans are biased in favour of the United States. He was rather puzzled when I protested that the United States is now more dependent on oil imports than the whole of Europe west of the former Soviet Union.
Europeans also differ from the United States in our interpretation of what is happening in Iran. Increasingly, I suggest, we should be differing from the United States in our perception of whether or not maintaining sanctions against Iraq is worth while. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats now strongly recommend that that policy should change.
The underlying question on globalisation, which many people have raised, is how we manage rules for globalisation and what kind of global institutions are needed to manage an intensely interdependent world. For that, again, the transatlantic relationship is the key. If the United States and European governments can work together constructively, global regimes can be agreed and managed. If we disagree, global regulation becomes very difficult.
Here again, we have to recognise that there are differences to be managed. The American perception of globalisation is, in effect, "Americanisation", whereas the European perception—including the British, as one sees from the White Paper and the Queen's Speech—is of globalisation as moderated by a greater degree of social welfare and social justice. The Queen's Speech said that Her Majesty's Government will work to shape the forces of globalisation. That is indeed what we should be about.
I heard Robert Zoellick, one of the Bush advisers, say to one of these many conferences that he has now discovered the limits to globalisation in the past few

341
weeks in the counting of votes in Florida. "There may", he said, "be a Starbucks in Beijing, but you can't get a decent cup of coffee in Tallahassee".
We had differences with the Americans on climate change and energy conservation; on the United Nations itself and on strengthening global institutions; on controls on arms exports, including land mines; and on the International Criminal Court—on all of which my party agrees that it is correct that Britain should take the lead in pushing ahead with our European partners and ratifying.
The Queen's Speech states:
"My Government will continue to ensure that NATO remains the foundation of Britain's defence and security".
I should like to amend that to read, My Government will ensure that the transatlantic relationship remains the foundation for an open global economy and a stable world, but we recognise that that requires a closer partnership between the United States and Europe, with Britain playing a constructive role as a leading member of the EU and of NATO.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, there has been a small degree of attrition in the list of speakers; but I am still the 38th of 39, and the debate has gone on for seven hours and 20 minutes. I therefore have the utmost sympathy for the Minister, who will have to answer questions on every country and every subject from Kimberley to Kathmandu via Karachi and in both directions! I just hope that she will not keep us here until Thursday—but if she answers all those questions she will have to.
This is a debate on the gracious Speech. However, it has been clear throughout that it has been used largely to debate the Nice agreement. That is unavoidable, I am sure; but I hope that I can concentrate mainly on our Armed Forces and on the Rapid Reaction Force—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, calls it, the "rapid reactionary force", which I took to apply to these Benches!
The issues arising out of the report of the Select Committee on the European Union on common European policy on security and defence will be debated on Thursday; my noble friend Lord Howell, who was the committee's first chairman, will speak on behalf of these Benches. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the so-called (but not by Her Majesty's Government) European army in this debate.
High on the list of matters that cannot be ignored in today's debate is General Klaus Naumann's emphasis on the fact that what we need in Europe are capabilities, not new institutions. Outside NATO it is difficult to envisage a European force with the capabilities that are required.
In his Statement yesterday on the Nice summit (I am doing it myself) the Prime Minister said that it had been made plain that European defence would operate only when NATO chose not to be engaged. What this means is that the European defence would operate
342
only when the United States chose not to be engaged, since the other EU non-NATO nations can realistically be ignored in military terms.
Sir Michael Quinlan has underlined this point in his memorandum to the committee, in which he states that,
"the probability that European governments would collectively agree to act militarily in ways running counter to US opinion and preference is and ought to be remote".
He too emphasises the need to develop practical military capabilities rather than to debate political conditions, scenarios and goals. NATO proposes; the US disposes. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind those points. The gracious Speech refers to the Quinquennial Bill which will need to be enacted by July to allow the Armed Forces to continue to operate. The Minister has been kind enough to write to me, explaining what Her Majesty's Government have in mind for the Bill. It has now been published.
I should also like to second the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who thanked the noble Baroness for her consistent help in writing to those of us who are involved with these matters about what is happening and what is about to happen. I am certainly deeply grateful. But we did not and do not like last year's Armed Forces Discipline Bill. The clear promise has twice been made that the Quinquennial Bill will be used to ease many of the difficulties that arose in discussion on that Bill. The noble Baroness has told me that provisions to reconcile the three army Acts will not be included in this Bill. I hope that the promise may yet be met. If it is not, it will be regrettable.
Apart from the necessity to produce this Bill to enable the Armed Forces to continue to operate, the opportunity has clearly been taken to equate non-military political correctness with military activities. In the various debates on the discipline Bill, it was pointed out many times, particularly by my noble friend Lord Renton, that when a man (or woman) enters the Armed Forces, he gives up many of the rights that he possess as a civilian. That must be the case. No point would be served by trying to change it.
When the Quinquennial Bill comes to your Lordships' House, we shall have much to say. The main new points seem to concern "updating", in the words of the Lord Privy Seal. That updating will receive the critical attention of your Lordships. Sadly, for a number of reasons, morale in the Armed Forces is not good at present. Recruitment seems to be satisfactory, retention less so. In the six months to October this year, over 10 per cent of warrant officers class 1 and 5 per cent of warrant officers class 2 left the army—20 per cent of warrant officers class 1 in a year. Of course, many will be men and women whose service time has expired, but the figures, with 4 per cent for majors and captains in the same six-month period, demonstrate a drain that needs to be blocked.
I doubt whether reconciling the laws affecting civilians and those that govern the activities of the military will do much to achieve this. It is a long term process. It is absolutely necessary that up to date and efficient equipment is provided; that tours of duty

343
should be regular and not prolonged; that pay and conditions should be comparable with those outside and easily understood; that service housing should be at least adequate; and, most important of all, that members of the Armed Forces should feel that they are doing a worthwhile military job, and not merely cleaning up after physical disasters. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, quite rightly added the Territorial Army and the Defence Medical Services.
In his Statement yesterday, the Prime Minister said that European (non-NATO) defence would be limited to peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis management tasks. I hope that the European Union will be more successful in obtaining volunteers for this than the Prime Minister has been in obtaining volunteers from the United Nations to replace the Indians in Sierra Leone. His phrase,
"The next step will be for the two organisations, the EU and NATO, to agree on the necessary arrangements".
has charm, if only for its understatement. Are they or are they not to have separate command structures, staffs and independent organisations? This looks as if the EU is just planning another set of wiring diagrams. We should be training tigers, not breeding white elephants. I admire the bland optimism of the Government, but I fear that it is not realistic. I hope that the Prime Minister will study the wise words of those very experienced military and political men, headed by Secretary Cohen, who are less than happy with what is planned.
At home it is also essential that sufficient funds should be made available to give the Services enough toys to play with. The Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Peter Squire, has commented on the frustration felt by aircrews because lack of funding has deprived them of necessary equipment to carry out sufficient training. When a senior officer goes to print to express such views, matters must indeed be serious, for normally the party line is universally followed. Our forces also need somewhere to play. If we can open Salisbury Plain to a Belgian brigade, surely the Germans should reopen their training grounds to the British Army?
There remains much else for the Government to do in defence terms. Top of the list must be their consideration of the American anti-ballistic missile policy. As that depends on who is President, perhaps we should not discuss the matter yet. However, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that my understanding is that Governor Bush is probably rather more international in his thinking than is Vice President Gore. In any case, the anti-ballistic missile policy will loom very large from 20th January onwards.
We are also told that DERA will have its new organisation fully in place by 1st April, regardless of whether or not Parliament is informed about it. As there is still continuing disagreement on the apportionment of costs, let alone where the two sections of DERA will go (especially the Defence Diversification Agency, which is a profit centre), it seems unlikely that that date can be achieved. Can the Minister say whether the US is fully in agreement with the arrangements for private DERA? Further, can she
344
tell us what are the financial arrangements? What will be the net—I repeat "net"—financial benefits to the Government in general, and how much of that amount will be credited to the Ministry of Defence budget?
There must also be concern about strategic exports. Defence manufacturers must know in advance if contracts are to be placed, or whether there is danger of undercutting probably from government-subsidised foreign manufacturers. Britain needs to look after its defence industry. This is a very wide subject. but there is little evidence to show that this is happening now.
We have a long way to go. The gracious Speech touches only lightly on defence: it mentions NATO and the Quinquennial Bill. Let us hope that we go, and that we go in the right direction.
10.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as is so often the case with the foreign and defence debate on the gracious Speech, we have had a really splendid demonstration of the wide range of expertise, interests and commitments that so many of your Lordships bring to bear on such matters. We have covered many topics, some of which noble Lords have debated over the past year and some of which have brought forward some fresh perspectives. I am sure that noble Lords will understand if I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—not, I hope, for the only time this evening—that I shall not be able to answer all the points raised in such a long and wide-ranging debate. However, where I am unable to answer specific questions, I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept a response in letter form.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, on his maiden speech. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of this, but, in mentioning the Overseas Territories, he raised an issue of very great importance both to my noble friend Lady Scotland and myself. I shall return to the points that he made in his very interesting speech later in my remarks.
The gracious Speech sets out Britain's strategic defence priorities; that NATO remains the foundation of our defence and security—no matter how many times we say it, it seems that we must continue to repeat that very important point—that we shall support efforts to make the United Nations more representative and more effective in its peacekeeping operations; and, finally, that we shall continue to work energetically with our partners to shape the future of Europe.
A year ago, when we previously debated a gracious Speech, the Kosovo campaign was still fresh in our minds. I was grateful for the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who said that in his judgment we did the right thing by going into Kosovo. But there were lessons to be learned from that experience, the most fundamental being the disproportionate extent to which we Europeans had to rely on American military might to deal with a crisis on our own doorstep. That is why Britain has led efforts to modernise Europe's defence capabilities in the same

345
way that we are modernising our own. The essential purpose of these reforms is to strengthen the ability of Europe to act in pursuit of its foreign and security policy objectives. In doing so we want to strengthen Europe's military capabilities in order to make a better and more coherent contribution to NATO.
I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, with regard to the tone adopted in so much of our media on this issue. The win/lose, triumph/disaster rhetoric masks so much of the real issues. Let me be clear: none of what we are doing means weakening NATO, nor building a competitor to the alliance. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and many others that it certainly does not mean a European army. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether there would be created a separate command structure or a separate operational planning system. I should make clear again that the EU is not establishing such things. The EU military staff is a body of military experts whose role is to support sensible defence decision making by the EU political authorities. No one could argue that military support to decision making is unnecessary, especially when troops are deployed into areas where they are risking their lives. But they are not a separate command structure—that is the important point—and this is not a separate European headquarters.
The terms of the EU military staff make it clear that it is not an operational planning capability. The Nice documents also make clear that NATO will carry out operational planning for EU-led operations that have recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, but not necessarily, as I think several noble Lords may have thought, for standing assets. Operational planning for other operations will be carried out in existing European national and multinational headquarters. I say once again that we are not establishing a separate European operational planning staff. I hope that that also deals with some of the pungent points put by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
What we are doing is to establish a pool of capability from which forces can be drawn on a case-by-case basis for particular operations, accompanied by the progressive modernisation of European armed forces so that they are more deployable, more available and more sustainable. We believe that we are making real progress on that.
As noble Lords know from the Statement I repeated in this House on 22nd November, which covered the capability commitment conference with our EU partners, our planned contribution is up to 12,500 troops, 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft to the "headline catalogue" of forces. I believe, notwithstanding many comments made in your Lordships' House this evening, that our American allies understand and support these goals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was a little naughty with regard to some of the remarks he made. She is far more daring than I. However, I certainly appreciated her contextualising some of the remarks made by our
346
American allies. An enduring theme of political debate in the United States over the past 30 years has been that Europe should shoulder more of the burden of providing for its defence. We are now taking real steps towards doing so with Britain very much in the lead. Our American friends are, on the whole, very pleased about that. The US Defense Secretary, William Cohen, has been much quoted of late, frequently, I am bound to say, in a somewhat misleading light. However, I should like to repeat what he said on 6th December in Brussels:
"I simply made a presentation to my colleagues … stressing that the United States is very strongly committed to the ESDP programme … and wanted to make sure it was properly structured … This is entirely consistent with the British position. And. frankly, I have worked with Lord George Robertson prior to Minister Secretary Hoon and we are in complete agreement that it is important to put capabilities in to our military forces".
I believe that that explains his position very clearly indeed. He appreciates, as I am sure we all do, that the alliance's programme to improve the capability of its forces in key areas such as air-to-air refuelling and strategic airlift will enhance the interoperability between European and US forces. He has consistently repeated his support and no selective quotes in the media can shake the basic US conviction that this is the right way forward and that, properly handled—the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made that important point very clear to us—the initiative will strengthen Europe's contribution to NATO. We are in full agreement and will make sure that it is properly handled, as is our duty.
The real issue is to engage the Europeans and Americans in a dialogue about conflict prevention—peacekeeping. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, were, I believe, not only responsible and sensible but also showed an understanding of Britain's role in the world.
A number of soldiers were quoted. I am sure that the comments today of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, were noted. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, may have been a little more sceptical in his remarks. But the noble Lord is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that there is room for development and we need to take care over the detail, and particularly—although many people sneer at this—to ensure that we present our arguments clearly so that there is no doubt, however misconceived that doubt may be, about our fundamental commitment to NATO.
I could talk more about the command structures. The noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Moynihan and Lord Chalfont, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, were concerned about this point. I believe that we shall have a debate on this issue on Thursday of this week. I should like to say a great deal more about the role of DSACEUR. It is a vitally important point. These are long and complicated issues, as is the explanation of what President Chirac and others have been saying. However, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I leave those points to one side for the debate in a few days' time.

347
However, I wish to pick up one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about intelligence. The UK will not place our troops in dangerous situations without the best intelligence that is available. Member states will supply intelligence to the European Union as necessary. But the European Union does not need an intelligence collection ability of its own. It will, however, need to receive intelligence assessments from nations and other collection sources, and this will be fed into EU structures as appropriate.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if the Minister will give way, "EU structures" is a disarming remark. What EU structures will our intelligence be fed into?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, noble Lords will have noted the remarks I made about the military coming together and the committees that will need to be established that I hope will then feed into DSACEUR. That is why it is very difficult to split up the debate without spending a full half hour trying to go through the issues in great detail.
However, the fundamental point has to be that we cannot engage our troops in any position without also ensuring that we are supplying the proper intelligence for the engagement of those troops. I am sure that the noble Lord will want to raise these issues again and I shall be happy to deal with them, I hope, when we speak about this issue again on Thursday.
At Nice the EU met its commitment to complete the institutional reforms necessary for enlargement. It will be in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002. The Prime Minister said in Warsaw that he wanted new member states to have a seat at the table at the next IGC. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson that we believe that there is a strong case for setting a target date at the Gothenburg European Council in June 2001. The EU has reiterated its commitment to be ready to welcome new members. That gives credibility to the Prime Minister's call for new members to participate in the European parliamentary elections in 2004. We believe that with good will and real effort on both sides, there is no reason why that should not be achieved. We agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friend Lord Grenfell about the statements of the Leader of the Opposition in another place. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his far more sure-footed response.
My noble friend Lord Tomlinson was right that without the Nice treaty there would be no enlargement. I commend the thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and his forward thinking on the implications of enlargement for UK citizens.
The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Grenfell, referred to the common agricultural policy. Agriculture policy has presented complex challenges in all previous enlargements, as I am sure that noble Lords are well aware. This enlargement will he no exception. Further CAP reform is clearly desirable, but it is not necessary for enlargement to take place.
348
The UK view is that the terms of accession need to reflect the fact that the CAP is evolving. We should not ask the applicants to take on aspects of the CAP that will change by the time of their accession or shortly after.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, raised questions about decision-taking processes in the EU, including on the Council, which she wanted to be more transparent. We have led a number of initiatives on that, particularly during our presidency in 1998. We shall work with other member states to improve transparency in the EU and to increase citizens' understanding of the workings of the Union. Like my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorl, was interesting but a little grim and gloomy in his view of what is happening in the EU. Surely the key point is that democratically elected leaders of the EU states set the EU's policy framework and its priorities. They are not set by the Commission. When the UK is fully engaged, as we were at Nice, we can drive forward on the issues that are of importance to us, as can other countries.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, as I always do, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the importance of our handling of issues with Russia. From my right honourable friend the Prime Minister right down to the more junior forms of ministerial life such as me, the Government are all seized with that imperative. Constructive dialogues with Russia are under way. We are building trust bilaterally and through the European Union and the other forums in which we engage. That is an enormously important process. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, about the sensitivity that is required when dealing with our Turkish allies on this issue.
The inadequacy of European military capability was not the only lesson that we learned from Kosovo. We were also quick to identify the lessons of the Kosovo conflict in other ways and equally, if not more importantly, to address those lessons positively. In July we announced some immediate enhancements to the Armed Forces' equipment capabilities. First we procured Maverick anti-armour missiles for the RAF's Harrier GR7s. Trials have been successfully completed and the contracts for the missiles have been placed. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lords, Lord Lyell and Lord Burnham, that equipment issues are never far from my mind. We have also begun work on procuring weapons to provide the RAF with a precision-guided all-weather bombing capability as soon as possible.
We have also announced that we shall be purchasing enhanced Paveway bombs from Raytheon. We shall also enhance the security of our air-to-air communications—I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to learn this—in order to maintain interoperability with our NATO allies and ensure that our forces can play their full part in future alliance operations.
In addition, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, remarked, we are meeting the strategic air and sea-lift requirements identified in the

349
SDR, initially by leasing four Boeing C-17 aircraft from next year and by purchasing Airbus A-400M aircraft in the longer term. The air-lift package represents an investment of some £4 billion. Complementary to that will be the provision of the six new roll-on/roll-off ferries to provide strategic lift for our forces and the procurement of four new logistic ships to support our amphibious and expeditionary capability.
Those are real benefits and they are happening now. They are part of a huge programme of investment which is under way for our Armed Forces, with some £6 billion being spent on new equipment. Therefore, I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that I am acutely aware not only of the opportunities but of some of the problems surrounding PFI in these respects.
I turn to some of the wider issues raised by your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, all spoke with considerable force and passion about the Middle East peace process. The Government are extremely concerned about the violence, deaths and injuries, the overwhelming majority of which have been among the Palestinians.
The UK has supported Security Council Resolution 1322, which condemns acts of violence—especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians resulting in injury and loss of life. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Ahmed on the one hand and to the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, on the other that we do not see any merit in repetitive criticism. What matters is that we look forward and achieve a return to negotiations.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, we strongly support the work of the fact-finding committee which has now been established with the participation of senior international figures, including the EU High Representative, Javier Solana. We welcome its first meeting which took place in New York last month. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I believe that it is important that we look to the windows of opportunity that are still open to us.
Tentative contact between the parties has given some cause for hope that there might soon be a possibility of resuming negotiations. Ehud Barak has said that the door remains open for those negotiations. I am happy to confirm the Government's position of principle on some of the points raised; namely, that the only route to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is in negotiated settlement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, we believe that settlement activity is contrary to international law and an obstacle to peace. It continues and it remains a matter of considerable concern, as was made clear by the European Council in its declaration at Nice. We also recognise that there is no sovereignty over Jerusalem.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, that we have no evidence of British-made equipment, licensed for export to Israel under this
350
Government, having been used by Israel security forces against civilians in the occupied territories or in southern Lebanon. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether we could do anything more. The Government are actively engaged. We shall consider any ideas that are brought forward, and I hope that the fact-finding committee, with members from the United States, the European Union, Turkey and Norway, will be able to take us forward on those issues.
My noble friends Lord Rea and Lady Turner of Camden raised issues concerning Iraq. I say to both my noble friends that we must not give too much credibility to the claims of Saddam Hussein. On nearly 30 occasions he complained that we had killed civilians or destroyed civilian infrastructure when we did not drop any ordnance at all, including on several days when we were not even flying. We have reason to believe that he routinely portrays military casualties as civilian; similarly, we have been able to disprove with photographic evidence claims that we have damaged civilian buildings.
We know that some 16 billion dollars will be available to Iraq for food, medicine and infrastructure. However, I can tell my noble friends that Saddam has imported more than 300 million cigarettes and 28,000 bottles of whisky. That money could have been spent on humanitarian issues, on medicine or on food, but it was not.
My noble friend Lord Rea raised some important points about leukaemia. We do not have any evidence on those issues. We do not have any supported research data. But we support the efforts by the World Health Organisation to work with the Iraqis on a proper study. We also support the independent review of depleted uranium currently being carried out by a working group of the Royal Society.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in condemning the recent attacks by Albanian extremists on the Preshevo Valley in south Serbia. She raised an important point which I wanted to answer.
The noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Howell, referred to NMD. The US has not yet put a request to us to the effect that was suggested, nor do we expect it to do so unless and until it has decided to proceed with the deployment of any such system. It is not reasonable to expect us to say how we would respond to such a request at the moment as we really cannot know in what circumstances it is likely to be made nor, indeed, what form it is likely to take.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, raised the issue of DERA. I assure him that all my interlocutors in the United States have assured us that they are now happy with the arrangements. The picture is moving very rapidly on that. I suggest that I write to him with the details and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
I was extremely gratified, as I am sure were others on the Front Bench on this side of the House, by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the right reverend Prelates the

351
Bishops of Guildford and of Salisbury, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, about the White Paper from the DfID.
The Government believe that open markets governed by internationally agreed rules are in the interests of developing countries which must be more open to international trade if they are to prosper. The Government are committed to making trade work for poverty elimination. A real study of the White Paper which we have before us makes it very clear that that is an extremely well thought through policy which has been put forward by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
The Government will untie all development assistance from April 2001, thus ending that practice which leads to loss of value and of money and to inefficiency. We believe that that decisive action will increase the pressure on other countries similarly to untie. The Government will work vigorously with the OECD and the European Union for others to untie too.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury raised a number of issues about the route map to make the White Paper really work on the ground. I have some quite detailed information about that and I shall write to the right reverend Prelate about that.
My noble friend Lord Tomlinson suggested that there should be a debate on the White Paper. Like most noble Lords, I have an enormous amount of sympathy for that proposal. It is an excellent White Paper, published only yesterday. Much can be derived from it. I am sure that the usual channels will reach a sensible decision in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, referred to the problem of AIDS in South Africa. In January 1999, the Prime Minister, speaking to the parliament in Cape Town, pledged an additional £100 million contribution from DfID to help to fight AIDS in Africa over the next two years. To date, more than £140 million has been committed. I hope that that meets the issue which the noble Lord raised. We are also giving priority to HIV and AIDS prevention in other parts of the world, including Zimbabwe, where I know the noble Lord has interests which he has described to us.
We do not believe that further sanctions, multinational or national, are the right response to Zimbabwe at this stage. Moreover, when the leader of the MDC called on the Foreign Secretary on 6th November, he reaffirmed his view that punitive measures would strengthen rather than weaken the Zimbabwean government.
Very important questions were raised on Sudan by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I shall write to her. We have had quite an exchange on this subject. I know that the noble Baroness is very critical of some of the controls on exports. But this Government have introduced a far more wide-reaching programme of export controls than we have seen hitherto and I should be very happy to talk to her further about that if she would find that helpful.
352
A number of issues were raised in relation to human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned Aceh. The European Union issued a statement on 28th September urging the Indonesian government to redouble their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Aceh problem and to avoid further violence and loss of life.
I shall try to find more information on the issues in Aceh. As always, the noble Lord is quite encyclopaedic in his knowledge of what is happening on the ground. I shall try to do what I can to match him in some of the points that he raised with me.
I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Ahmed that we welcome the Indian Government ceasefire in Kashmir and the Pakistani Government's reciprocal announcement to observe maximum restraint on the line of control. We also endorse any efforts that are genuinely aimed at peace and reconciliation in that troubled part of the world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised issues in regard to Cuba. She will know that my noble friend Lady Scotland and I have visited Cuba in the course of our ministerial duties. I did so when at the Foreign Office and my noble friend has done so recently. We believe that we have begun a frank and constructive dialogue. We have also opened up direct flights from the United Kingdom to Cuba.
I return to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft. I look forward to the negotiations on the new arrangements to associate British and other EU and overseas countries and territories with the Union. The proposals made so far suggest that an institutional framework will be established that will enable the member states, the Commission and the OCTs to work together. I believe that the powers of the respective authorities in those member states will be fully respected.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I say that we have not ignored Tibet. It is a serious matter. We are considering the rights of individual Tibetans and the preservation of the Tibetan culture and practices. We believe that the signature of the international covenants to which the noble Baroness referred, takes us a step forward. We are urging the Chinese to work promptly to ratify those covenants.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, as always, was passionate in his exposition on nuclear disarmament. I remind him that this Government have signed a comprehensive test treaty, that we have given up the free-fall bomb, that we have lowered the number of nuclear warheads on Trident to fewer than 200 and that we have greater transparency about our nuclear and fissile material stockpile than any previous government.
To the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, I say that I sympathise with him on the point that he raised about the Gurkhas. The noble and gallant Lord will know, of course, that prior to 1947 the Gurkhas were not part of the British Army, but he raises serious points and they should give us some pause for thought. I shall talk to my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about them.

353
I shall write to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in regard to the points that he raised with respect to HMS "Tireless". I assure him that we have established an open and constructive dialogue about the situation with the authorities both in Madrid and in Gibraltar and that we continue to do everything that we can to keep them fully informed about what is happening.
Our Armed Forces have had an extraordinarily busy year. As your Lordships will know, we had a successful time in Sierra Leone. In regard to that expedition, I was pleased that the Americans admitted that they could not have reacted so quickly to the situation that developed there, nor so decisively. That is something of which we can be proud.
We cannot afford to be complacent about the costs of our involvement, wherever that may be, around the world. That was brought home in a most dramatic fashion in Sierra Leone when Bombardier Brad Tinnion was killed during an operation to rescue beleaguered British soldiers. We must never forget the less visible but none the less real burden placed on our servicemen and women and on their families by such operations. Of course, the Government recognise the problem of overstretch. It is not a new problem; it will not be solved overnight, regardless of whichever party is in power. The only proper long-term solution is to bring resources and commitments into balance.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is always vigilant in relation to the budget, but I believe that even he will recognise that a major step in the right direction was to increase the defence budget, as announced in the last CSR. That increase, amounting to £1,250 million after inflation, is the first real increase in spending for over a decade.
In addition, recruitment of men—I remind the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, of women too—into our Armed Forces remains buoyant. Last year 25,000 people joined the Armed Forces, making it the best recruiting year since the beginning of the decade. Many of the initiatives we set in hand through the CSR are bearing fruit.
354
The recruitment target in the Royal Marines was met for the first time in 1994. In the same year, the naval service enlistment reached 99 per cent of its target; Army enlistment reached 95 per cent; the RAF enlistment reached 96 per cent; and at the mid-year point for this financial year the numbers enlisted had reached 49 per cent.
However, noble Lords are right in saying that the difficult issue is retention. We have done everything we can to try to develop family-friendly policies and we remain open to suggestions about how we may develop those. We have, for instance, increased the telephone allowances; increased the number of Internet terminals used at military bases; introduced Project Welcome, a new communications system; and introduced guaranteed periods of post-operational tour leave. All those measures are important, as is the upgrading of housing, to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred.
What has struck me most of all over the past year is the magnificent way in which our Armed Forces and their civilian colleagues have risen to meet difficult and frequently dangerous challenges. I pay tribute to their dedication and fortitude. They have made a real and vital contribution to international peace and stability. As a result, the situation has improved immeasurably in almost all the areas where they have intervened. The lives of many thousands of people around the world are better as a result not only of the policies which have backed them but of their personal contribution on the ground in the areas where they have operated.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, 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.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report
  Prostitutes' Cards in Phone Boxes
  Prostitutes' Cards in Phone Boxes
  "Airwave" Police Radio Service
  "Airwave" Police Radio Service
  Traditional Medicines: Proposed Directive
  Traditional Medicines: Proposed Directive
  Local Government Act 1988: Best Value in Workforce Matters
  Local Government Act 1988: Best Value in Workforce Matters