Sitting of 14 December 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Productivity
    Mr. Peter Brooke: If he will make a statement on trends in United Kingdom productivity. [141833]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): To encourage long-term improvements in productivity growth, we are pressing ahead with labour, capital and product market reforms. We are establishing a Competition Commission, and opening up competition in the utilities and in other sectors. We are encouraging investment by cutting corporation tax, and cutting capital gains tax to a long-term rate of 10p. To encourage innovation, we are introducing the first research and development tax credit. To encourage new business dynamism, we are introducing a lower rate of small company tax, permanent capital allowances, and 100 per cent. allowances for the introduction of information and communications technology.
    We are investing heavily in education and skills, and we are working with business, rejecting stop-go in favour of a stable monetary and fiscal policy. Productivity growth, which was at 1.3 per cent. when we came to power, is running at 2.4 per cent. in the last quarter of the financial year.
    Mr. Brooke: Has the Chancellor observed that, while United Kingdom productivity rose sharply in 1999, net rates of return in manufacturing fell to less than a third of comparable rates in the United States? If investment is a key component of improved productivity, how do we end the vicious circle—especially when higher business taxation is helping to fund higher public sector investment?
    Mr. Brown: Business investment as a share of national income rose to 14.5 per cent. last year. That is the highest rate that we have seen, and it is far higher than the rates that obtained under the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
    786
    Moreover, we are seeing much-welcomed improvements in the introduction of new technology: most businesses now have e-commerce and information technology. There is also more investment in skills and education.
    We are seeing improvements in all the drivers of productivity growth to which the pre-Budget report gave attention. Over a period the productivity growth rate is rising, and I believe it will continue to rise. The right hon. Gentleman will note that in America productivity growth was relatively low between 1992 and 1995, while employment was rising; then employment and productivity growth rose together.
    The challenge in this country—I hope it is accepted on an all-party basis, because we are involving the Confederation of British Industry and work forces in the issues—is to combine high productivity with high employment. Of course, what would damage prospects of higher growth and higher productivity most of all is a return to the old stop-go and boom-bust that we saw under the last Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"]
    I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me about the independence of the Bank of England. I hope that he also agrees with me about the importance of monetary and fiscal stability.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will have been amused by the Opposition's response to my right hon. Friend's comments. Is it not a fact that, during many years of a Conservative Administration, there was low productivity and low employment? Is there not a stark contrast—acknowledged even by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)?
    Productivity rose in 1999. Is not the secret of our huge success, currently and in the future, high employment and high productivity?
    Mr. Brown: I have considerable respect for the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), but the fact is that in the late 1980s, when he was in the Treasury, productivity descended into a negative state. In 1996, when the Government of the day produced their own competitiveness White Paper, they said that productivity trends in both manufacturing and service
    left us lagging behind all our other major rivals, including France and Germany.
    It is to tackle precisely that problem that we have introduced changes. We have opened up competition policy by making the Competition Commission independent, in the same way as the Bank of England is independent in making decisions.
    The Government are also moving forward in terms of labour market reform, capital market reform and product market reform. I repeat, however, that the challenge in this country is to produce high employment—which we are achieving—and high productivity, rather than returning to low employment and low productivity.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Chancellor not admit that the United Kingdom's productivity has been severely hit by the railway crisis? The Government's failure to increase transport investment early in the current Parliament has not only made the lives

    787
    of the travelling public miserable, but hit the British economy. Is it not time that the Government said sorry to commuters, and to British industry?
    Mr. Brown: It is precisely because of the need to improve our infrastructure in the economy that we have reversed the long-term trend against investment in transport infrastructure. The Liberal party likes big figures. The £180 billion that we are investing—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is right. The Liberals have no means of financing such investment; we have.
    I hope that the Liberal party will support our £180 billion programme of investment in transport. It is a programme of public and private investment. It is in the national economic interest, and I hope that members of all parties will feel able to support it. Unfortunately, the Conservative party will not fund that investment.
    Gillian Merron: The Chancellor—unlike the last Government, who failed us—will be aware of the importance of engineering to constituencies such as Lincoln, where companies are well aware that increasing productivity requires a highly skilled work force. Will he consider ways of covering training costs for companies such as Alstom Power and Wyman Gordon in Lincoln, so that they can boost their competitiveness?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that investment in education and skills is vitalto the future of this country. That is why, this year, education investment is increasing in real terms by 10 per cent. That is why, over the next four years, education investment will increase by 6 per cent. in real terms. That is why there are more than half a million more students in full-time or part-time higher or further education. That is also why we are investing in our schools. However, we know that the CBI, the TUC and all parts of industry and the work forces must now work together on a programme of skills upgrading. That is why we are introducing the new university for industry and why individual learning accounts are moving forward. It is also why all the tax incentives have been made available to enable people to get training in the new computer skills.
    Those are the ways forward for the British economy, and they cost money. We need a Government who are committed to the levels of public investment in the economy that are necessary to end the neglect of the past 20 years. It is unfortunate that we have a Conservative party that wants to make huge cuts in public spending which would be completely unacceptable for the future of our economy. I believe that business, as well as the work forces, oppose that view.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: Has not the Chancellor today further diminished his reputation for candour by his highly selective quoting of statistics? Does he not remember promising before the general election that he was going to turn around productivity in this country? Has he not achieved that in the most bizarre way? In the first half of the 1990s, productivity was increasing by 3.1 per cent., whereas, over the past three years, it has been increasing by 1.3 per cent—an exact mirror image. Is not the fact of the matter that,
    788
    industrially, his policies of extra regulations and extra taxes have taken us from success to failure and from competitiveness to uncompetitiveness?
    Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor must first acknowledge the record of the previous Government. In 1996, they published a competitiveness White Paper saying that productivity in Britain was a real problem and that it had fallen behind that of France, Germany and the United States. That is the situation that we inherited.
    Secondly, the shadow Chancellor must also acknowledge that, in the past three quarters, the trend rate has been 2 per cent, 2 per cent. and 2.4 per cent, and that, in America, expansion of employment was followed by employment and productivity growing together. In my view, that is exactly what will happen in the United Kingdom. Why? Because we are making the changes that are necessary—such as opening up competition, sponsoring research and development, encouraging innovation, encouraging enterprise that is open to all, and investing in education and skills.
    If the shadow Chancellor could stand up and say that he will support our investment in the infrastructure of the economy instead of making public spending cuts, we would think more of what he says about the state of the economy. Will he support our public investment in transport and the infrastructure as well as in education?
    Mr. Portillo: The previous Government told the nation that productivity was a problem after it had been growing every year by 3.1 per cent. Why cannot this Chancellor admit that he has a problem now that, year after year, it has been growing at 1.3 per cent? Did he not say that productivity was the fundamental yardstick by which a nation's performance would be judged? Is not the fact that, while he goes on telling the CBI and the Institute of Directors what to do, he has put £5 billion of extra taxes on business every year and £5 billion worth of extra regulation on business every year?
    After the Vauxhall crisis, the Chancellor said that the Government are here to help. If they are here to help, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what they should be doing. He is about to impose a £1 million energy tax on every car manufacturer in this country. Will he scrap that job-destroying tax—yes or no?
    Mr. Brown: We are proceeding with the climate change levy, which was proposed by a committee chaired by Lord Marshall, the then president of the CBI, but it is being introduced with a tax cut in national insurance for industry. There is therefore no direct gain to the Treasury from introduction of the climate change levy. The shadow Chancellor will have to explain this. Although his environment spokesmen say that the Conservatives will implement the Kyoto targets, he will have no measures to implement them if he abandons both the fuel escalator and the climate change levy.
    The shadow Chancellor has been more honest on other occasions about the state of the economy. When he went on to the "Today" programme, he said:
    Well, Britain, luckily, under the last Government and under this, is pursuing an absolutely reliable anti-inflation strategy.

    789
    So he acknowledges the success of our policy. In another interview the right hon. Gentleman said this about taxes:
    Even after three years of Labour Government, relatively, we are less taxed and less regulated than our continental partners on average.
    Let us look at what he says about the economy as a whole. He said on the Jimmy Young show:
    Governments are in a strong position when the economy is doing well and there is absolutely no point in denying that. I am not going to go about saying that the economy is not doing well.
    Instead of attacking our policies, the shadow Chancellor should start to consider whether he has a policy. Yesterday's debate revealed to us that the Conservatives have no fiscal rules; they will not invest in the supply side, which is the infrastructure of the economy; and their monetary disciplines are suspect because they would sack Bank of England independence under certain circumstances, which they define as incompetence. At the same time they are promising tax cuts based on a surplus one year that they cannot guarantee for every year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it!"] They do not like it, do they? Until the general election we will tell the country that the measures that the Conservatives are proposing would bring the country back to stop-go and boom-bust.
    Mr. Portillo: When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that under him the economy is growing at 2.6 per cent. a year, which is less than the growth rate in the previous 15 years; less than the growth rate in the eurozone countries; and half the growth rate in the United States? Why will he not admit that our export share was 5.1 per cent. when he came to office whereas it is now 4.5 per cent? Why will he not admit that our productivity growth rate has been halved tinder this Government and is now half that in the United States? Why is he so pitifully complacent when there is so much that he has done wrong and so much to do in future?
    Mr. Brown: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are completely wrong is illustrated by his reference to 15 years. Was the Conservative party in power for 15 years or 18 years? Was the growth rate of the economy over those 18 years not 2 per cent. rather than the figure he cites, and is not the average growth rate under us already 2.7 per cent? Let us remember what the Conservatives were saying three years ago. They said that there would be a recession—all of them. What happened? That year the economy grew by 2 per cent. Last year they said that our spending plans were completely unaffordable. Now they have to recognise that our spending plans are affordable. I believe that, over time, not only will it be revealed to the country that the Conservative party under the shadow Chancellor is the party of public spending cuts and higher unemployment, as it would abolish the new deal, but the Conservatives will have to face up to the fact that, with no fiscal rules and with tax cuts promised for every year on the basis of a surplus in one year, they will return the country to the time of boom-bust and stop-go—when the people who were in the Treasury included the shadow Chancellor.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that this is Question Time and ask for brief questions and, of course, brief replies?

    Sterling
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What assessment he has made of the impact of the value of the pound sterling since 1996 on exports. [141834]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The appreciation of sterling relative to the eurozone currencies since 1996 has certainly caused some problems but, overall, exporters have still achieved robust growth. Exports of goods have risen by 25 per cent. over the past four years and by 7 per cent. over the past year.
    Mr. MacShane: My question refers to 1996 because the main rise in the value of sterling happened under the former Tory Chancellor—another economic snafu he left his successor. Is my hon. Friend aware that every tonne of steel exported to the EU since 1996 has been exported at a loss, so that, while demand for exports has gone up, profits have gone down? Is he also aware that steelworkers, car workers, textile workers and farmers are fed up with being crucified on the cross of an overvalued sterling left to the Government by the Conservatives? While the only policy of the Opposition on this can he summed up in six words—"Europe, Europe, Europe. Out, Out, Out!"—the time is coming when many members of the public want a clear statement from the Government that the overvalued pound and undervalued euro is causing real damage to our economy.
    Mr. Timms: I suggest to my hon. Friend that export growth has generally been much stronger than might have been expected given the exchange rate difficulties faced by exporters. The UK's exports to the European Union have grown much faster than have our exports to countries outside the EU. The average of independent forecasts shows export growth of more than 7 per cent. this year. The exchange rate differential causes problems for firms exporting into the eurozone, but improvements in productivity are helping to balance that. The 8 per cent. growth rate in the European Union between 1997 and 1999 has also helped. The UK steel industry is among the most efficient in the world. On that basis, I believe that it can look forward to a bright future.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Productivity rates are crucial to this question, so why do the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister continue to distort the productivity figures? In particular, why have productivity rates fallen under Labour? That is demonstrated today by the Institute of Management Services index on productivity, which shows a continuing fall.
    Mr. Timms: The figures have been made clear. The pre-Budget report contains figures that set out the precise position. The main rate of corporation tax is lower in the UK than in any big EU country and any major industrialised country in the world. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, business investment has reached record levels, which is helping to boost productivity. The UK receives 40 per cent. of all investment into the European Union made by the United States and Japan, which also encourages better productivity. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the

    791
    UK was ranked ninth on competitiveness this year by the World Economic Forum, as compared with 15th in 1996. We are making steady progress in the right direction.

    Saving
    Mr. David Tredinnick: If he will make a statement on his policies to encourage saving. [141835]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government's strategy to encourage saving is to create the right environment for saving and the right incentives for people to save, and to provide information and education to help people to make the right saving choices.
    The Government's initiatives include introducing the highly successful individual savings accounts, and developing stakeholder pensions, which widen people's savings opportunities for retirement. More than £28.4 billion was invested in ISAs in their first year—a third more than was invested in TESSAs and PEPs during their last and most successful year. Early indications show that ISAs are doing even better in their second year.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does the Economic Secretary recall the words spoken by the Chancellor before the last general election:
    We will never raise the levels of investment in our economy if we do not encourage savings … ?
    Is it not a fact that we now have the lowest savings ratio since 1963 and that the amount taken from people's pension funds by general taxation has increased by £5,000 million? How can the hon. Lady look my constituents in Hinckley in the eye and say that savings have improved under Labour?
    Miss Johnson: We have done a lot to encourage savings, as is demonstrated by ISAs. Estimates show that low-income savers invested £3 billion more in their ISAs in their first year than they had in the previous year in their PEPs and TESSAs. The hon. Gentleman is also forgetting the fact that there is more investment in savings via the net wealth that is available. Net financial wealth has risen by 25 per cent. since 1997—more than twice the rise in income. The stock of wealth saved shows that people have money to invest and that it is being invested.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Economic Secretary agree that, over the years, much of the nation's wealth has been invested in our gold reserves? She and I have had a lot of correspondence about that. Will she confirm that, since July 1999, the Treasury has sold 225 tonnes of Britain's gold for US $2,000 million? According to her last answer to me, 40 per cent. of that money has been reinvested in the euro. As the euro has lost one fifth of its value against the dollar during that period, is it not clear that the Treasury has frittered away huge amounts of the taxpayers' money?
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's ability to introduce this subject into any question is remarkable, and I compliment him on it. However, the answer is the same as those he has received on many occasions. We made the right decision to diversify our portfolio and we were only acting in line with decisions taken by a number of other
    792
    comparable countries at the same time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not want to discuss the economy and the issues facing the Opposition. He does not want to face the fact that no fiscal rules have been offered by the shadow Chancellor, that we have the lowest interest rates for years, that we have built a stable economy and that we have put an end to the Tory years of boom and bust.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: If the Economic Secretary is able to tell the House, as she just has, that her policy is to encourage savings, does she think that it is a measure of the success of that policy that the savings ratio is now at its lowest level for 37 years? Does she agree that the more worrying trend is in gross savings, and that the proliferation of means tests is bound to provide a further disincentive to saving? Does she agree with the Chancellor, who wrote in the pre-Budget report:
    Any further weakening would pose risks to the economic outlook … ?
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has not given the figures for the United States savings ratio, which are markedly lower than those for the UK savings ratio. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, but he mentioned the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, he didn't."] All right. [Interruption.] Okay, fine, but the fact remains that the United States has a much lower savings ratio than the UK. The hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid debating the current good state of the economy and the fact that we have returned the economy to stability. We have fiscal rules and we are able to provide an environment in which people feel confident enough to spend and to save money. The hon. Gentleman is avoiding that question because he does not want to refer to the Tory record. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is getting very agitated about this subject. Frankly, that is unsurprising from a member of a party which was in office in the 1980s when 2 million people lost their jobs in a recession and in the 1990s, when nearly 2 million more people lost their jobs in a recession. We have got many more people into employment, creating 1 million new jobs. As a result of the prosperity and stability that we have created, people are able both to save and spend with confidence in Britain today.

    Taxation
    Mr. Michael Jack: How many new taxes and increases in tax rates he has introduced since 1997; and how much revenue has been raised by these measures. [141836]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): All changes to the tax system and their revenue consequences are included in the relevant Budget reports.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, as the reports confirm that, contrary to their manifesto commitment, the Government have introduced new taxes. The pre-Budget report shows that for this financial year and the next two, as a result of the introduction of new taxes such as the climate change levy, there is a trend of rising taxation on business as a percentage of GDP. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree

    793
    that in the light of yesterday's sad announcement concerning Vauxhall, the time is right for a thorough review of Labour's burden of tax on business?
    Mr. Smith: On the pre-Budget report and the share of taxation in the economy, we observe that that share is lower this year, was lower last year and will be lower next year than planned by the last Conservative Government. Unlike the Conservatives, we have kept every promise that we made on tax. That includes the measures that we have taken on taxation to help business: the 3 percentage point cut in the main rate of corporation tax; the 3 percentage point cut in the small businesses rate of corporation tax; the introduction of the new research and development tax credit to help small businesses to innovate and to invest; and the changes that we have made to capital gains tax, reducing from 40 per cent. to 10 per cent. the tax on assets held for four years. That is the mark of a Government who believe in this country's businesses and are making sure that our taxation policies, as well as our policies for fiscal, monetary and economic stability, foster sustainable growth in place of the shambles and the boom and bust of the previous Government.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not important to remember that the overriding aim of the Government in taxation policy has been to make our taxation system fairer and help the poorest sections of the community, which we have done with income tax and so many other measures? Should we not remember what the previous Government did time after time, especially the intended 17.5 per cent. VAT on gas and electricity? We stopped that measure under the previous Government; VAT on gas and electricity has been reduced to 5 per cent., which has helped many of the poorest people in the country.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House of one of the worst of the previous Government's broken promises. Contrary to everything that they said before their last Administration, they put VAT on fuel and it hit the poorest hardest. We promised to cut it to its lowest possible level—a promise made and a promise kept—just as we promised not to increase the upper or basic rate of income tax. Indeed, we have cut the basic rate of income tax, along with introducing the working families tax credit, the minimum wage, the new deal and measures not only to get many more people into work but to ensure that they are better off, and that the poorest gain most of all.
    Mr. John Bercow: Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer fail in his speech on the pre-Budget report even to mention the huge hike in national insurance contributions that will have to be paid by up to 1 million people who earn approximately £30,000 a year? Is the Chief Secretary proud of the fact that, as a result of that further stealth tax, something of the order of 20,000 nurses, 9,000 policemen and 23,000 teachers will face an additional burden of taxation of £200 a year?
    Mr. Smith: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman asks yesterday's question. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt very ably with all these matters then. Of course, there is nothing new in this—the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers were announced in the
    794
    1999 Budget. Moreover, they were part of a package that increased the lower earnings limit, taking 900,000 people out of national insurance contributions altogether, and benefiting 16 million people in all by up to £2.10 a week, as compared with April 1999. That means that no one pays national insurance contributions on earnings below £87 a week. That, again, is a very good example of how our fiscal policies are reinforcing what we are doing in helping people off welfare and into work.

    Debt Cancellation
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: What progress the Government have made, in collaboration with the international community, in cancelling the debt for heavily indebted poor countries. [141837]
    Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on progress in the reduction of third-world debt. [141849]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government have announced that the United Kingdom will renounce its right to receive any benefit from the historic debt owed by the 41 most indebted countries. Along with our policy of 100 per cent. debt relief for countries reaching decision point, I urge our international colleagues to follow the UK's lead.
    I will be meeting the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Horst Kohler, on Monday to review the latest progress towards achieving the target set by the IMF and the World Bank that 20 countries will reach decision point by the end of the year and ensuring that that debt relief is directly targeted at poverty reduction. On behalf of the Government, the Secretary of State for International Development and I have written to every Member of Parliament so that they can pass on this latest information to their Churches and other organisations.
    Mr. Gardiner: I thank the Chancellor for that announcement. The thousands of people who have been part of the Jubilee 2000 campaign—constituents of mine and, I suspect, of every Member of this House—will think that this is one of the most significant things that the Government have done. I congratulate him on it.
    I ask my right hon. Friend, in his discussions with colleagues in the international community, to urge them to do as we have done, and to look forward to expanding the conditions for heavily indebted poor countries, perhaps to include states that do not qualify at the moment, such as Nigeria, Bangladesh and Peru. They are major indebted countries. The burden in Nigeria is, I think, £3.5 billion owing to this country alone. Will he consider expanding the criteria? The whole community would welcome that a great deal.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have worked with the Churches and non-governmental organisations in the past year. The Treasury alone has received 300,000 cards or letters sent by members of the public. It is an indication of the public's support for debt relief that so many people and organisations, including all the Churches of the United Kingdom, are involved in this effort. I thank people for raising the issue nationally as well as internationally.

    795
    We have had talks with the Nigerian Government about their position. We are keen to help them as they reform their economy. At the same time, their position must be reviewed in relation to the oil revenues that they can now receive. My hon. Friend asked about other countries and debt. Over the next few months, the British Government will be involved with other Governments and organisations, internationally and nationally, to try to show that the link between debt relief, poverty reduction and sustainable development can be strengthened. We will also try to ensure that we meet the 2015 targets of every child being in primary education, of all avoidable infant mortality being cut by two thirds, and of halving poverty round the world. I hope that there will be bipartisan support for those efforts.
    Ann Clwyd: No one could doubt the Chancellor's personal commitment to helping the poorest people in the world. It would be good if the churlish Conservative party were to acknowledge its debt to the Chancellor today.
    Mr. James Gray: Our idea.
    Ann Clwyd: I do not know what kind of comment that was, but it would be good if a Conservative Member got to his feet to acknowledge what the Chancellor has done to help the poorest people in the world.
    Will my right hon. Friend spell out what reforms in particular he would like the European Commission to make to strengthen its commitment and deliver a little of the money that it has set aside for the world's poor, and use it as it should be used instead of keeping it in Brussels?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I applaud her efforts around the world to promote debt relief and international development. I know that she has worked with the Churches and other organisations in her constituency to promote the cause of debt relief.
    As for the changes that the European Commission can make in its policy, the Finance Ministers managed to persuade it to contribute to the World Bank trust fund. Almost a billion euros will be invested in the World Bank trust fund so that the debts of the countries that qualify for the HIPC programme can be relieved. It is to the credit of the European Union that that decision was taken.
    I hope that the aid and development reforms of the European Union will be involved in what I believe will be a worldwide initiative over the next year to tackle the problems of child poverty and poverty generally. New initiatives will put children into primary education-120 million children are not in it at the moment—and reduce the rate of infant mortality. At the moment, one in every seven children die before the age of five—a tragedy that must be prevented.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: My party congratulates the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development on their welcome progress on this matter. Is the Chancellor concerned, however, about how long it takes for many countries to reach decision point? Will he say more about the social factors—health and education—that must be included in structural
    796
    adjustment programmes for those countries before the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will accept that they have reached decision point?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and her party for their support. Structural adjustment programmes have been replaced by poverty reduction strategies as the basis on which debt relief is provided. If a country has a programme that meets the poverty reduction strategy criteria, it is in a position to receive necessary debt relief.
    The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that there was a chance in 1997 that only one country would have passed through the HIPC process. Today there are 13, and there will be a special meeting of the IMF and World Bank boards next week to consider another seven, one of which may already be through by the end of this week. The aim is to put 20 countries through the programme by the end of the year—by the time of the meetings on 20 and 21 December—meaning that debt relief will move quickly to those countries.
    I have considered the effect of debt relief and the differences that it has made. Countries, such as Uganda, where debt relief has been achieved are now able to consider reducing the primary school teacher-pupil ratio from 100:1 to 50:1 and to ensure that every child is in education in a school with a roof above his or her head.
    Mr. John Bercow: It is to be hoped that the roofs would not be below their heads.
    Mr. Brown: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wants to reduce such an important matter to trivia.
    Poverty reduction strategy papers were designed to achieve changes such as these, so that debt relief leads to poverty reduction. I hope that even more progress will be made in the coming year.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The whole House would congratulate the Chancellor on continuing the excellent work started by the Conservative Government at Montreal and would share his aim of ensuring that expenditure in indebted countries goes towards education, health and poverty reduction. Why, however, has he failed to implement the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's convention on bribery? Is that not a reason why other countries have followed Britain's lead in that regard?
    Mr. Brown: When we came to power, tax relief was available for bribes because of action that the Conservatives had not taken. That is amazing—one could receive tax relief for bribing someone in another country. We are taking action on those matters, and taking international action too.
    I applaud the hon. Lady for her own work on debt relief. The challenge of the next year will require expenditure in the international development budget that the Opposition are not prepared to support. If we are to make progress on education, health and anti-poverty programmes, Britain must pay its share. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has proposed expenditure of £600 million over the next three years. Why will the Opposition not support us on that?

    Treasury Supplement
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What plans he has to restore the Treasury supplement. [141838]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): None. However, consistent with our prudent approach, we provided in the draft re-rating order laid before Parliament at the end of last month for a Treasury grant to the national insurance fund for this financial year and next year in the unlikely event that the fund should need it.
    Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend will recall that the Treasury supplement was the great achievement of the last Liberal Government and was paid for 80 years because it was thought to be affordable by all Governments for most of the past century. If it were now being paid at the rate paid in the late 1980s, when the Conservatives cut it, it would be worth £20 a week on the basic pension.
    The Government have been congratulated on giving pensioners by far the best deal that they have had for 25 years, but there is enough money in the fund to ensure that the link with earnings could be maintained until 2007. In considering the policy of the next Labour Government, and the one after that, will my right hon. Friend consider complete reform of the national insurance fund to make it a truly independent fund, run by independent managers and with funds invested on the stock exchange, so that we can have what pensioners really want—a guarantee that their incomes in retirement will not be affected by inflation, but will be protected?
    Mr. Timms: The intention has always been that the national insurance fund should operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. In recent years, there has been a grant from the Treasury, but that has been in times of short-term difficulty, such as in 1993–94 as a result of the boom-and-bust policies of the previous Government. Importantly, there will be significant new demands on the national insurance fund, for example, from pensions reform through the introduction of the state second pension.
    My hon. Friend is right about the package of improvements that we have introduced and announced for pensioners, which has been widely welcomed. He is right that that is the best prospect for pensioner incomes that we have had for a long time. It would be a mistake to attempt to use a Treasury grant for a long-term spending commitment, in particular an indefinitely escalating one, which an earnings link would represent.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What has been the average level of interest rates set by the Bank of England since May 1997. [141839]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Since May 1997, interest rates have averaged just over 6 per cent. as compared with 10 per cent. in the years of the previous Government.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Can I assure the Minister that my constituents remember all too well when interest rates
    798
    were 15 per cent. under the previous Conservative Government because many of them lost their homes, businesses and jobs? Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to calculate what the average mortgage payer has saved since Labour came to power? If so, may we have those figures, because they will be useful in the forthcoming general election campaign?
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. He is right to remind the House what a terrible price people paid for the high level and volatility of interest rates under the previous Conservative Government. He rightly reminds us that interest rates were above 15 per cent. for a whole year. One and a half million home owners suffered negative equity and 250,000 homes were repossessed between 1990 and 1993 alone. My hon. Friend invites me to calculate the benefits that home owners with mortgages have received from the lower and more stable interest rates that we have brought about. I can confirm that I have been able to do that calculation. Under the Conservatives, mortgage rates averaged 11 per cent. as compared with 7 per cent. under Labour. On a typical mortgage, that means a saving of £1,000 thanks to Labour's prudence and economic stability.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: But can the Chief Secretary confirm that his plan to scrap the pound means scrapping the Monetary Policy Committee? Can he confirm that, at the next election, there will be just one party campaigning for interest rates to be set by an independent Bank of England—the Conservative party?
    Mr. Smith: That is an extraordinary question, especially given the fact that the shadow Chancellor has been threatening to take away from the Monetary Policy Committee the right to determine interest rates. He is the one who says, "No, I could do it better. I consider them to be incompetent." What a cheek that is against the background of the Conservatives' record in government of those variations in interest rates—15 per cent. for more than a year.
    Let us remember the effects that the shadow Chancellor's policy would have on stability. First, he says that he has a tax guarantee that turns out not to be a tax guarantee. Then he says that he will make £16 billion of cuts, but he cannot say where they will come from. Then he says that it is £8 billion of cuts. When asked where they can be made, he says that it is £5.3 billion of cuts, but when one looks at those one finds that some are not even in the Budget and some are savings that we are already making.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be best if the Minister talked about his own policy.
    Mr. Smith: The Conservatives' sums do not add up. Where we are providing stability, they would destroy it.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I urge the Minister not to take advice from the Conservative party on interest rates when, in the first 13 years of the previous Conservative Government, they were under 9 per cent. for only five months. In the last five years of Tory Government, they were higher than they have been under Labour. Throughout that time, we were told that we should have

    799
    high unemployment so that we could have low interest rates. Unemployment was more than 2 million for most of that time. As I recall, it was boom for interest rates and bust for workers. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that he will not return to that?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right; people are better off with Labour and I have no intention of taking the advice of the Conservatives.

    Aviation Fuel
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: How much tax was raised on AVGAS aviation fuel in (a) 1990, (b) 1997 and (c) 1999. [141840]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The amount of excise duty was £4.8 million in 1990, £7.5 million in 1997 and £11 million in 1999.
    Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will be aware—as will many of his right hon. and hon. Friends—that Britain is one of the world's leading aerospace countries, with a long history in aviation. Is he also aware that our flying training organisations are finding life extremely difficult at present? That is not simply because of the increased cost of crude oil, but because of the additional burdens imposed on them by new flight crew licensing requirements—and the need to invest about £4,000 per aeroplane in order to provide suppression of commercial radio stations by the extension of the FM band. Such is the burden on flying training organisations in this country that, for example, British Aerospace has moved its flying training from Perth in Scotland to Spain, where it saves 50 per cent. of its costs.
    I suggest to the Financial Secretary that he might do something to help that important component of one of Britain's leading industries by cutting the rate of fuel duty—[Interruption.] It is a fairly modest amount of money. He might also try to help in other ways, because the industry is struggling greatly at present.
    Mr. Timms: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the UK aerospace industry is thriving; it is doing extremely well and is a shining example of success in the current British economy. On aviation gasoline duty, it is the case that, since 1982, the rate has been set at half the duty on leaded petrol—previously, it had been set at the full rate. In 1982, the Government of the day reduced it to half rate; that was a compromise between the view that there should be no duty, as, by international agreement, no duty is levied on jet fuel, and the view that aviation should bear the same duty burden as other forms of transport. The compromise reached at that time was right. I continue to support it.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor cancelled the escalator on fuel duty, introduced by the Conservatives in 1993. He announced a freeze on fuel duty for the coming year. The package of measures that he announced on fuel duty has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an argument for a review of
    800
    aviation tax—especially given both the differential with the tax on cars and the environmental impact? Does he agree that if such a review were to take place, in an internationally harmonised framework, there is an argument that some of that money should be hypothecated to areas near airports, where environmental damage and noise are greater—in particular, in Croydon?
    Mr. Timms: I think that there is a case for taxing aircraft fuel using international criteria, but at present that is excluded by international agreement. However, we have supported action through the International Civil Aviation Organisation to remove that exemption. We have also supported a request for a European Union study of the implications of taxing aviation fuel in the EU.

    Taxation
    Mr. James Gray: What percentage of GDP he estimates will be taken in tax in 2000–01; and what was the equivalent figure in 1996–97. [141841]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Figures for taxes and social security contributions, as a proportion of gross domestic product, are shown in tables B10 and B26 of the pre-Budget report.
    Mr. Gray: One sometimes wonders why the Minister cannot answer a simple, straightforward, factual question with a simple, straightforward, factual answer. Will he allow me to give him and the House the figures? In 1997, the percentage was 35.2 per cent; in 2000, it is 37.3 per cent; and in 2001, it will be 37.5 per cent. If the working families tax credit is included—not as a tax reduction but as an addition to public expenditure—the percentage becomes 37.8 per cent. Why will the Minister not simply admit to the nation that tax has gone up by £25 billion a year—the equivalent of lop in the pound on income tax? Those are the facts. Why cannot he stand at the Dispatch Box and admit them?
    Mr. Smith: I have already answered that question. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, for 2000–01, the Conservative plans were for tax at a proportion of 37.6 per cent., rising in 2001–02 to 38 per cent. Moreover, he and the whole House will be aware that we had to sort out the millstone of debt and the financial mess that we inherited from the previous Administration—borrowing of £28 billion and the £350 billion debt. We have sorted that out, providing the platform for stability, prosperity and opportunity for all that we offer to the people.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: First, will the Minister confirm that Britain remains one of the lowest taxed countries in Europe? Secondly, and more importantly, will he tell the House exactly how much each year it cost every family in this country to repay the debt that we inherited from the Conservative party? How much money was wasted on repayments each year on that borrowing of £28 billion? What did that mean for every family in this country?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. We were spending more on servicing debt than on the nation's schools. It is important for people to understand that of every extra

    801
    pound that the previous Administration raised in tax, no less than 42p went on servicing debt interest and meeting social security benefit payments. With our spending plans, we have got that figure down to 17p.
    My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the comparisons with Europe: 10 member states of the European Union have a higher tax ratio than the United Kingdom. Our share is 1.1 per cent. lower than that of Germany, 6.4 lower than that of Italy and 10 per cent. lower than that of France.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Can the Minister confirm, however, that there is a flip side to the coin? The Government say that they are taxing less than the Conservatives had planned to tax. The Minister is right about that—there is a fundamental flaw in the Conservative case—but the flip side is that the Chancellor, who is now Miss Bountiful and spending more, cut services as Miss Prudence at the start of this Parliament. Because of those cuts, the share of the national cake spent on health, education and pensioners will be less over this Parliament than the Conservatives spent in the last Parliament.
    Mr. Smith: The truth of the matter is that the share spent on those priority services is rising, and rising sharply. Because we have been able to cut the cost of social security payments and of debt interest, more than 80 per cent. of that extra spending is going to the priority areas of health, education, investment in transport and fighting crime. Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in exposing the fallacy of the Conservatives' arguments, he should also recognise that if we had not taken the tough decisions necessary to get the economy and the public finances straight, we should not have been in the position to invest in and improve our public services in the way that the British people want.

    Euro
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment he has made of the extent to which United Kingdom interest rates have converged with those in the eurozone. [141842]
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What estimate he has made of when the UK will join the single currency. [141846]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government have set out five economic tests, which will have to be met before any decision to
    802
    join the single currency can be taken. The Government will make another assessment of the five tests early in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the Chancellor now address Question 10?
    Mr. Brown: The answer is that we will make an assessment early in the next Parliament. That is exactly what we will do.
    Mr. Winterton: The Chancellor has emphasised the importance of business costs, so will he tell British business that the cost of entry to the euro is likely to be some £33 billion? How does he equate that with his desire to keep business costs down and this country's ability to take decisions to contain inflation?
    Mr. Brown: Precisely because we have to look at all issues in relation to this matter, we have our five economic tests. The problem with the Conservative party is that there are some—
    Mr. Winterton: Answer the question.
    Mr. Brown: Precisely because of issues that are raised by the hon. Gentleman and others, it makes good economic sense to assess those matters in an appropriate way. That is why we have set five economic tests: the effects on investment, on financial services, on employment and on the flexibility of the economy and whether there is sustainable convergence. All the issues that he raises can be dealt with as we examine those five assessments.
    The hon. Gentleman's problem is that, if he thinks that the matter should be dealt with by a prudent examination of the five tests, he will support leaving the issue open and not ruling it out on principle. However, at one and the same time, some Conservative Members say that we must look at the issue as a matter of detail and others say that they will never join, on principle.
    I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a member of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe. "John Major"—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member for Huntingdon."] Conservative Members do not like hearing their own policy. I think that the House would like to know what they subscribe to. "John Major", it says—[Interruption.] This is very interesting—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps this is a matter for the next Question Time.
    Mr. Brown rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is now time to move on to business questions.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.
Motions relating to the Draft Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order and the Draft Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2000.
TUESDAY 19 DECEMBER—Motion relating to the Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulation 2000
Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day—Half Day]. There will be a debate on Urban Regeneration in England. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
WEDNESDAY 20 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Hunting Bill.
THURSDAY 21 DECEMBER—Motions on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order and the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order.
Motion on the Christmas Recess Adjournment.
FRIDAY 22 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
Hon. Members will wish to be aware that the House will meet at 9.30 am on Thursday 21 December for questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Christmas Recess will include:
MONDAY 8 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Homes Bill.
It is not possible at the moment to give the House all the business for the week beginning 8 January. That will be announced next week following discussion through the usual channels.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 17 January, there will be a debate relating to sport in European Standing Committee 'C'. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the last Thursday this year will be:
THURSDAY 21 DECEMBER—Debate on British Trade International.
[Tuesday 19 December 2000:
Class Vote III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy, planning and countryside and wildlife, England)
Wednesday 17 January 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: COM (99) 644:The Helsinki Report on Sport; COM (99) 643: Doping in Sport; Unnumbered EM
804
dated 23 November 2000: Declaration on Sport. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 23-viii, HC 23-xiii and HC 23-xxxi (1999–2000).]
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week. I wish to make two comments about it. First, the Second Reading of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill is scheduled for Monday whereas the Second Reading of the Hunting Bill will be on Wednesday. That will cause a great deal of inconvenience to Members who had hoped to attend the House to hear the Hunting Bill debated on Monday. I hope that the right hon. Lady has not changed the order in which the Bills will be debated simply to pray in aid the fact that the Government have put the issue of law and order before that of hunting.
Secondly, I have said several times before that it would not have been acceptable for the House to have debated embryology and then had a deferred vote. I thank the right hon. Lady for ensuring that the debate will be held at a time when Members can cast their votes following the debate on the subject. Conservative Members will have a free vote on the subject, and I am sure that she will confirm that Labour Members will have a free vote, too. It is a matter of conscience, and individual Members should cast their vote as they think fit.
Despite the fact that we are near the end of term, an important matter has occurred this morning and it merits the House's attention. Will the Leader of the House consider whether we should have a debate on the matter shortly? I am referring to this morning's Home Office press release announcing the names of the electoral commissioners. That was a surprise because on 6 December my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) tabled a written question asking when commissioners were to be appointed. The answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department yesterday at column 181W gave no hint of the names or when they would be released. Surely that should be corrected and the House should have a chance to discuss the matter because it is relevant to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which was guillotined in the last week of the previous Session, so restricting the opportunity for hon. Members to address that issue.
Why will the House have to wait until mid-January before the electoral commissioners are appointed, as the Home Office press release states? Surely we could debate that in the coming week and have them in place for the new year. Will the Leader of the House consider that because it is important and needs to be addressed? Will that decision not further complicate the implementation of the Bill's main provisions on donations and expenditure on 16 February if the matter is not dealt with until January next year? I hope that the Leader of the House will share my concern about the way in which the business has been handled and the disrespect it shows to Members of the House for announcements to be made without providing a written answer or an opportunity for us to discuss it.
Mrs. Beckett: First, I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that we moved the debate on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill because we wanted to change the order of business; the decision had no relevance to the issue of what might come first. Looking back as, sadly, Opposition Members rarely do, to their last Queen's Speech in the 1996

805
Session, it is clear that the first Bill they tabled for debate was the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill. The notion that there is something unusual about the order in which we take Bills is not well founded. However, I assure her that the decision was simply a matter of trying to get a good pattern of debate for the following week, which business managers always strive to do.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the Labour party was committed to a free vote on embryology. I am pleased to hear that her party is to have a free vote, although I would have anticipated that. However, I remind her that when the Donaldson report was published on 16 August, the Government said that they would lay regulations to give effect to its recommendations so that they could be followed through, and those regulations would be laid before the House so that it could reach its decision on the basis of a free vote. There is no question that it will be anything other than a completely free vote.
As for the Home Office press release, I am afraid that I am not familiar with precisely what was said or why, and, to be perfectly honest, I am not entirely sure of the hon. Lady's point. However, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 has been extensively discussed. People are aware of the issues that arise from it. I understand that the House is interested in who the commissioners may be, but I am not aware of a suggestion that we should debate those appointments. Indeed, successive Governments have not thought that there should be accountability, other than through Ministers, for appointments that are made through the proper public appointment process.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Four of the five wettest years on record in the United Kingdom occurred in the 1990s, but in other parts of the world the desert is advancing at a truly alarming rate. Given that there is a United Nations conference in Bonn on desertification as I speak, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development recently published a White Paper that touches tangentially on the issue, can we have an early debate on it?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should have an early debate on desertification. I understand that there are frequent discussions about climate change, of which desertification is one aspect, and I share my hon. Friend's view, as I am sure all hon. Members do, that it is a serious matter. I fear, however, that especially as, happily, whatever our other problems up to now, no one has suggested that deserts are spreading in Britain, I cannot find time for an early debate on that.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House pay attention to concerns expressed throughout the House about the constitution of the Human Rights Joint Committee, which is on the Order Paper? Do the Government intend to allow the Committee to have a completely free choice of its Chair? The Committee will have a role similar to that of the Public Accounts Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, so will the Government make certain that its Chair is taken by an Opposition Member, rather than a Government supporter, in common with those other Committees?
806
I endorse the congratulations to the Government on listening to the views of many Members about the timing for the motion on the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulation 2000, which is now in a much better place in our programme.
When will we receive a comprehensive response to the royal commission on long-term care? Statements have been made, and references were made during the debates on the Gracious Speech, but is the coming crisis in the national health service, which is causing so much concern to Members and their constituents, being viewed in the context of bed blocking and the relationship between health and social services authorities?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, we are making progress on appointing the Human Rights Joint Committee, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it is always Committees that deal with such issues. As for the comparison that he drew with the Public Accounts Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, I am not aware of any suggestion that the Human Rights Joint Committee is in the same category and should therefore be chaired by an Opposition Member, but that will no doubt emerge in due course.
It is widely understood in the House that bed blocking is causing difficulties in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman asked for a further statement on long-term care, but that will be dealt with when the NHS Bill comes before the House, so I anticipate that there will be opportunities to discuss the issue then and it is unlikely that there will be a further, separate statement on it.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the delay in, and possibly even the postponement of, the publication of the long-awaited Green Paper on radioactive waste management. Does she accept that the delay means that the Government effectively have no policy on radioactive waste management, and have not had one since the previous Government's abandonment of the plans to build an underground repository at the Sellafield complex? Will she assure the House that the Green Paper will be published early next year? If that is not the case, will she find time for a debate on this most important environmental issue?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an important issue. It has considerable implications for the long term, and it will take considerable time to implement once policy details have been thrashed out. It is important that we try to get the first steps right. I anticipate that when the consultation paper is published there will be a major programme of discussion and research, as well as decision making. I fear that I am not up to speed with the intended timing of that, but my colleagues will want to bring the Green Paper to the House when it is ready, although they no doubt hope that that will be as early as possible. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my relevant right hon. and hon. Friends so that if they have any further information, they can let him know.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the textiles industry? She will know that there have been severe job losses in the industry in the east midlands. We often have

807
statements from Ministers when large job losses are announced, but the losses of several companies in the textiles industry can have a devastating effect on a region.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that there is great and long-standing concern about the future of the textile industry. I am also aware of the specific concerns the hon. Gentleman raises—indeed, the other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) highlighted the concern felt in the midlands. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government office for the east midlands is seeking to co-ordinate help from various public bodies in the area and that a rapid response unit is in place to help and support people through the difficulties in the region. As he is well aware, the problems in the textiles industry are of long standing; successive Governments have struggled to overcome them from time to time and with some success, but there is no easy solution.
Ms Rosie Winterton: I know that the parliamentary timetable is extremely full, but has any progress been made on finding time for a debate on Lord Phillips' report on BSE? The families of those who have died of new variant CJD in my constituency are anxious for Parliament to debate the report, and there are worrying reports in today's media about another potential cluster. Can my right hon. Friend provide any reassurance?
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government have every intention of providing time for a major debate on the subject. She will recall that, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the outcome of the Phillips inquiry, he made it plain that the Government would find time for a debate, after a reasonable period had elapsed. He was anxious to ensure that sufficient time was allowed for people to study the 16 volumes of the report and take full account of the in-depth study that the inquiry team carried out, and for discussions to take place with families that have been affected. Therefore, although I anticipate a debate taking place, I cannot say when it will take place. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will bring the matter to the House.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: The right hon. Lady will be aware of growing concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the fact that human cloning matters are to be introduced by regulation on Tuesday. Bearing in mind that those matters were not discussed during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and that many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that they should be the subject of primary legislation rather than regulations, will she be courageous and postpone the debate until those matters can be fully considered?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, last week the Opposition were pressing for the debate. I should say first that the regulations are not human cloning orders and it should not he allowed to slip on to the record of the House that they are. Indeed, if the hon. Lady reads the Department
808
of Health memorandum, which, as she may be aware, is already in the Vote Office, she will see that it states explicitly and in terms:
These regulations do not permit research leading to human reproductive cloning.
Therefore, the matter is not as she describes it.
As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) a minute or two ago, the report that recommended that regulations should be laid before the House was published in August, at which time the Government made it plain that we would give the House an opportunity to reach its decision on the recommended regulations on a free vote. The Government made time for a debate in principle and we published the regulations in draft—which we were not by any means compelled to do. The draft regulations have been amended following representations, which proves the value of publishing them in draft form. There will be a further debate tomorrow on the broad issues, but focusing on the draft regulations, without the House being required to reach a conclusion. Then, on Tuesday, we shall have a further, fuller debate, followed by the House having an opportunity to vote.
I do not think that the Government can, in the slightest degree, be criticised for having provided some 10 hours now in which to debate the issues and the substance of the regulations, for having published them in draft, and for requiring the House to reach a conclusion only later and after a longer debate than is usual. The Government are perfectly entitled to take regulations on an hour and a half debate after 10 o'clock, but we have not done so because we recognise the concern and the interest felt in the House. I know that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) disagrees violently with our proposals and she is perfectly entitled to do so, but it is not quite fair of her to pretend that the Government have not more than done our duty by the House in giving the House an opportunity to decide.
Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware that it is about a year and a half since the minimum wage was introduced nationally. Is it not time to have a debate so that we might review its implementation? Those of us who served on the Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill are aware of the scaremongering of Conservatives, who said that 1 million jobs would be lost and that pensioners, the disabled and people working for charities in the voluntary sector should not receive the minimum wage. While we debate the operation of the scheme now, might we not consider a timetable for the removal of the temporary youth rate?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend and others served long hours on the National Minimum Wage Bill in Committee and thoroughly enjoyed themselves, thereby giving the lie to any suggestion that Members are not prepared to work hard for a worthwhile cause. They are, however, reluctant to spend long hours on trivia. It is right that the minimum wage arouses great interest on both sides of the House.
I understand the attraction that my hon. Friend sees in having an opportunity to debate the errors of the Conservative party, and, as far as I am aware, the continued wish of Liberal Democrats to have a regional

809
rate rather than a national rate. I understand also her wish that there should be a review of the youth rate. She will know that the Low Pay Commission is taking evidence about it. In that sense, perhaps a debate would be timely. I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House, but my hon. Friend might use the opportunities afforded by Westminster Hall.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Leader of the House will know that irrespective of the outcome of the decisions that will be made in the Fisheries Council today and tomorrow about total allowable catches for pressure stocks next year, the fishing and processing sectors of the fishing industry are facing a uniquely difficult year. There are some conservation and technical issues that will flow from the decisions on TACs today and tomorrow. Will the right hon. Lady try to find time early in January for a debate on the Floor of the House so that these important matters can be considered against the background of the uniquely difficult circumstances that the industry is facing?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand fully the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses. He will know that the Government regretted the fact that, owing to timing of information coming from Brussels, it was not possible to have the normal pre-Council debate on the Floor of the House. I take his point fully on board and I understand his anxiety for a debate relatively early in the House. The Government will have to balance that—we have already introduced 10 of the Bills in our programme, and obviously we are anxious to get them through their Second Reading stage and start to feed them into Committee—against perfectly proper pressure for the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks. We take seriously the point that he is making.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find time for a debate on miners' compensation payments? We know that the Government have ring-fenced the money and put it aside. It is not good enough that some miners, especially the older ones—26,000 since court proceedings began—have died without receiving a penny. Is it not about time that we had a debate to ascertain what is happening with the scheme and who is holding back its implementation?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is a source of considerable irritation to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that something that we sought to get under way as speedily as possible in the early months of this Government is still not going through at the speed that everybody wishes. I hope that my hon. Friend will know that there have been some expedited offers since September, and that some increased offers were made in mid-October. I share his concern, as do my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Trade, that there is continued delay. I can assure him that they are doing everything they can to speed things up. I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House; my hon. Friend may think that Westminster Hall might be a good place to discuss it.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the curious innovation of the Secretary of State for
810
Defence being absent from the Queen's Speech defence debate, which had an H. M. Bateman quality and caused no little embarrassment to those on the Treasury Bench during the winding-up speeches, why have the Government not afforded him the opportunity to come to the House next week to clarify the ambiguities in the current European defence imbroglio?
Mrs. Beckett: First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was abroad on Government business, and it was, I believe, business that Conservative Members might welcome. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman weakens his case by suggesting that it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to come to the House to clarify confusion as no confusion exists on the issue to which he refers, except in the minds of Conservative Members.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Government's youth policy? There has rightly been much emphasis in the past few weeks on young people and crime, but the youth policy involves so much more than that. Many young people in my constituency in Nottingham are concerned about the provision of recreation and leisure facilities, and we have heard today about the impact of the minimum wage on young people. Young people want to be involved in decision making. This is a huge subject, and we should talk not just about young people and crime but about the range of services that the Government offer young people in general.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know that he has done much campaigning on the issue locally in his constituency. Although he raises some important issues, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House, where time is always very short, as he knows. That is precisely the reason why the Government—together with the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)—proposed, through the Modernisation Committee, to hold debates in Westminster Hall to air the many worthwhile issues for which we cannot find time on the Floor of the House.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am sure that the Leader of the House will be aware of yesterday's High Court decision, which means that the involvement of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in determining town and country planning appeals was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. As that will have a profound effect on planning and development control, and indeed may extend to other legislation across the Departments of State, will she arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement as early as possible next week to explain his intentions in that regard?
Mrs. Beckett: I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend, but I suspect that the Department will want some time to consider the implications of that decision. Environment questions will take place relatively soon after the Christmas recess, and perhaps that will provide a better time than the next few days to discuss the matter.
Mr. Michael Clapham: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the Union

811
of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, which represents people working in the construction industry, is extremely concerned about the health and safety crisis in that industry? Since 27 November, there have been six fatalities, including that a 16-year-old new worker who was crushed to death on a site. She will be aware that the Queen's Speech includes a proposal for a health and safety Bill, but as it will embrace rail safety, it cannot proceed until the Cullen report is available and has been digested. Will she therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to hive off the matter and proceed with a health and safety Bill to revitalise construction safety, which would introduce higher fines and the crime of corporate manslaughter in cases where a breach of legislation caused death? Then, at a later stage, when we proceed with rail safety legislation, we could consolidate that measure in a safety Act.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The House is aware that the construction industry has long had some safety problems. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my relevant right hon. Friend. I am not sure that it would be possible to separate the issues in the way he suggests, but, as he said, the Government have proposals for a draft Bill on safety, timed to take account of the Cullen report, but I hope that work will be done on other aspects before that report is available. Although I cannot offer my hon. Friend the reassurance that the legislation can be separated as he suggests, he might look for other opportunities, perhaps in Westminster Hall, to focus attention on such issues and to inform the work on other aspects of safety.
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Will the Leader of the House make time at an early opportunity for us to debate the growing threat from dissident republican groups? Is she aware that Joe Fee—a man briefly detained in the Republic after the seizure of weapons in Croatia, destined for the Real IRA—was sent in 1997, as an Irish Government employee, to be an aid worker in the former Yugoslavia, alongside the charity Refugee Trust?
Given that the BBC's "Spotlight" programme is shortly to broadcast a film about the origin of those weapons, is the right hon. Lady aware that Fee's employment in the Balkans occurred some 10 years after Garda intelligence had identified him as the leader of the Continuity IRA? Is she also aware that Joe Fee has been identified by police as the vital point of contact between the leader of the Croat smugglers Ante Cubelic and the Real IRA? Will she provide time for a debate on those important issues?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman time for an early debate, although he has raised issues of considerable concern that I know will greatly interest my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will note, however, that as a result of cross-party agreement Northern Ireland questions will now take place next week, and he may have an opportunity to raise the matter again then.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector? As my hon. Friend the Member
812
for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) suggested, it is a complex relationship, involving support for both social and youth services at different times. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind particularly the threat of a £10 penalty for the carrying out of police searches in England, but not in France, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Mrs. Beckett: I think the whole House agrees that the voluntary sector is very important, and the Government have done a great deal to try to develop and strengthen their relationship with it.
I know that much concern has been expressed for some time about the issue of searches, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given it considerable thought. I fear I cannot find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, given that the matter has already been aired extensively, but my hon. Friend may wish to seek an opportunity to raise it in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Can the right hon. Lady find time for an urgent debate on the Government's management of crises? Does she recall that, during the summer, the Prime Minister intervened to try to sort out the fuel crisis, and that after a summit at Downing street he announced that fuel would be returned to the petrol pumps within 24 hours? It was not.
Is the right hon. Lady aware that three weeks ago the Prime Minister called another summit, this time to sort out rail timetables? He said that they would be sorted out by Christmas. Christmas is just 12 or 13 days away, and the timetables are still in chaos. British Rail, Railtrack, trains—all are in chaos. Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate, so that we can discuss why this Government are so incapable and irresponsible in their management of crises?
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Who privatised the railways?
Mrs. Beckett: I recall very well what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on the occasion of the increase in oil prices internationally, and the problems that it caused here. He said he had been informed that fuel would be flowing again in 24 hours, and he clearly had been so informed, by oil companies and others; but, as the hon. Gentleman says, the undertaking was not followed through. Ultimately, however, the matter was resolved.
As for the problems in the rail industry, I share the incredulity of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) that any Conservative Government has the gall to go on raising them.
Shona McIsaac: May we have a debate on the role of the Opposition in a healthy democracy, especially in relation to the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money given to the Leader of the Opposition, supposedly to develop policy? It seems to be being spent on U-turns, about-turns, financial black holes and a plethora of jokes which, by my reckoning, are costing the taxpayer at least a grand a time. May we have a debate on that misuse of public money?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I fully supported the move to increase and, in fact, treble the public money available to the Opposition. I believe that that was the right thing to do. I share my hon. Friend's regret

813
that more effective use is not being made of that money, and I notice that the Conservative party does not seem to think that it should have to answer the types of questions that it asked the Labour party in opposition. That is an error into which the Tories have fallen. However, I fear that I cannot find time, tempting and amusing as it would be, to debate the role of the Opposition. My hon. Friend might try to find another occasion on which to raise such matters, but I am afraid that I cannot help her today.
Mr. Stephen Day: First, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for granting me an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago on the subject of residents at Chester's Croft, Cheadle Hulme in my constituency, who live in homes classified as mobile homes. During that debate, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), announced that regulations granting those residents the right to claim compensation as mobile home owners living adjacent to a new road will be laid before Parliament, after a nine-year wait. However, I have discovered from a letter that I received from Stockport council legal services department—it emanated from the Minister—that, once laid, those regulations were withdrawn and altered. Effectively, that means that promises made to my constituents nine years ago will not necessarily be honoured, as they have been for residents living in permanent homes. Will the Minister come to the House to explain why promises made to my constituents are apparently at risk of being broken?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I am not familiar with all the detail of the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although of course I understand his concern on behalf of his constituents. On the basis of his figures, I judge that he received a faster response to that concern from this Government than from the previous Government, whom he supported—but there we go. Nevertheless, I shall draw his concerns to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is not clear to me that it will be thought appropriate to make a further statement on the regulations, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, in the hope that he will be able to clarify the position for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Could we have a debate on cases of serious job loss? Coats Viyella, in the east midlands, is one such case. A statement on Vauxhall, in Luton, was made yesterday. We need further debate on that matter. At Biwater, in Clay Cross, which is in my constituency, 700 jobs have been or will be lost.
We need to consider the Government's response to the situation. The rapid response unit does not always work perfectly, and regional selective assistance needs to be discussed, as does the question of who receives local government funding and lottery grants and the availability of objective 1 and 2 funding. All those are serious issues in my constituency. Although the issues can be discussed by Members with the DTI, the Prime Minister's office and other bodies, is it not also important that they be discussed on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right, but those issues are discussed on the Floor of the House. As he will know,
814
the Queen's Speech economic debate took place only yesterday. As he is also right to say, no organ of human creation operates perfectly, and the rapid response unit is no exception. I know, however, that he will strongly support steps taken by the Government to secure objective 1 and 2 funding, through the rapid response unit and so on, to try to help people through what can be a painful process of change that it is not always possible to resist.
Although I recognise the importance of the issues that my hon. Friend raises, I fear that I cannot, in the short term, find time for such a general economic debate. I know, however, that he is experienced in finding other ways of raising such issues.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the Leader of the House aware of the huge administrative burden and the wholly disproportionate cost imposed on small local authorities by the best value regulations? May we have an early debate so that the concerns of councillors in rural areas can be voiced and so that representations can be made on behalf of hard-pressed council tax payers who face wholly unnecessary and totally avoidable increases in their council taxes?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that although there are those, including him and no doubt some of his local authorities, who are unhappy with the procedures of best value, far more authorities were even more unhappy with the regulations which it replaced for compulsory competitive tendering, which were also thought to be much more bureaucratic, costly and ineffective. So whatever reservations there may be—and I have already said that no system is perfect—best value is definitely better than the system it replaced. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter, but I am sure that hon. Gentleman will find opportunities to raise it in Environment questions and elsewhere.
Gillian Merron: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the worrying case of Russell Griffiths, the lecturer acquitted of raping an 18-year-old student in Lincoln, but jailed for lying about his criminal past to get a lecturer's job in Lincoln? His convictions relating to ex-girlfriends included threats to kill, criminal damage and sending obscene material. Will my right hon. Friend find parliamentary time to debate measures which would ensure that employers such as universities would have access to criminal records when making appointments to posts such as that of lecturer, which is clearly a position of trust, as there is clearly insufficient legislative provision at present?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about a serious case which I know has aroused great concern in her constituency. Although it is an important issue which no doubt will merit further serious consideration, I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter. Although, like others, my hon. Friend may wish to pursue the opportunities of Westminster Hall, it is not impossible that she will find an opportunity to raise the matter under the various pieces of Home Office legislation that are being introduced.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to see early-day motion 37,

815
which is in the name of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and has been signed by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties?
[That this House notes that when introducing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill at Second Reading, the then Secretary of State for Health, the right honourable Member for Rushcliffe, assured the House that 'all honourable Members would like to prohibit certain activities, which include cloning and other science fiction possibilities. There can be little doubt that infringing such prohibitions should attract severe penalties provided by the Bill' (7th April 1990, Official Report, column 920); notes in that debate the statement by the late Right honourable Sir Bernard Braine, honourable Member for Castle Point that 'apart from cloning, genetic engineering and producing animal hybrids, the scientist will be able to do what he likes under the Bill' (column 934); notes that nowhere throughout the debates was any differentiation made between cloning by cell nuclear transfer and other techniques, or between therapeutic and reproductive cloning; notes nonetheless the claims made by the Under Secretary of State that those matters were fully debated in 1990; invites the Government to cite those sections of the debates on the Bill covering such matters; further calls on the Government to cite that section of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which makes cloning legal by any technique including cell nuclear transfer and for whatever purpose; and calls for the withdrawal of the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulation 2000, until such evidence has been provided and Right honourable and honourable Members have had adequate opportunity to consider these issues of profound ethical importance.]
The motion refers to the Official Report of 2 April 1990 where, at column 920, the then Minister introducing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill referred to
certain activities, which include cloning—
not human cloning—
or other science fiction possibilities;
and added:
There can be little doubt that infringing such prohibitions … should attract the severe penalties provided in the Bill.—[Official Report, 2 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 920.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that the statutory instrument that we are discussing next week will introduce cloning, as it deals with cell replacement technology which creates a new cloned cell. There could well be a legal challenge on this. The right hon. Lady should be aware that the statutory instrument that will be introduced on Tuesday is ultra vires under the Bill. Certainly, the courts can look at it under Pepper v. Hart. The words of the then Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), could well make the statutory instrument ultra vires. Surely that shows that we should have had primary legislation and that the matter is proceeding in a rushed and chaotic way. Will the right hon. Lady think again, and remember that there could well be a legal challenge to what she is doing?
Mrs. Beckett: If the legal challenge that the hon. Gentleman envisages is brought forward—and I remind him that next Tuesday we will be having our third debate on the matter, so the House has had ample opportunities
816
to debate the issues—it will be a matter for the court and those concerned in the action. However, the court might be well advised to take account of the fact that the Donaldson report has been available since August and right hon. and hon. Members and everybody else have known since August of the Government's announced intention to introduce regulations as recommended by Donaldson rather than primary legislation. If someone wanted to bring a case saying that those regulations would be ultra vires, why did not they get round to it between August and now?
Mr. John Cryer: I refer my right hon. Friend to Question 1 at today's Treasury questions, which asked about trends in United Kingdom productivity. Could we have a debate on productivity? Many Labour Members would like to draw attention to the fact that, although the mining industry's productivity levels went through the roof in the late 1980s, the reward was closures, job losses and the decimation of the industry. Those problems were caused by Conservative Members, not for economic reasons, but because of narrow, craven, political vindictiveness, led by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and a few of the apparatchiks around him. I, for one, would love to have a debate on productivity so that Labour Members can draw attention to that.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the mining and other industries, where harm and damage sometimes occurs despite productivity improvements. I understand his analysis of why that happened in the mining industry. Productivity is a hugely important economic issue in the UK. We must continue to pursue and address it, even though resentment is caused when people know that they have improved productivity but that problems are still occurring and that jobs are lost, as has recently happened in Luton. Nevertheless, I fear that I cannot find time for the specific debate to which my hon. Friend referred. I am sure, however, that he will find other opportunities to raise these matters in economic and other debates, as well as in Treasury Question Time.
Mr. Bob Russell: Will the right hon. Lady consider further the request for an early debate on volunteers? Such a debate could take place on one of the blank Fridays. Early-day motion 101, which was signed by members of all parties, draws attention to the Scottish Parliament's agreement, only two days ago, to fees for the Criminal Records Bureau not being levied on volunteers in the youth movements.
[That this House welcomes the decision of the Scottish Parliament that criminal record checks for volunteers working with children in Scotland will be free; notes with regret that volunteers in England and Wales will still be required to pay £10 for identical checks to be made with the Criminal Records Bureau in the coining year; and urges the Government to emulate the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament.]
Does the right hon. Lady agree that a decision by the Government not to introduce a tax on volunteers would be a wonderful gesture for the international year of the volunteer, which is next year? Can we have an early debate to discuss that matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I can tell the hon. Gentleman only what I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel

817
Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). The Government are aware of the concern expressed by the voluntary sector and the matter has been the subject of full consideration and discussion. It will no doubt continue to be aired. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have not yet announced the precise arrangements that will apply to such checks in England and Wales. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but the question of how the costs of such tests and checks are to be met is a matter for delicate decision. Such a decision is not as easy to make as it is to call for.
Mr. David Drew: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that next year marks the 50th anniversary of the Korean war and, in particular, of the battle of Imjin. Much as it is pleasing to see reconciliation after many years between the north and south of the country, is there time for a debate on how to commemorate the Korean war and the role played by the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire arid Wiltshire regiment, which was known in those days as the Glorious Gloucesters? Its members have been invited to participate in various ceremonies in Korea, but are not currently allowed to take up that opportunity. Will my right hon. Friend speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see how the matter can be taken forward?
Mrs. Beckett: I have taken on board my hon. Friend's remarks about volunteers and I understand the pride that he and his constituents properly take in the record of those who served in our armed forces during a difficult conflict. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I fear that I cannot find time for any other opportunity to discuss the matter. He will be aware that the Armed Forces Bill was introduced on 11 December; he may find an opportunity to raise the issue during debates on that Bill.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can we please have a focused, and possibly brief, debate to clarify how many of our vetoes have been given up by the Prime Minister in exchange for qualified majority votes? The Prime Minister, with his slender grasp of reality and his ignorance of his briefs, made great play of the fact that the only matter that he thought of any importance to have been given up to qualified majority voting was something to do with the pensions of members of the Court of Auditors, which he found very amusing.
A debate on the matter would allow us to flush out, if the Prime Minister were here and if he had read his brief, whether qualified majority voting now applied, for example, to the appointment of the European Commission President or of members of the Court of Auditors, to the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice, to the rules for structural funds and the cohesion fund, and to Community financial assistance to the member states. These matters should be clarified for the House. The Prime Minister cannot be allowed to get away with his rather trite dealing with a matter which, in the end, is going to be one of huge national importance.
Mrs. Beckett: We had a debate before the Nice summit, and a statement was made to the House after it.
818
Despite the right hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristically ungracious remarks, the Prime Minister is totally in command of these matters, as the House well understood when my right hon. Friend made the Nice statement on Monday. My right hon. Friend also mentioned some of the other issues to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. However, if I may respond in kind, I cannot find time for a further, special debate on the matter. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take part in such a debate, it would be unlikely to be brief.
Mr. David Taylor: The quality of life in hundreds of communities throughout the country is adversely affected by the operations of nearby airports—for example, by night noise, air pollution and land take. Those communities will have noted with interest the publication this week of the Government's consultation document "The Future of Aviation". They will, however, be puzzled by its timing, in that it has arrived too late to influence the terminal 5 inquiry at Heathrow, but too early to reflect its conclusions.
Can the Leader of the House find time, before the end of this Parliament, for a detailed debate on aviation and airports policy, so that communities whose lives are so seriously affected can look forward to the prospect of a more level runway, in terms of their dealings with the powerful aviation industry lobby?
Mrs. Beckett: I thought that runways were mostly level. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns entirely. For most of us who live in the area, the East Midlands airport is both convenient and successful, but I understand that many of his constituents feel the consequences of that. I understand his desire for a debate on the matter, although he lost me slightly when he referred to the Heathrow fifth terminal inquiry, which seems to have been going on interminably. The idea that we might have to discuss that issue further fills me with horror.
I cannot undertake to find time for the special debate that my hon. Friend seeks, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends, with regard to the timing of the consultation document. My hon. Friend might like to raise the specific circumstances of his constituency in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Graham Brady: A fortnight ago, at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister gave me an uncharacteristically straightforward response, when he gave a clear guarantee that the Government would veto European Union moves to include worker representation in company management structures. Given that the French Government now intend to introduce such a measure next week for discussion by the Council of Ministers, and that there is considerable speculation that the Government have now changed their position, can the Prime Minister be brought to the House to make a statement as to why he is to renege on that promise?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course the French Government will continue to pursue the matter, because that is a change that they wish to make. However, I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. The Government have no intention of changing their position, and, in consequence, there is nothing for the Prime Minister to report.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the whole House joins me in wishing the Leader of the

819
House a very happy Christmas and a very happy and prosperous—if not too successful—new year. May I ask her to reconsider the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) for a full debate in Government time on the implications of the court decision this week, ruling that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot be both judge and jury—both policy maker and decision taker—in planning matters? I am sure that the right hon. Lady must agree that the issues and implications raised by this go beyond anything that could possibly be considered in Environment questions. Will she acquiesce to our request for an early debate on this, if for no other reason than to convince the House that her beleaguered colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, is in control of his Department, which is probably far too big?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks and return my good wishes to all right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who regularly attend these events. I am grateful to her for giving me an opportunity to clarify the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I did not intend to convey the idea that I was committing the Government either for or against a debate in the fulness of time. I simply identified the fact that this was quite a recent decision and no doubt the Department will wish to consider the matter carefully. It is not clear to me what action may be proposed.
As for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister being in charge of his Department, I think that the hon. Lady has chosen an unfortunate example, as surely none of us wishes to see Ministers in charge of the courts in this country.
Dr. Evan Harris: I welcome next week's opportunity to debate and vote on the embryology research regulations, but many seriously ill patients and their carers will find it difficult, given the short notice, to make direct representations to their Members of Parliament, which they regret. However, I urge the right hon. Lady to reject allegations that the matter has not been given full consideration, bearing in mind the fact that the first report came out in December 1998, the Donaldson report was published in August, and the matter has been before the House since 31 October.
Finally, I ask the right hon. Lady to join me in pointing out that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and his colleagues can hardly call for primary legislation when, on 31 October, they voted against a First Reading calling for primary legislation as one way of getting these important regulations on the statute book.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman brought forward a ten-minute Bill on the issue and that it was opposed by those who oppose the regulations. He is right that the matter has been before the House for some time, which is why I do not wholly share his view about short notice. People know that there is a debate this Friday; they are aware that the draft regulations have been
820
around for some time. It is regrettable if those who might have wished to make further representations find it a little more difficult to do so in the time available. However, this is a warning to us all that when issues are around for a considerable time, it is important for people to address them when it is known that they are in contention and will be decided at some point.
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman, and the Opposition Members who have raised the matter, that when we were first pressed on the Floor of the House as to when the matter would be coming forward, most right hon. and hon. Members anticipated that the order would be introduced and that there would be one debate on it, probably relatively early in the new Session. So in fact more time has elapsed than people might have anticipated, because the Government have allowed more time for discussion and debate.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Wales told the House:
the bicentenary of the 1801 Act of Union falls next year, and the Government will recognise the significance of that.—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 621.]
Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will be a statement next week, perhaps by the Minister for Patriotism, telling us how and when the Government will recognise the significance of this very important bicentennial for the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid not.
Mr. John Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate in Government time on the BBC's compliance—or lack of compliance—with its charter obligations on impartiality? Regrettably, that matter was not covered in the exchanges that followed the Secretary of State's statement earlier this week on the communications White Paper. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that in the light of the twin principles that no organisation should be judge in its own cause, and that it is desirable for the BBC and independent broadcasters to play on a broadly level playing field, such a debate would afford an opportunity for the Secretary of State to explain without delay whether the BBC will in future be accountable to Ofcom, and whether Ofcom will be able to judge it in terms of its accountability?
Mrs. Beckett: From what I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport say last week when he announced the communications White Paper, my impression was that those are precisely the issues that the Government are considering. The intention is that broadcasters will have proper duties, and that Ofcom will be the supervisor of those duties. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I fear that I shall not be able to offer him any debating opportunities other than those that are likely to arise in the context of discussing the communications White Paper and what may flow it—unless he would like to seek a special debate in Westminster Hall, if he thinks that the subject merits one.

Points of Order
1.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House whether she will reconsider her response to my request for a debate next week on the appointment of the electoral commissioners? Section 3 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires an address to the Crown from the Commons for the appointment of commissioners. Does it not therefore seem highly appropriate that the Commons should address the subject?
Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the House wish to comment?
Mrs. Beckett: I was almost about to venture into your territory, Mr. Speaker, by wondering whether that was really a point of order. I take the hon. Lady's point, but I fear that, as she will realise if she recalls what next week's business is, it will not be easy for the House to find time for such a debate—nor, indeed, do I immediately perceive the necessity for one. However, I certainly undertake to draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that the local transport plans were announced at 11.30 am today. That was when you came into the Chamber, so clearly you will not yet have been asked about a statement so that we could discuss the plans with Ministers. I wish to bring to your attention a problem in my constituency. Since 8 o'clock this morning, the Labour prospective parliamentary candidate has been telling people about the local transport plans; surprisingly enough, the news was not leaked to the press as normally happens in such circumstances. While he was announcing that we would get our road scheme, at 11.30 the county council was told only that the scheme had "provisional" acceptance, and no funding has been announced for the next five years, but only for the five years after that.
Obviously there has been spin without substance, but surely it is a serious matter for you, Mr. Speaker, when Members of Parliament are bypassed and misleading information is given out to our constituents by prospective parliamentary candidates of the party in government.
Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that yesterday we had the first use of the ludicrous new voting system that the House has to suffer. Can you clarify for us what procedure you have laid down in case there are spoiled ballot papers? Who will be the scrutineer? Who will determine whether a ballot paper is valid? If there is a dimpled or otherwise dubiously marked ballot paper, who will decide what it means—and will there be any method of appeal, because in close votes those ballots could become extremely important? The House would
822
appreciate your early guidance on this matter, so that as our pencils hover above the appropriate boxes we will all be very careful.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, perhaps I may first answer the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) may not then need to raise a point of order.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst always brings important matters before the House and the Chair. I shall look into this one and make a statement next week.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you look into the matter, can you guarantee that it will be dealt with internally and that under no circumstances will you consider asking anyone from Florida to do the checking?
Mr. Speaker: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I have had cause to raise before. For the second time in the past 18 months, the Paymaster General has had to sit through fully 60 minutes of Treasury questions without an opportunity to answer any question herself. I am aware from first-hand knowledge that the Minister is frustrated by that state of affairs, which gives at least an impression to Members and the outside world of deliberate sex discrimination. Can we be assured, therefore, that there will be no repetition of that appalling state of affairs?
Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no discrimination on my part. He is a regular attender at Question Time and has heard me say before that we should have brief questions and brief replies. Perhaps then we could get to the Paymaster General.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, at the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, when a Minister was questioned about the United Kingdom online annual report, the question arose of the availability of that document in written form. It had not been submitted to the Library in written form, and only a summary and a CD-ROM had been placed there. I understand that a Speaker's ruling already exists that any document ordered by a Minister to be placed in the Library must be in a hard copy, and that it is not possible to lay a document before the House in electronic form only. I should be grateful if you investigated the need to extend that ruling to the proceedings of Select Committees and the documents discussed at them. Yesterday, members of the public who attended the Trade and Industry Committee were unable to gain access to the documents that we were using.
Mr. Speaker: I will look into that matter and the status of the document. I hope that that is helpful.

BILL PRESENTED
  TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION
  Mr. Secretary Milburn, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mr. Secretary Murphy and Yvette Cooper, presented a Bill to control the advertising and promotion of tobacco products; 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 6].

Public Accounts
1.37 pm
Mr. David Davis: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 39th and 41st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1998–99, of the 1st to 9th and 11th to 37th Reports of Session 1999–2000, and of the Treasury Minutes on these Reports (Cm 4576, 4593, 4656, 4695, 4688, 4732, 4758, 4798, 4822, 4863, 4886 and 4901).
Before I get to the substance of the business, and since this will probably be the last public accounts debate before the general election, I want to pay tribute to the man who has probably done more than anyone in living memory to advance the causes of the Public Accounts Committee and accountability to the House of Commons. The profile of the Committee and recognition of the importance of its work are well-established elements of our constitutional process, but the Committee's effectiveness and the respect in which it is held owe much to the robust but balanced approach adopted by my predecessor as Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). As the right hon. Gentleman has announced that he intends to retire at the election, this is my last opportunity to pay proper tribute to him.
I hold the right hon. Gentleman in great esteem, admiration and affection. He held the post of Chairman for a record 14 years, and given that it is always held by an Opposition Member, the House will understand that my party has no wish that I should challenge that record. He also played a pivotal role in the creation of the National Audit Office in its current form, which is the most important landmark in improving public accountability since Gladstone established the PAC in 1861. The right hon. Gentleman presided over the publication of 600 reports, every one of them unanimous. Those reports have made a significant contribution to better government and service to the taxpayer. Their implementation has saved the taxpayer many billions of pounds.
Above all, the right hon. Gentleman made the Committee what it is today. There have been numerous highlights. The Committee brought to the public's attention a number of significant cases in which public money had not been spent wisely. They include, most famously, the Pergau dam, Wessex regional health authority and the Welsh development agency.
In 1994, under the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship, the Committee produced its seminal 8th report, "The Proper Conduct of Public Business", which examined the standards of conduct in public life and set out the measures needed to uphold the integrity of public servants and to restore confidence in public service. It was a landmark exercise that I have been keen to emulate, drawing out in specific reports the generic lessons arising from the Committee's work on privatisations, the private finance initiative and information technology.
In recent years, the right hon. Gentleman has continued his interest in the work of the Committee and the National Audit Office as chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, which plays a key role in the accountability process, most notably by setting and protecting the NAO's budget.

825
The right hon. Gentleman has been an unfailing source of good advice to me. He is a man of unusual wisdom and he will be greatly missed. I know that he cannot be here today, but I nevertheless express thanks and gratitude—I hope, on behalf of the whole House—for all that he has done.
In the past year, the Committee has produced 43 reports on matters as diverse as the "Government on the Web" and "Compensating Victims of Violent Crime". Committee members are diligent and thorough. We have lost some valuable members in recent years, to whom I pay tribute. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) made valuable contributions for 11 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) was a highly effective member for four years, and although the tenure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was brief, it was also distinguished.
In the past year, it has given me great pleasure to welcome to the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), and my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Westbury (Mr. Faber), who are recent additions.
In particular, I praise the hard work of and the seamless service provided by Mr. Ken Brown, the Committee Clerk, and his team. We all recognise the pressure that they are under and we are grateful for their help and advice.
The Committee is of course uniquely fortunate in enjoying the services of the National Audit Office under the able and experienced command of Sir John Bourn. The NAO serves Parliament well; indeed, its staff are the unsung heroes of the story that I am about to tell.
The Committee has made a real impact. Between them, the NAO and the PAC have generated substantial savings of some £1.3 billion in the past three years—a sum equivalent to an £8 saving for every £1 spent on running the NAO. In the past 12 months alone, we prompted the bodies that the NAO audits to make more than 2,100 significant changes to their systems. That that work is of practical benefit to the Government is evidenced by the fact that more than 90 per cent. of recommendations that the Committee made last year were accepted.
This has not, however, been a record year in terms of numbers of reports. Like all the Committee's failings, that is the fault of the Chairman. On that point, at least, there is always unanimity. In truth, the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill took up much of the Committee's time, my time, and that of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). That Bill presented an opportunity to bring up to date the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers of audit and access. To do so is a prerequisite if the NAO is to continue to provide Parliament with a quality service in a changing world with many new forms of public service delivery. The Committee's 4th and 9th reports on the Bill set out the arguments for such reform. Key issues remain unresolved, including the CAG's ability to audit companies set up by public bodies such as the New Millennium Experience Company—the dome company—the auditing of all non-departmental bodies and access to contractors.
826
In our experience, the existing audit arrangements for such bodies have sometimes shown them to be less than satisfactory and occasionally disastrous. The most obvious example is the quality of auditing in further education, about which the Committee is concerned.
The Bill, now the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, also gave the Government and the House the opportunity to look to the future and get a grip on new and independent ways in which to measure performance. Performance measures have a great potential to serve as a lever to improve the delivery of public services and to increase for the public the openness and transparency of the Government's efforts on their behalf. However, those measures need to be independently validated and reported to Parliament if the public is to have confidence in them, and if they are to lever up the standards of public service.
The Government did not grasp those opportunities in the context of the 2000 Act. However, it is fair to say that the Chief Secretary understood our concerns and has set up a review of audit and central Government accountability, which is led by Lord Sharman. I hope that that report will put right that problem.
Our remit is wide and covers many subjects, and I shall dwell on three important threads that run through them. First, there is the Committee's role in initiating improvement in Government; secondly, issues arising from our work on regulation this year; and finally, accountability—a high-profile issue at present.
In prompting improvement in Government, the Committee—perforce, for most of its time—focuses on criticising poor performance, but its purpose in so doing is to draw out the lessons that must be learned. That forward-looking approach is exemplified by our first report this year—on information technology—which drew out lessons learned from 25 previous reports spanning about 10 years.
Our report identified common themes; for example, the need to analyse fully the implications of the introduction of new IT systems for all aspects of the business, and the importance of full senior management involvement in championing the successful development of such systems. The Government responded positively to that report; indeed, I understand that it formed the basis of their White Paper. We hope that they will ensure that the lessons that we identified are implemented throughout Whitehall.
Inevitably, many of our reports highlight cases where matters have not gone well—where a body has failed to deliver value for money or has provided poor service to the public or, in some cases, where there has been a combination of the two. One example is the Committee's examination—in its 29th report this year—of the crisis in the Passport Agency in the summer of 1999. At the peak of the crisis, more than 500,000 people were awaiting passports. Many thousands were forced to queue at passport offices, and many more suffered inconvenience and distress because they were unable to find out about the progress of their application. More than 500 people missed their travel dates. That fiasco represented a deplorable departure from the high standards of service that the public have a right to expect.
The crisis was caused by the Passport Agency's over-optimism about the implementation of a new computerised system for processing passports. Although the agency had transferred the risk associated with design and delivery of the new computer system to its private

827
sector partners, it retained responsibility for ensuring continuity and quality of service. As a result, the agency incurred additional costs of £12.6 million in an effort to maintain services. Only a fraction of that sum—less than £2.5 million—will be recouped from its supplier.
Another example of poor risk management in contingency planning was covered in our 7th report—on the immigration and nationality directorate's casework programme. In April 1996, the directorate let a contract for a privately financed business change initiative, which depended heavily on new information technology. The contract was part of an integrated strategy to achieve a better approach to immigration control. Delivery of the IT system to support the programme slipped, leading to severe disruption to the directorate's services and a large increase in the backlog of cases. By June 1999, a backlog of 219,000 cases awaited processing and decision at the directorate. The Committee concluded that to combine a complex IT project with a major reorganisation was always likely to be a risky venture, yet the Home Office contingency plan was seriously flawed.
The Committee was rightly critical of those cases, but used them to make constructive recommendations on the need for adequate contingency plans in key public services—including both the need to plan for substantial loss of capacity and how to handle rapid rises in public demand when user delays become known.
A further area where we have used examples of weakness to make positive recommendations is that of poor project management. In our 6th report—on the Arts Council of England's monitoring of capital projects—the Committee examined 15 major capital projects funded with lottery money by the Arts Council, totalling about £325 million. We noted that the overwhelming majority had not gone according to plan; 13 of the 15 were over budget and more than half were late. The Arts Council had already found it necessary to make supplementary grants of more than £20 million on those projects alone.
The Committee was concerned that the Arts Council did not have the necessary financial and project management expertise, and that there was a need to strengthen its business monitoring function. The Committee concluded that earlier action to strengthen the council's grant assessment and financial skills would have helped to reduce cost and time over-runs in most cases.
I am pleased that the Committee's recommendations have been accepted and acted on. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport tells us that project monitoring and risk management were central to the management of lottery awards and that it is confident that the Arts Council's new, three-stage assessment process minimises the risk of project cost and time over-runs. The Committee will expect that reform to produce better performance.
Perhaps I might conclude this look at where projects have gone wrong by mentioning our 34th report, which examined probably the most costly example of maladministration in the history of the country: the state earnings-related pension scheme and the failure to inform the public about reduced pension rights for widows and widowers. That case represents an abject failure in a Department's legal responsibility to provide accurate and complete information to the citizen.
828
For 10 years from 1986, the Department of Social Security did not publicise adequately a very significant change, which was introduced in 1986, but not due to come into force until 2000, to the arrangements for the inheritance of the state earnings-related pension. Nor did it ensure that staff provided the public with correct information on that change between 1986 and 1999. As a result, many thousands of people are likely to have made decisions about their future provision based on an incorrect understanding of the pensions that will be inherited by their spouses after their own deaths. There was a systematic failure of administration in the Department and the Benefits Agency, which illustrates the need for a fundamental improvement in their attitudes to customer service.
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of 28 November, which addressed a major concern, flagged by the Committee, regarding the redress package announced in March 2000. We were concerned that many of those affected would not hear about the redress scheme and might find it difficult to understand. We were also concerned that those who had already retired would not be able to make alternative arrangements. The cost of remedying that debacle is estimated at some £12 billion.
The fact that the debacle was remedied properly is to the credit of the Secretary of State for Social Security, but I am sure that he was greatly reinforced in his arguments with the Treasury by the fact that the two most heavily armed Select Committees—the Public Administration Committee, which has the weapon of the ombudsman, and the Public Accounts Committee, which has the weapon of the National Audit Office—were both determined that the pensioners should be treated properly. That is a good example of Select Committees changing the balance of power in Whitehall in favour of democracy and in favour of the good of the public.
On health, we have produced important reports about improving delivery. Our 42nd report, on hospital-acquired infection, highlighted that growing problem. The best estimates suggest that there are some 300,000 cases each year in England, causing more than 5,000 deaths. The cost to the national health service may be as much as £1 billion a year. Not all cases are preventable, but a lot are. A 15 per cent. reduction would save many lives, and could save the NHS about £150 million a year.
We encouraged the NHS executive to take a much firmer grip on the extent of that problem through a root and branch shift towards prevention. We also urged the collection of robust, up-to-date data to enable it to identify the scale of the problem. It is pleasing that the Government have taken forward so many of our recommendations. For example, they have launched a new strategy to address the growing problem of anti-microbial resistance. That includes the establishment and maintenance of surveillance systems, strengthening infection control practices and processes in hospital and the community and the promotion of a co-ordinated programme of research and development of new techniques to detect, prevent and treat infection. They have also announced further money—£31 million—to clean up NHS hospitals.
Lack of data is a common theme in our NHS reports. Effective information is essential for good management and effective health care and central to NHS modernisation. The Committee has taken evidence from the NHS on the ways in which it might improve in-patient

829
admission and bed management procedures. The potential gains to the NHS are enormous. In 1998–99, a record number of people in England—about 5.8 million—were admitted to hospital for at least a night. There is already much good practice in the NHS, but many problems remain. In 1998–99, the operations of 56,000 patients were cancelled at the last minute for non-medical reasons. More than 2 million bed days are lost each year due to delays in discharging people who are fit to leave hospital. That is due to poor management and poor collaboration between NHS agencies, social services departments and other agencies. That costs the NHS £1 million a day, wasting scarce resources that the NHS can ill afford.
The Committee has also taken evidence on hip replacements. The National Audit Office found that, in England, the NHS performs more than 30,000 replacements a year at a cost of £140 million. Most patients receiving hip replacements receive an excellent service from the NHS and enjoy an enhanced quality of life after their operation. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General reported that there were significant variations in performance. For example, there are variations in practice between trusts and orthopaedic consultants on a range of issues, such as the purchase of hip prostheses, supervision of surgery, length of patient stay in hospital and follow-up after operations. The Committee believes that the NHS executive should address any inequalities in access to care wherever they arise and should resolve the uncertainties about the clinical effectiveness of the different prostheses used.
A key theme running through the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which the NHS executive acknowledged in its evidence to the Committee, was again a lack of management information available to NHS trusts and individual consultants. We shall never have cost-effective health care until we solve that problem. Better use of taxpayers' money means more and better health care. That underlines the importance of the steps that the executive is undertaking to improve information and of the successful delivery of the new NHS management and information technology strategy on which the Committee commented in its 13th report.
In July, the Committee produced a ground-breaking 27th report on joined-up working in the criminal justice system. Every year, the criminal courts in England and Wales deal with almost 2 million defendants. The criminal justice process is complex involving several separate organisations, including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. Defendants are usually represented by lawyers who are publicly funded from legal aid. Cases may require work by probation officers, the forensic science service, independent experts, professional witnesses, the Prison Service and the prison escort and custody service.
There has been much impetus in recent years for public services to work better together and the criminal justice system is a key area where such a joined-up approach is essential. We recognise that the independence of the various players is fundamental to justice, but that independence is entirely compatible with the various agencies taking joint responsibility for achieving value for money from the substantial public sums that they spend. In short, it is hard to think of an area where it is more important to adopt effective joint working. The old adage, "Justice delayed is justice denied" obviously applies in this case.
830
However, the Committee found that the criminal justice system is some way from having the information base needed to enable people to work together and to plan and manage the process effectively. That causes endemic delays in the system, which increase costs and undermine public confidence. I am pleased to note that the pilot programmes to expedite criminal cases show that real benefits can be achieved. The wider application of those programmes should be an urgent priority for everyone working in the criminal justice system.
The Committee, as a matter of course, also draws attention to good practice. For example, our 40th report examined National Savings' public-private partnership with Siemens Business Services. In that deal, Siemens—a company that does not always necessarily receive the PAC's plaudits—took over the day-to-day administration of National Savings' products, and that included responsibility for more than 4,000 staff. The remaining 130 staff of National Savings retained responsibility for overall business performance, including the design, management and marketing of products to customers, liaison with Treasury on funding requirements and managing the relationship with Siemens. It is still early days, but we congratulated National Savings on managing the process so well and concluded that the deal offers very good value for the taxpayer.
The Committee's positive response to that innovative project refutes the concern raised in some quarters that accountability to Parliament through the PAC acts as a disincentive to risk taking and innovation. Let me dispel that notion here and now. In my view, innovation is essential for radical improvement in the quality and value of public services. The freedom to innovate must be balanced against responsibility to those providing the funds. In the commercial world senior staff are accountable to their boards and, beyond that, to shareholders. In the public sector, Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee perform that role. The rewards for success are higher in the commercial world, but so are the personal consequences of failure.
My Committee is not against sensible and reasoned risk taking and innovation. We support such moves provided that the risks are managed well and hold out the prospect of a sizeable reward for the taxpayer. We do not criticise projects per se, but are certainly concerned about projects for which the risks were not properly evaluated or were badly managed, and thus led to an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money. There is a world of difference between the Committee's criticism of public bodies' failure to get a grip, which unfortunately we see all too frequently, and its criticism of their failure to take well thought through risks, which they generally do not do. Too often, Whitehall seems unable to distinguish between risk management and roulette management—the careless gambling of the public's money on ill thought out, weakly managed projects.
Cultural inhibitions provide a much greater barrier to innovation in public service. The civil service culture has long been risk-averse, and the pace of progress made by the public service has been slow. To say that audit scrutiny is a barrier to innovation is a lame excuse, used by those who do not have the vision to see the potential of new approaches or the capacity to manage risk. No one who has appeared before my Committee was able to say that he took a well-judged risk, managed it tightly as

831
possible, but unfortunately it did not pay off for reasons beyond his control. Should that happen, I would commend, not castigate, such action.
The second theme is regulation. Regulators play a key role in ensuring that the rights of the taxpayer are protected, whether through lower prices, greater choice or improved services. Regulators are the only proxies for pressures of competition in parts of vital industries such as power supply, railways and telecommunications. In competitive markets, regulators have a role in protecting the interests of consumers in society by investigating and acting against abusive practices. Sometimes, the regulator's failure to bring about improvements has been due to shortcomings in the original legislation. In such cases, the regulator should seek to strengthen his powers. In other cases, the legislation has provided the regulator with the appropriate firepower, but he has been slow to act or has not moved with the times.
Let me give four examples: the Office of the Rail Regulator, which is dealt with in our report on ensuring that Railtrack maintains and renews the rail network; the Office of Fair Trading, which is covered in our report on protecting the consumer from unfair trading practices; the Gaming Board, which is the subject of our report on better regulation; and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, which is addressed in our report on giving customers a choice after the introduction of competition into the domestic gas market.
In August, we published our 35th report on the Office of the Rail Regulator. It was sadly prescient given the fateful accident at Hatfield in the autumn, because we highlighted the sharp rise in broken rails on the network. In 1998, Railtrack forecast that there would be 450 or fewer broken rails in 1999–2000, but in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 it had more than twice that number—937 and 919. Frankly, that is not good enough. Railtrack made a commercial decision not to replace the track, which last year was in a worse condition than when the railways were privatised. The consequence of delays and inconvenience to the travelling public and for safety are now all too apparent.
Some of the problems can be put down to the inadequate powers made available to the regulator on privatisation in 1996, but at the time of our report the regulator had yet to put in place the right tools—notably, amendments to Railtrack's network licence. We called on the Rail Regulator to take action to ensure that the incidence of broken rails were substantially reduced. We recommended that he should set targets for achieving those improvements within the next two years and apply financial penalties against Railtrack if the targets were not met. I am glad to say that the Government accepted the recommendations but, sadly, the incident at Hatfield occurred before they were implemented.
The situation in that sector is a good example of the need to tailor the powers of the regulator to the circumstances of the industry involved. The risk of fatal injury is low on the railways and that will inevitably influence the actions of rail managers, possibly making them complacent. Accidents are infrequent. They seem to happen in groups about every 10 years, but when they occur, the number of casualties can be very high. The regulatory regime should be designed to shape the industry's behaviour to offset such problems.
832
Our examination of the Office of Fair Trading found that, although the OFT had been hampered by ineffective legislation, it could still do more within its existing powers to protect consumers from rogue traders. Few consumer credit licences are revoked, even though, in some cases, licensed traders have had serious criminal convictions. It is shocking that the OFT has only once applied to the courts for a contract to be revised under the Unfair Terms in Contracts Regulations 1994. The OFT has consistently failed to take opportunities to show traders that it will not tolerate customers being ripped off: it is a watchdog that rarely comes out of its kennel. A more proactive approach would send a powerful message to rogue traders and restore the public's confidence in the role of the regulator.
The Committee's examination of the introduction of competition into the domestic gas market disclosed that low-income customers who use pre-payment meters were relatively disadvantaged. Furthermore, we were astounded to find that, owing to unscrupulous sales techniques, 100,000 customers were switched to a different supplier without their consent. We were especially concerned about the impact of that on the elderly and other potentially vulnerable groups. As in the railway industry, there was a safety concern—in this case, falling standards in tackling uncontrolled gas escapes. Therefore, while welcoming the benefits resulting from gas competition, we urged the regulator to act to remedy the problems that accompanied it.
Sometimes, regulators have been slow to move with the times and, because of wider socio-economic changes, regimes that were once appropriate become no longer relevant. Our 41st report, "The Gaming Board: Better Regulation", is a case in point. It looked at a body that regulates a substantial industry taking in about £11 billion in stake money—a mainstream industry that is largely free of criminal activity and is becoming increasingly sophisticated with the advent of internet banking and internet gaming.
There is a marked difference between now and the era when the Gaming Board was set up in the late 1960s. One of the board's main aims was to purge gaming of criminal activity and ensure that it was fairly and properly conducted. Then, the board monitored the industry through regular visits by inspectors, many of them retired former policemen. Now, however, there is a high level of compliance in the sector: for example, ownership of many casinos is concentrated in a few limited companies with their own audit, security and compliance departments. Yet, until recently, the board's approach and the frequency of inspections had remained largely unchanged.
The Committee concluded that the board's approach was unfocused and wasteful. We recommended that it should rationalise its regulatory procedures to take greater account of industry developments, such as companies' own compliance procedures, and to assess better the success of its activities through appropriate performance measures. The Committee also considered it important that the board should have the appropriate staff mix to reflect today's environment: more staff with backgrounds in information technology and accountancy and perhaps fewer retired policemen.
We have been able to make important recommendations in the regulatory sector because, in most of the sector, the Comptroller and Auditor General

833
has full access and audit rights. One area of regulation that represents a yawning gap in those rights is that of public housing. The CAG does not audit the Housing Corporation and has no right of access to registered social landlords, formerly housing associations, despite the fact that they will receive more than £800 million this year, rising to £1.2 billion in 2003. The need for effective scrutiny of the sector was clearly demonstrated recently when my Committee discussed the case of fraud at Focus housing association, which was regulated by the Housing Corporation. It took six months of negotiation before the National Audit Office was allowed access to Focus. Such a position is entirely indefensible when such substantial sums of public money are at stake.
In summary, the regulatory regime exists to protect consumers and society from unscrupulous practices. Regulators can be entrusted by Parliament with acting in the interests of consumers, and they need to respond quickly and forcefully when problems arise or circumstances change. The Committee has been keen to ensure that they do so, as the ultimate defender of consumer interests.
My third and final theme, accountability, is central to the history of the Committee and its effectiveness. It is at the core of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. There are long-established and robust traditions that serve to balance the ability of Government to govern against the ability of Parliament to protect the interests of the taxpayer.
A key feature of the Committee's success is the notion of personal accountability to Parliament of the senior official within a Department or agency. It is not by accident that most senior officials in a Department or other body also have the title "accounting officer". Indeed, until 1981, accounting officers were personally liable for expenditure improperly charged to accounts. If that were true now, I suspect that one or two of them might have £100 million mortgages.
The current arrangements involve periodic appearances by senior officials before the Committee. Normally, we call the incumbent accounting officer, who accepts responsibilities for the actions of his or her predecessors. In most instances, this works well. Sometimes, however, it may be appropriate for past accounting officers—those who were in post when key decisions were taken—to be brought back before the Committee. For example, when the Committee examined witnesses about the problems of the Passport Agency in the summer of 1999, the evidence of the former chief executive was of particular importance to us as we sought to understand events leading up to and during the crisis. For that reason, we shall continue to call witnesses whom we consider to be most appropriate in the circumstances of each case. It is a power that we shall use responsibly, but it is one that should not be open to question.
A particular feature of the special relationship between accounting officers and Parliament is the need for officers to defend their actions to the Committee. There are a few occasions each year when accounting officers consider that they have been asked to take action that they could not defend to the Committee, on grounds of either propriety or value for money. Clear procedures exist for the accounting officer to request a written direction from his or her Minister to take such action. These directions are automatically notified to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who considers the issues and advises the
834
Committee as he thinks fit. Automatic notification where directions were sought on the ground of value for money was a further innovation of my predecessor, as Chairman of the Committee. It was introduced following the then Committee's examination of the Pergau dam case in 1994.
Our recent investigation into the millennium dome is a classic example of the importance of accounting officers using the automatic notification process. Twice, the accounting officer of the Millennium Commission sought and received directions from the chairman of the commission to make additional grants to the New Millennium Experience Company. The process ensured that the procedure was brought to the attention of Parliament, and the CAG launched an investigation. Knowledge of the directions assisted our understanding of the matter when we took evidence on the CAG's report. We have not yet concluded our deliberations on the issue.
Openness between Parliament and the Executive is a further essential—
Mr. David Rendel: As the right hon. Gentleman is talking about letters of direction, has he considered what should happen when the CAG has reported to him about letters of direction that have been notified to him, the CAG? Given the Public Accounts Committee's role in holding the Government to account to Parliament, would it not be appropriate for all such letters immediately to be placed in the Library so that they are available to all Members?
Mr. Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view. The hon. Gentleman will remember that when the first letter of direction was brought to the Committee's attention, I asked the Committee to authorise exactly that procedure, but I am not entirely certain that it would be appropriate in every circumstance. Perhaps the right approach would be to make that procedure the norm but not to make it always the case because occasionally there may be occurrences when a degree of Government confidentiality should be respected. In most circumstances, it would be a good innovation in itself.
I shall continue on that note. Openness between Parliament and the Executive is a further essential ingredient of effective accountability. I have been especially disappointed at the deplorable failure to keep Parliament informed of the financial position at the millennium dome. In that instance, the accounting officer of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport provided the board members of NMEC, a quango established as a company with full obligations under company law, with an indemnity, the value of which could have run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
The accounting officer was advised by the Treasury that there was no need to draw the indemnity specifically to the attention of Parliament as it deemed it to be covered by a general indemnity for all board members of all quangos that had been notified to Parliament in 1998. As a consequence of that advice, the Executive committed potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, for such costs could not have been met from lottery money without any specific authority from Parliament to do that. That is wrong, and following representations from the Committee, the guidance on when Parliament should be notified of such commitments will be revised. However, it does illustrate the scant regard for the interests of Parliament that is found in some parts of Whitehall.

835
A further vital tenet of accountability is the conventions that govern the way in which Ministers should respond to the reports of the National Audit Office and Select Committees. Long-established conventions require the Government to consider carefully Committee reports and to provide a formal response to the House when they have had an opportunity to study the conclusions in detail. Immediate comment should be confined to clarification or explanation of the reports, not to snap responses.
The current conventions were reaffirmed in 1990 in the correspondence between the then Lord President of the Council—Geoffrey, now Lord, Howe—and the then Chairman of the Liaison Committee, Terence Higgins. The basic principle of the guidance given was the need for Departments to avoid pre-empting or prejudging the Government's final and considered reply to recommendations from Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee, which must first be given to the House. However, in recent weeks we have seen Ministers rush to judgment, either misrepresenting the Committee's findings or taking issue with agreed facts. Recently, our estimate of deaths from hospital-acquired infections has been disputed, despite the fact that the Department's accounting officer had already agreed the figure with the National Audit Office.
A similar incident occurred following publication of our recent 45th report on the acceptance into service of the Chinook mark 2 helicopter and the crash of one of those helicopters on the Mull of Kintyre, when Defence Ministers reacted hastily and negatively. That report formed part of our wider study of the MOD's acceptance of equipment off-contract and into service, which formed the 44th report, and both reports were issued simultaneously.
Mrs. Ray Michie: May I say how much my constituents and I welcomed the 45th report, as the Chinook crashed on the Mull of Kintyre? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the MOD could set aside the verdict of gross negligence on the part of the two pilots? The MOD need not admit that it was wrong, but new rules now cover boards of inquiry and it should lay the matter to rest and get rid of the very unfair and unjust verdict, which the report highlighted.
Mr. Davis: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I return to her question in about 30 seconds, when I have finished the thrust of my current argument.
The Committee deliberated long and hard on the Chinook incident and amassed a significant body of evidence, mostly from the MOD, to support the conclusions that we reached. We aimed not to establish the truth of what happened—which is unknowable—but to point to the severe weaknesses in the processes by which the MOD accepted those helicopters into service and the subsequent procedures by which they concluded that the fault for the crash lay with the pilots. The immediate public response from Ministers was a discourtesy to the Committee, prejudices the Government's considered response and, in my view, flies in the face of the agreed convention.
On the hon. Lady's specific point, we do not seek to lay blame anywhere. It is perfectly possible for the Government to set aside the verdict. Ministers then in the
836
Department accepted that as the right route, and other experts—whether those involved in the fatal accident inquiry or in aeronautics generally—all think that the verdict is unsafe. None of us seeks to score points; we want a matter of honour to be put right and the system corrected for the future. So I agree with what the hon. Lady has said.
One Minister even suggested that the PAC was acting beyond its remit. I have three responses to that suggestion. First, it is for the House of Commons and the Committee to decide our remit, not for Ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not the other way round. Secondly, the investigation arose from a study of the badly managed introduction into service of the £140 million upgrade that created the mark 2 Chinook. After six years in development and three years in production, that helicopter was still having erratic engine-control software problems during flight testing. As a consequence, its operational capacity was restricted for more than four years after the Mull of Kintyre crash.
Similarly, the Committee concluded that the accident investigation procedure was flawed, and therefore could not guarantee to deliver the lessons necessary to enhance future safety and performance. Those matters clearly all come within the Committee's remit. Finally, in the midst of that assessment of performance, the Committee was faced with what we unanimously thought to be a serious risk of an injustice. In my view, not only is it the right of any parliamentary Committee to bring injustice to the public's attention; it is the duty of any parliamentarian to do so.
I am afraid that some of these trends suggest, in some quarters, a disregard for the rights and responsibilities in Parliament in regard to the process of accountability. The Government have no reason to fear that process, as is demonstrated by careful consideration of the Committee's work over the past 12 months. That and, I hope, what I have said over the last half hour show how valuable we are.
In many instances, we have provided a "tool kit" for improvement that will enable the Government to get better value for each pound that is spent. It is the accountability process that allows us to do that. The pillars of the process—control of the Chairman's rights to examine the report, and the Committee's right to take evidence from officials—are well cast. Most important of all is the concentration on the implementation of policy, rather than its merits. That allows us to rise above the party political fray, and to focus on the scope for improved delivery of public services.
People enter the House for many reasons. Some come to help the weak, some come to protect the vulnerable, and some come to empower the powerless. I doubt that many come to check the accounts. I hope, however, that what I have said today demonstrates that the PAC, a diligent, hard-working and talented Committee—I refer to its other members, not to myself—seeks to do both. I also hope that it does so to the benefit of the country, the taxpayer and, indeed, the Government.
2.21 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: First, let me apologise for the fact that I shall probably croak my way through my speech. The Whips seem to wait until I am seen walking around with a packet of tissues before arranging this annual debate.

837
I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your good fortune in chairing the most eagerly awaited debate of the year—a debate of such weight and importance that the press literally cannot wait for it to happen.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): It is one of those pre-Christmas treats to which one looks forward.
Mr. Williams: It makes even Christmas pudding seem tolerable, does it not?
I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) for his kind comments about his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). My right hon. Friend entered the House on the same day as me in 1964, and has served it since with great eminence. He was one of the longest-serving Public Accounts Committee Chairmen. He has chaired the Public Accounts Commission and now chairs both the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Liaison Committee.
My right hon. Friend has asked me to apologise for his absence. I know he has already apologised to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. He was unable to cancel existing engagements because—as inevitably often happens—we were told of the debate at very short notice.
I join the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden in expressing gratitude to our Clerk, who is something of a parliamentary character himself. His advice is always blunt, clear and sound, and we are lucky to have him.
No one doubts that all the other Select Committees envy us the National Audit Office. That is not surprising, given their impoverishment in terms of support for their work in shadowing Departments; but as other Members have recognised over the years, it is not just a matter of envy. There is no way that a Public Accounts Committee, meeting a limited number of times a year and consisting of members who are effectively part-timers in terms of monitoring—after all, we must all do our constituency work and our other parliamentary work—could monitor expenditure properly, and provide the accountability that Parliament needs, without the NAO.
I also congratulate the Chairman of the Committee on his willingness to embrace change and experimentation, which does not always make one friends. The Committee needs to consider its position because, with an average 50 hearings a year, it is the bottleneck in the scrutiny process. I have put my views on that on the record in many previous debates, and I know that my colleagues pore over those comments regularly as bedtime reading.
In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's willingness to experiment, the Public Accounts Committee tries—we have done so once or twice before, but now do so more regularly—to overcome the continual frustration of holding hearings without the witnesses who were in office at the time that the events occurred. Early retirement seems to be as popular among some accounting officers as it is in the police force. On one occasion, we called back one chairman—who was by then an ex-chairman—for a hearing in May. I asked him when he had first heard the date for the Public Accounts Committee hearing, to which he replied, "Two weeks before Christmas." I then asked him when he had handed in his resignation, to which he replied, "One week before Christmas." That is the problem we have faced.
838
The right hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to recollect—I cannot for the moment—the identity of one of the ex-accounting officers whom we called back for what appeared to be a very critical hearing. He was very helpful because of his personal perspective on explaining the events surrounding the particular decision-making process, and that changed our perception of what had happened. Although the NAO report was adverse and we had to be critical, our report was substantially less critical because the witness was so clear and helpful, and we congratulated him on his evidence to the Committee. Although it is a cause of discomfort to them, the recalling of accounting officers is essential if we are to establish what happened when things went wrong, if they went wrong. We do not blame when there is no blame. However, if there is blame, it must be discovered and attributed.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to maladministration in the state earnings-related pension scheme, which was a sad case dating back to 1986. In that respect, I congratulate Treasury and other departmental Ministers because although the failing was not of their making, they devoted a massive sum to try to redress the injustice that has been done or could have been done to many people.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I want to raise the issue of the recall of accounting officers, which struck me as important when it was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). My right hon. Friend will of course realise that the tradition of Select Committees is that one does not bypass the current officers and go to their predecessors, even to deal with a historic matter in a Department. It is, therefore, an interesting innovation. Will my right hon. Friend take that point on board and consider whether scrutiny in Select Committees and in Parliament more generally might go beyond the current officers and lead to the recalling of former departmental officers who are now retired to give an account of their behaviour? I am referring not just to people who have accounting officer responsibilities, but speaking more generally.
Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. In so far as it is a tradition, it is a silly one that is best disposed of. Those who most support it tend to be the permanent secretaries who sometimes encourage their Ministers to intervene. We have had Ministers write to us objecting to the fact that former accounting officers may be called before the Public Accounts Committee and we regard that as extreme impudence. We decide who the relevant witnesses are. I hope that all Select Committees will consider whether the current incumbent is the most appropriate witness to enable them to fulfil their obligations to the House. If Select Committees do not fulfil their obligations to the House, the House will be incapable of carrying out proper scrutiny of the Executive.
May I echo what the Chairman of the Committee said in relation to the Chinook crash? What impressed the Committee unanimously was the fact that pilot error has to be proved without any doubt whatever. We could see nothing in the evidence that was put before us to prove that the pilots were responsible. On the basis of the evidence that we had, they were blamed because no one was willing to admit that anything else could have caused the incident.

839
One of the flaws in the inquiry system within the armed services is that the final decision about the cause of something going wrong, such as the tragedy involving the Chinook, passes to someone who inevitably has a conflict of interest. It passes to the person who is responsible for keeping his military assets serviceable and available. Therefore there must be a strong temptation to give the benefit of the doubt to the equipment rather than the people manning it. We all felt that the case had not been proved against the officers concerned.
May I now concentrate on just one issue? Before anyone gets too optimistic, let me say that I can speak at great length on single issues when so driven, so I do not want to build up too many hopes, nor a premature appetite. I should like to discuss the private finance initiative. We have considered numerous reports dealing with PH projects over the past couple of years and I should like to review and put before the Minister in a way that I hope is constructively critical—where it is critical—some of the lessons that need to be learned, as the PFI will clearly be a major part of Government practice in future.
Let me make it quite clear that I have no personal opposition to the concept of applying a mortgage to national assets. Although there may be one or two exceptions, would most of own our houses today if we had not been able to buy them through a mortgage? How many of us would be in a house that we could say was ours if we had to wait until we had enough money to buy it outright? It is the same with cars, but I do not see any problem; most taxpayers and most of my constituents would prefer 20 hospitals to be up and running in the next two years than to have to wait for them to come one after another over 20 years, even if we have to pay a mortgage premium.
I do not, therefore, start from a position of opposition. Ministers seem unable to grasp the fact that I do not oppose the passing of risk. Indeed, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I can say that no one could be more in favour than I am of passing risk from the public to the private. Again, there is a personal, domestic parallel. Why do we all take out insurance on our houses? We pay a premium against a risk that could be too big if we were unfortunate enough to be struck by it, as has happened recently because of the floods.
I see nothing wrong with passing risk by paying a premium for it to be borne by someone else. That is highly desirable—indeed, it is doubly desirable in respect of high-tech projects that are at the frontier of technology. Over the years, the Public Accounts Committee has seen time and again that Departments get it wrong. Often, they point out why problems arose and provide understandable reasons, but the same risks and errors are nevertheless repeated. In areas of high technology especially, there is enormous benefit to the taxpayer in trying to pass the risk across and I have no objection to that. Where the objection lies is not a PAC issue, but one of political opposition both within and outside the House from people who are concerned about the privatisation of work forces and the effects on conditions of employment and so on.
I should like to consider several problems. As I said, I am in favour of passing risk, but it has become clear during the PAC hearings that we all too often pay the premium without the risk moving. The average PFI rate
840
of return is 16 per cent. It can vary considerably, as I shall go on to explain, but it is usually between 15 and 17 per cent. and we have been told on several occasions that 16 per cent. is the average. One of the witnesses at a recent PAC hearing spoke about assessing the required rate of return and about making it 50 per cent. higher than would usually be expected on a normal contract. The evidence was given by an excellent witness from the private sector, with regard to the Fazakerley prison unit.
The Committee criticised what happened in the Passport Agency, not because we were opposed to the PFI but because the witnesses told us that the Department had incurred about £12.5 million of the cost. We then asked how much of that cost was borne by Siemens. The answer was £2.5 million. The passing of risk was not successful if the taxpayer picked up £4 out of £5 on all the damage costs that were created for the Department.
For those who doubt the PAC, let me point out that its value was further demonstrated by an answer to a subsequent question. I asked when Siemens agreed to pay the £2.5 million, and was told that it did so two weeks previously, shortly before its representatives attended the hearing. One had the feeling that the company paid the money in order to buy peace and quiet, rather than to settle any perceived legal obligation.
There are reasons for that, which I should like to draw to the Financial Secretary's attention. He is probably aware of them, but I should like to get them off my chest. The first reason is sloppy contracts. In some cases, we have found contracts in which only proveable damage imposes any cost on the contractor. In the case of the Passport Agency, most of the cost lies in inconvenience to the public and is not reclaimable. It is essential that it should be, if risk is to be passed.
Siemens is interesting in this respect. It carried out the computer installation for the immigration service, in which a backlog of 165,000 cases built up. The company also installed the Passport Agency computer systems, which led me to chide it because the British could not get out and the foreigners could not get in.
The third Siemens case that came before the Committee, to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden referred, was that of National Savings. The contract had 56 performance targets built in, which ensured that, regardless of proveable damage or damage to the Department concerned, failure to meet performance targets that mattered to the public as well as the Department would trigger penalties. That is a lesson that Departments are learning. One understands that there is a learning process involved with innovative contracts, but it is important that the Government ensure that officials are held responsible for allowing any sloppy contracts to be drawn up.
Another reason for not taking action was a fear of legal costs. Some companies might say that they are going to dispute a matter and take it to court. Those companies might have deep purses. Some of the Departments might also have deep purses, but their money is already allocated for use during the year and they could be frightened off by the prospect of the legal costs.
A further reason was a fear that taking legal action could sour the atmosphere for further PFI contracts. Firms in the process of negotiating with the Government over a whole range of potential PFI contracts could be frightened off if they saw one of their predecessors taken to court.

841
I hope that some of this information will show that, properly approached, the PFI is so akin to Christmas for companies that they should be queueing up to take part in it.
We have identified the problem of risk not transferring, and given some reasons why it does not do so—either contractually or in practice because of a lack of follow-up legal action. A further problem is abnormally high rates of return. If all companies work on the basis we have discussed, an average of 50 per cent. above the normal rate of contract is a very high rate of premium to pay, especially when one considers that PFI contracts worth £17.3 billion are already in place. That was the figure at the time of our hearing—it is higher now.
A newer phenomenon is the missed opportunity that arises from the fact that refinancing of contracts is possible. One of the reports concerns the company that undertook the Dartford and Gravesham hospitals PFI and the Fazakerley prison PFI. It intended the return to be 16 to 17 per cent. It was going for about the average, having originally aimed slightly lower. Then, after a relatively short time, it refinanced. Much of its finance was debt—I am not saying that in any critical sense; that is how business works. As a result of refinancing that debt, it turned the 16 to 17 per cent. rate of return into a 39 per cent. rate of return. I asked the witness, "Are you saying that this means you will get a 100 per cent. pay off in two and a half years?" He said yes, and reiterated in subsequent evidence that he agreed with my proposition.
The 39 per cent. rate of return and a two and a half year payback—on a 25-year contract, incidentally—does not include the profit that had been made on the project's construction fees, nor the profit that the company's partner, Group 4, makes in supplying services to the prison. So there was a 39 per cent. rate of return on a £247 million project, with no clawback facility.
The Department eventually got £1 million—that is all. The company threw the odd million in the Department's direction because—eyes glistening—it was already using its mobilised capital, as was said in evidence by a subsequent witness. The money released after the two and a half years was being used to earn profit again, because it was used to go after more PFI projects.
That is why I say that the PFI offer to tender is like Christmas for companies. They should get in while they can, because people are making an enormous amount of money. I do not mind people making money, but I object to taxpayers not getting their fair share of any unforeseen windfall profits.
I have great respect for the young man who gave evidence—he clearly knew his field very well. However, given that most of the PFI contracts could be subject to refunding and there is almost £17 billion worth of them, we can see how much extra windfall profit companies stand to make if clawback is not built into the contract.
In fairness, knowing that the Department was coming before us, the accounting officer said that he would issue to his officials advice that wherever possible they had to build in a 50:50 clawback agreement on refinancing. We are delighted about that. If people make mistakes and then learn from them, at least taxpayers get some benefit out of it because the first mistake alerts people to opportunities. However, the civil servants in the Department said that they could not anticipate that happening. With respect,
842
that argument is difficult to sustain when we bear in mind that, surprisingly, a much earlier contract related to the channel tunnel had clawback arrangements.
It was not a question of such arrangements not being known within Government. Indeed, it was particularly worrying that the Department's advisers, Lazards, said that it was none of the Department's business. It said that it was not up to the Department, but to the company and the contractor. After all, that is the reward for risk. There is already a 50 per cent. premium for taking the risk, so we do not have to give out windfall profits on top of the insurance premiums that we are paying. I have a strong suspicion that Lazards' response was such because it realised that if the response had been anything else, Lazards would have been in the firing line for not having spotted the potential when advising the Department. I am angry about the way in which it failed in its obligations to its customer to provide the best quality of advice.
As I said, what is worrying about the PFI, in terms of finance and recycling, is the fact that there are more than £17 billion—the figure will soon be up to £20 billion—worth of PH contracts. Therefore, scope for a massive recycling windfall must exist. I took an unusual step, but it was in search of information: I thought I would try to alert Ministers by tabling to every Department a question about clawback in relation to PFI contracts. I had answers relating to 105 contracts.
I provided all the information to the National Audit Office, which kindly assessed my replies from Ministers. It said that, with the exception of the channel tunnel, which was an early one-off, by value only 29 per cent. of existing PFI contracts were covered by a clawback arrangement. Credit for that goes to two of our most frequent customers and visitors, the national health service executive and the Ministry of Defence. Both of them have learned a lesson and are building it into more of their contracts.
Unfortunately, some Departments have not been so aware of the situation. Last year, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—strangely, as it contains the Department that was involved in the channel tunnel—entered into three projects that had no clawback facility, including London Underground Connect. The NAO drew up for me a table of large projects of more than £50 million in capital value without clawback refinancing gains. It showed that there were six road contracts worth £1,078 million, four London Underground projects worth £1,009 million, seven PFI hospitals worth £690 million, five defence projects worth £568 million, and information technology partnership contracts—the responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment—worth £116 million. None had clawback facilities. The A5 in Wales, a much needed arterial road, was worth £110 million, and the Berlin embassy—the responsibility of the Foreign Office—was worth £50 million, but there was no clawback facility for either.
I have enormous regard for the Minister, who does a tremendous job; I do not say that to many Ministers or officials. I hope that he will take on board anything new or of positive value that I have said. There probably was nothing new, because his officials probably report diligently to him on what they hear in the Public Accounts Committee, when we are not berating them—a little side-sport when hearing evidence from witnesses seems singularly dull.

843
May I be slightly wicked, and observe what seems to be a paradox in prudence? It seems interesting that we concentrate on paying off national debt—I am all for that—to save about 8 per cent. interest a year, and at the same time encourage the spending Departments to enter into PFI debt with rates of return of 16 per cent. a year. That seems slightly inconsistent. I feel that I could make a profit if I were in that situation, by adjusting those figures. The Government would make £22 billion from selling air traffic control—I know what I would have done with the money, which I am afraid is why the Government did not receive my support on that.
Having been an Industry Minister and in economic Departments in the 1960s and 1970s, I understand the advantages to Government and the attraction for Ministers of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and getting public expenditure off the balance sheet. As someone who is pro-European—although I am not queueing to exchange my money for the euro—I am forced to observe that getting public expenditure off the balance sheet would seem to help us meet the criteria to enter the euro. I am sure that has never crossed anyone's mind in the Government at all.
I do not want to rehearse all the points that I made last year, so I shall be brief in talking about parliamentary accountability, a matter lightly touched on by the Public Accounts Committee Chairman. As the Minister knows from our exchanges last year and from the discussions in the Sharman committee, which was set up as a result of them, the PFI is a source of great anger to the Committee and frustration to the National Audit Office. The National Audit Office has been kept out of the monitoring process.
I have concentrated on the PFI today, perhaps over-dramatically, to highlight some of the shortcomings. I hope that I can persuade the Minister that the NAO, like our Chairman and me, has no problem with passing a risk to the private sector, and that the investigations that it has carried out already—limited as they have had to be, owing to limits imposed on it—have enabled us to pinpoint the factors to which I have alluded today. If it had not been for the NAO, I suspect that most Departments would still not be aware of the problems and opportunities that refinancing makes available.
On the occasion of the valedictory visit of the accounting officer for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we had a fascinating exchange. The Ministry has been one of the worst Departments in terms of deliberately precluding the National Audit Office from almost every petty little quango that it has ever set up. There have been all manner of fallacious and often unexplained arguments. As the accounting officer was retiring and after he had finished his questioning in relation to the hearing of the day—he had no further need to get on the right side of the Public Accounts Committee—I told him that I knew that the most senior of permanent secretaries and many of his colleagues were dubious about the PAC, and that I had even heard that past Ministers were aware that the Committee was regarded with less than favour in some circles in the Executive. I am not saying which Departments are involved or trying to play politics.
When I put it to the accounting officer that the PAC had been criticised for being an obstacle—both the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the hon.
844
Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) were present, I think—he said that, on the contrary, the discipline that the PAC and NAO imposed was invaluable. In that case, I asked, why did his Department exclude so many of its silly little quangos from PAC scrutiny. He said that he would have no objection to every quango being subject to PAC inquiry. We have gone 99 per cent. of the way, and all we need is for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that he too sees no reason why every little quango should not be subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee.
3.1 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I rise aware that no one else seems to be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps others will, but no one else has risen so far. Given that the two Front-Bench spokesmen will require about half an hour between them, I seem to have until around 6.30 pm to finish my speech. I shall do my best to come to a conclusion a little before then, just in case one or two other Members wish to join the debate.
I am pleased to be able to speak and honoured to follow the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I have worked a great deal with both of them this year on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill and during the Sharman inquiry. I have enjoyed and been interested in my work with them, and one of the great strengths of the Public Accounts Committee is the way that we work across parties to produce unanimous reports. That process has shown its worth over many years, back into the century before last. It continues to do so today.
I was slightly concerned when the right hon. Member for Swansea, West described me near the start of his speech as his hon. Friend. The conventions of the House give that a special meaning, and as the Conservatives are my only serious opponents in my constituency, being called an hon. Friend by a member of the Labour party is a little worrying. I hope that it does not get back to my local press.
Mr. John Bercow: It will.
Mr. Rendel: It might lose me quite a few votes.
I was amused to hear the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden say that he hoped that he would not chair the PAC for quite as long—14 years—as his predecessor did. I, too, hope so, but for a slightly different reason. The Chairman is by long tradition a member of the official Opposition, and I hope that the Conservatives will be the third party long before 14 years are up.
It has been an honour to serve for the past year on the PAC. I joined it comparatively recently, although several of its members joined more recently still. Some of the reports being noted by the House today are on hearings that took place before I joined last November. Like the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden and for Swansea, West, I am grateful to the Clerk for all his help. I have probably been on the phone to him and his staff more than any other member of the Committee this year. I have also been on the phone a lot to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff, to whom I am also grateful for their help with particular points and with requests to investigate matters that I felt required it.
Membership of the PAC has provided a fascinating insight into Government operations in general. I wish briefly to mention three of the reports before us. First,

845
the report on the Highways Agency and how it deals with surplus property was of particular interest because of the property purchased when the Newbury bypass was being built. Clearly, the agency had, in a number of cases, been unable to run, maintain or look after the property well. A certain amount of money had been lost as a result.
One important lesson lay in the reason for some of those losses. It is difficult for the agency to deal with property without knowing how long it will be in the agency's hands. We have seen a whole series of changes to the transport programme over the past few years. First it went up, then it was cut back, then it went up again and then it was cut again. Those changes in the programme, under which money is taken out and put back in, make the Highways Agency's job difficult, particularly when it comes to knowing how long it should hold on to property, and for what purpose, when it has bought it because a scheme has been proposed.
Secondly, the report on vehicle emission testing considers how effective testing is. Since the report's publication, there has been horrendous change to our weather and huge floods, which have brought home to people the dangers of global warming and extra rainfall. The importance of vehicle emissions testing has become clearer even than it was previously. A large part of the noxious fumes and carbon dioxide produced from the various vehicles on our roads comes from cars that run inefficiently and produce more emissions than they should, often because of poor maintenance. Improving our vehicle emissions testing and driving off the roads vehicles that produce huge emissions would benefit the environment, help to reduce the global warming that rightly worries us all, and benefit the whole country and the world.
Thirdly, the report on irregularities in the handling of visa fees in Calcutta displays a clear failure to interview the culprits appropriately, from which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must learn lessons. In addition, the whole system of applying for and obtaining visas is coming more frequently to the attention of Members because there are such inefficiencies in the system and such a great backlog. We constantly hear of cases of people who have been kept out of this country wrongly, often because the system itself leads to the loss of important and valuable paperwork.
One of my constituents is going back abroad without the relevant documents for returning to this country because her paperwork has been lost by the office concerned. I am happy to say that I have been able to get for her a full confession of guilt by that office, and that should enable my constituent to return to the United Kingdom. The office has written a long letter indicating that it is entirely its fault that the papers have been lost and that no one should try to stop her. Nevertheless, that sort of problem happens often, and the whole visa system—in our consulates and embassies abroad and here at home—needs a great deal of improvement.
I shall discuss three reports at slightly greater length. The first is the 35th report, on the Office of the Rail Regulator, which was mentioned by the Chairman of the PAC. It was published on 23 August—before the recent east coast main line accident at Hatfield and all the problems that that has caused. The National Audit Office report pointed out that, believe it or not, Railtrack was
846
getting generous bonuses for reducing delays. How ironic that now seems, given what has happened in the past few weeks.
Many rail passengers, including, no doubt, many hon. Members, have suffered intolerable delays. Many of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the south-west have found it almost impossible to travel to Westminster. One had to drive the entire way from the far south-west to fulfil his duties in the House. He could not travel by aeroplane because the winds were too strong; he could not travel by rail because the line was down and few trains were running. It took him six and a half hours to drive here and the same again to drive back. That is nonsensical, and it is clear that we must sort out the present problems on the railways as quickly as we can.
Our report, and the NAO report on which it and our hearing were based, pointed to a failure of the entire privatisation process and, as the Chairman noted, a failure of regulation of the railways. During that hearing, we had an interesting discussion on what constitutes a delay in the railway system. The answer may seem obvious to most people, but it is in fact far from obvious.
We discussed whether a passenger who has to get off a train half way through his journey and complete it by bus is in fact delayed. Apparently, if it is known well in advance that it will be necessary to do that, one has not necessarily been delayed, even though the bus must gently travel by road to each station in turn, thereby deviating from the normal direct route and taking much longer. In such circumstances, most passengers would believe that they had been delayed, but as long as advance information is given, such a journey does not count as a delay.
Even where one does not have to get on a bus, as long as advance notice has been published of engineering works on the line—of course, such information may not get through to the passengers concerned—any consequent delay does not count as such.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is not making a narrow point about distinctions between privatisation and nationalisation, so he will accept that, although issues of delay are important, so are those relating to the stated frequency of service. When speaking to the Gracious Speech yesterday evening, his near neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), pointed out that—post-privatisation—there used to be a service at 10-minute intervals between Reading and London, but that that promised service no longer exists. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of that point, which certainly requires attention, quite apart from the debate on privatisation.
Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, although I was unable to hear his right hon. Friend's comment. I also use that very line and I am aware that the service from Reading to London—indeed, all the way from Newbury to London—has deteriorated in the past few years. Of course, that is partly due to the work to create the new Heathrow link. Nevertheless, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supports an improvement in that rail service. I hope that his comments are duly noted by Thames Trains and First Great Western, because we would love a better service on that line.
The third reason why an apparent delay to a passenger may not in practice count as such is changes to the timetable. That is ironic indeed, in view of recent

847
necessary changes. I have in my hand a special timetable that has been produced for week days in the period 11 to 15 December. In other words, a new timetable has been introduced that covers five days alone. As soon as such a timetable has been agreed with the Rail Regulator and introduced, the trains therein no longer count as delayed provided that they run to that new timetable.
Of course, that new temporary timetable—I hope that it will be temporary—shows all the trains taking much longer than they did a few weeks ago. Again, simply by changing the timetable and ensuring that it is agreed, the train operator—or Railtrack—can overcome the difficulty of being charged with delaying passengers.
The condition of the track is also a big problem. That was highlighted during our discussions at the hearing. At that time, 3 per cent. of the track was considered poor. That is also somewhat ironic given what people are now saying about the need to run trains slowly over many miles of track and to repair and replace several hundred miles of it—and to do so virtually immediately, before trains can be allowed to run rapidly over it again.
However, it was not merely the 3 per cent. of track that was known to be poor that was causing the problems. We were also told at the hearing that there were many breaks in the rest of the track. That shows that the regulator has failed to ensure adequate investment since privatisation and that the Government failed to ensure adequate investment before that time. To be fair, the regulator made it clear to us that his powers were extremely limited in that regard. The powers of the regulator, rather than the regulator himself, may well be at fault.
Another problem was highlighted in the report: that of train operating companies that use inadequately designed or maintained rolling stock that is liable to damage the track. Clearly, that is a failure of privatisation. During the hearing, the Rail Regulator said:
The access contracts which were put in place between Railtrack and the train operating companies at the time of privatisation in 1994–95 were contracts of a very poor quality indeed. They gave very poor quality specification as to the quality of the work that Railtrack needed to do and indeed the quality of work that the train operating companies had to do in order to prevent the trains causing unnecessary damage to the network.
Clearly, there were great difficulties with the privatisation process and they were brought out at the hearing that we held. I hope that the Government will do what they can to put those problems right. As we have seen, the underinvestment is causing real problems for rail travellers.
The second report on which I shall spend time is the 34th, on the state earnings-related pension scheme, SERPS. It is right to concentrate on that report because it is perhaps the most important that the PAC has produced. I will never forget the moment when the Chairman said to me in the Corridor, "I hope you realise that you've just cost the Government £8.5 billion." That does not happen to many Members. He was not being entirely fair to other people in saying that I alone caused the Government to spend an extra £8.5 billion, but I am proud to have played a part in ensuring, first, that the fiasco came to light, and secondly, that something was done about it by asking the NAO to look into and report on the matter, which it duly did. By the time that it reported, I was happy to be a member of the PAC and to be able to take part in the hearing on the report.
848
Of course, that report examined the Government's original scheme, which was more generous than we had expected—given remarks made at the time by social security spokesmen who have since moved on. The report found that the scheme appeared to be comparatively generous, but that it had certain severe problems, including how people affected by the SERPS fiasco were to be told about the new scheme.
How was that to be done? I and others had suggested that all those concerned should be written to; that seemed only logical, given the fact that the Government had insisted on that course for all those affected by the private pensions fiasco. When we put that suggestion to Ministers and others, they said that it was not possible because they did not have up-to-date addresses for many of the people in question. The matter was raised in the Committee and our report suggested that something should be done; it is not tolerable either that the Government should have large liabilities towards a large number of people of whose whereabouts they are unaware, or that they should rely on those people to get in touch with the Government when they are eligible to claim their pension.
I am delighted that, after the PAC report and the comments of the ombudsman—who was obviously also involved—the Government changed their first response to our complaints on that matter. The PAC and the ombudsman made it clear that they expected to take a long, hard look at the final details of the scheme so as to ensure that it met requirements. Perhaps because of that threat, the Government decided to introduce a more generous scheme; the total—for which some people seem to hold me responsible—rose from £8.5 billion to more than £12 billion. Those are very large sums indeed.
The £12.5 billion cost of the second scheme is almost the same as the original cost—if the Government had moved quickly—of deferring for 14 years the entire reduction in SERPS widows' pensions to 50 per cent. of the original amount, as had been suggested some years ago. That is even more than the Liberal Democrat proposal in an amendment that I was pleased to move to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill in spring 1999; we called for deferral for a decade. If the Government had agreed with that proposal, they might have got away with a slightly cheaper scheme. However, I am happy that they found even more money than we proposed, and have chosen a scheme that is, in effect, equivalent to the cost of a 14-year deferral.
It is important to note that that money is not hanging off trees; it is taxpayers' money that is being transferred from one section of society to another—from people who will be in employment during the next 40 or 50 years to those who have already paid their SERPS contributions. The original intention of those contributions should be recognised; it was to store up the right to a pension for the pensioners themselves and for their widows or widowers in future. As those SERPS contributions have been paid, it is correct that the Government have acknowledged the right of the contributors to receive a fair return. The fact that the Government have been forced to implement a more generous scheme than they originally proposed demonstrates clearly the power of the PAC and the ombudsman.
The third PAC report on which I want to focus is the 45th report, although it was not included on the Order Paper. Unusually, the Secretary of State for Defence saw fit to reply in the media to that report—on the sad accident

849
of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre—before the relevant Treasury minute had been issued. I was shocked and appalled that he should choose to broadcast it on the radio as soon as the report came out. That is not how such matters have been arranged in the past, and it has caused him great difficulty. It will be much harder for him to change his mind—as he is bound to do—and give a more considered opinion. I do not think he will be able to maintain that on-the-spot view.
The Secretary of State described the report as superficial. The NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor General put hours of work into that report—as did various members of the PAC. We probably studied the NAO report at greater length than any others; we held a second meeting on it. We were briefed on it on two occasions by NAO personnel involved in its production. For the Secretary of State to describe that report as superficial was a damning indictment of his failure to consider it fairly and objectively, not of the Committee itself.
For some months, the Secretary of State and other Defence Ministers based their objections to our findings on the line that there was "no new evidence". That has been their answer to everyone who objected to the original findings, which laid the blame on the pilots. Ministers say that, as there has been no new evidence since the original inquiry, there is no reason to change its outcome.
Mrs. Ray Michie: As my hon. Friend is aware, the report refers to problems with the full authority digital electronic control—FADEC—system as one possibility for the accident. Is he aware of a report in The Herald in Glasgow today, stating that the Ministry of Defence has carried out research into wind shear? That is
an atmospheric vortex capable of sending military aircraft out of control where high ground, rain, and sea combine at certain temperatures to create a sudden downdraught.
Apparently, helicopters are highly vulnerable to wind shear and are incapable of increasing engine power quickly enough to pull free.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to that fact because there are so many theories and possibilities, but no definitive evidence to justify blaming the pilots.
Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that new fact to my attention. That could be new evidence that the Secretary of State might want to consider. I had not heard of it before; it is undoubtedly relevant and is a further possibility that should have been discussed. The finding that pilot error was the only possible cause must be highly questionable.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission looks back on past criminal cases where there was a finding of guilt. Such cases can be reconsidered in many circumstances. The Government should use that as a precedent in this case, so that they can reconsider and, if necessary, change the findings of the original board of inquiry.
In relation to the claim that there is no new evidence, I draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to comments made after the board of inquiry. When the original board of inquiry met, Wing Commander A.D. Pulford, its president, Squadron Leader E. J. Gilday and Squadron Leader P. L. Cole stated of Flight Lieutenant Tapper—among other things—that
850
it would be incorrect to criticise him for human failings based on the available evidence … The Board conclude that there were no human failings with respect to Flt Lt Cook—
the second of the two pilots.
After that, the board of inquiry report went up through various layers of the Ministry of Defence until it reached Air Vice-Marshal J. R. Day, who said:
unlike the Board and the Officer commanding RAF Odiham, I reluctantly conclude that the actions of the crew were the direct cause of this crash … I am … forced to conclude that Flight Lieutenant Tapper was negligent to a gross degree.
I cannot avoid the conclusion that Flight Lieutenant Cook was also negligent to a gross degree.
When the report finally went to Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten, he agreed, concluding that
the actions of the two pilots were the direct cause of the crash. I also conclude that this amounted to gross negligence.
The important point about the quotes from both the original findings of the board of inquiry and the findings of the Air Vice-Marshal and the Air Chief Marshal is that no new evidence was produced between the two different, completely contradictory findings, which were based on the same evidence, being reached. If anything proves that it is possible to reach two completely different conclusions on the same evidence, surely it is those quotes.
Begging the pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), even if there were no new evidence about other possible causes of the crash, it is absolutely clear that, even based on the original evidence, it is entirely possible to conclude that the two pilots were in no way to blame. Therefore, to my mind it is complete nonsense for the Secretary of State simply to say that, because no new evidence has been produced, he cannot overturn what the Air Chief Marshal and the Air Vice-Marshal said at the time. Since the original findings of the board of inquiry were reached, the verdict has been changed by the MOD itself without any new evidence being produced. So it cannot be beyond the Secretary of State to change that verdict again without any new evidence being produced.
I remind the Minister that Air Vice-Marshal Day, Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and the Secretary of State stand on one side of the argument. The opposite conclusion, based on precisely the same evidence, has been drawn by the board of inquiry, the Scottish courts that looked into the matter, various RAF and aeronautical experts, various computer experts who considered the question of FADEC, the Public Accounts Committee, the public in general and the relatives and friends of the crew, above all others. Virtually everybody else who knows anything about the matter has concluded, on the same evidence, that the two pilots cannot properly be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Just those three people have concluded that the pilots should be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Surely that must suggest that the matter should be reconsidered and that the Secretary of State was wrong to dismiss the PAC report in the way he did—so quickly and without taking a serious and objective look at the report and why it said what it did. I believe that the PAC will not allow the Secretary of State to get away with his dismissive response to our report. I for one shall not do so.
Mr. Alan Williams: The Chairman of the Defence Committee has attacked our Committee for not calling

851
either of the senior officers concerned. Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should perhaps consider holding a special hearing to which we should call both as witnesses?
Mr. Rendel: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that would be a question for the Committee and for the Chairman, not just for me. However, I have a lot of sympathy with the view that, if the Secretary of State is entirely determined not to review his response to our report, we may need to hold another hearing at which those people could be called to explain, if they are able to do so, what possible reasons there could be for their having so dramatically overturned the findings of those who took part in the original board of inquiry.
I want to say a few words about the workings of the PAC in general, now that I have a year's experience on the Committee. Although we do excellent work, there is a lot that we do not cover or do not cover adequately. A huge amount of work comes before us and the National Audit Office produces a huge number of reports—no doubt it could produce more. I am sorry that the Chairman has had to leave the debate for the moment, but I hope that he will take the time to read my speech and consider the possibility of suggesting to Parliament that a second Committee or a sub-Committee be set up so that we can increase the frequency and depth of our hearings, although some other method of achieving that might be used. Subjects that could and perhaps should be properly reviewed by the PAC are being missed, although the work load for the members is colossal if we participate fully and properly in each hearing, given all the paperwork that goes with them and the need to read the reports produced subsequently.
There is a need for a more formalised structure for members of the Committee to ask further questions towards the end of a hearing. Under our system, the Chairman usually starts a hearing with a quarter of an hour of his questions, then we take it in turns to ask questions for a quarter of an hour. To ensure that hearings keep to time, the Chairman, rightly, is extremely strict, much to the annoyance of those of us who have just one further question towards the end of the 15 minutes. However, he is very generous in allowing members to return to a particular point at the end of a hearing, although there is no formalised structure under which that can be done.
A lot of members would like to ask questions based on answers given by people who spoke earlier in a hearing, so there is a difficulty for those who are lucky enough to contribute at the beginning. Officially at least, that early contribution could be a member's last chance to speak, even though points raised by other members may seem to have received inadequate answers. Members may want to ask a supplementary question about such answers, so there is a case for establishing a formalised structure under which members could re-enter the debate towards the end of a hearing.
There is a need to establish the possibility of holding a second hearing, perhaps a month after the original one. One such example has just been raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and there might be others. Supplementary evidence might be provided after the event or members of the Committee may realise either that they
852
had not got to the point or, on reading the transcript, that an answer was inadequate and that more questioning was needed. People should have the chance to review the transcript and consider whether further issues need to be aired and further points made. At present, that can be achieved only by asking the NAO to put further questions to the witnesses in writing. That is perhaps less satisfactory than bringing the witnesses before the Committee for a second hearing.
There is a need to establish the possibility to make a formalised input to the recommendations of our reports. I may be inexperienced in these matters, but there are few ways in which one can ensure that a particular recommendation is made, at least before a draft report is produced. Members can talk to the NAO, as I have done, to suggest particular recommendations that it might like to include in a draft report for the Committee, but there might be a case for establishing a more formalised way in which to make such recommendations. Of course, it is possible to change the report after the draft has been produced, but that is a rather more complex matter. After a long hearing, it is often difficult to get many complex and detailed changes made to the recommendations. It might be preferable to make such changes at an earlier stage.
I am proud to have had the chance to serve on the Committee for the past year. I am delighted to have done so, because the Committee does vital work on behalf of Parliament. It involves some of the most important tasks that Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers can perform on behalf of Parliament and the nation. I hope that, with the House's agreement, my party will allow me to continue as a member of the Committee for some time to come.
3.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), for arriving after the start of the debate. I am also a little surprised that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) finished his speech sooner than we might have expected when he started to speak.
Members will be glad to hear that I intend to make only a brief contribution on Government information technology and the lessons that I hope we can learn from many past failures. I do not have a particular interest or expertise in this subject, but it is an important element of the PAC's work.
My comments will draw heavily on the Committee's first report "Improving the Delivery of Government IT Projects". I hope to illustrate my remarks by also referring to the 7th report on the immigration and nationality directorate's casework programme and to the 24th report on the delays in issuing passports in 1999. In one report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out that we seemed to have got it wrong for people who want to get out of the country at the same time as we got it wrong for people trying to get in. That sums up the difficulties that we have had with information technology, and those problems go back a long way.
The problems of the Passport Agency were well documented. Headlines on the front pages in the summer of 1999 told us that a fiasco had turned into farce.

853
I represent a London constituency with a large ethnic minority population, many of whom are refugees. For that reason I echo the Comptroller and Auditor General's comment in the report on the immigration and nationality directorate's casework. He mentioned the enormous personal distress that had been caused by the failures in the directorate.
We can talk about the issues in rather clinical terms, but we should remember the human dimension that is often associated with failures in public services. I illustrate that point by mentioning a constituent who had worked for the previous regime in Afghanistan. If he had been returned to that country, he undoubtedly would have had a well-founded fear of persecution, and statistics show that 95 per cent. of the people who have come to this country from Afghanistan are allowed to remain. However, my constituent could not resolve his status.
My constituent's father, who lived in Germany, fell seriously ill, but my constituent was unable to travel to see his father. When his father died, he was buried with the family present. However, my constituent was unable to attend the funeral and it was a long time after the tragedy before he could travel anywhere in the world or visit close family members. We should remember the impact that such cases have and continue to have.
I visited the immigration and nationality directorate during the summer recess. Although I am the first to admit that significant progress has been made, undoubtedly the casework programme still faces major problems that must be ironed out. The problems of the national insurance recording system have also been documented and people continue to fail to receive the right amount for their pension or other benefits.
Such problems have occurred throughout the development of information technology. In the 1970s and 1980s, we carried out large projects. Although they were much simpler than those carried out today and were carried out in-house, outside experts being brought in, there were still problems. In the 1980s and 1990s, during the next steps and market testing regimes, departmental IT was separated out and sometimes privatised. The Government decided to contract out entirely the provision of IT services, but there were still failures. Now the projects are designed, built and operated mainly under the private finance initiative. Although I do not want to discuss the rights and wrongs of the PFI—other Members have commented on that—it is clear that there are still numerous problems with the provision of IT services.
In their recent modernisation White Paper, the Government have committed themselves to providing better public services, and they have given IT a high-profile role in achieving that aim. It will be at the centre of the renewal of our public services and there will be a massive increase in the electronic delivery of information and services to citizens and, just as important, to businesses. We can fulfil the commitments in the White Paper only if we have better procurement.
The one sign that gives cause for optimism is a consequence of the fact that we have had plenty of experience of bad procurement. Over the past 10 years the Comptroller and Auditor General has brought more than 25 reports to the PAC, cataloguing problems and failures in procurement. We should examine those lessons, and the PAC's first report details four stages in the delivery
854
of IT projects that must be improved if we are to make progress. I shall examine what should happen in each of those stages.
The first stage is inception and design. A cultural change must take place, because IT is often introduced as though it were an isolated part of a departmental structure. However, all the evidence suggests that it cannot be dealt with in isolation from the wider issues with which departments and agencies deal. For example, one part of the Passport Agency did not know what another was doing. The IT system was introduced while other significant changes were being made. The result was the failures that we saw in the summer of 1999.
The scale and complexity of some of the projects being undertaken is another important issue. If the White Paper is implemented, such projects will become more common and it is clear that incremental change can often be more effective than a big bang. Smaller, simpler, more manageable projects that make up the totality of a more complex IT system should deliver better and more effective procurement. The software used for casework by the immigration and nationality directorate was immensely complex and created enormous difficulties for the contractor. When I visited the directorate in the summer, I was pleased to see that the software had been broken down into several projects to be introduced over a period.
The second stage is the way in which IT projects are managed. We should recognise that they are not a marginal technical decision but part of the mainstream business activity of departments, and must be treated as such. We need to manage staff in a way that is appropriate for a project. We must provide training and incentives to keep staff with the project while it is introduced. The status of staff, especially in the public sector, must be appropriate to their responsibilities. Most important, staff must be accountable, not only for their success, but for any failures.
There is also the issue of contingency planning, which the Committee has noted is often missing. Such plans need to be in place if anything goes wrong with the introduction of information technology. There are many examples of that, but I shall concentrate on the immigration and nationality casework programme. It was decided that in some non-IT aspects of the programme, people who dealt with casework would work in teams, but because of software failures it was not possible to back up and provide proper contingency plans to allow the service to continue. If it was not possible to provide the service that was required, it was important that, at the very least, things were not made more difficult, so contingency planning is crucial.
The third stage is the relationship that a department should have with its suppliers. It is a truism to say that the supplier should understand and share the business objectives that a project is trying to achieve. That can be viewed in several ways. The roles and responsibility undertaken by the supplier should be fully defined in the contract that it enters into, but in the immigration and nationality project, Siemens, which was the main supplier, had not entered into a proper arrangement for remuneration when the project started. Not only was that a major failure of the contract, but it put at risk the value for money aspect of the project because it was not clear whether the company would deliver it on time, to

855
specification and on budget. No one could fully know that it would because the contract had not been properly detailed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West commented on late delivery in relation to other reports. The consequences of late delivery of a project must be reflected in the contract. That is relevant to any number of previous projects. The compensation that the Passport Agency received for the inadequacies of the main supplier was nothing to the amounts that it had to pay out to another supplier that was affected by the failures of the first. The Government received little compensation for the project on the national insurance recording system, but all the risk—my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West touched on this matter—was not transferred to the supplier. The Government have been living with the consequences of that ever since.
The fourth stage is post-implementation of projects. There must be an open and constructive review that gets to the bottom of whether a project was delivered on budget and on time. It must find out what was right—and wrong—with a project and, of course, learn the lessons and ensure that they are taken on board. Once a system is introduced, the staff who operate it must be able to function effectively with it. It is necessary to commit time and resources for training, so that staff are brought up to a proper standard. Some people might think that that is obvious, but that is exactly what did not happen with the Passport Agency programme. The staff were not ready to work the system when it was implemented, which resulted in major delays.
The Government responded to the report some time ago and made a commitment to address all the issues that it raised and, on 22 May, the Cabinet Office published the report "Successful IT—Modernising Government in Action". The Cabinet Office works closely with the National Audit Office, which is reflected in many of the report's priorities.
I want to mention three priorities. The first is to improve skills, which is especially relevant to the public sector because it has great difficulty in attracting the sophisticated IT management skills that are needed. The second is to change the culture of the public sector by bringing IT into the main stream. It is no longer a marginal activity, and must be at the centre of everyone's consideration. The third priority is strong leadership when IT is introduced, which must come from the top.
The report made 30 recommendations, many of which have been or are in the process of being implemented. It outlines some notable issues. Permanent secretaries will be responsible for driving forward progress on IT projects. It will be interesting to see how that develops. The e-envoy, who has been introduced into Government service, will be responsible for the overall implementation of all 30 recommendations. That is a major task and I hope that he will receive the support of permanent secretaries in achieving that.
The report also recommends producing an interim report on the progress of the IT programme. I hope that the Minister will share it with the House when it is published this month because it is an important matter and we must get it right. The programme has a major impact on the public services that we provide, such as the
856
delivery of benefits by the national insurance recording system and, indeed, the provision of the information and services that are outlined in the White Paper on modernising government.
The Committee wants to ensure that there is value for money for the public purse, which is its main remit. Parliament has an interest in getting IT matters right and it is crucial that we provide services to the public that represent value for money. Parliament has a specific role to play and I hope that the Government will continue to work with it, and specifically with the NAO and the Committee, to ensure that all the recommendations in the White Paper are implemented and delivered.
3.59 pm
Mr. James Clappison: This has been a relatively short but important debate on a significant occasion in the life of the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and all the members of the Public Accounts Committee on their prodigious hard work in producing the 43 reports. Their work is of a very high quality. I associate myself with the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend to his long-serving predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who made such an important contribution to the Committee's work.
The Committee fulfils an important and historic role on behalf of the House. Among the many other tasks that it performs, it defends Parliament's rights in scrutinising how money is spent. That is plainly evidenced by the conclusions of the Committee which we have heard about today, including those on the millennium dome, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden described in that instance as a
deplorable failure to keep Parliament informed.
The Committee also defends a vital public interest as regards the quality of public services and the quality of life. One needs only to consider the 42nd report on the control of hospital-acquired infections to see just how important that work can be.
Governments of any political description need to respond properly to the Committee's conclusions in all its reports. Untimely dismissals or rebuttals of its work are not only a discourtesy to the Committee but work against the public interest by prejudicing the future detailed and careful consideration of its work that is called for on the part of the Government. They need to take the time to learn the lessons arising from the Committee's work. I agree with my right hon. Friend's remarks to that effect.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his authoritative opening speech. He gave more than a hint of the diligence and toughness that lie behind his approach to the Committee and the important work that he carries out.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a thoughtful speech, most of which was devoted to the important subject of the private finance initiative. He was right to draw attention to the significance of PFI—there are now over £17 billion worth of contracts. He went on to analyse the benefits and problems of PFI. He recognised that there could be a benefit to taxpayers in passing on risk, but there could also be problems. He was right to bring his experience to bear in analysing those problems, in particular the need carefully to study the terms of PFI contracts and to have

857
robust terms on the public side to ensure that when problems arise, costs and inconvenience are not borne by the taxpayer and members of the public.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned clawback facilities, and drew attention to the absence of such facilities in a number of contracts entered into by certain Departments. There are lessons to be learned, and I suspect that the subject may well feature in the future deliberations of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's points about particular Departments and the disparity in departmental practices as regards clawback facilities, as well as about the accountability of quangos.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned several of the Committee's reports. I hope that he will not mind if I do not follow him down every avenue of thought. He mentioned what he described as the danger of extra rainfall. As a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment who had to deal with the drought during the previous Government, I find that the danger of extra rainfall has not always been entirely self-evident. I hope that the same quarters who under the previous Government were complaining of too little rainfall are not now going to complain of too much rainfall. [Interruption.] I heard the word "inevitably" suggested. I do not know about that, but the hon. Gentleman's remarks certainly brought back some memories.
Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman may conceivably agree that perhaps the lack of rainfall that we experienced in the past and the surplus of rainfall from which we are now suffering arise from the same basic cause, which is that we are doing terrible things to our environment as a result of the over-use of petrol.
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman advanced his views at some length in his speech, and I hope that he will not mind if I do not pursue that argument. I hope that he is not going to stand on the manifesto of having just the right amount of rainfall in just the right places—I think that I have heard that one before.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) made what he described as a brief contribution, on government technology. He modestly said that he did not have a great deal of expertise in that field, but if that is the case, he has clearly done a lot of hard work because he made well-informed and interesting comments on the quality of procurement in information technology contracts.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the immigration and nationality directorate casework programme, and drew attention to the fact that not only has it involved a substantial waste of public money, but there is an important human dimension to the matter because it has caused anguish to genuine asylum seekers who are in the queue caused by the backlog, waiting for their cases to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman mentioned constituency cases; I have had similar cases, and I am sure that other hon. Members have too.
I want to deal with two general points arising out of the debate. I cannot tackle all the subjects covered by the Committee, although they are all important in their own way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden did the House a service at the outset by seeking to draw together some of the Committee's work and the lessons that the Government need to learn. He is
858
right when he says that that is an important part of the Committee's work. Recently the Committee has turned its attention to the importance of improving the delivery of Government IT projects, drawing on published reports and taking an overall view on the subject.
As the Committee made clear, the successful implementation of IT projects can bring many benefits to Governments and citizens. There are also risks involved in that implementation, and all too often those risks have been realised. It is implicit in the Committee's conclusions that more needs to be done to avoid the problems that have arisen in all too many cases. The Government need to be aware of the undesirable consequences of IT failure, including, not least, as the Committee points out, the waste of enormous sums of public money and the cost in terms of inconvenience or hardship because of disruption to public services.
A prime example, which has been mentioned several times, is the Passport Agency. My right hon. Friend used the word "fiasco" to describe that example. The worst feature of the fiasco was that so many members of the public bore the brunt of the consequences. The Committee has performed a singular service to the Government in drawing together those lessons in its report, and we must all hope that the Government will seek to learn them.
Finally, I turn to a subject that almost every Member who has spoken in the debate has mentioned. It is a proper subject for the Committee's consideration. I refer to the 45th report on the acceptance of the Chinook helicopter. The Committee's approach was justified, and it was certainly not straying beyond its remit; it was acting well within its historic role and in the public interest. During its work, the Committee came to consider the tragic case of the crash of Chinook ZD-576 on the Mull of Kintyre.
The conclusions of the Committee, reached after a clearly careful and painstaking inquiry, have important implications for the Royal Air Force board of inquiry findings in respect of the crash. I have not had the advantage of participating in the inquiry or of hearing the witnesses, but I take careful note of the Committee's conclusions, in particular:
The finding of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the crash of Chinook ZD-576 does not satisfy the burden of proof required
and the broader conclusion:
The process for convening and conducting RAF Boards of Inquiry is unsatisfactory.
In the light of the Committee's findings about the specific board of inquiry into the crash and the conclusions of the Scottish courts and others, which are reinforced by comments made by right hon. and hon. Members today and on other occasions, one can say only that matters cannot be left as they stand.
The Government have yet to respond formally to the Committee's report, but their early—if not premature—public comments suggested that they were minded to continue to support the findings of the board of inquiry. I understand that it might be difficult for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to deal fully with the matter today, but the Government more generally need to think again. The Committee's report and everything else we have heard mean that their current position is untenable. The interests of justice must come first. That tragic case must be revisited.
4.11 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): In last year's Public Accounts Committee debate, I expressed the hope that, unlike my recent predecessors, I would be able to listen to the following year's debate when it came around. I am happy that my wish has been fulfilled.
I begin by echoing others' words of appreciation for the Committee and its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and their indefatigable efforts in the past year. In last year's debate, I paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's energy, allied to
real concern about standards of behaviour and value for money in Government—[Official Report, 25 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 841.]
and he has continued to display those characteristics since then. I also endorse his generous and entirely warranted tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), which has been echoed by others, including the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is right to say that his predecessor deserves much of the credit for the Committee's current status and reputation. My right hon. Friend will be missed when he retires from the House at the next election.
Those of us who have sometimes been on the receiving end of lobbying by the PAC will know that the Committee's Chairman does not work alone. He is amply supported by other members of the Committee, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), whom I thank for his kind remarks, and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I am pleased that all three now serve on the steering group in respect of the Sharman report, which will look into issues that we have debated in the past, in the Committee on the Bill that became the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and elsewhere.
As in last year's debate, there are 40 or so reports before the House. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden says that the PAC has been less prolific in the past year than in previous years, but I believe that there is roughly the same number of reports on the Order Paper this year as last. It must be in recent months that the Committee's prolific production of reports has abated somewhat. Of course, some of the reports mentioned are not on the Order Paper, because the Treasury response to them has not yet been published.
I am sure that the Committee must be the best informed in Parliament on the workings of Government. I certainly understand why the hon. Member for Newbury says that PAC members pick up fascinating insights into those workings and how they affect the lives of ordinary citizens and taxpayers. The Committee is ably assisted in its work by the diligence of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, and his staff at the National Audit Office, and by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, Mr. John Dowdall, and his staff at the Northern Ireland Audit Office, to whom I am pleased to pay tribute.
The past year has witnessed the most significant development in Government accounting since Gladstone—he always seems to be the cornerstone of such superlatives. The whole basis on which Parliament provides funds to the Executive and on which the Executive account to Parliament for the use of those funds
860
will be fundamentally changed by the introduction of resource accounting. The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 represents the culmination of many years' work on the change by the current Administration and previous ones. I pay tribute to the conscientious work of the NAO and the Chairman and members of the PAC in scrutinising that Bill. The advice of the NAO, the hearings the Committee held, their reports and the contributions made by Members of Parliament in the House were influential in significantly improving the Bill. I am pleased that the Government were able to take on board so many of the suggestions made.
The Act also gives the Treasury powers to incur expenditure to establish Partnerships UK, which is the successor to the Treasury private finance initiative taskforce. Partnerships UK was launched in the summer and has already started work on a number of important public-private partnership projects. It will help to ensure that those partnerships are better structured and more efficiently procured, and that they deliver better value for money to the taxpayer. Last week in South Africa, I was pleased to be able to announce that Partnerships UK is to provide support to the South African Government in the establishment of PPPs to improve public services in that country.
Shortly, we shall make a commencement order to bring into force the majority of the provisions of the Act. Those include the provisions required to replace appropriation accounts and cash-based supply with resource accounts and resource-based supply from 2001–02 onwards, and certain powers relating to the production of whole-of-Government accounts and other powers to improve the way in which Government accounts are prepared and produced.
As well as that Act receiving Royal Assent, this year has seen significant milestones along the road to the full implementation of resource accounting and budgeting. Departments have made significant progress in the preparation of resource accounts and resource-based estimates; Parliament, through the PAC and other Committees, approved the Government's timetable for the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and the spending review 2000, which set out spending plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04, was conducted on the basis of resource budgeting.
From the outset, the PAC endorsed the more commercial approach brought about by resource accounting and budgeting. The Committee acknowledges that it should improve the clarity and the quality of the financial information that is available to Parliament and that it will assist departmental management. I am confident that the change to resource accounting and budgeting will bring significant benefits to the overall management of public expenditure and the management of individual departments. With others, I look forward to those benefits being realised.
We plan to introduce consolidated accounts for the central Government sector from 2003–04 and full whole-of-Government accounts covering the full scope of the public sector from 2005–06. Whole-of-Government accounts will provide better quality, more transparent data for the planning of fiscal policy; better management of public services; and more effective distribution of resources. We look forward to the PAC and the NAO

861
contributing to the development of whole-of-Government accounts in the corning months and to working with them on that.
Without doubt, the most intense debates on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill were those relating to the audit and access rights of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I acknowledge again the tenacity with which members of the Committee that considered the Bill pursued the rare opportunity—as they saw it, with some justification—to extend the CAG's rights. The Act contains a new statutory right for the CAG to inspect documents held by contractors that are carrying out financial functions for Departments, and powers for the CAG to be appointed auditor of bodies that he is currently prevented from auditing by statute. It also contains powers for the CAG to be granted access to documents held by third parties. I imagine that those are the measures that constitute the 99 per cent. that was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West.
The Government have made it clear that we will implement the powers in the light of the outcome of Lord Sharman's review of audit and accountability in the 21st century, which is expected to be completed early in the new year. It is considering exactly what is public money, what degree of audit and accountability is appropriate to public money and what are the appropriate arrangements for those in receipt of public money to account to Parliament. We shall be receiving conclusions in the fairly near future.
When considering the Bill, we gave an extensive airing to performance validation. This Government have been much more open and transparent about performance monitoring than previous Administrations. In particular, we have published public service agreements, with 160 top-level targets set out in the July spending review announcement. We have also published service delivery agreements, which set out in more detail how the Government will meet their PSA targets. I believe that the targets will help to ensure that there are fewer of the shortcomings in public service delivery which the Committee has identified in a number of the reports that we are considering.
The interest taken by the Committee and the NAO in the progress of modernising government has been helpful. I welcome the PAC's encouragement of joint accountability for the delivery of objectives that do not fit easily into traditional Whitehall structures. I hope that there will be more joint hearings, such as the one to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden referred on the criminal justice system, the subject of the Committee's 27th report. I hope that we shall receive further recommendations from the Committee on how joint accountability structures in government might be improved. They can sometimes be difficult to set up successfully.
The modernising government agenda also covers important areas of procurement and project management, to which several right hon. and hon. Members have referred, especially in the context of IT projects. That has been a continuing concern for the Committee, as the reports set out on the Order Paper demonstrate. That is particularly the case of the first report on the improving delivery of the Government IT projects. Subsequent reports have been referred to as well, including those on the Passport Agency—I think that that is the 24th report—
862
and on the immigration casework system, which is the seventh report. Many important lessons have been drawn from all the reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) illustrated vividly the personal consequences for individuals when things go wrong, and the importance of ensuring that they go wrong as infrequently as possible. It is important also that we learn lessons from the problems of the past.
In April, the Government established the Office of Government Commerce. Its role is to provide a firmer sense of direction in procurement, and to ensure adoption of best-practice approaches in the public sector. I visited the OGC a couple of weeks ago and was impressed by the determined way in which it is setting about its role. It has set an ambitious target of securing £1 billion of value for money gains as a result of its work, and is making progress in a number of ways, of which I shall single out two.
First, the OGC is developing a new and independent review process for all new procurements—the so-called gateway process—which will tackle known weaknesses in handling large projects, especially in IT and construction. This was foreshadowed in the recent Cabinet Office report on improving IT project performance. I am pleased to say that pilot testing of the gateway process has confirmed its capacity for improving value for money, timeliness and cost management of high-risk procurements. Further details of the process will be announced early in the new year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton referred to the interim report and guidance that is due. I understand that that is already available on the central information technology unit website.
The second initiative is that the OGC is harnessing the Government's collective purchasing power to improve the way in which Departments manage suppliers. For example, it is gathering information about key IT and non-IT suppliers for dissemination to Departments. It has employed a consultancy supplier to develop a mechanism to collect and analyse procurement expenditure across central Government, which will report by July 2001. It is also taking steps to improve the Government's relations with their strategic suppliers, which are being assessed in terms of their criticality to Government business, the value of spend and the availability of substitutes and their strategic influence.
We want to ensure that we understand well the nature of the business that we have across Government with those who supply the Government. In the past, there has often been too much fragmentation. Companies have known much more about their business with Government than the Government have known about their business with them. I hope that the Committee will take some encouragement from these developments. They will provide an opportunity to implement some of the lessons drawn from the work of the Committee.
I shall say more about the private finance initiative and public-private partnerships and pick up the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West. We have taken a range of measures to improve the PFI and to generate other forms of PPPs, which have brought greater clarity and confidence to the public and private sectors alike. They hold out the promise of significantly better outcomes. We have undoubtedly been helped in that process by the Committee's work.

863
Since May 1997, PPP contracts have been signed for 259 projects, generating £12.6 billion of private sector capital investment. Another 296 projects are in procurement, with the potential to generate an additional £16.2 billion. That will take us to nearly £30 billion of investment. I welcome the support that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West expressed for the principle of that approach.
The PFI and other forms of PPP are delivering value for money for the taxpayer and good-quality services for our citizens, and making an increasingly important contribution to modernising government. The Committee has continued to be active in examining PFI projects, and has produced many valuable recommendations. I was reading the Committee's 41st report on the Prime project. Many innovative features negotiated by the Department of Social Security were recognised in what was a large and complex PFI project—possibly the largest ever undertaken by a central Government Department.
I remind the House of the Committee's view of the initiative. The Committee stated:
We welcome the risk transfer incorporated in the contract on capital expenditure, particularly with respect to achieving compliance with statutory requirements for disability access. We recommend that future deals of this kind examine the risk transfer achieved in the PRIME case and seek to emulate it where appropriate.
I am glad that the Committee has been able to recognise that, in that instance and in others, PFI has worked well, and to draw the attention of others to such examples. I am especially pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security is on the Government Front Bench listening to the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West also referred to the potential windfall gains from refinancing PFI contracts, which has been a major issue in the recent PAC hearing on Fazakerley prison, and reference was also made to Dartford and Gravesham hospitals. Steps have been taken to reduce the chances of such problems recurring. The standard contractual terms produced in 1999, together with the development of the PFI market under the Government's proposals, make it much less likely that new PFI deals will result in windfall gains for the private sector of the kind to which my right hon. Friend referred. However, if there is evidence that such problems have recurred since 1999, I should be interested to see it.
Guidance to cope with the residue of previously agreed deals has been issued by the Office of Government Commerce. Departments are encouraged to seek an equitable outcome in cases where their consent is required to contractual changes or revised financing arrangements. In practice in such cases, that should result in the sharing of gains with a private sector partner on a 50:50 basis, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West referred, unless sound reasons exist for departmental accounting officers to move from that position. However, some older contracts may not have been changed and the problem could still arise.
As the Committee has noted on more than one occasion, competent risk management is as crucial for the successful management of projects and other operations in government as it is in the private sector. That is why
864
the Government have embarked on an important initiative to support that aim. In line with private sector initiatives to improve corporate governance and the management of risk, we are introducing a new procedure whereby each year accounting officers signing off the accounts of Departments will need to confirm that their Departments have satisfactory systems to review the adequacy of internal control. Moreover, those statements will be reviewed by the CAG. Again, I am delighted to acknowledge the NAO's important contribution in developing those new arrangements, which will be introduced in 2001–02.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the hon. Member for Newbury spoke particularly about the huge systemic failure in inherited SERPS—the horrifying breakdown in the machinery of Government in the past 10 years, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is vital that no such breakdown recurs. I am pleased that both Members welcome the announcement on those problems made by the Secretary of State for Social Security.
I want to deal with the exchange between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman on whether letters of direction might be placed in the Library. Of course, some directions might relate to commercially confidential matters, but I should like to consider carefully the suggestion that the normal expectation would be that directions issued to accounting officers should be placed in the Library. I shall reflect on that matter.
Mr. David Davis: As the Minister will know, I was thinking on my feet when I responded to that question. Letters of direction might involve commercial confidentiality or security implications, both of which would be inappropriate to be placed in the Library.
Mr. Timms: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. He and the hon. Member for Newbury are right to suggest that, in general, such action should be considered, and I shall certainly consider it. Such letters are already copied to the CAG, who may investigate them if he wishes.
Mr. Rendel: I am slightly confused about whether the Minister can choose whether such letters should be placed in the Library. I should have thought that the Chairman of the Committee—or perhaps the whole Committee—would choose whether the letters should be placed in the Library, although the Minister might wish to consult the Chairman.
Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I shall also reflect on that point, together with the right hon. Gentleman.
As always, this year's debate on public accounts has been reassuring and instructive. It has been reassuring because it shows that the long-established parliamentary scrutiny on which we pride ourselves is as effective and searching as ever. It has been instructive because that scrutiny provides an opportunity to show how procedures can be improved, as well as providing a vehicle for justified criticism when projects are not properly thought through. Of course there will be disagreements from time to time, but such debates help to take forward the wide range of concerns that the Government and Committee share.

865
I conclude from the debate that the Government need to focus on two matters. First, we must continue to improve the management of the systems by which public money is collected and deployed. Secondly, we must continue to improve the management of projects to deliver public services. The Committee's reports continue to make those priorities clear, and I am happy to endorse them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 39th and 41st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1998–99, of the 1st to 9th and 11th to 37th Reports of Session 1999–2000, and of the Treasury Minutes on these Reports (Cm 4576, 4593, 4656, 4695, 4688, 4732, 4758, 4798, 4822, 4863, 4886 and 4901).

Housing Benefit
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
4.36 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this issue, which is of considerable importance to my constituents and to claimants across the country. When I was a little girl and asked my mother, "What shall I be?" in the Doris Day tradition, she never suggested as a career becoming a housing benefit nerd. I fear that it would have been sensible if she had given me that advice because I have taken the path of housing benefit nerddom.
I make no claim to have housing benefit expertise. Probably only four people in the world understand the housing benefit system—one more than those who understand the Schleswig-Holstein question. I have never attempted to include myself in that august elite, but I have donned the honorary anorak of housing benefit obsession, especially in recent months as the implications of the near collapse of housing benefit administration in my constituency have become clear. I lost the bloom of youth serving on housing benefit review tribunals during my career in local government in the early 1990s. Since then, as my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, the Select Committee on Social Security has examined several housing benefit administration issues.
The reason I have that underlying obsession is that, although housing benefit has never been a topic of conversation guaranteed to enliven parties, it matters a great deal, especially to the most vulnerable people in society—those who depend for the security of their homes on their housing costs being met efficiently and promptly. When the housing benefit system goes wrong, as it has in my constituency and many other parts of the country, it causes levels of distress and anxiety that no one should have to suffer, as I shall show during my speech.
I want to make one or two other points before I deal with the main issue. Although the task will be fiendishly difficult, I strongly believe that housing benefit reform must be one of the next Labour Government's key priorities. I do not underestimate the difficulty and complexity of the task, but simplifying and improving the housing benefit system is an absolute precondition if we are to build on the excellent foundations of the taxation and social security system and to improve work incentives, tackle poverty and ensure choice in the housing sector. Many policies have cried out for change.
Those issues were set out in detail by the Select Committee on Social Security and include single room restrictions for the under-25s, the high levels of non-dependant deductions and the operation of emergency payments for families on low incomes facing housing benefit restrictions.
Although I have not studied them in detail, I am aware of the welcome announcements made this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to them. I am also aware of the content of the Government's response to consultation relating to the housing Green Paper. I warmly welcome the indication, in both those responses, of changes that will be made in the tackling of problems with the administration of housing benefit, and of flaws in policy.

867
I am very pleased that the Government have decided not to restrict backdating of housing benefit, following consultation and advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee and lobbying from local authorities and other specialist organisations. The restriction of backdating would have been seriously damaging to vulnerable clients, especially in view of the enormous difficulties experienced in many parts of the country with the delivery of housing benefits.
In half my constituency—the part covering the Conservative-controlled London borough of Westminster—the outsourcing of benefit administration to Capita put the system into free fall. At one point in the spring there were 23,000 items of post backed up. I am genuinely pleased that the situation is now under a degree of control, but at the last count a wholly unacceptable 10,545 items of correspondence remained to be dealt with, and according to reliable information the number of payments to meet rent rebate claims was decreasing at the last count.
During the midsummer peak of the crisis, claimants—many of them elderly—were sometimes required to queue for three hours at Westbourne house. Some claimants have told me of having to queue for five hours. Those who have attempted to sort out their problems at housing benefit offices have been told early in the morning that there is no point in waiting. They have gone away again and again, increasingly frustrated and anxious about the implications for them if they do not receive housing benefit.
The service offered to people who try to deal with their problems in person is appalling. One lady who spoke to me had waited at the housing benefit office for two hours, with her documentation, and had then asked to use the toilet. She was told that there was not one available for public use, although she had a medical condition. I understand that a toilet is now available, but that it is kept locked and claimants must ask to use it.
Public interaction with the social security system in all its forms is critical. Claimants who are overwhelmingly genuine and, in many cases, vulnerable deserve to be treated efficiently, and with respect to their dignity. If they are not treated in such a way, their experience of Government will be undermined. That is a dangerous and unpleasant fact, but it has been demonstrated in a number of cases.
Councillor Alexander Nicholl, chairman of the council's contracts committee, told Inside Housing magazine that the situation was
not the tragedy people were making out.
I doubt that that dismissal of claimants' concerns will greatly comfort my 85-year-old constituent who made a housing benefit claim in the summer, which then became stuck in a queue along with all the other claims. Having never owed money before—as is the case with a great many claimants—my constituent is unable to sleep because of the anxiety caused by five months' rent, and is selling items of furniture to tide herself over.
My client Mr. Habboushi has not received housing benefit for more than 12 months. Set after set of original documentation has gone missing. I have referred the case to the local government ombudsman who, it seems, has also been unable to obtain a reply from the council since the middle of the summer.
868
One young man who had been housed by the council because of mental health problems—through the community care housing policy—became so agitated by all the problems involved in sorting out his claim that, according to his carer, he handed in his key, and is now assumed to be sleeping rough. One lady has been asked on five occasions for her husband's death certificate; another lady with terminal cancer has a county court judgment against her for unpaid debts. My constituents are running up rent arrears amounting to thousands of pounds—£11,000 in one instance. They are experiencing the profound distress of receiving notices seeking possession from their landlords because of debts that are not of their making.
Following up a case with the West Hampstead housing association, which I believe is pretty typical, I was told:
You mention that the family received a notice seeking possession. These are issued to all clients when their arrears go over £2,500. This allows them to take the notice to the housing benefit department to help speed up their applications.
What an indictment of the system—only when people are threatened with homelessness can priority be given to their claims. Can hon. Members imagine the anxiety and fear caused to parents with young children, and to elderly and sick or disabled clients, by the receipt of an awesomely imposing legal document telling them that because of unpaid debts they will lose their homes?
The problem is, of course, by no means confined to Westminster. Some authorities are undoubtedly worse, although I do not think that should let the Conservative flagship authority off the hook. The housing charity Shelter has drawn my attention to cases outside my constituency. One involves a lone parent with three children, who ended up in court in a repossession hearing after her council had lost her claim form and refused to accept that a claim had been made. The court found in her favour, but at what cost, given the anxiety and distress that she experienced?
In another case, a single man waited seven months for his claim to be processed. Only when Shelter threatened a judicial review did the council make a payment, a full 11 months and £5,550 of debt later. The man has now been notified that his benefit was stopped again in July, as the normal 52-week review period was required.
Landlords themselves, both private and public, are also suffering. Housing associations are so stricken by cash flow problems that they are resorting to issuing notices seeking possession to spur the council into action.
Notting Hill housing trust provides a wide range of housing services in London—it is a valued local landlord of mine—but, in my view, none of those services is as crucial as the provision of temporary accommodation for homeless families, on behalf of local authorities. Families are often in a desperate state when they have lost their homes, but the housing trust puts them together again. Children are settled at school, and families begin to regain their self-respect and their ability to stand on their own feet.
What a disaster it is that those people must face a bureaucratic, cumbersome and badly run housing benefit service. The Notting Hill trust helps 515 families on behalf of Westminster city council. Arrears have been rising fast, from £500,000 in April to £1.3 million last month. Given the slow progress of claims, it is hard for Notting Hill, and other landlords and housing

869
associations, to know what they are genuinely required to collect from their tenants, and what is due from the council.
Notting Hill—this is a matter of profound regret to me—recently told Westminster city council that it could no longer provide for homeless families, until the position improved. I believe that other housing associations have considered the same action. Such decisions are very serious, because they increase the likelihood of vulnerable families' going into bed-and-breakfast accommodation—something that all civilised people want to avoid.
I know that staff in Westminster city council and elsewhere are working hard to speed things up, and I pay tribute to them because I know how much stress they experience, but this is no way to run a system in the long term. We know of the problems underlying the crisis. There was an ill-considered outsourcing to companies, including Capita, which were clearly not prepared for the scale and complexity of the task that faced them. Some responsibility must fall on Westminster city council for the inadequacy of the original contract, and some must fall on Capita and other companies that patently underestimated the scale of the task.
The performance of local authorities varies, and poor performers must take their share of the blame. Nevertheless, I believe that central Government had a case to answer. Regulations have been introduced at a wholly unrealistic pace, placing unreasonable demands on local authorities—I believe that some 80 have been introduced in the last year. Moreover, local authorities have historically been inadequately funded for the administrative tasks that they are being asked to undertake on behalf of central Government.
The verification framework, while entirely laudable in principle, has placed too heavy a burden on authorities and urgently needs to be reviewed with an eye to simplification. The requirements of the verification programme place local providers, such as the Church Army, St. Mungo's and Wytham Hall which work with homeless families, in particular difficulty.
In my constituency work, I deal with many refugees whose original documentation has been locked away inside the immigration and nationality directorate, sometimes for years, thereby making it impossible for them to present the verification documentation required by housing benefit departments. There remains great scope for joined-up thinking between the Home Office, the Department of Social Security and the local government agencies under the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to determine whether some of the documentation requirements are unrealistic and should be reviewed.
I very much welcome the Minister's indication that, at least initially in a pilot, registered social landlords may be allowed to use other verification documentation. I know that registered social landlords have asked for and would welcome that facility, which I think would significantly reduce the burden.
As I said, this week's announcements go a considerable way towards meeting my wider concerns about administration of housing benefit, and I particularly welcome the positive and constructive tone in which they have been made. They contrast with the previous Government's total indifference on the issue. Over
870
18 years, they let housing benefit take the strain of housing costs and created many of the problems that we are now trying to tackle.
We are on the right road, but there is much more to be done to simplify the system, reduce the administrative burden on councils and remove some of the harsher policy elements in relation to non-dependant deductions, rent restrictions and the other issues flagged up in the Select Committee on Social Security.
I believe that we may be close to ending the administrative chaos that has blighted so many lives in recent months and years. Will the Government please ensure that they follow through on the proposals announced earlier this week and help to ensure that local authorities which, for whatever reason, are providing a completely inadequate service are enabled to deliver properly for housing benefit claimants?
Will my hon. Friend the Minister also promise that long-term reforms will be built on to extend and develop the proposals that were announced this week, so that we can seriously consider options such as fixed-term payment periods—for 12 months for pensioners and six months for people of working age, which I think go a little beyond the proposal that has already been announced—and a full review of the current system of rent restrictions? Will she also assure me that, in the coming months, organisations such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation—which has played a very constructive role in the dialogue on housing benefit reform—are fully consulted on the necessary changes?
Thank you very much again, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
4.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing such a timely debate on an extremely important issue. I think that she undersells herself when she says that she is a nerd and an anorak who is not an expert on housing benefit, as she is very knowledgeable about very complex subjects. She is also a doughty and expert campaigner on behalf of her constituents, who I am sure are very proud of her.
My hon. Friend is fortunate in her timing because, as she said, yesterday we published our response to the housing Green Paper, which proposes radical measures to achieve rapid improvement in the administration of housing benefit. As yesterday's announcement was covered in just one paragraph in one newspaper, I have to agree with her that the media do not always treat housing benefit claimants and serious problems with housing benefits as newsworthy. They certainly do not cover our struggles in trying to improve the situation.
I profoundly agree with my hon. Friend on her points on public interaction with the benefits system. Each week, £2 billion in benefits are paid out in the United Kingdom, and, each day, the Benefits Agency receives 600,000 telephone calls. Those statistics do not include the transactions handled by the 409 local authorities that currently administer housing benefit. Housing benefit reform is therefore central to implementing our modernisation of the very run-down and under-invested system that we inherited.

871
We must give higher priority to providing a much better service to those who interact with the benefits system. Some of the examples that my hon. Friend cited of the service provided by Westminster city council are simply not acceptable. It is totally unacceptable that there should be a lack of toilets or endless waiting to solve a problem that is not even of one's own making.
Currently, 4.3 million people receive housing benefit, and it supports many more in their homes. Improving housing benefit delivery is vital. It is in all our interests that those who administer it do so effectively, efficiently and securely, delivering a service that—as my hon. Friend said—gives people on low incomes the help that they need for a decent home. As she also said, when provision goes wrong, it can cause profound stress and anxiety. I am personally very aware of that.
In 1997, we inherited a system that was fragmented—with 409 different local authorities administering it—over-complex and very neglected by central Government. That neglect meant that, although a handful of councils were delivering housing benefit successfully, many more were struggling, and no help was forthcoming to overcome the situation.
The problems of housing benefit administration were magnified by the unacceptable levels of fraud and error in the system. The system established by the previous Government made it possible, for example, to access housing benefit without a national insurance number or any other proof of identity. We could not allow that situation to continue. We have been working very hard to remedy such problems, and we are determined that local and central government should work together to overcome the neglect facing the housing benefit system.
Conservative Members are looking for a quick fix for the problems facing housing benefit, and they have suggested some solutions—such as removing responsibility for delivery from local authorities when there are backlogs. Although I do not know how they intend to define a backlog or make the change, they say that the change will save a quarter of a billion pounds. The proposal is, however, utterly illogical, as none of their proposals would make the system cheaper.
Some local authorities do a good job of administering housing benefit, and we want to encourage the others to raise their standards to that of the best. The best way of dealing with the current situation is to improve the standard of local authorities that have fallen behind and encountered difficulties. The challenge of modernising housing benefit would certainly not be helped by a huge and costly upheaval in infrastructure, personnel and information technology. We also do not believe that, in the foreseeable future, there is a convincing case to support removal of responsibility for housing benefit delivery from local authorities. We certainly do not want to create the type of planning blight that would occur if there were any uncertainty about the matter. The Government firmly hold that view.
The housing Green Paper has explained our reform strategy. As my hon. Friend graciously said, the Government have listened to those who have commented on our specific proposals and on other proposals such as those on backdating. Our response contains a
872
wide-ranging package of measures that will both give support to the local authorities administering housing benefit and raise the standard of service to tenants.
The measures that we have announced will help us to achieve four aims: first, to bring swift improvements to the performance of struggling councils; secondly, to raise standards across the board; thirdly, to streamline housing benefit, thereby making it easier for councils to administer and—equally importantly—simpler for people to claim; and, fourthly, to lay the foundations for long-term and fundamental reform of housing benefit.
My hon. Friend might have noticed that, at the beginning of this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced not only a three-year rather than one-year settlement for funding housing benefit, but an extra £24 million—which we believe will help to ease some of the current problems.
The fundamental challenge facing housing benefit is its administration and we have made that our immediate priority. We are setting up and funding an expert help team which will work with struggling local councils to help clear delays in paying housing benefit. The team will draw on experts from top performing councils, the DSS and management specialists to support authorities which have built up backlogs in paying out benefit.
The team will identify what is going wrong in a local authority and identify what action is needed. It will help local authorities to access resources for clearing up immediate problems such as backlogs, and to prevent problems from recurring by developing and then implementing local improvement plans. Because some local authorities succeed in delivering housing benefit well, that approach will allow us to target help where it is most needed. It also proves our commitment to work in partnership with local government to sort out the administration of housing benefit.
We shall establish a set of consistent national standards which we will back up by reliable and accurate information on how local authorities are actually performing. Much of that information is not available at the moment. That will allow us to develop a subsidy that links payment for administration to performance, as well as supporting the improved delivery of housing benefit and the better management of change.
The performance framework will build on the administrative improvements being brought about by best value and help local authorities to strive towards the aim of consistent national standards. We will seek to make sure that local government is accountable to its taxpayers by publishing league tables of council performance. That will not further encumber local authorities with wasteful bureaucracy, but it will build on the successes of best value and raise standards of administration across the board.
The housing Green Paper outlined the need to ensure that those without work had a decent and stable base from which to begin the search for employment. Many respondents were concerned that this was not always the case for young people. We share that concern.
My hon. Friend has lobbied us all about the effects of the single room rent. We are therefore broadening the definition of the single room rent to achieve three aims: first, to help provide young people with stable and reasonable accommodation so that they can concentrate their efforts on finding work; secondly, to ensure that the

873
rent that housing benefit pays better reflects the type of shared accommodation available in the private sector; and thirdly, to encourage landlords to rent to young adults. We do not, however, agree that the single room rent should be abolished completely. It would be unfair if unemployed young adults could afford better accommodation than their working peers.
At present, the multiple and lengthy paper claim forms which are often duplicated between the different organisations involved both delay housing benefit delivery and cause frustration for the tenants. We will develop a more streamlined approach that cuts down on bureaucracy, giving an improved service delivery to the client as well as securing the system against fraud and error. Streamlining the housing benefit claims process will allow local authorities to devote more time and resources to improving delivery and customer service through reducing bureaucratic burdens.
It is not only the initial claims process that needs simplifying. We want to make sure that housing benefit does not act as a disincentive to returning to work. We plan to ease the transition into work by removing the need to make a new claim for housing benefit on starting work: we will explore with local authorities whether starting work could be treated as a change of circumstances, allowing a speedier payment to be made. That proposal is backed up by a measure to speed up getting housing benefit paid if a job ends after only a short period.
It is not only those of working age who can benefit from simplification. We also intend to prevent pensioners from having to make fresh claims every year and instead institute a simpler review process. We will work with local authorities to develop the detail and discuss the timing of the introduction of these improvements.
Currently, local authorities operate four different schemes to restrict the housing benefit payable to tenants in the private rented sector. The rules have become too complex to administer properly and for clients to understand. We are therefore looking at ways to achieve simplification in this area as well, so as to reduce the administrative burden on local authorities.
The new measures that I have outlined build upon an already considerable agenda for improving administration and tackling fraud. Since 1997, we have been working with local authorities to ensure that we deliver a more efficient and less complex service.
We established the housing benefit improvement programme this year to help local authorities improve their administration. We seek to deliver rapid improvements to the administration of housing benefit and work with local authorities to ensure that this happens, for instance, through setting up the integrated inquiry service, which is a super remote access terminal or RAT. For the first time, remote access terminals—RATs—have allowed local authorities to have an electronic window into Benefits Agency systems to check information. They have been very successful and well used. We want to strengthen the electronic links for information gathering and sharing between the two agencies.
We have established remote access terminals in 404 of the 409 local authorities, providing them with online access to the details of income support and jobseekers'
874
allowance claims. The integrated inquiry service will allow information to be sent back and forth and more of the DSS systems to be accessible.
We have listened to the problems that local authorities say they face in implementing the verification framework. Already we have introduced greater flexibility. In addition, from 2002 we are splitting the framework into separate parts to allow local authorities to implement it incrementally.
The benefit fraud inspectorate continues to evaluate the performance of individual local authorities, helping them to tackle weaknesses in their benefit services. Nearly 80 reports have been published so far; by next October we will have carried out inspections of around 120 councils which between them account for some 60 per cent. of housing benefit expenditure.
My hon. Friend's local authority, Westminster, was inspected by the BFI earlier this year and the report was published in October 2000. We are currently awaiting the council's response to the report prior to any further action on our part. The report noted several praiseworthy areas, such as Westminster's strong counter-fraud stance and its willingness to improve. However, it also highlighted a large number of weaknesses which will need to be rectified in order to deliver efficient services to benefit recipients. My hon. Friend highlighted a few more in her speech tonight.
First, the benefit fraud inspectorate noted that the management arrangements for delivering benefits in counter-fraud work are too complex and this leads to inefficiencies. Secondly, the contracts with ACIT and Capita need to be more firmly monitored and controlled to incorporate key areas of work such as overpayment recovery and the outcomes of fraud investigations. More needs to be done to clear the backlog of overpayment determinations and speed up the instigation of recovery action. Thirdly, the report stated that claim procedures needed to be improved, for example, by improving the claim form and bringing verification standards up to those of the verification framework. Westminster currently uses its own version of the verification framework which does not meet DSS minimum standards.
There is a need to strike the right balance between building on reforms already made and introducing more change. We have not ruled out making further improvements, but the proposals that I have outlined deliberately focus on areas that we consider could contribute most to easing the administrative burden, promoting work and improving services to claimants. There is never any shortage of ideas for improving housing benefit, but there is a shortage of capacity in local authorities to manage change. That is why we want to focus on quality, not quantity, and work with local authorities to improve the system and its delivery.
I take the points my hon. Friend made about fixed-term periods and the verification framework and we are acting on them. She also mentioned the shortage of money and we have announced some modest increases. We certainly take the point about the number of regulatory changes and are looking at more consistent ways of introducing them.

875
I would point out, however, that the changes in the single room rent, which my hon. Friend warmly welcomed, require changes in regulations that need to go through the administrative process.
Let there be no mistake: we are determined to improve the administration of housing benefit, working in partnership with local authorities that have the primary
876
legal duty to administer it. I agree with my hon. Friend that the difficulties currently faced by some tenants and landlords are unacceptable. We have set out our programme of reform and the measures that we have put in place to help local authorities deal with it, and I hope that we will see a rapid improvement.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Five o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Strategic Export Controls
[Relevant documents:Third Report from the Defence Committee, Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Third Report from the International Development Committee, and Fourth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1999–2000, on Annual Reports for 1997 and 1998 on Strategic Export Controls, HC 225, the Government's response thereto, Cm 4799, the Eleventh, Seventh, Seventh and Eleventh Reports respectively from those Committees, of Session 1999–2000, on Strategic Export Controls: Further Report and Parliamentary Prior Scrutiny, HC 467, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4872.]
Motion made, and Question proposed>, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a pleasure and privilege to introduce the reports of the four Select Committees on strategic export controls which, for ease of reference, I shall refer to collectively as the Quadripartite Committee. In parliamentary terms, it is unique that four Select Committees should have reported jointly on a subject, and it was an amazing experience. To achieve such an outcome required unanimity within all four Committees. I hope that I do not over-egg the pudding when I say that, given the diversity of opinion within the Committees, it is a minor parliamentary miracle that such a result has been achieved. I hope that that unanimity gives our recommendations extra authority and weight. I must sincerely thank my colleagues, the members of the Quadripartite Committee, for the amazing tolerance that they showed in order to achieve complete agreement. In addition, I particularly thank our Clerk, Mr. Natzler. I say "our Clerk", but we borrowed him from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The work that he carried out for us was over and above his usual duties, and I am grateful for his fantastic assistance.
The fact that the Quadripartite Committee scrutinised strategic export controls has been of some help to the Government. Without it, Ministers could have been dragged to all four Committees at various times to deal with certain aspects. I am sure that this afternoon's debate on the reports will inevitably concentrate on the critical aspects of export controls policy and its implementation. The Quadripartite Committee stated repeatedly that it recognises the significant steps that the Government have taken towards transparency in arms licensing. Much has been done to establish clearly defined criteria in a European code of conduct that will become one of the most important achievements of this Parliament.
We must bear in mind especially the publication of the strategic export controls reports, which contain information that has not been seen hitherto. No such
2WH
reports have been published even in other apparently transparent systems. Although we shall concentrate on some critical aspects of the Government's licensing policy and implementation, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all four Committees when I acknowledge the openness that has been created by the introduction of the annual reports. We have sought to improve them. Some of our early recommendations dealt with their content and presentation in an endeavour to make them rather less opaque and more consumer friendly. The Government support several of our suggestions, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to continue to refine and improve the way in which the information is presented, so that it can be easily understood.
The aim of the Quadripartite Committee was to scrutinise the annual reports and to measure how the implementation of arms licensing in individual countries or in general matched the Government's declared objectives. We approached our work by sampling various sources. We considered the annual report and decided that some of the licences listed and granted were contentious, and that we needed to take a more detailed look at some countries. We then called in the licences and requested further detailed information on some of them. Through that process, we collected a considerable amount of commercially confidential information, which was given ungrudgingly by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I am grateful to officials in both Departments for the assistance given. We showed that the Quadripartite Committee can deal with commercially sensitive information in a proper and sensible manner, and express concern about that information in a way that does not infringe or breach those confidentialities. That point will become important when we come to discuss the nature of the Government's objection to our notion of prior scrutiny.
The Committee decided to review all refusals. We invited companies that had appealed to write and tell the Committee the nature of their appeal. In that respect, I draw attention to paragraphs 57 and 58 of our conclusion about the appeals procedure. We are still receiving considerably bitter observations from companies about aspects of that appeals procedure. I hope that in that regard our work gives the lie to the notion that the Quadripartite Committee is somehow hostile to the industry. We took a considered view, and we are certainly not hostile to an industry that employs more than 300,000 people and produces jobs and skills. However, we have sought to ensure, in agreement with the Government's own objective, a responsible arms trade for the United Kingdom. I challenge those who criticised our approach as one-sided to look at our report; they will find several instances in which we have raised and pressed the industry case when we felt that that was legitimate and proper.
The Quadripartite Committee undertook a series of case studies, based on countries about which there was a measure of concern regarding the way in which the policy had been implemented and licences granted. I will not go through them all because hon. Members will, no doubt, select those that are of particular interest to themselves. I will discuss in some detail the case of Zimbabwe, but it should be remembered that the report also refers to Pakistan, China and Indonesia.

3WH
The report accepts the difficulties and dilemmas that arise when the situation within a country or region changes rapidly, the resulting problems and tensions for contractual obligations and the need to amend or change policy. We examined the Zimbabwe case in considerable detail and found that there had been some muddle and confusion in the handling of that case from August 1998 onwards. Our overall concern was that the case studies revealed that arms licence decisions for Zimbabwe and Indonesia did not yet reveal evidence of joined-up government. There was evidence that Whitehall baronial interests had sometimes fought each other to an unhappy compromise—something with which I became familiar in my ancient ministerial days.
We expressed two concerns about Zimbabwe. From our assessments and analyses of the licences and the unfolding of Government policy, we found that there had been an unannounced change of policy after August 1998. We had no quarrel with the idea that policy had to be changed, but that change had not been announced. Therefore, I was surprised and astonished that the Government's response to our observation was a curious denial that there had been any change of policy. That surprises me and it ought to surprise my hon. Friend the Minister, because in his evidence to us in May last year, he told us, very openly, that there was
a very clear change of policy between August 1998 and February 2000.
Yet for some curious reason, the Government's observations almost deny that such change took place.
In Committee, we fastened on an interesting and significant point, and I will address the matter despite its technicality because there are lessons to be learned. We thought that it was an error of judgment to continue to allow military list open individual export licences to be granted after August 1998, instead of using the individual export licence arrangement, under which each licence would have been scrutinised individually. I do not find the Government's observations on our criticism of that error of judgment to be a convincing response. The Government say that open export licences
generally covered equipment which the Government was satisfied would not be used…in the DRC. Of the seven…three were to named end-users.
But from our investigations it appears that those licences were for the Government of Zimbabwe, who were the end user. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that. Indeed, two of the open licences granted were for military vehicles and for Hawk spare parts.
As in the case of Indonesia, there is a lesson to be learned. The kind of scrutiny to which we subjected the Government's processing and policy evolution in Zimbabwe justifies our Committee and the nature of that scrutiny.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of our problems in Committee, which indeed, the Government must have in the administration of their business, is that the end use of a particular instrument can be either benign or malign? I would that imagine people would prefer to go
4WH
into a war with a high-quality sporting rifle than with some of the equipment that is issued to them by their armed forces.
Mr. Rowlands: That may be true. Perhaps that point is not as forceful in Zimbabwe's case, where it is clear that what were granted under open military licences were spares to Hawk aircraft, which have a particular, unambiguous, purpose. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman has a point, it was not relevant to the case in Zimbabwe that I mentioned with respect to the two licence references.
Although I have been critical of the Government's response, in the case of Pakistan and China we welcome it. We must have greater clarification of what the European Union bases its policy on with regard to arms sales to China. We welcome the Government's commitment to seek to do that.
It is also welcome that the Government, having refused licences to Pakistan, have decided to report those denials to their European partners under the European Union code of conduct. That was a specific recommendation that we made and we appreciate that the Government have followed it up. In that context, when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he tell us whether there is any evidence that any of our European Union partners have sold or are planning to sell or issue licences for equipment and material of the kind that we have been denying? Has there been overriding of the denial by any of our European partners? Will he bring us up to speed on those issues?
I appreciate the Government's reply to the point that we made forcefully—that the European Union code of conduct should be part and parcel of the acquis communautaire and that every applicant country should be expected to be part of, belong to and observe the letter and spirit of the EU code of conduct. That will be one of the most significant evolutions of the EU code of conduct. Indeed, I hope that the accession states will apply such a code of conduct in the period leading to accession. Several of the applicant countries to the EU are significant arms suppliers, and the application of the EU code of conduct to all applicant countries is a significant development of the idea of the code.
The Committee also raised several central issues of policy, including brokering, trafficking, licence production and Government-to-Government sales. I welcome the statement made in September by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he and the Government plan in forthcoming legislation to go "significantly further" than the White Paper proposals on the issues of brokering, trafficking and licence production. It is a most important step forward that makes us all the more impatient to see the legislation. All our reports contain strongly worded recommendations and criticism of the absence of legislation following the Scott report during this Parliament.
As a result of the effort that we put in when in opposition on the issue of the Scott report, we have a legislative debt of honour to redeem the Scott recommendations in the form of legislation. We accept that such legislation will now be expanded to meet those vital other areas relating to brokering and trafficking.
I press my hon. Friend the Minister. Our impatience is combined with a great eagerness to get on with the job of scrutinising a draft Bill. When will we be able to see

5WH
that draft Bill? Will we see it, as I hope, in January, so that we can have a constructive spring examining and scrutinising the draft Bill? I have heard informally from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that that Committee does not want to conduct any such scrutiny, and that it would welcome the Quadripartite Committee examining such a draft Bill. I hope that I can persuade my colleagues to do so, as it would complement the work that we have done. We need a draft Bill. We hope and believe that we can legislate in this Session and redeem that legislative debt of honour. We are ready, willing, eager and able to undertake the work that is necessary to achieve that.
We are also ready, willing, eager and able to undertake another assignment relating to another recommendation that we made—the unanimous recommendation of the four Select Committees, involving members of all parties, that we should undertake prior scrutiny of licences. I was therefore saddened to read the Government's rejection of the proposal in the nine paragraphs that conclude the Government's observation.
As I said, the recommendation was made by all four Committees unanimously; there was little serious opposition to the suggestion that we should undertake such prior scrutiny. As the recommendation was neither quoted nor covered in the Government's reply, I remind the House why we thought prior scrutiny justifiable in that area as opposed to other forms of decisions taken by the Government. Paragraph 80 states:
In our view, the authority to export arms is of a different degree of sensitivity to other types of Ministerial casework. There can be few decisions of greater potential impact on the conduct of foreign relations, and on the lives of many people overseas, than decisions as to whether to permit weapons made in this country to be put into the hands of overseas governments and their forces. The nation as a whole feels an exceptional degree of engagement with such decisions. There is understandable anger when it is found that British-made weapons have been used to oppress or terrorise people, or to endanger the lives of our service men and women or civilians.
We agreed that powerful statement of why we thought such ministerial casework is of a different order and should be subject to prior scrutiny. In the nine paragraphs rejecting our proposal, the Government have not responded to that fundamental point in paragraph 80.
The Government's reply to our proposal for prior scrutiny comprises a range of practical objections. The first is the legal argument at the top of page 11, which states:
Involvement of the Committees in the taking of decisions under the existing legislative powers is in any event problematic, in that an extra element would be introduced into the process. This might generate doubt as to whether the decision had been taken properly in accordance with the powers conferred by Parliament.
I must correct the first sentence, because nowhere in our report do we suggest that we should be involved in the making of Government decisions. We explicitly argued for the opposite in a powerful paragraph that makes it clear that our recommendation for prior scrutiny would not remove the Government's right and responsibility to make the decision. We do not recommend that we should be involved in making decisions.
Secondly, an inference may be drawn that it would be illegal if the Secretary of State heeded the advice of a parliamentary Committee, and perhaps my hon. Friend
6WH
will explain how. The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 gives the Secretary of State notoriously wide powers to act and does not limit him in taking advice from a parliamentary Committee. It is difficult to understand how that Act could be invoked to exclude parliamentary advice. Is it seriously being suggested that a British or European court would take seriously an assertion that the Secretary of State had acted unreasonably on the basis that he had taken account of the views of a parliamentary Committee? That is an absurd notion. The legal point at the top of page 11 does not wear well and is not a justifiable objection.
The practical objections that follow include the suggestion that suppliers might be encouraged to intervene, that premature publicity might damage commercial opportunities and that debate might damage bilateral relations. The vast majority of licences are uncontentious and the few that would be subject to stage 2 notification would be contentious, so they would be debated publicly at some time, or should be. I do not accept the Government's argument that the national interest would be damaged if a small core group of licences eventually became public.
If the Government's objection is that stage 2 notification might become public and prejudice a commercial sale or cause premature damage, my colleagues and I on the four Committees are prepared to sit down with Ministers and officials to try to overcome their objections. Our proposal is not the complete and utter last article, and we can amend it to meet apparent or practical objections behind the Government's rejection. If delay is the problem—although the Government's reply overstates that issue—we can deal with it. If it is a question of how stage 2 notification is handled, we can find a way to accommodate those worries.
Are the Government's objections based on practical problems of that nature, or are they summed up by the sweeping last sentence on page 11? That has nothing to do with delays or premature publicity; it is a simple, traditional statement of the Government's approach. It states:
The Government's view remains that there is no role for advance scrutiny of individual casework decisions, which are quintessentially matters for ministerial decision in accordance with delegated powers conferred by Parliament.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether, if we manage to find a way of removing, in one way or another, the practical objections that are raised in the earlier paragraphs on page 11, he will still rest his case on the traditional constitutional concept that such matters are quintessentially for ministerial decision?
That would be an especially sad thing for a new Labour Minister to say, for two reasons. First, the report repeatedly states that the Committee is not in the business of making decisions—that is the responsibility of Ministers. Secondly, irrespective of whether prior scrutiny offends that traditional, hoary constitutional concept, surely the Government have a radical, modernising approach to constitutional matters and to openness and transparency. In this case, the Government could and should take a small but radical step forward in the genuine modernisation of the House, which would lead to a better form of scrutiny—not merely to making life more comfortable for us all, which has been the main achievement of modernisation so far.

7WH
I hope that my hon. Friend will think again about the basic constitutional structure that is outlined at the bottom of page 11. We on the Committee were—to borrow a word from the Government—quintessentially British in the way in which we approached this reform. Our proposal may be conceptually radical, but it is utterly pragmatic and cautious in terms of implementation. We believe that it is necessary to address a huge and practical problem that still applies to the current licence system—that, although considerable progress has been made in terms of openness and annual reporting, the difficulties that periodically arise with regard to parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious arms licences have still not been resolved.
I hope that it is not presumptuous of me to conclude by quoting from a letter that I wrote to Major General Sharman, director general of the Defence Manufacturers Association, addressing a fundamental matter of public and parliamentary concern. It states:
Your memorandum makes no reference to the unsatisfactory way current licence decisions are made. The current arrangements have left Parliament and public frequently depending upon partial leaks and slanted briefing and sometimes distorted media reporting.
In many cases, that is how we have found out about contentious, difficult and sometimes unpopular arms licence decisions. My letter continues:
I should have thought that the Industry and Parliament have a common cause and interest in ensuring a scrutiny system conducted on the basis of the facts of a case rather than the retrospective recriminations that occur in Parliament and the press when controversial sales are made in secret which have not been subject to any parliamentary scrutiny.
I hate to say it, but that can still happen under the new arrangements. My letter concludes:
In some cases it leads to sudden reversal of decisions and abrupt alteration in licensing policy which, surely, has not necessarily served the industry's interests or enhanced the nation's reputation as a reliable supplier. Our proposals would mean that all decisions would command greater respect and authority having been subjected to the sensible and pragmatic scrutiny procedures we have recommended.
It is a pleasure and privilege to introduce, support and recommend our reports to the House.
3 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who was an exemplary Chairman of the Quadripartite Committee. He has followed his excellent chairmanship of that unique conjunction of Select Committees with a masterful speech, which, in a quintessentially British way, demolished the Government's response on the prior scrutiny issue. He highlighted the key issues, and I shall devote my remarks to those fundamental matters, which the Quadripartite Committee has put before the Government.
I have analysed the Government's response, and their objections clearly fall into two different categories. First, they raise procedural objections. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, those objections relate to whether there is material delay, and whether information should remain confidential or be put in the public domain, and, if so, at
8WH
what point that should occur. Given sufficient good will, those issues could be resolved by further discussions between the Quadripartite Committee and the Departments concerned.
The Government's second category of objections concerns matters of substance—the legal and constitutional issues that were mentioned earlier in the debate. The hon. Gentleman referred to the top of page 11, which states:
Involvement of the Committees in the taking of decisions under the existing legislative powers is in any event problematic, in that an extra element would be introduced into the process. This might generate doubt as to whether the decision had been taken properly in accordance with the powers conferred by Parliament.
I read that with a wry smile, recognising it as the age old legal doubt gambit. It is familiar to those who have served in government and attempted a particular policy course to which their officials are opposed. The inevitable submission, which lists all the policy objections, arrives in the ministerial box. Invariably, the last objection is, "Anyway Minister, there is legal doubt whether you could do it at all." The legal doubt gambit is played extensively under this Administration—just as it was under previous Administrations. It is played in Whitehall and between Whitehall and Select Committees, and, lo and behold, it is being played here.
The Quadripartite Committee anticipated that the Government might object to our proposals by playing the legal doubt gambit. I stress to the Minister that we not only anticipated it, but that we met that line of objection head on. It is there in black and white; but given the way in which it is featured in the Government's response, I slightly regret that it was not printed in bold type. The first sentence of paragraph 88 is worth recording in full. It states:
We fully understand and accept that, even with a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny in place, responsibility for strategic export decisions will continue to lie wholly with the Government, who will be accountable to Parliament for those decisions.
The Quadripartite Committee could not have been clearer. Nothing that we propose encroaches on, dilutes or seeks to intervene in the responsibility of Ministers exercising their proper legal powers and having full control over the export licensing process. That being so—it is stated in the clearest possible terms in the report—I hope that the Minister will accept that the playing of the legal doubt gambit was wholly misplaced, and that no legal issues are raised by our proposal.
The second issue is constitutional. The final sentence of the Government's response on parliamentary scrutiny, to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney rightly drew attention, must also be considered with extreme care. It states:
The Government's view remains that there is no role for advanced scrutiny of individual case work decisions, which are quintessentially matters for ministerial decision in accordance with delegated powers conferred by Parliament.
The constitutional implications of that sentence are unacceptable. The Government are saying that, if Parliament has conferred the legal power on Ministers to take decisions on particular matters, Parliament will have forfeited the right of prior scrutiny of decisions taken under the relevant statutory powers. That is unacceptable. Parliament's function is to scrutinise the ministerial decision-making process at all times. Indeed, Parliament does so before, during and after decisions

9WH
are taken. Every Member of Parliament is aware that it is the normal course of events for Select Committees regularly to scrutinise ministerial decisions and the policies that lead to them.
For example, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has just concluded a process of prior scrutiny—it lasted for more than a year—leading up to the ministerial decisions taken at the intergovernmental conference last weekend. No one suggested that we were acting improperly or that we were not fully entitled to carry out prior scrutiny of ministerial policy or decision taking prior to the Nice summit. To suggest that, because Parliament has given Ministers the power to take decisions, it is debarred from exercising the right of prior scrutiny is constitutionally unacceptable. That final sentence is grievously misplaced.
I wish now to look forward. The debate has all the makings of a rerun of the debate on whether there should be parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence services. That debate commenced in the 1970s under the then Labour Government, and it continued under the subsequent Conservative Government. I remember the arguments that were used by successive Governments over those 20 years. They have a familiar ring. They were that national security would be imperilled; that Back-Bench Members of Parliament were insufficiently experienced and, indeed, insufficiently trustworthy to be allowed to be involved in issues of national security and intelligence; that the precedents set by the establishment of similar committees in other Parliaments, for example in the United States, should be ignored because of the allegedly different circumstances in those countries; and that in any event the matter was one for Government, in which Parliament had no right to be concerned.
Eventually the previous Conservative Government executed a more or less complete U-turn, and to their credit established the Intelligence and Security Committee—even if perhaps not in what we might now regard as the optimal form. Interestingly, since the Committee was set up, national security has not collapsed. Back-Bench Members of Parliament have shown themselves to be responsible and trustworthy in executing their responsibilities on the Committee. Furthermore, after 20 years in which Ministers maintained that a parliamentary Committee on intelligence would be unacceptable, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and possibly other Select Committees that have representatives in this Chamber, receive ministerial communications about one issue or another, telling them, "Yes, that would be quite suitable for consideration by the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we hope that it will go ahead."
I predict with confidence that we shall go down the same track with respect to what we are considering today. If the Government believe that their response this afternoon, and this afternoon's debate, will close the book on the issue of prior scrutiny, they are sorely mistaken. The report has been produced by not one but four departmental Select Committees. It has been produced not by one political party alone, but with the support of all three nationally based political parties in the House. We are all aware that it commands widespread support among Back-Bench Members of Parliament. The issue will not go away. It will return in the next Parliament and, if necessary, in subsequent
10WH
Parliaments, until, sooner or later, a future Government of unknown political complexion will agree to the establishment of prior scrutiny.
Perhaps I may have the temerity to offer some advice to the Minister of State. He no doubt has in front of him a well-crafted speech, prepared by his officials, which endeavours to defend the indefensible, which the Government's response to the Quadripartite Committee on prior scrutiny indeed is. My advice is that he should think again. I advise him to ditch the speech and to make an alternative speech, telling us that the Government accept in principle that Parliament has a legitimate, necessary and desirable role in the prior scrutiny of arms exports; that the Government have genuine grounds for concern about aspects of the detail of our proposals; that they wish to engage in further constructive dialogue with the Quadripartite Committee, with a view to reaching a satisfactory accommodation on those points; and that, having done so, they will introduce a prior scrutiny system at the earliest opportunity. I invite the Minister to make that speech at the conclusion of the debate. It might not be the best action that he could take for his future job security, but it would—I say this in all sincerity and seriousness—command almost unanimous support on the Back Benches on both sides of the House and beyond.
3.15 pm
Ann Clwyd: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for chairing the initially fractious Quadripartite Committee with great skill and diplomacy, as I would have expected. We started by treading on eggshells as we were unsure how different Committee members would react to different suggestions, but my hon. Friend managed, through the force of his chairmanship, to effect an extraordinary consensus. At times, we held our breath, because we were unsure whether someone would break ranks and pursue a different course from that which most of us initially hoped would be followed. This is my hon. Friend's last Parliament, and he can be proud of managing to bring us all together to achieve a consensual report. He is my next-door neighbour in constituency terms, and we have always had a good working relationship.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is also a neighbour, and if he were sitting on the Back Benches today, he would fully agree with the Committee's proposals. I agree with the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) that my hon. Friend the Minister should throw away his speech, although he should retain any nuggets that we would support. He has always had a clear view on the issues under discussion. We read interesting press reports that Departments are not united on some aspects of the policy and that some would support prior scrutiny. I shall not speculate on which Departments are for or against it. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister might be in a difficult situation if I asked him that question directly, and I am sure that he would not answer.
Over the years in this place, I have probably asked thousands of questions on arms, and I have received inadequate answers about disproportionate costs and so

11WH
on, which ensured that the truth was concealed. I have also asked many questions about arms sent to Iraq, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends have, so we know the extent to which those arms were cloaked in secrecy. Scott makes that clear, and I am one of those mentioned in his report who received misleading answers to questions. At the time, I heard a Minister boast that it was quite a good thing to mislead Members of Parliament and for us not to have the whole truth. Our Committee would disagree profoundly with that view.
The Government have taken a welcome step in publishing the annual report on arms exports, but that allows only for enhanced retrospective scrutiny of licensing decisions. If, as the Queen's Speech stated, new legislation will significantly improve the transparency of export controls, it must provide for a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications. That the Government's response to the Committee's report rules that out causes Labour Members and members of the Quadripartite Committee great anxiety.
Members of the Quadripartite Cttee visited Sweden and the United States and compared the models in those countries with what we thought the model for this country should be. We thought that the United States system was better than the Swedish system. There are similarities and differences, but the licensing system in those countries seems to exist without damage to the defence industry or to bilateral relations. The Minister must justify his claims in response to our report, because if the system can continue in other countries without damage, there is no reason why it should not be adopted in this country, too.
Mr. Rowe: Does the hon. Lady agree that, in the cases that are most likely to require prior scrutiny where political conditions are likely to change quickly, Ministers would have some comfort if the applications were subject to prior scrutiny by the House?
Ann Clwyd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman; that would be precisely the situation. It would give Ministers considerable relief if they knew that the prior scrutiny system had given its blessing to particular arms exports.
The Government exported rather a lot to Iraq, in the face of all the information available about the political and human rights situation there. I do not believe that if Members of Parliament had had the opportunity to say yes or no to those exports they would have agreed to the licences. Iraq still owes us £600 million in export credits guarantees.
I asked many questions about Indonesia, because it was obvious to those of us who followed the human rights situation there that, at some point, the arms would be used in human rights abuses. The campaigning organisations which monitored on the ground what was going on in Indonesia found British-supplied water cannons being used against students on the streets of Jakarta. To talk about end-use agreement is utterly
12WH
stupid. Everyone knows that, as the Minister's late former colleague, Derek Fatchett, once admitted, once arms have gone to a country
No formal mechanisms exist at present for systematically monitoring the use that has been made of British defence equipment once it has been exported.—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 240.]
That statement was made in a written answer to a question about monitoring by the Foreign Office of the end use of British-made armoured vehicles in Indonesia and East Timor. As the Indonesian case illustrated only too well, with no formal mechanisms in place for monitoring end use, the Government cannot guarantee that United Kingdom arms exports will not be used to abuse human rights or to fuel regional conflict.
I do not say that prior scrutiny would be right on every occasion, but, as the United States Congress found, when suggestions were made that there should be export licences for Indonesia, requests for those contentious export licences never went beyond the prior scrutiny committee, which knew full well that members of Congress would object. Unlike ourselves, who have agreed, with the rest of the EU, to continue arms exports to Indonesia, as of last month—the last time that I heard about it—the United States Congress still has an embargo on such exports.
Indonesia's conflict continues and our arms are being used in Aceh, West Papua and perhaps other parts of the country. It is extremely embarrassing to many Government Members that many people have recently been killed in West Papua as a result of a crackdown by the Indonesian authorities. Can anyone put their hands on their heart and say that no British-made arms are being used in the conflict? The answer must be no.
Hawk aircraft were exported to Indonesia under licences granted by the previous Government, but the present Government decided to continue to export them, together with spare parts. As a member of the Select Committee, I know that we never got to the bottom of that business. I made one of the first criticisms of the new ethical foreign policy of 1997 when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, after making speeches on human rights in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and elsewhere, said that it was impossible not to export arms to Indonesia because of pre-existing contracts and promises. The legal evidence was conflicting, so we asked to see it. Evidence from outside Parliament suggested that it would have been possible to stop the exports. Despite our requests, we never saw the legal evidence. My right hon. Friend's position was inaccurate; the exports could have been stopped at the time.
In East Timor last year, just before the referendum, Hawk aircraft were used to intimidate people living there. They flew over East Timor just as they flew over Papua. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are sorry and will not do it again. Once the potential for conflict, intimidation and killing has been exported, we must bear the responsibility for it.
I must apologise for not being able to hear the winding-up speeches. I have to meet some of my Cynon Valley constituents, who are going to No. 10 for tea. We must keep such an important date. I agree with my hon. Friends that this issue will not go away. The majority of, if not all, Members of Parliament agree with

13WH
prior scrutiny. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain why a system based on prior scrutiny would compromise political and commercial confidentiality in the UK when it does not do so in Sweden and the United States?
3.28 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I agree with her views on prior scrutiny and end-use certificates. Only a few weeks ago, when the Foreign Affairs Committee pressed the Foreign Secretary on the Government's record on human rights in China, he replied—and it is on the record—that he did not govern China. On the same principle, arms exported to countries with a poor human rights record on the basis of end-use certificates cannot be controlled either. That is obvious: the hon. Member for Cynon Valley is right.
On prior scrutiny, I agree once again with the hon. Lady and with the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). The issue will not go away, and it is clear that the Government are not responding to the desperate need to modernise our legislation on arms and strategic export control. A draft Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech. I am disappointed that it is a draft Bill because it is unlikely that it will be dealt with fully in this Parliament. Our arms control legislation is 50 years old and has not had any substantial changes in that time. It is obsolete and pitifully inadequate. The Government do not understand that, when the Bill is introduced, the House will insist on a full debate on the basis of the effectiveness and necessity of prior scrutiny by Parliament. The matter will not go away.
I should like to refer to some specific parts of the Government's response to the Quadripartite Committee's report. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak so I shall turn quickly to licensed production overseas, human rights and police equipment and a little about Pakistan. The Minister will be aware of my previous interest in that country I should like to talk about the manufacture and export of instruments of torture, which is illegal under current UK law. Clearly that is a key concern.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to our debates in the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year when, thanks to the valuable work of non-governmental organisations, and Amnesty International in particular, I exposed a loophole in existing British legislation. I should like to place on record my thanks to them. The case involved the manufacture of what were described as oversize handcuffs sold by a company called Hyatt-Thompson, operating out of New Jersey in America. However, they were sold not as handcuffs, but as leg irons. That was made possible simply by adding a longer length of chain to the cuffs.
It is important to note that Hyatt-Thompson had previously been owned by Hyatts of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, which proudly declared in its literature that it had been an established purveyor of restraining implements since the slave trade. I drew the Minister's attention to the allegation that the oversized handcuffs, together with the accessory to make them into leg irons, were being made in and exported from the UK. The Minister accepted that there was a loophole in
14WH
the legislation, although there was no evidence that it was being exploited. It is a year since that was debated. Can he confirm that the loophole has been closed and that the opportunity to export instruments of torture no longer exists?
The second case in this regard is the manufacture and export of electric shock batons. It is illegal to make those instruments in the UK and to export them but, as the law stands, it is not illegal for a British-owned company based overseas to manufacture there. Hon. Members are familiar with the renowned case of the British-owned company Heckler and Koch, which licensed a local manufacturer in Turkey to produce hundreds of thousands of combat assault rifles, some of which were exported to Indonesia. United Kingdom companies can get round arms export and end-use controls by manufacturing offshore. I hope that when the draft Bill eventually arrives, it will include measures to control those activities.
There is a deeper issue here. What if a British-owned firm manufactures offshore equipment that it is illegal to make in, let alone to export from the UK? There is a case in question; Smith & Wesson, which most of the men in the Chamber will remember from schoolboy comics, is a famous company in the arms industry. It is now British owned, but its factories are in the USA and electric shock batons are among the range of products that it manufactures and sells—perfectly legally in the United States. They are popular with police agencies in the southern states of America, particularly Texas, which might tell us something. As we know, the USA has far stronger export licensing controls, of which prior scrutiny is one, than the United Kingdom. It already has effective legislative scrutiny for its arms export industry. However, when the export of electric shock batons and similar instruments to countries with an unacceptable human rights record was queried by the federal authorities, Smith & Wesson was able to claim that, as a British company, it was outside the strictures of American controls. The question for the Minister is whether the new Bill will deal with the mechanisms by which manufacturers can get round the laws of this land, even though they are British companies.
At the other end of the scale is the Pakistan affair, if I may put it that way, where the actions of Government agencies caused the closure of Royce Industrial Ovens in Boyatt Wood in Eastleigh, with a consequent loss of jobs. That case was pertinent to my constituents and me. Royce undertook legitimate business but fell foul of the Government in what amounted to an embargo—the Minister will disagree with that description—on exports to Pakistan. Last year, Royce won an order from Pakistan for the supply of component parts for simple plate-heating furnaces. The contract was worth more than £250,000, which is a large order for a small firm. It applied for an export licence in October 1999, with a shipment date of 1 February 2000. In December, the company was informed by the Department of Trade and Industry that the application was with the Foreign Office and would be processed in one or two weeks. As time went by, it made numerous calls to the DTI and each time was told that the matter was still with the Foreign Office but would be chased up. After Royce contacted me, I wrote to the Secretary of State in mid-March—already two weeks after the shipment date.

15WH
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs replied to me a month later, in mid-April, and said:
Where the ECO does need to circulate an application for an export licence… the aim is to provide the applicant with a substantive response within 20 working days.
That letter was written six months after the original application for an export licence. By late May, seven months after the application, Royce told me that its daily inquiries to the DTI were met with one lame excuse after another. Royce's clients eventually refused to extend the letter of credit, leaving it with no option but to cancel the contract, incur the associated financial penalties and close its operation.
It cannot be right for the Export Control Organisation to act in such a dilatory manner. When a Minister has told me that a 20-day clearance procedure is the norm, why is my constituent still waiting for an answer seven months later? Why could not my constituents have been told when they made their application that it was abnormal? Why could they not have been made aware of the likelihood of their application's success or failure, instead of being strung along month after month?
The Government's arguments in response to the Quadripartite Committee and their failure to accept that prior parliamentary scrutiny is and should be the norm are unacceptable. The Committee visited Sweden and the United States of America, the two countries that operate prior scrutiny through their legislative systems. How can the United States, which is one of the largest and most aggressive arms exporters in the world, continue to be so successful in its arms sales if its regime of prior scrutiny causes problems? It is specious to argue that it does. If it is so successful with that sort of control, how can prior scrutiny be such a hindrance to the United Kingdom defence industry?
I would like the Minister to respond to three specific examples: the closure of legal loopholes concerning the manufacture of prohibited instruments of torture; the offshore manufacture of those instruments by certain companies; and the dilatory action and lack of sensitivity or understanding of the ECO in its issuing of legitimate export licenses. I look forward to the Minister's response.
3.40 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to serve on the Quadripartite Committee. That may not be the most elegant title, but we undertake important work. I join my colleagues in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for the effective way in which he chairs the Committee.
Today's debate relates to strategic export controls. The Committee and the Government have often referred to the issue of transparency and, with regard to that, we should perhaps refer to arms export controls rather than strategic export controls. I may be the only person who was in any doubt about the meaning of that term; perhaps those whom we represent know that we are discussing the control of the arms trade. However, a bit of transparency might be a good idea.
16WH
This is an important issue because the United Kingdom is the world's second largest arms exporter—we export about 25 per cent. of global arms exports, earning £7 billion of export revenue each year. That activity raises two important issues. First, what should be our policy towards arms exports? Secondly, when the Government have a clear policy, what control regimes should operate to ensure that that policy is implemented? As a member of the Quadripartite Committee, I strongly endorse the Committee's comments on both those issues, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney on the way in which we secured agreement on certain recommendations.
In fairness, I should also congratulate the Government. Although I want to maintain the cross-party support for the reports—which I know will continue anyway—I must say that we could not have had this debate four years ago.
Mr. Chidgey: Three years.
Mr. Berry: Three years ago, within three months of the general election, we were at least given new criteria for arms exports. There was a policy of not granting a licence if there was a clearly identifiable risk that arms exports might be used for internal oppression or external aggression—a policy that did not exist before. Although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) in respect of legal loopholes, action was taken to ban weapons of torture. The Landmines Act 1998 was passed, and a White Paper was drafted on arms export controls—neither of which existed previously. There have been three annual reports on arms export controls and, as a direct result of the United Kingdom presidency, a European Union code of conduct—neither of which we have ever had before.
We also, for better or worse, have a Quadripartite Committee—I think that it is very much for the better, and am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree. The benefits of that Committee are that we can ask searching questions of the Minister and his colleagues and take advice from a variety of organisations with a serious and long-standing interest in the issue of arms exports. Amnesty International, Saferworld and other organisations have been able to put their views in public, in perhaps a more visible way, because of the Quadripartite Committee. That is no mean achievement. I believe, therefore, that our position today is fundamentally different from that of four or five years ago, and I welcome that progress.
Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that one other important factor is that the arms trade is now alerted to the fact that arms control will be coming—perhaps more slowly than some of us would want—and the industry has had to clean up its act and become much more transparent in its own right?
Mr. Berry: That is an important point. One of the benefits of such debates is that they raise people's awareness of issues that the Government may address more forcefully in future. Arms export control issues are now far higher on the public policy agenda than they have ever been. I know from my work on the Quadripartite Committee and on the Trade and Industry Committee that that high profile has had an

17WH
effect on the behaviour of certain companies. Having rightly and genuinely sung the Government's praises, I shall now explain why I am disappointed that, despite the fact that the Scott report was published almost five years ago, we have still not modernised the legislation on the control of arms exports. We desperately need new legislation. It is unfortunate that there is to be a delay, but I hope that it will at least give the Government an opportunity to take on board some of the issues raised in the reports and those referred to by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would confirm that the delay means that certain issues can be considered further before new legislation comes into force.
I draw the Chamber's attention to early-day motion 391 from our previous Session. I shall not bore hon. Members by reading it out, but I tabled a motion on 14 February this year, the eve of the fourth anniversary of the publication of the Scott report. It acknowledged the progress that the Government had made, but it called on them specifically to introduce comprehensive and effective legislation to strengthen the control on strategic exports in the next parliamentary Session. Unfortunately, that is not to happen, but the early-day motion was signed by 199 right hon. and hon. Members. Of the 1,400 early-day motions that were tabled in the previous Session, only a handful had more signatures attached to them than early-day motion 391. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said, that shows the extent of support in the House for reform.
My second disappointment concerns the Government's response to our Committee's recommendations on prior scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling have already touched on such matters, but I, too, find the Government's legal argument unconvincing. It is absurd for anyone to suggest that the Secretary of State would be acting unreasonably if he took into account the views of a Committee. I agree with my colleagues that that does not seem sensible.
I refer now to the other arguments against prior parliamentary scrutiny. If such scrutiny must cause undue delays, damage the defence industry and harm bilateral relations, why do the United States Government not feel that it is an issue? The United States is the largest arms exporter in the world. Under whichever presidency, it is mindful of its defence industry and bilateral relations, and of operating efficiently. If it is not a problem for the USA or Sweden, I do not understand why it should be a problem for us. I hope that in due course the Government will clarify why they believe that the United Kingdom is a special case.
The Queen's Speech promised a draft Bill to improve the transparency of export controls and to establish their purpose. I welcomed the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on Monday when he assured the House that the problem of brokering and trafficking would be covered in the draft Bill. The Government have stated in their response that their proposals will go significantly further than those in the 1998 White Paper. I warmly welcome that. It is unacceptable that a United Kingdom company that brokers a deal to purchase arms in a second country and then export them to a third country
18WH
does not have to apply for an arms export licence because the materials do not touch UK soil. That is patently absurd.
I have to obtain a licence to drive a car, to be married and to watch television. I have to obtain a licence to run a raffle, to sell alcohol and if I want to go fishing. However, if I want to buy arms from any person, company or regime under the sun and sell them on to any person, company or regime under the sun, however unscrupulous they may be, I do not need a licence or need to notify the authorities that I am engaged in that activity. That does not make sense, as the Government have acknowledged, and I look forward to seeing the detailed proposals in the draft Bill.
In the meantime, will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the Government will introduce a licensing system for arms brokers, that controls will apply to the trafficking and brokering of light weapons and small arms, that those engaged in brokering will be required to apply for a licence for each individual transaction and, finally, that controls will extend to British arms brokers operating on foreign soil? Only if the answers to those questions are yes can we be confident that we are beginning to tackle the problem of trafficking and brokering.
Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree—I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for raising a matter that I have raised previously in this Chamber—that, as Amnesty International has said, if we are capable of tracking British beef from the producer to the end point, we should be able to do that with arms?
Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United Kingdom has acquired great expertise in tracking beef from producer to consumer, but we do not seem to have mastered the skills required to track the export and transfer of arms. My hon. Friend raised an interesting point, which was so good that I intended to make it myself.
On licence production, there is more than one way of getting around existing arms controls. A child of five could do it. One way is through brokering and another is through licence production. Arms can be produced not in the United Kingdom but by a subsidiary company in a second country which then exports them to a third country. It is pretty easy and there is nothing sophisticated about it. It is not rocket science, which is why companies do it. Reference has been made to a wholly British-owned company that manufactured machine guns in a second country, which ended up in Indonesia during the East Timor crisis.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what plans the Government have to introduce controls on licence production of arms overseas. The White Paper was disappointing in that regard and I hope that my hon. Friend can be more encouraging this afternoon. Licence production is a second, obvious way of getting round the current arms export controls regime.
My final point concerns end-use monitoring. The Scott report showed how easy it was to get round arms export controls by exporting through a third country. Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said, the Indonesian authorities

19WH
assured the Government that Hawks would not be used in East Timor. Subsequently, of course, the chief of its armed forces admitted that they were used. End-use monitoring is crucial in determining where arms are eventually to be used. What plans do the Government have to strengthen controls on the end use of arms exported from the UK? I know that they are more diligent nowadays, but I should like to be assured that they are taking the matter far more seriously.
The Government can be proud of the action that they have taken so far, but further legislation is an important and necessary next step. To coin a phrase, "A lot done, a lot more to do."
3.56 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I add my praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for his splendid—indeed, nothing short of magnificent—chairmanship of the Quadripartite Committee. He seems to have achieved the impossible in bringing together those four Committees, which are diverse in their nature and membership. The result is a truly impressive and historic report, of which he can be proud.
Action to ensure far better control of arms sales is long overdue. During the past decade, 8 million people have been killed in wars in Africa alone, and some of the arms that killed them were shipped and/or brokered from this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) eloquently pointed out, there are often no regulation and licensing arrangements whatsoever. Many shipments are sent illegally in breach of United Kingdom, European Union or United Nations embargoes. In the previous Session, I introduced a ten-minute Bill that would make it illegal for any UK citizen or company to do that, whether in the UK or from abroad. Organisations such as Amnesty International and Oxfam have made powerful representations, mainly in relation to the Queen's Speech, calling for urgently needed new legislation to embrace licensing control, brokering, end-user monitoring and greater transparency arrangements.
The Quadripartite Committee rightly praised the Government for introducing the UK code of conduct—which has been extended to the EU code of conduct—and for pushing forward the Wassenaar agreement. However, that work must continue to secure a coordinated policy with the United States and, eventually, with central and eastern Europe and China. That will ensure a proper standard for arms sales and transfers across the globe.
As a recent Radio 4 programme revealed, some arms brokers say when they are caught, "If we don't sell, others will." If they had their way, there would be a free-for-all. It blows apart any public policy not to fuel wars, and will end up fuelling the killings that I referred to earlier. All our international development money and effort will go down the drain. The converse to that argument is true: if we fail to control arms, other countries will not do so either, and we shall not be in a position to demand that they do. If we fail to implement the system of accountability for arms sales that the Quadripartite Committee has argued for, we cannot demand it of other countries. We must press on down that route.
20WH
Let us re-examine the basics. The basis for the arms trade is the United Nations charter, which states that countries have the right to self-defence, and I accept that. However, the charter should be modified, so that it does not justify the supply of arms to a serial abuser of human rights—or, indeed, a serial abuser of United Nations resolutions. I draw the Minister's attention to that point, which should be a key issue in the future reform of the United Nations.
The essence of export controls is that a country takes a decision that it does not want another country or group to have access to weapons or torture equipment that could be useful to its military, paramilitary or police forces. Such decisions are subject to certain criteria, which must be applied when there are conflicting indicators of whether to agree to the trade. In July 1997, the Government published those criteria for the first time, an action that I applauded at the time, and still regard as a significant milestone on the road to greater openness.
The annual report on strategic export controls is another of the Government's valuable innovations. Nevertheless, we need less ambiguity in that report and greater transparency in the overall process, and that is why I strongly support the Quadripartite Committee's proposal for prior parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee put the case for that extremely well, and I am dismayed that the Government kicked it into touch. Prior parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate under both the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 and whatever new legislation is to replace it. Prior scrutiny is irrefutable under the current legislation. The flaws in the 1939 Act have been repeatedly explained, not least by Lord Scott in his famous report.
The Government's view is that
Involvement of the Committees in the taking of decisions under the existing legislative powers is in any event problematic, in that an extra element would be introduced into the process. This might generate doubt as to whether the decision had been taken properly in accordance with the powers conferred by Parliament.
The current powers were conferred by Parliament, but after only 12 minutes' debate in the days leading up to world war two. The 1939 Act has many faults, the most important of which are its poorly defined, sweeping emergency powers. Such measures are appropriate for a national emergency such as world war two, but they are too vague for a peaceful, civilised society.
The Government also state that
there is no role for advance scrutiny of individual casework decisions, which are quintessentially matters for ministerial decision in accordance with delegated powers conferred by Parliament.
I wonder whether the Government's reluctance to accept the Committee's prior scrutiny proposal stems from a fear that it could be the thin end of the wedge, and that Parliament would keep demanding prior scrutiny of other casework issues. I do not think that that would happen. Life in Parliament is already busy enough, without adding further burdens. However, arms exports are a special case. Once arms have been exported, they are out of our control. They have a shelf life longer than that of most Governments. That is why decisions must be right at the outset. There is no review and there are no amendments. There are weapons still in service around the world—such as armoured cars in Indonesia—that were exported from this country in the

21WH
1960s. The British public become very angry if arms that are sold by Britain are used to abuse human rights or, indeed, are used against Britain's own armed forces in a subsequent war.
The passage that I quoted about matters that were "quintessentially…for ministerial decision" is an argument for the retention of Executive power, which the Government want to defend. At paragraph C1.64 of the Scott report, it is argued that the continued use of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 is
a reprehensible abuse of executive power by successive administrations.
I agree with the Committee that prior parliamentary scrutiny is an antidote to reprehensible abuse of executive power in this important context.
A new factor must be taken into account—the European convention on human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October and states that Government interference with private property must be fair and accountable. Sir Richard Scott stated in his report, at paragraph C1.120, that the 1939 Act could be incompatible with the European convention, and offered the opinion that
it is by no means clear that a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights would be unsuccessful.
Now that it is possible to challenge the law in British courts, a perilous situation could arise for the Government. I am not a lawyer, but I would argue that prior scrutiny would allow the Government to argue in the courts, against any such challenge, that licence applications were being dealt with fairly and accountably. Parliamentary involvement would support that case.
The Quadripartite Committee has made a powerful and impressive case for prior parliamentary scrutiny. The Government's response is narrow and perhaps stems from fear of such an important change. I hope that the Minister of State, and indeed the Government, will not remain tied to the policies that they have announced. I hope that they will think again about the issue, recognise the importance of the recommendation that has been made, and accept it.
4.8 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I intend to follow the pattern of almost every speech that has been made this afternoon, and welcome what the Government have done so far to provide greater transparency in strategic export controls. It was a big step to introduce annual reports on strategic export controls. The setting up of the Quadripartite Committee was an excellent decision. I also appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) acted as Chairman of that difficult and potentially unwieldy Committee. He made sure that effective and important reports were produced.
Arms sales are a sensitive issue. Certainly, my constituents write to me about it. It is important that decisions on arms sales should be transparent. The public do not merely want to know what arms are sold, and where. They want to understand the reasons for the judgment that the Government make. I therefore strongly support the Committee's
22WH
recommendation that arms export licences should be the subject of prior parliamentary scrutiny, and I object to the Government's rejection of that recommendation.
Several hon. Members argued against some of the reasons that the Government gave for that rejection. I am not convinced by the argument on delay. An additional 10 days would not be particularly significant. Although the Government said that the target is 20 days, in an answer to me about arms to Israel, which was recorded in Hansard on 16 November, they stated that, of 27 outstanding applications for open individual export licences relating to exports to Israel, 14 had been outstanding for more than six months. An additional 10 days of Committee deliberation would not make much difference.
The suggestion that prior scrutiny would result in breaches of confidentiality that might make the United Kingdom less competitive is insulting. It implies that Members of Parliament are less trustworthy than Ministers. There is no evidence of that. Whenever Members of Parliament are given confidential information, they are quite as trustworthy as Ministers. If Members manage to get hold of information that others have tried to withhold from them, they may feel that they have not been treated properly and that they would therefore be justified in passing on that information. Members of Parliament should be trusted when they are taken into someone's confidence. If they cannot be trusted, they ought not to be Members of Parliament. As for competitiveness, it clearly is not a problem for the United States or Sweden. The US is at least as competitive in this matter as we are, if not more so, yet it has prior scrutiny.
The objection that I found particularly irritating was the notion that detailed debate about the merits of exporting particular goods to particular destinations might damage bilateral relations. Debate will be needed only if we have real and legitimate concerns. If such a debate had occurred, and if it were decided that the sale should go ahead, a proper ventilation of the arguments would have allowed unsubstantiated allegations to be refuted. The proper ventilation of the arguments would give greater legitimacy to such sales and could not possibly damage bilateral relations. Indeed, it might strengthen them. In any case, as the House is aware, Members of Parliament have plenty of opportunity to ventilate their concerns about particular regimes, and most foreign Governments, even those who are autocratic, understand the difference between the strong personal views expressed by a Member of Parliament about a particular regime and Government policy. The reasons put forward by the Government are wholly unconvincing.
There is one reason why prior scrutiny could be positively advantageous to the Government. The most difficult cases, and those for which the Government have been most criticised, are often those when Members of Parliament and the public have effectively applied a measure of hindsight. Examples of that, which would have happened before prior parliamentary scrutiny existed, include arms sales to Argentina and Iraq. With the particular exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), most Members of Parliament who subsequently criticised those arms sales did not criticise them when the sales were made, and Argentina attacked the Falklands, and thereby us.

23WH
Prior scrutiny would allow Parliament to judge the advisability of arms sales against criteria and in real time, as do the Government, and we would not have to rely on hindsight. That would provide a level playing field between Parliament and the Government, and both could consider the changing circumstances as they happen. It will be no surprise that I again use the example of the sale of British arms to Israel. That is an example of circumstances changing quickly; and the judgments that are being made now are different from those that were made in the past. It is right that there should be prior scrutiny, that Parliament, through the Committee or whatever system is set up, should judge those sales in real time, as do the Government.
I add my voice to those of other hon. Members in asking the Government to reconsider the issue of prior scrutiny. I accept that there may be practical difficulties with the suggestions of the Quadripartite Committee, but that is no reason for the Government to reject them out of hand. I urge the Government to explore, with the Committee, ways of introducing prior scrutiny that could reduce potential problems foreseen by the Government but provide proper and effective parliamentary oversight.
I return to the issue of arms sales to Israel to highlight the unsatisfactory nature of the system by which Members of Parliament try to exercise scrutiny to discover the Government's policy and what happens to the arms that have been sold—I use arms as shorthand for components and military equipment. Of the arms that have been sold to Israel, components for combat helicopters have raised particular anxieties. Combat helicopter gun ships have been used by the Israelis against civilian targets and the Israeli defence force made it explicit that those attacks were in retaliation for earlier attacks on Israelis. Such retaliatory attacks break the fourth Geneva convention.
The British Government have repeatedly stated in evidence given by the Foreign Secretary to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and in written answers to my questions that there is no evidence that equipment licensed by this Government for export to Israel has been used against civilians in the occupied territories.
The Government have sought assurances from senior Israeli military people and from the Israeli Government that no equipment or components licensed for export have been used against civilians in the occupied territories or in southern Lebanon. However, it is clear that the Government have had no such assurances from the Israelis, nor have the British Government any evidence to show that British-made arms and components have not been used against civilians in the occupied territories or in southern Lebanon. That shows the lack of substance of the Government's claims that they can prevent the misuse or diversion of arms once they have been exported. Indeed, it is apparent that the Government are not aware whether misuse or diversion is occurring, despite the presence in the occupied territories of our diplomats, those of other European Union member states and, I imagine, of a defence attaché in Tel Aviv. The Government cannot assure the British people that British arms and components are not being used, as we speak, to kill and injure Palestinian civilians.
24WH
The Minister said last month in a written answer that the Government had not approved any licences for permanent export of CS gas to the Israeli Government because of concern about the use of the gas against Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. I welcome the fact that he also said that he had refused those applications, but I should be grateful if he would explain how that statement is consistent with the 1998 Government report on strategic arms exports, which details CS grenades, presumably containing CS gas, among standard individual export licences issued. That does not seem consistent.
For 22 years, until earlier this year, Israel was in illegal occupation of a large tract of southern Lebanon. For all that time, Britain, and most other countries, supported the United Nations resolution condemning that illegal occupation and calling upon Israel to withdraw. Yet, throughout that period, the British Government apparently sold arms to Israel without any end-use restrictions. The Minister's response of 23 November stated:
No such geographical restrictions have been placed on export licences to Israel. [Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol. 339, c. 273W.]
That is extraordinary. The Government's stated policy is that we do not sell arms for external aggression or internal repression. Yet apparently, over the years, we have sold arms to an Israeli Government whose external aggression towards Lebanon and continued occupation of southern Lebanon we condemned, without placing any end-use restrictions to prevent their use in Lebanon. I should be grateful if the Government would explain that omission. I should be quite interested to know why the Quadripartite Committee never thought of asking about it either.
The continued deaths of, and injuries to, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have dropped out of the press. They have now reached nearly 300 deaths and more than 7,000 injuries. The excessive violence of the Israeli forces is the main contributing factor in the huge and disproportionate death rate. I note that there are significant numbers of applications for standard individual export licences and open individual export licences outstanding for arms to Israel. I urge the Government to halt all arms sales to Israel forthwith. That is made particularly important because the Israeli Government are apparently failing to give any assurances that they will not use British arms against civilians and therefore our only redress to prevent British arms from being used against civilians is simply not to sell any arms to Israel.
4.21 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I was not a full member of the Quadripartite Committee but was drafted in on occasion and, like everyone else, I came to admire the way that the Committee conducted its business in quite complicated territories. What I have to say is along similar lines to other hon. Members: there are only one or two key issues here. The first is prior scrutiny. It is interesting that the Government say on page 11 of the response that they are committed to transparency, yet pages 10 and 11 contain some of the murkiest paragraphs I have ever seen.
Anyone who wants to set a civil service training exercise on how to get up MPs' noses should look at pages 10 and 11 of the response. That is what everyone

25WH
has been looking at. There is a sense of being insulted by the response. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said earlier, the unconvincing legal gambit has been thrown in that Government integrity would be threatened by the involvement of parliamentary advice. Those are not serious arguments.
The Committee went to Sweden and America—although I did not go—to look at other systems to produce evidence to back its argument that it could be done. What was the Government's response? The insulting fact is that they said they would ignore the fact that the Committee had gathered evidence in Sweden and America that prior scrutiny works. They would not even take it on board, as they are far away places, which are not worth knowing about. They came out with statements such as
The Government stands by its conclusion…that such scrutiny would not be right.
Someone's turf is being threatened. We are here because we believe that the present system has not worked. Arms sales to Indonesia have been damaging to the interests of this country and to the people of Indonesia. The revelations in the Scott report were damaging to the interests of this country. Someone was making bad decisions. We need to find a better mechanism for dealing with that. It is always better if contentious decisions on such contentious matters as arms sales are backed by parliamentarians.
We must ask the Government to go back to that and look at what remain murky waters to try to find greater clarity. It beggars belief that we are turning it down on the grounds that it would do significant damage to the competitiveness of United Kingdom exports and have a materially adverse impact on the efficiency of the export licensing system. Are we seriously suggesting that the United States would voluntarily damage its arms export industry by prior scrutiny? Of course it would not. There must be a way of integrating prior scrutiny into the process so as not to damage our legitimate arms industry, while giving British decisions on the matter more credibility.
One cannot conduct business with everlasting delays. However, the Committee's evidence states:
If Congress does not notify the administration of any objections or queries within 30 days, the proposed sale is automatically authorised.
Therefore, the onus is on Congress or Parliament; if there is an objection, it is up to the congressman, parliamentarian or member of a committee to deal with that objection quickly so that commercial interests are not damaged. We should go back to the Government with that point, because the quality of their response on pages 10 and 11—around paragraph 24—is simply not good enough.
Mr. Cohen: I can just add that prior parliamentary scrutiny does not mean that Parliament makes the decisions; it is merely involved in the decision. Paragraph 88 of the Quadripartite Committee report states that responsibility for decisions will continue to lie wholly with the Government.
Mr. Worthington: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
26WH
Let us put the matter in the wider context of the importance, in this and many other fields, of collective international action. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who is a fellow member of the International Development Committee, is present. One of the events that has stuck in my mind from this Parliament is when Ambassador Fowler, who was responsible for sanctions against Angola, gave evidence to that Committee. When somebody raised the issue of small arms entering Angola, the ambassador said that he could not stop 50-tonne tanks getting into Angola, let alone small arms. We assumed that the weapons in that case were coming from the Ukraine.
How will we tackle the problems of conflict, especially in the poorest countries, unless we start taking action towards arms control? It is good that the European Union code of conduct exists, and some of the recent international activity for getting action on debt has been impressive. The European Union's proposals to allow everything but arms for the least developed countries to enter the European Union are also impressive. My hon. Friend the Minister's action on diamonds, which involves international activity to stop the use of diamonds in buying the arms that fuel conflict, is important, too. There must be collective activity to gain control of the arms trade, and our contribution must be what the Quadripartite Committee recommends. If our own arms activity remains in murky waters, we will not make our contribution to the international framework.
My final point relates to how we deal with the shameful and embarrassing situation in which we find that British arms are being used somewhere without our knowledge. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with that. How do we police that? What happens if we find that British arms have turned up where we would not want them to be used? My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) referred to Israel and Palestine. In those situations, is there any mechanism whereby it is the duty of the British Government to find out the route by which the arms arrived and which dealers were involved? That is one of the points on which I would like a response.
4.30 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: As one of those not involved in any of the Committees that have worked on the report, I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on the work that has taken place. The tone of the debate shows that some impressive and knowledgeable individuals have worked on the reports, and I am pleased that they have seen the light of day. They shed light on some dark corners of the arms trade. I am also pleased that the report has managed to tweak out of the Government their early thinking on where they see future arms export controls going. I also mention organisations such as Oxfam and Amnesty International, which beyond, during and since Scott have added so much in terms of the pressure that they have put on Ministers in this and the previous Government to keep this agenda alive. I have been able to draw on some of the comments that they have made in relation to the Committee's report, and some invaluable work has been done in those areas.
Like others, I am disappointed that the Queen's Speech has not sped up the process. It is a pity that we have only a draft Bill and that nothing will be set in place

27WH
before the next general election. Nevertheless, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that we now live in a very different climate from that which we had under the previous Government. This Government have introduced measures that the Liberal Democrats welcome, and we are only disappointed that the pace has not been faster. We recognise that, by putting a marker down with the draft Bill, the Government are setting out their intentions. When we see the contents of the draft Bill, we will make detailed observations, but I wanted to use this opportunity to make some initial observations on what we perceive to be the Government's thinking, based on their responses to the Committee's report. Like others, I am concerned about the Government's apparent rejection of the concept of prior scrutiny.
Some of the Government's arguments have already been mentioned by hon. Members. I sympathise with the argument that it will delay the process: business men in my constituency have been involved in installing water purification systems. Their frustration that the system takes so long, and their experience of going through all the processes, is very real. Nobody wants to put in place a system that has long delays and becomes clogged up, and that will not help British business men to export. It seems, having read extracts from the Committee's report that we are, after all, talking about a small minority of cases having to go through the process. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we are talking not about the whole range but about a few cases that would require a delay of only 10 days.
Sir John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the Quadripartite Committee's proposals in terms of the numbers of arms export licences that might be the subject of prior scrutiny and where delay might occur are a minute fraction of the total number of applications to the Government. As he was not a member of the Quadripartite Committee, perhaps he is not aware that the delay that is a consequence of the procedure that we are recommending is measured in days. In contrast, the representations that we have received from the arms export industry throughout the whole process and, indeed, throughout this Parliament tell us that the real delays that are occurring are measured in weeks, if not months, as a result of delays inside Whitehall.
Mr. Oaten: I am grateful for that intervention because it makes the point better than I could have done. We could conclude from that that, if proper practice were in place and we had a prior scrutiny system, and made it clear that it would be merely a number that had to go through the process, that would offer an opportunity to examine the entire system and speed up applications that clearly involved no sensitive defence concerns. Having listened to some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I understand that there are clearly anxieties that some ordinary, straightforward applications are being held up in the system.
The Government's second anxiety relates to competition—that the proposal would impact on competition. Again, I am unclear about the Government's arguments in this case. I apologise if I have
28WH
not read the proposal in detail, but the suggestion does not seem to be to issue a big public notice that sends a signal to competitors from other countries that they can suddenly bid for contracts when that is the first that they have heard about the matter. Surely the scrutiny will be private, and it will not become commercially sensitive and allow our competitors to make use of it. I should welcome a comment from the Minister about whether he acknowledges that it would be a private process that could not be used by competitors. After all, as other hon. Members have argued, we trust the work of MI6, MI5 and GCHQ to an Intelligence and Security Committee. What could be more sensitive than allowing that Committee to meet every week? Surely if we have established that principle, the same can be done for our arms exports. The point has been made time and again that, if it is good enough for Sweden and the United States, it must be a good enough and proper for this system in this country.
Whichever speech the Minister will read—;the one that was pre-prepared or the one that I hope that he is writing at the moment—he should reconsider the issue of pre-scrutiny. The most compelling argument seems to be a basic human one. The proposal would also provide Ministers with a get-out-of jail free card. What better protection has a future Minister appearing before a future Scott inquiry than to be able to say, "But hang on a second, the Scrutiny Committee looked at it"? If I were ever—it is of course highly unlikely, being a member of my party—in the Minister's shoes, I certainly would want that to have that reassurance behind me.
I welcome the Government's introduction of annual reports, but they are weak. As hon. Members have said, we need a system that monitors the end use and movement of goods from the time at which the export licence is issued to the point of delivery. The information that appears on licences is meaningless. I was amused to read the entry for the Channel islands. Looking at some of the goods that have been going there—air rifles, pistols, small arms ammunition and stun grenades—anyone would think that the Channel islands were about to declare war on someone. However, the reality is that much of the equipment was in fact intended for museums there. That shows the nonsense of the misinformation or lack of information that can at, at a light-hearted level, give a misleading idea about something that is harmless, but that, at its worst, is covering up matters that need to be dealt with.
I understand that the Government's response is that
the data provided by … Customs and Excise was obtained from an administrative system which was not designed for the specific purpose of collecting information about defence exports.
Apart from sounding like text from a "Yes, Minister" sketch, surely the point is that, if the system is not designed to collect information in that way at the moment, it is not beyond the wit of man to change the system so that such information can be provided.
Liberal Democrats are encouraged by the DTI's background note on the draft export control Bill, which contains some encouraging signs that measures to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers will go further than the White Paper. I believe that everyone would agree that adequate legislation on the matter is long overdue.
I was alarmed to read about some real-life examples of just how easy it is for brokers to obtain fraudulent order requests on official headed paper from a third

29WH
country's ministry of defence. As my researcher said when writing this speech, "It can be the equivalent of simply picking up some of your House of Commons headed paper, Mark, and being able to use and misuse that." We are talking not about 16-year-olds using fake ID to buy alcohol but about lethal weapons, which, when in the wrong hands, are used to commit serious human rights violations. Surely, to overcome that, control should begin with the introduction of standardised international end-use certificates that can be traced to the point of issue, carry legal obligations relating to the equipments' use and include compliance to international human rights law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to brokers who traffic in weapons on foreign soil. I hope that the Minister will respond to the issue of extra-territorial jurisdiction. A principle has been established in that extra-territorial powers were granted in the Chemical Weapons Act 1996.
We have come a long way on from the Scott report, and that is welcome. The Government are genuinely committed to dealing with arms control, but the progress and the improved atmosphere that have resulted could be set back considerably if they do not rethink their initial cautious response. They should take on board the comments made by hon. Members from all parties and the excellent work done by the Committee.
4.40 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: After our extensive debate, I have little to add. It would probably be better for me—but certainly not for the Minister—if I did not make a speech but allowed him the luxury of the rest of the time in which to respond. However, I shall have to disappoint some hon. Members by continuing, because there are points that I wish to make.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowland) on the way in which he has steered the Quadripartite Committee through an extremely complex and delicate matter, arriving at two substantial reports that make an unprecedented contribution to the debate. I also congratulate the other hon. Members who have spoken today—those who are here and those who have had to leave. It goes against my grain to say it, but all speeches have been excellent and worthy of this Chamber, in which, unfortunately and much to my disgust, we occasionally reach consensus.
However, I am disappointed that we are debating the matter in this Chamber. When the Committee recommended that the subject be debated on a substantive motion, it could not have imagined that it would be relegated to this Chamber and run at a time parallel to a debate on the Floor of the House. A report that was drafted by four Select Committees—Defence, Trade and Industry, International Development, and Foreign Affairs—warrants a debate on the main Floor of the House.
It is important to remember what we are discussing here: the rules and regulations that surround the operation of the defence and aerospace industries, which are perhaps our most successful industries. They employ some 400,000 people in this country—that is not to be sneezed at. Anything that affects our
30WH
manufacturing industry should be discussed at length. The Library has calculated that some 206,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since this Government came into office. No matter what deliberations we make or conclusions we draw, we must ensure that whatever actions we take enhance the reputation of our industries and move them forward without damaging them.
A lot of work has gone into the report and members of each of the four Select Committees have spoken in today's debate. I am sad that the Defence Committee is on a trip to Moscow, but I was pleased that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) had forgone that trip to enlighten us on his views. I pay tribute to the former Member for Romsey and Waterside, Michael Colvin, who sat on the Select Committee on Defence. Our deliberations are the poorer for his absence. When I read the papers on the report, I encountered his examination of witnesses.
The Government have made some effort to move forward on the European code of conduct. There will always be concern when a UK business is unable—for whatever reason—to fulfil a contract. There is always a willing competitor poised to take advantage of British companies' difficulties. Establishing a level playing field—in Europe, for starters—is both logical and desirable, but the efforts made so far have produced unspectacular results. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on the European front? Will he expand on the Government's response in Cm 4799 and explain how events have developed since July? What have been the outcomes of discussions held with European countries?
European co-operation poses significant problems. In the latest response, Cm 4872, the Minister outlined the difficulties of dealing with national embargoes in terms of denial notifications. He said that when a member state is trying to encourage restraint towards a specific country, relying
solely on the information exchange and consultation mechanism of the Code is unlikely to achieve the desired pressure on other Member States to restrict their defence exports.
That was thrown into stark reality today with the arrival of some information about Indonesia that came across my desk. There is a report on the BBC's monitoring line on military equipment to Indonesia. Defence Minister Mahfud said that a French firm offered arms in exchange for a maritime exploration licence. Will the Minister comment on that? How is he going to encourage a common playing field among European Union states?
In the response, the Minister outlines a possible solution by means of the mechanism index discussions. That is patently failing and his solution does not engender confidence. I hope that he will think again and make some better proposals for carrying our European partners with us.
We have discussed prior scrutiny to distraction this afternoon. I have been pleased to hear how hon. Members have provided the Minister with an opportunity to go back on his recent response, which has obviously caused considerable anger. For the first time, the Government have been faced with a series of powerful recommendations from a cross-party group of influential Members. Speech after speech reflected disappointment.

31WH
We have debated the response in detail and it clearly amounts to an outright rejection of the recommendations of four Select Committees of this House. Those Committees deserve rather more than the nine paragraphs laid out before us today. Hon. Members are dissatisfied; they rightly want a more detailed response. Let us examine two detailed aspects of the response to recommendations 22, 23 and 24. The Government concluded that those recommendations
could not be made to work without causing significant damage to the competitiveness of UK exports and without having a materially adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing process.
We do not wish to damage the effectiveness or efficiency of the export licensing process—and I am sure that no hon. Member who subscribes to the report wishes to do so. However, I would like to know how the Minister evaluated the potential damage to competitiveness and how the proposals will effect the efficiency and effectiveness of the licensing process. Anything less than the detail and advice given to the Minister would be insulting to the Committee.
The Minister's response in the next paragraph is also inadequate. In casting doubt on the prior scrutiny proposals, the Minister responded:
Involvement of the Committees in the taking of decisions under the existing legislative powers is in any event problematic, in that an extra element would be introduced into the process. This might generate doubt as to whether the decision had been taken properly in accordance with the powers conferred by Parliament.
Doubt in whose mind? How could the Government allay the fears of anybody who doubted whether the matter had taken place properly, in accordance with the powers conferred by Parliament? The Minister's response did not move at all towards the Committee's requests.
The Chairman of the Quadripartite Committee generously offered the Minister an opportunity to explore the possibilities of accepting its proposals. Without going into the merits of the proposals, I hope that the Minister accepts that offer unreservedly. If he does, it is not another get-out clause. It is something upon which the Minister must put a date. It is no good his accepting the generous offer of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and then letting it disappear into a vacuum by allowing it to run into next year and perhaps the year after. If he accepts that offer, he must put a date on it and not allow a vague promise to be carried into the future.
The Government talk up a storm on the matter but they fail to deliver. The level of disappointment across parties is high and the opportunity for the Minister is great. I therefore await his response with eager anticipation
4.52 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Peter Hain): This has been a high-quality debate—at times uncomfortably high quality from the point of view of the Minister replying—with effective and well-informed contributions from all hon. Members. I pay tribute to the members of the four Committees that come together as the Quadripartite
32WH
Committee. This is an example of a joined-up Committee, departmentally and politically, which has presented impressive arguments to the Government. No one can be left in any doubt about the commitment and knowledge that they have brought to the subject of strategic exports.
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He deserves to be congratulated on chairing a Committee that has given the Government so much trouble, but that has produced a detailed and expert analysis and forced people to undertake much cross-departmental soul searching. That is important because these are vital matters that we need to get right. It will be a great tribute to his long career as a parliamentarian and former Minister if the momentum that he has brought to bear on the subject is carried through—as it will be when we return to the matter in subsequent legislation and reform.
I agree with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about the important role that non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International, Oxfam and Saferworld have played in the debate. We consult such organisations regularly. Since 1 May 1997, the Foreign Office and other Government Departments have pursued an open-door policy towards their representations, which we value and seek to take on board—if not always managing to satisfy them completely.
I apologise for the delay in the publication of the Government's response to the Quadripartite Committee's report. I am aware that the time taken was well in excess of the customary two months. I am sorry about that, but the issues raised were complex.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on her ingenuity in managing to repeat the point that she always makes about wanting such debates to take place on the Floor of the House. I have heard her make it every time that she has appeared opposite me in such debates. She also managed to bring in the favourite subject of those on the Tory Front Bench: the European Union. I did not hear her say what she thought about the Committee's proposals for prior scrutiny. The Government would take heed if she were saying that the Conservatives backed the recommendations for prior parliamentary scrutiny. We want to know, as we would consider that seriously in responding to the debate. I notice that she has not risen to the bait and given any policy at all on behalf of the Opposition, so I shall not be churlish by developing the point further. The Committee works on an all-party basis and I want to respond in the serious fashion in which the arguments were advanced, which was without rancour, but firmly and expertly. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have an answer to the question.
The Committee presented us with some challenging ideas. Export controls are a classic example of joined-up, cross-cutting government at work. In responding, we needed to ensure that all the Departments with an interest in the issue had been thoroughly consulted, and that all the Committee's ideas had been properly thought through. That was the reason for the regrettable delay.
It is three and a half years since the Government embarked on fulfilling their aid policy pledges for a responsible arms trade. Since then, our record of

33WH
achievement is considerable, as hon. Members have acknowledged. We have made our export controls more effective, accountable and transparent than those of almost any other country, and set new standards for others to emulate. I am grateful for the generous acknowledgement of that by the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I also thank him for his praise for our officials, some of whom are present. They have worked diligently on the matter.
In a sense, it is precisely because we have opened ourselves up to parliamentary scrutiny, albeit retrospectively, that we have invited what could be regarded as trouble for ourselves. I do not regard it as such; I regard it as a challenge to good decision making. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) pointed out that the debate could not have taken place without the reforms that we introduced. I do not see them as set in concrete. I see them as part of an evolving process in which we all learn to do better and to take on board points made by hon. Members in the debate and by, among others, the Committee in its important report. We will seek to improve constantly.
Our achievements bear naming again. We have established new national criteria that deny export licences when there is a clear risk of equipment being used for internal repression or external aggression. We have banned the export of torture equipment and outlawed the export of anti-personnel mines as a step towards a complete ban.
It was during our presidency of the European Union that the EU code of conduct on arms exports was agreed. We have now consolidated the criteria in the code with our national criteria. We have consistently encouraged other countries to follow our lead in adopting stricter and more transparent arms export policies. The EU is now negotiating a joint declaration with the United States of America that will mark a further extension of the principles of the code, which is a result of a British initiative. That is relevant to a point that was made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.
We have made our commitment to tackling small arms proliferation clear. We are playing a major role in the process leading to the United Nations conference on small arms next year. We are also in the lead in taking practical steps to reduce the number of small arms in areas of conflict. We are the most active of all UN Security Council members in targeting sanctions busters, who fly arms into Angola, Sierra Leone and other countries, in defiance of UN resolutions.
Mr. Berry: Will the Minister assure us that, if there is evidence that UK individuals or companies are involved in sanctions busting, the authorities will quickly take firm action?
Mr. Hain: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that, if any British citizens or British companies are involved in sanctions busting, we will come down on them like a ton of bricks. We have been energetic—I have been personally involved—in naming and shaming sanctions busters, who have been of Russian origin, such as Victor Bout, or from South Africa. if the UN reports on Angola and Sierra Leone—which are expected in the next few days—name any British citizens, we will certainly take action.
34WH
As announced in last week's Queen's Speech, we are building on our achievements with a commitment to publishing a draft export control Bill to modernise the basis on which we control strategic exports. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that we need to redeem a debt of honour in the current Parliament and, I hope, in the next one as well. The Bill will put our controls on a modern statutory footing and replace current legislation, which dates back to 1939. It will give Parliament the right to scrutinise secondary legislation on export controls and will, for the first time, specify the purposes of export controls in legislation.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in October, the Bill will bring arms trafficking and brokering—including in small arms—within the scope of the law. It will also make it illegal to use electronic communication to evade export controls. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood that the proposals in the draft Bill will be tougher and more radical than those in the White Paper. That is part of the on-going debate, in which the Committee has played an important role.
Mr. Cohen: Will that Bill include a registration system for all brokers based in London and UK brokers operating abroad?
Mr. Hain: I do not want to go into great detail about the Bill's contents. Hon. Members must bear with me and wait for its publication. My hon. Friend's important argument has been made and is being given serious consideration.
Public consultation on the draft Bill will be an essential part of ensuring that we get all the details right before it is introduced in Parliament. The Bill will represent a significant step in updating our export controls, and I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views on the draft when it is published.
In response to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—the Chairman of the Quadripartite Committee—I will discuss with business managers the role that the Committee can play in pre-legislative scrutiny. It is important that it has an input. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood that I will ensure that, in the final crafting of the Bill—which has yet to go to parliamentary counsel—we take account of the issues raised in today's debate and the force and expertise with which arguments were advanced. I have stressed our commitment to transparency and accountability.
Mr. Rowlands: A slight shiver went down my spine at the notion that the Bill has not yet gone before parliamentary counsel. What is the time scale for the draft? When will it be published—January, March? It is an unspoken secret that we do not expect this to be a long Session, so it is incumbent on the Government to publish the draft Bill as quickly as possible.
Mr. Hain: I recognise the force of that argument. We shall publish the draft Bill as soon as possible, but parliamentary counsel have had their hands full

35WH
with quill pens and Bills. We must get the Bill right, but we want to publish it as early as possible next year and we shall involve the Committee in its scrutiny.
Mrs. Gillan: It is simply not good enough to say some time early next year. The Government have found parliamentary time for a Bill on fox hunting, but they do not consider the matter that is before us to be important enough to introduce a Bill that has a chance of being enacted before the general election. The public will judge for themselves.
Mr. Hain: I do not want to get into a barney with the hon. Lady about the Government's programme. Is she seriously suggesting that the drafting of the Hunting Bill can be compared with the complexities of the matter that is before us? We must get the draft Bill right because of the business interest to which she referred, among other reasons. Next year is only a couple of weeks away and we shall publish it as soon as possible. The passion and power of the arguments advanced this afternoon will have a considerable influence on the timing.
On transparency and accountability, we have published three annual reports on strategic exports, each providing progressive improvement in transparency and giving an unprecedented level of detail on the export licences that we have agreed. We welcome the Quadripartite Committee's scrutiny of the reports. We sought the co-operation and partnership of the Committee and others in Parliament and elsewhere, including interested non-governmental organisations, which helped to improve our policy and procedures. Everyone should take credit for that.
Parliament has an important role to play in monitoring the Executive's role in export controls. We have not challenged that, but sought to embrace it.
Mr. Oaten: Does the Minister acknowledge that the information currently given in annual reports is inadequate and that it would be more helpful if end user information were listed? At the moment, they do not mean much to those who read them.
Mr. Hain: I look forward to a detailed submission from the Liberal Democrats. We shall give it detailed and serious consideration when we receive it.
As we said in our response to the Committee, we plan to build on the transparency by offering the Committee confidential briefings on the general considerations underlying our export licensing policy. That will include issues such as small arms, on which work is in progress and policy is still evolving. The Committee will have an opportunity to provide input at that formative stage, which represents an important step forward.
I know from the Committee's report and the reactions of hon. Members today that that is not the quintessentially British outcome originally proposed by the Committee. However, prior parliamentary scrutiny would be a departure from the long-standing practice of ministerial accountability to Parliament for individual decisions.
Hon. Members have readily conceded that we have taken strides in increasing the transparency of our policy on export licensing and publishing detailed information
36WH
on individual decisions. We welcome scrutiny and are committed to publishing the information necessary to make that scrutiny more effective. We have offered the Committee confidential briefings on general policy considerations, which will give it the opportunity to have an input during the formation of policy on how we judge each licence that is put to us. It is a form of prior scrutiny and we shall be able to build on the detailed and confidential information that we already give to the Committee on individual decisions. Our system is one of the most transparent and accountable in the world and that will make it more so. We can develop the system to try to achieve the objectives set by the Committee.
Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend and I appreciate the way in which he is responding.
Page 11 of the report refers to a host of practical problems concerning delays and methods of handling the issues. If we can deal with those problems and accommodate the Government's concerns about a prior scrutiny process, will the Minister still regard the view expressed in the last sentence on page 11—that such matters are
quintessentially matters for ministerial decision—
as the fundamental objection to our proposals?
Mr. Hain: As I signalled before, we are open to serious arguments and to good ideas. If such ideas are consistent with joined-up government, are absolutely watertight and convincing and deal with the problems involved in possible delays in the processing of prior export applications—of which we receive some 12,000 a year—
Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: May I finish? I should like to reply to all the points that hon. Members have raised before I am given any more.
We must deal with the problems involved in speedy decision making—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) mentioned a case, to which I shall return if I have time, in which a speedy decision was not made. Problems also arise in respect of the overseas purchase of defence equipment and the disclosure of intended orders before contracts are signed. I am not seeking to' impugn hon. Members' honour on the matter, but there are procedural issues that could act as a disincentive to buying British, thus putting British exports and jobs at risk. We need a more detailed set of proposals to which we can respond.
We have looked to the practices of others for guidance. Our system of annual reports on strategic export controls, coupled with parliamentary evidence sessions, is acknowledged by leading NGOs as one of the most transparent in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said that other countries have prior scrutiny and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that we have ignored practice in the United States and Sweden. We have not. To my knowledge, no country provides for prior scrutiny by the legislature in anything like the form that the Committee suggests. No direct comparison can be

37WH
drawn between its proposals and the very limited models that are used in the United States and Sweden, where the matter is effectively hived off to an independent body.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) implied that we were closing the book on the matter. We are not. We shall examine the text of his remarks closely to see what more can be done. This is not necessarily the last word. Let us bed in, develop and build on the confidential briefing procedures. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) that we are not kicking them into touch, but simply trying to move forward sensibly.
Sir John Stanley: As the Minister said that the book remains open, will he reply to the fundamental question that was just put to him by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? Are the Government willing to engage with the Quadripartite Committee by looking at the details of the procedures to try to produce a satisfactory resolution between the Committee and the Government? With good will on both sides, we believe that that can be achieved. Does the extremely bald final sentence of the Government's reply, when they say that
The Government's view remains that there is no role—
that is, no parliamentary role—
for advance scrutiny of individual casework decisions,
mean that, even if we can achieve a satisfactory resolution of the procedural points, the Government will still put a total block on the proposal as a matter of principle, or can the Minister assure us that they will then consider prior scrutiny with an open mind?
Mr. Hain: I have tried to be as helpful as I can to the right hon. Gentleman and to other right hon. and hon. Members in signalling that, having laid out our policy, which has been severely criticised, we shall examine very seriously any further proposals, representations or deliberations that emerge from the Committee. In parallel to that, I suggest that the way to move forward in practical terms is to build on the confidential briefings to see whether we can develop the necessary confidence. We can then take the debate and dialogue forward in the light of any more detailed recommendations that the Committee may make.
I am confident that the high degree of retrospective scrutiny that we already provide, coupled with the even greater openness represented by the confidential briefings that we now offer, provides a form of parliamentary scrutiny that is second to none. I do not underestimate, and I invite the Committee not to underestimate, its power, which is exerted prior to the making of decisions.
I and my ministerial colleagues in other Departments make decisions in the full awareness that what happens will be laid out in the Committee's report, and that members of this Committee and other Committees will study it in great detail. Let it not be imagined that we just tick items off regardless of the consequences. We operate effectively under a form of prior parliamentary scrutiny because we bear it in mind that we will be subject to close attention as a result of the publication of our decisions.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling had my best interests at heart in inviting me to tear up my speech. As for my hon. Friend the Member
38WH
for Cynon Valley, she is such a good friend that I am grateful that she did not put directly to me the questions that she raised—although she is free to do so in the Tea Room later. As to her points about Indonesia, I stress that only 17 individual export licences were issued in 1999. From September 1999 to January this year there was an EU embargo against Indonesia. During the rest of 1999, very few licences were issued. The majority were for components. There were no main equipment sales. We have consistently refused applications for military small arms.
That matter brings me to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). I respect her approach to scrutiny of these matters, especially in the light of the difficult conflict that is under way in Israel and the occupied territories. However, I have yet to be shown that an export licence that has been agreed by the present Government has resulted in arms being used in contravention of our criteria that it should not be possible for them to be used for external aggression or internal repression. Perhaps there is an exception to that, in the case of the seven licences in respect of spares for the Hawks in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we have gone over that ground in detail. If anyone comes up with evidence relating to Indonesia, Israel or anywhere else, we will act appropriately and learn from the experience, but that has not happened, which is significant.
We stopped the export of CS gas that could be used by the Israeli defence force or in the occupied territories. Since the troubles have set in with such apparent permanence in the past few weeks, we have scrutinised each licence application carefully to see whether it conforms with our strict criteria.
Dr. Starkey: I welcome what my hon. Friend has told us, but wonder whether he accepts that members of the public find it unacceptable that the Government are unable to say whether weapons that have been sold to the Israelis are used in the occupied territories against civilians. It appears that the British Government are relying for evidence on a helpful journalist picking up a bit of equipment and are making no effort to find out whether our weapons are used.
Mr. Hain: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view, but no one, journalist or otherwise, has been able to show that a single piece of equipment or arms licensed by the Government has been used there. I am not saying that British arms do not get used there because, as everyone has conceded, the previous Conservative Government had a much looser arms export policy. It is possible that some arms that were exported prior to 1 May 1997 are being used on the streets of Jerusalem and elsewhere, but none that we have licensed. The recent troubles have certainly made our scrutiny of licences much more rigid and close, and we now display much more caution.
We are not aware of any of our EU partners having undercut our licence denials for Pakistan. We would be concerned if that were so, and we would be interested to receive details of any such undercuts.
In negotiations with EU applicant countries on the common foreign and security policy chapter, the European Union took into account those countries'

39WH
compliance with their international obligations and their commitments on arms exports, including respect for the principles and criteria of the EU code of conduct. We shall continue to monitor developments closely as the applicant countries progress towards accession. One of the problems is that the worst offenders, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Moldova, are supplying small arms—especially to Africa.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked about the loophole in our controls that he identified earlier this year. We closed the loophole on leg irons in July when I announced in answer to a parliamentary question that we were bringing in controls on oversized individual bracelet cuffs that could hypothetically be used as components for leg irons to be assembled abroad. I stress that we had no firm evidence that companies were exploiting that loophole, but the hon. Gentleman was nevertheless right to press us on the matter.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of British companies manufacturing torture equipment abroad. The export control Bill will enable us to ban any British involvement in the trafficking of torture equipment. I am not aware of the details of the case that he mentioned. I shall look into the matter and write to him. However, shortly after the coup in Pakistan and following the Kargil incident, we were obviously looking carefully at arms exports to Pakistan. I am sorry if that company got caught in the cross-fire, but the hon. Gentleman would not have wanted us to treat the matter in a dilatory or over-hasty fashion and to have made the wrong decision.
I could respond to a number of other points, Mr. Sayeed, but I shall first allow my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney to reply to the debate. If there is time, however, I shall respond to any further questions.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (in the Chair): Do I have the leave of the Committee to call the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney?
5.23 pm
Mr. Rowlands: I think that it is time for me to leave the House, because the notion that the Member of Parliament for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is a consensual politician does not bear analysis. Keir Hardy, Aneurin Bevan and Michael Foot are my predecessors in representing that constituency. However, I was rather nicely embarrassed by the kindness of my colleagues.
I was struck by the powerful combination of reason and passionate conviction that was evident in every speech. The reason for that was the subject of the debate. I do not apologise for repeating the fundamental point to which the Minister alluded, but which was not dealt with in the Government's response. I speak of the case that the four Committees made for the specific and rather special nature of the issues that we are dealing with. I repeat that, as we said in paragraph 18, a different degree of sensitivity applies to the authority to export arms from that applying to other types of ministerial casework. There can be few decisions of greater potential impact on the conduct of foreign relations and
40WH
on the lives of many people overseas than the decision to commit weapons made in this country to foreign Governments and their forces. It is the nature of the decision. It is not just the policy, important though policy guidance is, but the implementation of the casework that flows from it that is of concern.
There has been a combination of passion and reason from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to reinforce our case. We have not been making the Government's life comfortable; it has not been comfortable for them this afternoon. If we had had a vote, apart from the Whip and the Minister, it would have been nem con in favour of the Committee's recommendation on prior scrutiny. I trust that we would carry the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) with us. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) will perhaps exercise an appropriate influence on her.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling made a telling comparison with the way in which, over decades, the executives of all parties were dragged screaming to accept an intelligence committee of some kind. We do not want that to happen in the case of prior scrutiny. The Government's track record since 1987—the work that we have acknowledged, the publication of annual reports and so on—and the way in which the four Committees have operated in the past 18 months to two years show that we are ready to undertake that task. We do not need any more training on the issue. We have shown that we can do it. We have handled confidential material. It has not been breached. We have managed to convey its essence in a public fashion that has not led to commercial confidentiality being broken. In other words, we have proved our apprenticeship in that regard.
We have proposed an incremental step forward in scrutiny. It is incremental as opposed to some giant constitutional leap. The Minister ought to be slightly worried: when Tonbridge and Merthyr Tydfil agree, something is stirring in the land. It is a powerful combination. I hope that he will accept our proposal and that he will convey to his fellow Ministers the sense that has come out of the debate and our straightforward offer. I hope that I do not presume on our conclusions when we meet immediately after Christmas, but we may want to meet departmental officials urgently and promptly, if that is the most convenient way to address the practical issues that have been raised in the Government's response. We believe that we can accommodate them and meet all those points.
Mr. Hain: May I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will write to all other Departments? I will obviously draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to this debate and to my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Rowlands: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that we will make the offer properly and formally as soon as we have an opportunity to meet and that we will address the issues that have been raised. Tremendous progress that has been made. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken today has acknowledged the significant steps that have been taken—increased transparency and openness, annual reports and other Government initiatives. It is still a sad truth, however, that, on some

41WH
of the most contentious and difficult decisions on arms sales, we may still rely on partial leaks. There may be the odd whistle blower or some kind of selective briefing, perhaps even from a Minister who is not getting his way with another Minister. There is a much more sensible and authoritative way of finding out about controversial arms sales and that is the prior scrutiny that we propose.
42WH
I hope that the debate will be useful to my hon. Friend when he goes back to his fellow Ministers to argue that the future radical, pragmatic, sensible way forward is the one proposed by our Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Rent Increases
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those registered social landlords in the London Borough of Greenwich who have imposed rent increases over the rate of inflation in the last two years. [141650]

  Mr. Mullin
  Twenty registered social landlords (RSLs) owned stock in Greenwich in both 1998 and March 2000. The percentage increase in average rent in March 2000 compared with March 1998 was higher than the rate of inflation over that period for eight of these RSLs. They were:

  South London Family

  Broomleigh

  Hyde

  Family

  London and Quadrant

  Servite

  English Churches

  Anchor Trust.

  Comparisons of rent levels in March 1998 and March 2000 for these RSLs may not be on a like-for-like basis because of acquisitions or disposals of stock during that period.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many appeals have been made against rent increases approved by the rent officers in each of the last four years; and how many have resulted in a higher rent being imposed for(a) private landlords and (b) registered social landlords. [141651]

  Mr. Mullin
  Consistent information on the number of appeals (in England) against rent officer fair rent decisions is available from 1996–97, as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  7,653

  1997–98

  6,265

  1998–99

  7,754

  Data for 1999–2000 are not yet available.

  The results of these appeals (the percentage of appeals that lead to lower, unchanged and higher rents) are published in "Rent Officer Statistics" but without a separate split by private landlords and registered social
  196W
  landlords. Analysis of the 1998–99 appeals against fair rents shows the following figures:

  Private landlords

  Registered social landlords

  Percentage of appeals resulting in:

  Lower rent

  11

  13

  Unchanged rent

  29

  16

  Higher rent

  60

  71

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reasons have been given by rent officers in the London Borough of Greenwich for approving rent increases for tenants of registered social landlords above the level of inflation. [141652]

  Mr. Mullin
  Rent officers are required to determine rents for properties with a registered fair rent in accordance with the rules set out in the Rent Act 1977. This requires them to take into account a number of criteria including age of dwelling, its state of repair, character and locality but to disregard any premium resulting from a scarcity of similar accommodation in the area.

  In addition, on 1 February 1999, the Government introduced the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 which had the effect of limiting most fair rent increases to RPI plus 7.5 per cent. or RPI plus 5 per cent. The Order was quashed in a judgment of the Court of Appeal in January but was declared lawful in a judgment by the House of Lords on 7 December. The effect of the judgment is that the Order has been in force continuously since 1 February 1999 and all applications for registered fair rents since then must comply with it.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) rent increases for each registered social landlord in the London Borough of Greenwich that were applied for in the last two years; and (b) increases that were approved by the rent officers. [141654]

  Mr. Mullin
  Registered social landlords (RSLs) only apply to rent officers for approval in "fair rent" cases. Figures on applications by individual RSLs for registered fair rents are not held centrally.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the average rent increase for tenants of registered social landlords in the last two years(a) in the London borough of Greenwich, (b) in London and (c) nationally. [141653]

  Mr. Mullin
  The average rent increase for tenants of registered social landlords between March 1998 and March 2000 was as follows:

  Percentage

  Greenwich

  3.7

  London

  7.9

  England

  6.6

  Number Plates
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which EU regulation stipulates that the national identification symbol on number plates must be that of the member state. [141518]

  Mr. Hill
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 provides for the recognition of specified distinguishing signs on number plates as an alternative to the requirements set out in Annex 3 to the Vienna Convention of 1968. The Regulation defines the distinguishing sign as a set of one to three letters indicating the member state in which the vehicle is registered. The use of such signs on number plates for vehicles registered in the United Kingdom will be voluntary.

  Excess Flow Valves
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that excess flow valves are fitted inside dwellings. [141363]

  Mr. Meacher
  This is one of the issues that will be addressed by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive in taking forward the recommendations following from the Commission's recent Gas Safety Review. In particular, the Commission will develop with industry a strategic research plan that will cover the contribution of technological developments, including safety devices, to the safe use of gas in residential premises. The Commission and the Executive will review the safety case for the fitting of excess flow valves, whether as a legal obligation or as recommended good practice, when the results of this further research are available.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his most recent estimate of the amount of carbon saved each year by 2010 as a result of the introduction of the climate change levy. [142423]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: Our most recent estimates of the levels of carbon saved were published in the UK's climate change programme on 17 November 2000. The programme shows that the climate change levy is estimated to save 2 million tonnes of carbon equivalent (MtC) each year by 2010. The climate change agreements which are being negotiated with energy intensive sectors are estimated to save a further 2.5 MtC by 2010. Additional energy efficiency measures using levy receipts and the establishment of the Carbon Trust are estimated to save a further 0.5 MtC. This means that the climate change levy package as a whole is estimated to save 5 MtC per annum by 2010.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets have been set for improvements in energy efficiency on the Government estate; and what progress has been made in achieving them since May 1997. [142420]
  198W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The target is a 20 per cent. improvement on the 1990–91 levels by the end of 1999–2000. By March 1997, overall progress was 16.0 per cent.; by March 1999, it had risen to 18.9 per cent. Results for FY 1999–2000 should be available in 2001.

  I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a revised set of tables of Government estate energy efficiency results. These supersede the tables deposited in the House on 13 November. However, the headline figure of 18.9 per cent. overall progress to the 20 per cent. target is unaffected.

  Recycling
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much additional funding will be available for local authority recycling schemes as a result of SR2000; and if he will make a statement. [142287]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The Spending Review 2000 provided substantial extra resources for waste and recycling:
  An annual increase in the provision for revenue spending by local authorities for environmental and cultural services, including waste and recycling; by the third year this will have risen by £1,127 million over current provision;
  £140 million specifically for local authority waste and recycling;
  £220 million PFI credits ring-fenced for integrated waste management schemes, which include a recycling component.

  SR2000 also provided significant resources to the Waste and Resources Action Programme to overcome market barriers to the refuse and recycling of waste. Currently, total funding from Government and the devolved Administrations over the three years is planned to be around £30 million.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications were(a) received and (b) granted for requests for him to set aside the recouping of improvement grants from properties sold within five years of a grant being given in the last five years for which data are available. [142736]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since the introduction of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 there have been 17 applications for the Secretary of State's consent not to demand repayment of housing renewal grant. Thirteen applications have been approved, four are pending, and none have been refused.

  Yesterday my Department issued a general consent to enable local authorities to waive the requirement to repay grant, or to demand a lesser amount, in a wide range of circumstances. This is part of a package of measures to give local authorities greater control over the delivery of private sector housing renewal policy. The four outstanding applications, which were received shortly before the announcement, are covered by the general consent and we have notified the authorities concerned.

  Road Hauliers (Rebates)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when road hauliers will receive their rebate cheques, in respect of the Government's decisions announced in the pre-Budget report. [142739]

  Mr. Hill
  Hauliers taking out licences with effect from 1 December have already benefited from lower net licence costs, as their rebate has been deducted at source from the statutory VED rate. Letters inviting hauliers to apply for rebates in respect of vehicles licensed at 30 November 2000 will be issued as soon as possible.

  Aviation White Paper
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the Aviation White Paper. [142745]

  Mr. Mullin
  We hope to issue a White Paper on air transport in 2002. This will need to take account of the final decision on a fifth terminal at Heathrow. On Tuesday 12 December we published a consultation document on the future of aviation. This is the first major step towards the White Paper. Copies of the consultation document are available in the Libraries of the House.

  PPP Contracts
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional information he has given since Monday 13 November to Mr. Robert Kiley of Transport for London about the PPP contracts; and if he will make a statement. [142748]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand that, since Monday 13 November, London Underground has supplied Mr. Kiley with the items set out as follows. Some of these items do not relate directly to the PPP contract but provide background information. In addition, my Department has supplied Mr. Kiley with London Transport's report "The Future of London Underground—evaluation of options".

  Items supplied to Robert Kiley:
  Deep Tube Infraco bids (tender stage) executive summaries (one for each of the four bidders).
  Deep Tube Infraco bids (BAFO stage) executive summaries (one for each of the four bidders).
  Subsurface Infraco bids (tender stage) executive summaries (one for each of the three bidders).
  Data room quick reference manual
  Deep tube shortlisting report—qualitative assessment.
  Draft of the safety case for the London Underground PPP.
  200W
  Whole Life Assets Plans for rolling stock and depots, fire protection, signalling and control; station premises and facilities, land and property, communications, lifts and escalators, electrical and mechanical, track, and civil infrastructure.

  Summary of PFI projects

  Marketing plan

  Customer service delivery standards

  Revenue forecasts

  Long-term train plan

  Short-term train plan

  Station capacity investment prioritisation

  Major enhancements project list

  London Transport investment programme

  Business case development manual

  Appraisal methodology

  Overview of grant setting process

  Business plan 2000

  Service plan

  List of committed projects

  Strategic forecasts

  Select committee reports

  Market report

  Consultants' Fees
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent on fees to each consultant involved in the study of each regional airport; and how much has been spent on consultants' fees. [142767]

  Mr. Mullin
  The programme of studies informing preparation of the Airports White Paper has not taken the form of individual airport by airport studies; rather it is in three principal parts: six regional airports studies and a follow-up regional co-ordination study; the South East and East of England (SERAS) Study; and several strategic studies covering a range of UK wide issues—technology change, commercial trends, air freight and demand forecasting.

  DETR expenditure to date is given in the table:

  £

  Study programmes

  DETR expenditure to date

  South East and East of England

  1,730,000

  Regions outside the South East and East of England

  965,000

  Other Strategic Studies

  870,000

  Total

  3,565,000

  Local Transport Capital Settlement
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will announce details of the local transport capital settlement. [142833]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government's Transport strategy and investment plans were set out in "Transport 2010: the 10-Year Plan", published in July 2000. The 10-Year Plan provided the long-term framework for investment, which is now being implemented. It will put right the effects of years of under-investment that this Government inherited. The 10-Year Plan provided for £59 billion of expenditure
  201W
  on local transport—£30.6 billion of public revenue expenditure, £19.3 billion public capital investment, and £9 billion of private investment.

  This Local Transport Capital Settlement is the first five-year allocation from the £19.3 billion of public capital investment. The total allocation for English local highways authorities outside London for the period 2001–02 to 2005–06 will be £8.4 billion. The five-year allocation is as follows:

  £ billion

  LTP allocations

  Major schemes, integrated transport schemes, and maintenance schemes

  2001–02

  1.36

  2002–03

  1.52

  2003–04

  1.67

  2004–05

  1,94

  2005–06

  1.93

  Five year total

  8.43

  Note:

  These figures do not sum exactly to total due to rounding.

  Every authority will benefit from this significantly increased funding, which in 2001–02 represents a doubling over last year's allocation for English authorities outside London, with further increases in subsequent years.

  Using this funding, local authorities, working in partnership with local people, transport operators, businesses and interest groups, will be able to make a real difference to the quality of transport in their areas.

  In making these allocations, we have accepted, or provisionally accepted 67 new major schemes (those with a gross cost of over £5 million). These include 28 public transport and integrated transport schemes, including bus priority measures and guided bus schemes, to make journeys faster and more reliable with major new interchanges, and 39 road schemes, such as local bypasses and relief roads.

  This allocation will also enable authorities to take forward the many smaller-scale improvements contained in their Local Transport Plans. These include improvements to public transport, such as priority bus routes, improved integration, better access to bus, rail, and light rail stations, more park and ride schemes, and improved waiting facilities at interchanges. They also include schemes to make local roads safer and less congested, and measures to encourage cycling and walking.

  Within the overall allocation, we have also made provision for authorities to repair local roads and bridges, as announced on 13 November 2000, Official Report, column 492W. This funding, along with the additional revenue funding being made available through the highways maintenance standard spending assessment, should enable authorities to meet the target to halt the deterioration of local roads by 2004.

  Copies of the Press Notice and a list of allocations for individual authorities have been placed in the Library of the House. Details have also been placed in Members' mail-boxes in the Members' Post Officer Counter.
  202W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date he intends to make an announcement regarding the Local Transport Settlement for 2001–02. [142746]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn).

  Housing Authorities
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the allocation of resources for housing authorities in England for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [143368]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are issuing details today of the revenue allocations for 2001–02. Details of capital allocations made through the Housing Investment Programme were given last week. Copies of the documents setting out the allocations to individual authorities are being placed in the Library of the House.

  The £2.6 billion package of housing capital resources for 2001–02 is well over twice the amount allocated in 1997–98, and represents an increase of 24 per cent. in the resources compared to the current year.

  2001–02 will see the introduction of resource accounting within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), including the new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA). Resource accounting is part of the new, more businesslike approach to local authority housing and the delivery of better quality services. The MRA will mean that some £1.6 billion of the housing capital resources available next year will be paid through HRA subsidy, to enable all authorities to maintain the condition of their housing stock over the longer term.

  Introducing the MRA will require changes to the accounting arrangement for HRA. I have made regulations to give effect to these changes and they have today been laid before the House.

  We are combating years of under-investment in the fabric of our council stock. We are determined to improve the quality of council housing and the services to tenants.

HEALTH

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a regional breakdown of the hard to fill (three months or more)(a) nursing vacancies and (b) midwifery vacancies as of September, and a regional breakdown of all nursing vacancies as of September. [142221]

  Mr. Denham
  The information on vacancies as of September 2000 is not available centrally. The data collected at 31 March 2000 were only for three months or longer vacancies.
  203W

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2000 Three month vacancies1 in NHS regional office areas, qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Whole-time equivalents

  All qualified staff

  Midwives

  England

  9,870

  490

  Northern and Yorkshire

  840

  30

  Trent

  490

  2—

  West Midlands

  950

  20

  North West

  780

  10

  Eastern

  1,130

  80

  London

  3,130

  220

  South East

  1,890

  80

  South West

  600

  40

  Others

  60

  0

  1 Posts that had been vacant for three months or more at 31 March 2000

  2 Five or less and greater than zero.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2000

  Chiropody
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions his Department has had with the British Chiropody and Podiatry Association about the future regulation of the profession. [142189]

  Mr. Denham
  The British Chiropody and Podiatry Association has been included in the recently completed consultation on the Government's proposals for a new Health Professions Council. The Chair of the Association took part in a recent stakeholder event where he had the opportunity to discuss, in detail, future regulation of the profession with Department officials.

  GP Practices
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average distance was travelled by patients to gain access to treatment at a NHS general practitioner's practice in each health authority for each year between 1987 and 1999. [142503]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Smoking
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce the incidence of smoking. [142936]

  Yvette Cooper
  Today the Government have introduced and published the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. The Department has also issued a press release announcing consultation on the proposal to allow all Nicotine Replacement Products to be prescribed on the National Health Service by general practitioners. Copies of the consultation letter have been placed in the Library.

  Midwifery Units
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of midwifery-led units in the NHS. [141490]
  204W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: The National Health Service provides a variety of types of care for women during pregnancy and childbirth including care in midwife-led units. We would expect to see this variety continue, offering individual choice whenever possible. Locally, health care commissioners and providers need to ensure that a full range of maternity services is available to women as close to home as possible.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish his policy on reconfiguring maternity services. [141491]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: We are currently discussing with the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Midwives the best way to work together on broader issues around maternity unit staffing and configuration. We expect to make an announcement very soon.

  Hospital Appointments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients attended appointments with hospital consultants in the last 12 months. [142531]

  Mr. Denham
  Statistics for the number of missed appointments or 'did not attend' (DNA) rates are collected quarterly for first outpatient appointments only. Statistics collected for the last two quarters of the year 1999–2000 and the first two quarters of 2000–01 show an average DNA rate of 11.37 per cent.1

  Booked appointments allow patients to pre-book hospital appointments and admission dates that are convenient to them, providing scope to reduce DNA rates. The National Health Service Plan target is that by the end of 2005 all patients will be able to plan their appointments and elective admission dates.
  1 Source: QM08 Outpatient Quarterly Return—Trust Based

  Josie and Mary Attard
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the legal fees incurred by St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester, for(a) the application for ward of court and (b) other legal costs, for the application to separate the Siamese twins Josie and Mary Attard. [142737]

  Mr. Denham
  The Central Manchester Healthcare National Health Service Trust has so far incurred legal costs of £55,000. This has been in respect of the original court hearing, the appeal court hearing and the action brought by the Pro Life Alliance Group.

  The trust did not make an application for ward of court in relation to the children.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outcome was of the claim by speech therapists for equal pay with equivalent professions in the NHS; how much has been provided to health authorities for settlement of compensation claims; and if he will set a target date for all claims to be paid in full. [142753]
  205W
  Mr. Denham
  Most claims were settled through negotiations which found that 351 speech and language therapists out of some 1,800 who lodged claims were due retrospective payment. The settlement also provided a revised grading structure which gave access to the clinical psychologists' pay spine.

  The costs of the settlement will be met from within health authority allocations. Every health authority will get a general increase in their allocations to meet pay and other cost pressures. Employers have been asked to make payments within four weeks (or as soon as possible thereafter) of notification that the speech and language therapist has accepted the settlement offer.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what requirements are to be made of developing countries as part of an agreement on trade in services in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. [142545]

  Clare Short
  Developing countries will decide for themselves what commitments they wish to undertake in the negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS operates on the basis that governments are able to choose the sectors in which, and the extent to which, they wish to liberalise. Thus, all members are free to decide whether or not opening a particular service to external trade is appropriate and advantageous to their economies.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's negotiating position on an agreement on trade in services in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. [142557]

  Clare Short
  The UK strongly supports the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations and their objective of progressively opening up trade in a fair and predictable manner. We believe this process offers benefits to all World Trade Organisation members by promoting more efficient, competitive and varied markets domestically and for export.

  My Department is working to help build the capacity of developing countries to participate in negotiations.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) non-Governmental and (b) other organisations involved in the WTO negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services. [142544]

  Clare Short
  Negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) are conducted between member Governments of the World Trade Organisation.

  The following international organisations have full or partial observer status at the negotiations: the United Nations, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Trade Centre (ITC), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the
  206W
  World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Tourism Organisation, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (APC).

  Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) do not have observer status as it is an inter-government organisation and accountability runs through Governments to their people. The UK Government consult with interested organisations when formulating their position.

  Africa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how funds for the New Cross departmental forum for reducing conflict in Africa will be spent. [142514]

  Clare Short
  A joint strategy for conflict prevention and peacekeeping is currently being developed co-operatively with the FCO and MOD, as part of the new arrangements for the Africa Conflict Prevention Joint Pool. This will come into effect in April 2001 and is intended to improve the effectiveness, impact and efficiency of HMG's contribution to peacekeeping, conflict prevention and management.

  DFID currently directly supports conflict prevention programmes in 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. For 2000–01 and 2001–02, the three countries in which DFID is expecting to have the highest levels of funding for conflict prevention are Sierra Leone, Uganda and Rwanda. The Conflict Fund will cover much of this expenditure, the bulk of which is likely to be in Sierra Leone.

  We are promoting security in Sierra Leone by giving substantial support to the police, helping to civilianise and make accountable the country's Ministry of Defence, and helping to reintegrate ex-combatants who wish to return to civilian life.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Equipment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that BAe Systems complies with the undertakings given to him as a condition for his approval of its merger with Marconi Electronic Systems in relation to maintaining competition for sub-contracts in the procurement of defence equipment. [142742]

  Dr. Howells
  Under section 75J of the Fair Trading Act 1973, it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to keep under review any undertaking accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in lieu of reference to the Competition Commission. Under the terms of the undertakings accepted from BAE Systems in relation to their acquisition of Marconi Electronic Systems, BAe Systems was required to appoint a Compliance Officer to oversee the company's compliance with the undertakings and to report to the Director General of Fair Trading and the Ministry of Defence on that issue.

  Whitbread Plc
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will refer the proposed sale by Whitbread plc of the freehold in its public houses to the Competition Commission; [142390]

  (2) if he will discuss the impact of the proposed sale by Whitbread plc of the freehold of its public houses with board members of that company. [142389]

  Dr. Howells
  Whitbread's announcement of its intention to sell its public houses reflects a commercial decision by the company. It would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to influence that decision. In the event that the sale qualified for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973, it would be for the Director General of Fair Trading to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether or not it should be referred to the Competition Commission.

  Mobile Spectrum Auction
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of receipts generated by the third generation mobile spectrum auction on the broadband fixed wireless access auction. [142686]

  Ms Hewitt
  In their report to me the Radiocommunications Agency will be examining the factors that may have affected the outcome of the auction, including the receipts generated by the third generation mobile spectrum auction.

  ECGD
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on developing a statement of business principles for the ECGD; and if he will make a statement. [143245]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am pleased to announce that, following a process of public consultation and with advice from the recently expanded Export Guarantees Advisory Council, a set of Business Principles has now been developed. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House and on ECGD's website www.ecgd.gov.uk.

  Production of a statement of Business Principles by the end of this year was a key conclusion of the Review of ECGD's Mission and Status which I announced to the House on 25 July 2000. The statement sets out clearly and publicly ECGD's approach to fulfilling its new Mission and will guide ECGD's business practice ensuring that its activities take account of the Government's international policies. The Principles set out ECGD's objectives and policies in relation to matters such as business integrity, transparency, debt sustainability, human rights and sustainable development—which includes the concept of trade being conducted within a framework of good governance and without adverse impact on the environment of others.

  ECGD will also publish information about an enhanced project impact screening process and how any sensitive cases will be handled.

  ECGD will report its performance against Business Principles in a full Annual Report to be laid before Parliament next year and will keep its policies and
  208W
  procedures under continuous review, in consultation with the Export Guarantees Advisory Council—which is now operating to a reformed remit.

  I am pleased that ECGD has taken this important step in implementing the agenda for change we set out in the Mission and Status Review.

  Energy/Industry Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Energy/Industry Council held in Brussels on 5 December; and if he will make a statement. [141625]

  Dr. Howells
  I represented the UK at the EU Industry/Energy Council held on 4–5 December.

  The Council held a debate on innovation and industrial competitiveness. The key themes were the need to catch up with the US and Japan; building bridges between various communities (academia, education, business and scientific research); and the importance of intellectual property, especially the Community Patent. It was agreed that it was important to set both qualitative and quantitative objectives and the Commission urged the forthcoming Swedish Presidency to move from analysis to implementation. The Council adopted conclusions on innovation.

  The Commission presented its latest report on the world shipbuilding market, which highlighted that the situation in the world shipbuilding market remained very difficult. The Commission stated that it was unfortunate that the bilateral consultations with South Korea had so far not reached agreement on an effective remedy on unfair South Korean pricing.

  The Commission recommended that while the EU should continue to pursue a solution bilaterally, it should also investigate the Industry complaint under the Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR) with a view to possible action in the WTO. The Commission also indicated that it would propose a defensive temporary support mechanism for vessels subject to Korean unfair competition if no progress had been made with South Korea by May 2001. At the same time it confirmed its opposition to any extension of operating aid after the end of this year. The UK supported this approach.

  The Council adopted conclusions stressing concern at South Korean unfair competition, urging South Korea to agree an effective remedy as a matter of urgency and calling on the Commission to complete its investigation of the Industry TBR complaint as soon as possible. The Council further instructed the Commission to report back by 1 May 2001, with a view to proposing action against South Korea in the WTO if no bilateral remedy had been agreed with South Korea by then. It also took note of the Commission approach for a temporary support mechanism, but added the safeguard that any such proposal should be under the supervision of the Commission and should not distort competition in the EU.

  The Multi Annual Programme for the Enterprise and Entrepreneurship (2001–05) was adopted. This provides funding for DG Enterprise's programme of measures in support of SMEs.
  209W
  There was a brief discussion on the proposals to allow ECSC assets to transfer to the Community when the Treaty expires on 2002. The Commission also presented its latest report on the monitoring of the Article 95 ECSC Steel Aid Cases.

  As part of the Commission's work on modernising competition policy, there was a short discussion on the Commission's proposals to reform the way in which Article 81 on restrictive agreements is applied. This work will continue under the Swedish Presidency.

  The centre-piece of the Energy Council was the proposal for a directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (the "Renewables Directive") where Ministers reached political agreement on a draft text which will now be subject to the co-decision process with the European Parliament. The draft directive sets out indicative targets for the amount of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2010. The target for the UK is 10 per cent., which is in line with our domestic target. Discussion at the Council focused mostly on the targets proposed for some other member states and the need to recognise that the achievement of targets will depend on an appropriate state aid regime. Article 175(1) was accepted as the legal base. I regard the political agreement reached at the Council as an important first step which will encourage member states to promote domestic renewables schemes actively and will contribute towards meeting the EU's Kyoto targets.

  The Council also discussed the Commission's oil supply communication where there was general agreement on the need for greater market transparency and for dialogue between consumer and producer countries. There was support for the International Energy Agency to carry this work forward for the consumer countries. The UK rejected the notion of market management as a solution to price volatility and called for more gas to gas competition and for a break in the link between gas and oil prices.

  The Commission gave a report on its plans to bring forward new proposals for the Stockholm Council to accelerate opening of the internal markets for electricity and gas. These will focus on three areas: full market opening with the target of giving all consumers freedom to choose their supplier; transparent and nondiscriminatory access to networks for all suppliers; and the full separation of gas and electricity distribution from the supply side. The Commission also outlined proposals to put the work of the Florence and Madrid processes on a more regularised basis with proper political direction. The UK urged the Commission to press on with proposals to accelerate market opening as quickly as possible, including the development of cross-border charging arrangements, and supported the plans to exert more political control over the Florence and Madrid processes.

  In addition the Commission presented its Green Paper on Security of Supply, emphasising that it was meant to be the first stage on a journey towards a new policy framework for energy. At this stage the Council simply took note. The Council also noted reports on Euro-Med cooperation, the energy charter treaty, COP6 and synergy. Conclusions on the energy efficiency action plan were agreed without discussion.

  Anti-corruption Awareness
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what projects his Department supports to promote anti-corruption awareness among United Kingdom companies. [142218]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: Since the UK's ratification of the OECD Bribery Convention in 1998, focusing on the bribery of foreign public officials to obtain or retain business, my Department has been determined to ensure that UK companies understand their rights and responsibilities, and recognise that this Government are not prepared to continue to treat corruption as a necessary part of doing business.

  Details of the Convention itself can be found on the DTI's website www.dti.gov.uk/worldtrade/bribery.htm. The Convention will also feature in a DTI publication on "OECD's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises" (which the Government have endorsed) due to be published in the new year. DTI has consulted business and the private sector themselves are keen to adopt a more ethical business policy including a strong anti-corruption message, which we strongly encourage.

  Overseas, officials engaged in promoting the specific interests to British companies will always give frank advice on the commercial and legal and regulatory frameworks obtaining in those markets. But we are looking to produce more explicit advice to exporters, working in partnership with the Department for International Development.

  The Export Credit Guarantee Department has also taken steps to reduce corruption by ensuring that applicants for ECGD cover should be asked in future to warrant to ECGD that an export contract has not been secured by corrupt means and divulge whether they have ever been convicted of corruption. ECGD will have the right to deny any insurance cover that it might have given, and recover any loss following the date of conviction.

  Of course corruption is part of a much bigger agenda on Corporate Social Responsibility to which the Government are committed. Last March, my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was appointed Minister for Corporate Social Responsibility; this was the first such appointment in any Government in the world and will reinforce private sector efforts to defined responsible business conduct.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how may new transmitter masts will be required in the UK to provide complete mobile phone coverage; and if he will breakdown the various size-groups of transmitters to be used. [141369]

  Ms Hewitt
  To date, mobile operators' networks cover an area in which 99 per cent. of the UK population live. To the best of my knowledge these networks currently use between them 9,000 transmitter masts, of which 2,000 are poles similar in size to a lamppost and 1,700 carry equipment from more than one operator. It is not possible for me to conjecture how many additional transmitter
  211W
  masts will be required in the future although the Government do encourage operators to use existing sites and to share masts wherever it is appropriate to do so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many dependants of pensioners who claim Income Support due to the removal of a State Pension after six weeks in hospital there were at the latest date for which figures are available. [142299]

  Mr. Rooker
  Entitlement to a State Pension is never removed on hospitalisation, although the rates paid are lowered, by 40 per cent., or 20 per cent. if a person has dependants, after six weeks and to the pocket money rate after 52 weeks. The pocket money rate cannot go lower than 20 per cent. of the basic State Pension.

  We do not keep records of why people claim Income Support beyond their basic condition of entitlement.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the(a) cost and (b) number of recipients of the pension supplement for those over 80; what the cost is of increasing it to (i) £5 per week and (ii) £10 per week; and what the administrative cost is of delivering the benefit. [142303]

  Mr. Rooker
  The cost of the age addition is £30 million per annum and 2.4 million people are in receipt.

  Cost of increasing the age addition by £5 and £10

  £ million

  Rate of addition

  £10

  £5

  2001–02

  Gross cost

  1,300

  700

  Net cost

  800

  400

  2002–03

  Gross cost

  1,400

  700

  Net cost

  900

  400

  2003–04

  Gross cost

  1,500

  800

  Net cost

  900

  400

  2004–05

  Gross cost

  1,500

  800

  Net cost

  1,000

  500

  Notes:

  1. Costs are given in cash terms in £ million to the nearest 100 million.

  2. Gross costs of age addition estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Net costs are given after income related benefit savings.

  4. Income-related benefits savings are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  5. Value of age addition is assumed to be uprated in line with inflation.

  Hospitalisation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many under-pensionable age recipients of 212W
  Income Support who lose benefit due to being in hospital for six weeks or more there were at the latest date for which figures are available. [142300]

  Mr. Bayley
  As at August 2000, there were 5,100 Income Support claimants under State Pension age, receiving a reduced rate of benefit due to hospitalisation, of whom 5,000 were under age 60.

  Notes:

  1. "Under age 60" is defined as where neither the claimant nor partner are aged 60 or over.

  2. "Under State Pension age" is defined as where the claimant is under State retirement age: 60 for females/65 for males.

  3. Based on 5 per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling error.

  4. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 2000.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of a State Pension are removed from entitlement after six weeks' NHS hospitalisation; and what the equivalent figure was for each of the last six years. [142298]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the value was of unclaimed benefits in the UK and Scotland for each financial year from 1995–96 for which figures are available. [142598]

  Mr. Rooker
  Figures for Great Britain can be found in the "Income-related Benefits Estimates of Take-up in 1998–99". Figures for Scotland are not available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of the 13 November regarding increasing the earnings limit before benefits are affected. [142734]

  Mr. Bayley
  A reply was sent on Wednesday 13 December 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142222]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (Cm 4865, September

  213W
  2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Blackpool, South since May 1997.

  We are spending an additional £7 billion a year on support for families and children. This includes significant increases in child benefit, which is now worth £15 a week for the eldest child and £10 a week for other children: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Blackpool, South 12,394 families benefit.

  We have launched the New Deals to help lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since August 1998 the number of people receiving Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,205,800 to 972,700; in Blackpool, South, the number has reduced from 2,100 to 2,000. The number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased over the same period from 955,000 to 910,100 nationally and in Blackpool, South the number has remained the same at 2,300.

  Next year we will be spending £4.5 billion a year extra in real terms on pensioners as a result of our policies. Winter Fuel Payments have continued to tackle fuel poverty. So far this winter, around 11 million people, of whom around 21,200 live in Blackpool, South, have benefited from the payment. The scheme has been extended to include eligible people from age 60 so that even more older people will benefit. For this winter only, households that qualify will receive an increased payment of £200. The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) targets the poorest 1.6 million pensioner families, of whom 5,000 live in Blackpool, South. These pensioners will benefit from our alignment of all MIG rates from April 2001, giving single pensioners at least £92.15 each week—a real increase of £12.45 for the poorest pensioners.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average number of days taken to process new Housing Benefit applications was in each local authority in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [142066]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number of people in each client group who have been found to have submitted invalid claims for Housing Benefit under the verification framework since its introduction. [141383]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Housing Benefit and the identification of invalid claims is the responsibility of individual local authorities.

  Floods (Contingency Funds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what contingency funds have been made available to local Social Fund budgets in areas affected by the recent flooding; and if he will make a statement. [141311]
  214W
  Angela Eagle
  The discretionary social fund holds a contingency reserve, to reimburse Benefits Agency districts for any payments they make as a result of an accident or disaster that occurs in their vicinity.

  The first payment from the reserve, as a result of the flooding, has been made today to the Community Care Grant budget held by the Bradford and Keighley District. Applications are expected from a number of other districts over the next few weeks and months as people return to their homes. Details of all further payments made during this financial year will be placed in the Library of the House at the beginning of April 2001.

  Corporate Recovery Unit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for the last three financial years,(a) how much was recovered in benefits by the Corporate Recovery Unit, (b) in how many cases has benefit recovered, (c) what were (i) the amounts and (ii) number of cases in relation to (a) and (b), under each prescribed occupational disease; and if he will make a statement. [141328]

  Mr. Bayley
  The current Compensation Recovery scheme is working in accordance with the principles and objectives set when the reformed scheme was introduced in October 1997.

  The amount recovered is in respect of benefits already paid to the claimant in consequence of their accident, injury or illness and is recovered direct from the compensator, and never from the claimant.

  The information requested is given in the tables. It should be noted that the description of the disease as recorded by the Compensation Recovery Unit may not match exactly the precise description of the disease as recorded for Industrial Injuries Scheme benefits purposes.

  Period

  Number of cases recovered

  Amount recovered (£)

  April 1997 to March 1998

  6,931

  166,906,114

  April 1998 to March 1999

  6,512

  201,468,600

  April 1999 to March 2000

  7,088

  202,105,188

  April 2000 to November 2000

  8,883

  129,976,638

  Description

  Number of cases

  Amount recovered (£)

  April 1997 to March 1998

  Occupational Deafness

  28

  164,242.47

  Asbestosis

  322

  2,232,955.83

  Cancer

  310

  1,738,904.36

  Asthma

  109

  1,044,592.45

  VWF/Raynauds Disease

  120

  611,969.96

  Dermatitis

  98

  458,521.62

  Eczema/Skin Disease

  1

  343.37

  RSI

  315

  1,696,272.41

  Non Coded Disease

  173

  1,521,676.32

  Total

  1,476

  9,469,478.79

  April 1998 to March 1999

  Occupational Deafness

  43

  239,802.34

  Asbestosis

  373

  2,779,901.79

  Cancer

  199

  1,163,700.68

  Pneumoconiosis

  2

  31,645.86

  Mesothelioma

  86

  428,459.23

  Bronchitis/Emphysema

  2

  1,180.60

  215W

  Description

  Number of cases

  Amount recovered (£)

  Asthma

  158

  1,392,038.55

  VWF/Raynauds Disease

  319

  1,779,202.90

  Dermatitis

  96

  501,386.61

  Eczema/Skin Disease

  1

  10,238.14

  Arthritis

  1

  14.50

  Poisoning

  1

  1,114.19

  RSI

  329

  2,132,560.43

  Bilateral Pleural Thickening

  6

  62,121.84

  Pleural Plaques

  8

  49,348.45

  WRULD

  22

  55,132.52

  Occupational Stress/Anxiety

  11

  98,468.72

  Degenerative Disc Condition

  3

  20,072.35

  Mucous Membrane/Rhinitis

  1

  1,654.91

  CTS/Tenosynovitis

  26

  104,632.46

  Chest/Lung Condition

  2

  11,079.94

  Multiple disease

  42

  166,531.73

  Non Coded Disease

  168

  1,713,162.14

  Total

  1,899

  12,743,750.88

  March 1999 to March 2000

  Occupational Deafness

  25

  202,735.48

  Asbestosis

  360

  2,423,934.71

  Cancer

  118

  651,601.75

  Pneumoconiosis

  9

  40,339.94

  Mesothelioma

  173

  948,777.62

  Bronchitis/Emphysema

  116

  1,000,713.19

  Asthma

  174

  1,809,017.66

  VWF/Raynauds Disease

  485

  3,477,329.50

  Dermatitis

  86

  355,272.62

  Eczema/Skin Disease

  7

  3,249.84

  Arthritis

  3

  3,133.17

  RSI

  197

  1,429,625.91

  Bilateral Pleural Thickening

  15

  125,369.97

  Pleural Plaques

  28

  184,600.40

  WRULD

  35

  168,352.04

  Occupational Stress/Anxiety

  31

  312,910.42

  Degenerative Disc Condition

  7

  20,517.76

  Mucous Membrane/Rhinitis

  5

  12,484.01

  CTS/Tenosynovitis

  54

  209,838.44

  Chest/Lung Condition

  4

  24,120.10

  Multiple disease

  141

  909,129.88

  Non Coded Disease

  108

  1,113,732.70

  Total

  2,181

  15,426,787,11

  April 2000 to November 2000

  Occupational Deafness

  8

  34,688.18

  Asbestosis

  186

  1,256,055.71

  Cancer

  41

  303,477.21

  Pneumoconiosis

  1

  2,740.34

  Mesothelioma

  69

  348,661.39

  Bronchitis/Emphysema

  257

  2,414,899.78

  Asthma

  101

  1,119,433.50

  VWF/Raynauds Disease

  849

  7,776,791.09

  Dermatitis

  32

  112,661,09

  Eczema/Skin Disease

  1

  4,876.91

  Arthritis

  2

  10,119.98

  Poisoning

  1

  26,321.25

  RSI

  74

  596,616.09

  Bilateral Pleural Thickening

  11

  74,879.50

  Byssionsis

  1

  5,618.68

  Pleural Plaques

  9

  62,501.08

  WRULD

  18

  190,196.09

  Occupational Stress/Anxiety

  19

  201,490.65

  Degenerative Disc Condition

  5

  53,422.51

  Mucous Membrane/Rhinitis

  2

  65.24

  CTS/Tenosynovitis

  35

  218,661.82

  Chest/Lung Condition

  11

  152,879.23

  Multiple disease

  71

  489,247.90

  Non Coded Disease

  41

  430,722.32

  Total

  1,845

  15,887,027.24

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of co-operation exists between the UK, other member states and third countries on fisheries control and enforcement. [143246]

  Mr. Morley
  There is extensive co-operation between enforcement authorities in the UK and those of other member states and third countries. Such co-operation is important to ensure the effective application of measures designed to conserve fish stocks. Examples of co-operation involving enforcement authorities in the UK over the last 12 months include:exchanging and sharing intelligence on enforcement activity;
  bilateral meetings with Irish and Norwegian authorities;
  joint enforcement operations with the Netherlands in the North Sea;
  participation of inspectors from other member states and Norway in UK enforcement training courses;
  participation in the International Conference on Monitoring, Control and Surveillance organised by the European Commission in Brussels;
  enforcement operations in waters covered by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission;
  the development of an operational protocol on satellite monitoring with France, Spain, Belgium and Ireland. Similar operational protocols are also being developed with other member states and Norway.

  BSE
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has commissioned into BSE; and if he will name the organisations involved. [141646]

  Ms Quin
  All of the research projects into TSEs currently funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are listed in the "Research" section of the MAFF website (www.maff.gov.uk/research). The current costs and organisations involved are also given. In addition, the current and past projects are listed in each update of the BSE progress report; again with the organisations involved. All of the projects receiving UK public funds are listed on the MRC website (www.mrc.ac.uk). By the new year this site will also include summaries of the aims of all of the projects.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who has responsibility for coordinating his research programme for BSE; and if he will make a statement on what progress has been made to date. [141647]

  Ms Quin
  The research programme into BSE and related diseases is co-ordinated by the head of the TSE Research and Surveillance Unit who reports to the head of the Animal Health and Environment Directorate. The unit was formed in December 1999 to bring together the management of TSE research and strategic aspects of TSE surveillance. The main research aim of the unit has been to implement the recommendations of a SEAC sub-group on research and surveillance on TSEs in sheep. The unit has commissioned new and updated animal accommodation to house this research. An Open Competition (the TSE Research Requirement's document)
  217W
  was held to advertise for new research projects. As a result of this, contracts have been issued for four new projects and a further 27 are under negotiation for funding. A list of the TSE research projects currently funded by MAFF is given on the Research section of the MAFF website (www.maff.gov.uk/research).

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the scientific tests used by other EU countries to test for BSE in slaughtered bovines. [141716]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The European Commission has undertaken an evaluation of a number of rapid BSE tests. Three tests were found to perform well in the evaluation exercise in 1999 and have been adopted by other EU countries to test for BSE in slaughtered bovines. These are tests developed by Prionics, Enfer Scientific and CEA. These are in addition to the more traditional, less rapid tests of histopathology, immunocytochemistry and, electronmicroscopy for scrapie associated fibrils.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee considered each of the post mortem tests being used in other EU countries to detect BSE in bovines; and if he will place the reports of the their findings in the Library. [141718]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: SEAC has not formally considered any of the post mortem tests used in the EU. However the EC has conducted independent validation of a number of tests submitted. Three tests are now recognised by member states and a further six are currently undergoing validation.

  I will arrange for a copy of the latest EC report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current tests available to detect the presence of BSE in(a) living and (b) carcases of, bovine subjects; and if he will make a statement on their unit costs and reliability and practicality for mass screening programmes. [141553]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: There is no validated test available to detect the presence of BSE in living cattle. However, this is an active research area.

  A number of post mortem tests are in use. These include histopathology, immunocytochemistry, electron microscopy and scrapie-associated fibrils, ELISA tests and immunoblotting.

  The European Commission has undertaken an evaluation of a number of the more rapid BSE tests. Three of these tests were found to provide good results in terms of sensitivity and specificity in comparison with histopathology. These three tests may now be used by member states in mass screening programmes.

  Test kits are available for unit costs of between approximately £20 and £50 but the costs of collection of samples, identification, handling, transport and examination have to be added to the unit costs. The unit costs may well fall as the tests become more widely used.

  Cattle Passport Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which the application procedures for the cattle passport scheme need to be simplified. [142253]

  Ms Quin
  The operation of the cattle passport scheme is closely monitored and kept under constant review. The BCMS have set up an Industry Forum at which all stakeholders meet to identify how services may be improved. We have responded to the Forum's request to provide for electronic data transfer and from early in the new year it will be possible for farmers to choose to register an animal simply by visiting the BCMS website. They will continue to have the options of completing a paper application form or sending an e-mail, if they prefer.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance is made available to farmers regarding the cattle passport scheme. [142254]

  Ms Quin
  The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) has published nine information leaflets offering advice and guidance on the cattle passport scheme. A copy of each of these leaflets has been sent to every cattle keeper in the country. Welsh language versions have also been produced for Welsh speaking farmers.

  The BCMS has also produced two explanatory video tapes, which have been circulated to farmer organisations to be shown at any of their regular discussion group meetings. If requested, BCMS can provide speakers for such meetings. BCMS staff also attend the principal agricultural shows throughout the country to meet with farmers directly.

  The Cattle Tracing website—part of the MAFF website www.maff.gov.uk—gives detailed information (including a question and answer section) on the scheme. The BCMS telephone helpline also provides help and advice.

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what implications the EU animal by-products regulations will have on the composting of domestic kitchen waste. [142250]

  Ms Quin
  The EU Animal By-products Regulation, as currently drafted, does not propose controls on the composting of kitchen waste, although it would control the composting of animal by-products. The UK will be requesting clarification of the scope of the Regulation during the negotiations.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he offers regarding the application of the animal by-products regulations to the disposal of kitchen waste, with special reference to meat, in waste dumps. [142252]

  Ms Quin
  The Animal By-Products Order 1999 does not control the disposal of kitchen waste in landfill sites. However, it does require that ruminants, pigs and poultry are not fed, or allowed access to, unprocessed kitchen waste containing meat, meat products or products of animal origin wherever they are disposed of. Guidance on the disposal of animal by-products and catering waste is to be issued shortly and will reiterate this point.

  National Seed List
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the procedures are for a resubmission of an application for placement on the National Seed List; and what restriction there is on the time period before that resubmission can be tabled for acceptance. [142099]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: Under the current regulations for National Seed Listing, the procedures for resubmission of an application for National Listing of a variety are the same as those that apply for any new application for National Listing of a variety. There is no restriction on the time period before an application for National Listing of a variety may be resubmitted.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission an inquiry into the role of his Department during the recent application to place Chardon LL on the National Seed List. [142097]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: No. My Department acted properly in accordance with its knowledge at the time when considering the application to place Chardon LL on the National List of plant varieties.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the evidence that his Department planned to submit to the inquiry regarding the application to place Chardon LL on the National Seed List. [142098]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The purpose of the Chardon LL hearing, now adjourned, is to take submissions and oral evidence from persons affected by the proposal to add Chardon LL to the National List of plant varieties. No decision to add Chardon LL to the National List can be taken until the evidence from the hearing and other written representations are considered. There is no provision in the Regulations for my Department to submit evidence to the hearing and there are no plans to do so. Chardon LL will only be added to the UK National List if all the legal requirements have been met in full.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the export of live farm animals. [142797]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's preference is for meat exports. However, the European Court of Justice has made it clear that a ban on the trade in live animals for slaughter is not an option. We will press for improvements in the rules when discussing the Commission's review of the EU legislation on the protection of animals during transport.

  Farm Business Advisory Service
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the number of applications for visits by the Farm Business Advisory Service in Somerset to date, (b) the number of applications received for registration as consultants and (c) the number of consultants appointed. [142154]
  220W
  Ms Quin
  The figures up to 7 December 2000 are as follows:

  (a) 199

  (b) 82

  (c) 59 to date.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down Volunteers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if an independent expert will be able to analyse the data from medical assessment programme consultations involving Porton Down volunteers to assess whether patterns of ill-health are associated with particular exposures; [142417]

  (2) if he will list the ways in which the Ministry of Defence will publicise the offer of a thorough medical assessment to the service personnel who have taken part in trials at Porton Down. [142416]

  Dr. Moonie
  Data about specific individuals referral to the Medical Assessment Programme will be medically confidential. However, it is planned to aggregate and anonymise the data to form a case series for analysis. Such data could, with volunteers' consent, be made available to independent researchers, as has been the case with equivalent data relating to Gulf Veterans.

  I announced on 21 November 2000, Official Report, columns 101–02W, a number of measures, including the offer of a thorough medical assessment for Porton Down Volunteers. The announcement was accompanied by a Ministry of Defence Press Release which is available on my Department's website. The announcement generated some interest in the national media. Wiltshire police have kindly sent out on our behalf details of the Medical Assessment Programme with approximately 400 of their letters to volunteers. All letters sent by Porton Down in response to former volunteers' inquiries and by MOD on this subject mention the medical assessment programme where appropriate. Callers to our Helplines will also be made aware of the Medical Assessment Programme. We have also invited the Volunteers' legal representative to publicise details. My Department will set up a website specifically for Porton Down volunteers early in the New Year which will also contain details. We plan to revise and re-issue the MOD leaflet intended for Porton Down Volunteers which was first produced in February 1998. The Porton Down Veterans Support Group also has been sent details, as too has the Royal British Legion. The Department of Health has taken steps to alert the NHS and GPs to the programme.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the contact address and telephone number of the Porton Down Veterans Support Group will be added to the leaflet and website which publicises the Porton Down Volunteers Helpline run by the Defence and Evaluation Research Agency; [142413]

  (2) if the Defence and Evaluation Research Agency will undertake to include the contact address and telephone number of the newly-formed Porton Down Veterans Support Group in all letters which are sent to volunteers in response to queries about their participation in trials. [142414]
  221W
  Dr. Moonie
  My Department has not been asked to publicise details of the Porton Down Veterans Support Group.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Public Record Office a copy of the document "possible long-term sequelae of exposure to nerve agents-a retrospective survey" (CDE Technical Note 1010, August 1989); [142384]

  (2) for what reasons the Chemical Defence Establishment Porton Down initiated the survey of the health of service volunteers exposed to nerve agents which was reported in the document "possible long-term sequelae of exposure to nerve agents-a retrospective survey" (CDE Technical Note 1010) in August 1989. [142383]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have today arranged for a copy of the document to which the hon. Member refers to be placed in the Library of the House. Consideration as to whether or not the document should be placed in the Public Records Office will be given under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 and 1967.

  The work which led to CDE Technical Note 1010 was a small scale study initiated by staff at Porton Down. This was intended to identify any long-term health effect of exposure to nerve agents during the volunteer programme. The work did not reveal any increased incidence of ill health among the volunteers.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the number of individuals who have been exposed to nerve agents at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [142411]

  Dr. Moonie
  My Department estimates that 3,400 volunteers may have taken part in nerve agent studies at Porton Down, although it is probable that not all of these volunteers were exposed to nerve agents as some would have worn protective equipment or been involved as part of control groups. We plan to research the records to establish the definitive numbers, which will be published in due course.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's spending on official publications for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 and the planned expenditure for 2001–02. [141442]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The Department does not hold the information in the format requested. The sums expended on Commercial and HMSO publications can be identified for the years requested and are shown in the table. These sums include those for on-Vote Agencies but do not include off-Vote Trading Funds or staff costs.

  Commercial and HMSO Publications

  £ million

  1996–97

  6.866

  1997–98

  7.250

  1998–99

  6.910

  1999–2000

  7.499>

  2000–011

  6.055

  1 Estimate

  Colombian Armed Forces
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training facilities in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) British bases overseas are being used by members of the Colombian armed forces. [142316]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Plan Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what deployment of members of the UK armed services is required by participation in Plan Colombia. [142312]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is no UK armed forces involvement in Plan Colombia.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Accommodation and Works Committee
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the cost of the bridge between Portcullis House and Norman Shaw South. [142550]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  When the work is complete, the cost is expected to be some £590,000 inclusive of VAT and fees.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases have been reviewed by the Independent Monitor of Entry Clearance Refusals in each month of the current year to date. [142792]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Independent Monitor reviews each year a random sample of eligible entry clearance refusals. He or she decides when to do this. Dame Elizabeth Anson reviewed 1,800 refusal decisions from 1999 for her last report, dated 28 June 2000. A report by the new Independent Monitor, Rabinder Singh, covering refusals in 2000, will be laid before Parliament by the end of 2001.

  Raoul Wallenberg
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg in 1945. [141524]

  Mr. Vaz
  Sweden set up a bilateral Commission with Russia to look at all available evidence regarding the disappearance in 1945, of the Swedish diplomat, Raoul Wallenberg. This commission is due to issue a joint conclusion in Stockholm in January 2001. We await this conclusion with interest but have not participated in the investigation.

  Competitions (Europe)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many primary schools
  223W
  (a) were invited to participate and (b) submitted entries to his Department's competition entitled "My Vision of Europe". [141315]

  Mr. Vaz
  We issued an open invitation to all of the UK's primary schools to enter the competition. We received winning entries for eight regions from the co-sponsor Time Group Ltd., from which the panel of judges selected the national winner.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) schools on his Department's competition entitled "What Europe Means to Me". [141317]

  Mr. Vaz
  To date the costs of the "What Europe Means to Me" competition have been borne by the co-sponsor, British Midland. We are not aware of any expenses accruing to schools.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if essays critical of further integration were eligible for the competition entitled "What Europe Means to Me". [141313]

  Mr. Vaz
  All entries on the theme "What Europe Means to Me" were eligible for this competition.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent(a) by his Department and (b) by schools on his Department's competition entitled "My Vision of Europe". [141316]

  Mr. Vaz
  We estimate that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will spend approximately £6,000 on this competition once all bills are in. This covers the cost of the awards ceremony on 30 October, and the transport costs of the schools that submitted the winning entries. Some London schools attending the ceremony carried their own costs.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what age groups were invited to participate in his Department's competition entitled "My Vision of Europe". [141314]

  Mr. Vaz
  The "My Vision of Europe" competition was open to all of the UK's primary schools.

  Chechnya
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council regarding the situation in Chechnya. [142378]

  Mr. Vaz
  The OSCE Ministerial Council, held in Vienna on 27–28 November, did not reach consensus on a Declaration, due in part to differences over the draft language on Chechnya. The Austrian Chair-in-Office issued a statement on her own authority. On Chechnya she noted that a political solution to the conflict was essential, that Ministers had requested Russian support for the immediate return of the OSCE Assistance Group, and called for independent investigation and prosecution of alleged human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow will visit Northern Ireland; which locations it will visit; and if he will make a statement. [142403]

  Mr. Vaz
  I plan to visit Northern Ireland on 22 January. My officials are in contact with the Northern Ireland Executive about the programme.

  Visa Centres (Indian Subcontinent)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals for the establishment of new visa centres in the Indian subcontinent. [142857]

  Mr. Vaz
  The new offices will be in Jallandhar and Ahmedabad in India; Sylhet in Bangladesh; and Lahore in Pakistan. We continue to discuss with the Governments of the countries the details of the proposed operations. We need their agreement before we can proceed any further.

  The new offices should save visa applicants unnecessary travel and expense. They will:
  offer advice on entry clearance requirements and procedures
  give out visa application forms and information leaflets
  accept, check and forward visa applications to the relevant High Commission or Deputy High Commission
  return passports to applicants once the application has been considered
  provide office and interviewing facilities for visiting entry clearance officers.

  As soon as we have the agreement of the Governments of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, we will establish the offices as quickly as possible.

  Nice Council
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on vote re-weighting in the European Union following the European Council at Nice. [142875]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Nice IGC agreed that on 1 January 2005 member states' votes in the Council would be re-weighted according to the following table.

  Current weighting

  From 2005

  Germany

  10

  29

  UK

  10

  29

  France

  10

  29

  Italy

  10

  29

  Spain

  8

  27

  Poland

  —

  27

  Romania

  —

  14

  Netherlands

  —

  13

  Greece

  5

  12

  Czech Republic

  —

  12

  Belgium

  5

  12

  Hungary

  —

  12

  Portugal

  5

  12

  Sweden

  4

  10

  Bulgaria

  —

  10

  Austria

  4

  10

  Slovakia

  —

  7

  Denmark

  3

  7

  Finland

  3

  7

  225W

  Current weighting

  From 2005

  Lithuania

  —

  7

  Latvia

  —

  4

  Slovenia

  —

  4

  Estonia

  —

  4

  Cyprus

  —

  4

  Luxembourg

  2

  4

  Malta

  —

  3

  Total

  87

  345

  This is the first time that votes in the Council have been re-weighted and the effect that it will have on the UK's relative voting influence1 is set out as follows:
  1 Relative voting influence is a measure of the fairness of a member state's vote weighting. It is calculated as the ratio between a member state's percentage of the total number of votes and its percentage of the EU's total population.
  The vote weighting system is a compromise between one vote per member state and an allocation of votes proportional to population size. Smaller member states are therefore proportionately over represented and have ratios above one. The reserve is true of larger member states.

  The UK's relative voting influence

  Current voting system

  Nice agreement

  EU9

  0.86

  0.91

  EU12

  0.75

  0.83

  EU15

  0.73

  0.78

  EU211

  0.66

  0.72

  EU271

  0.61

  0.69

  1 For the purposes of this calculation, EU21 includes Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus. EU27 then adds Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta. Of course other scenarios for enlargement are equally possible

  Under the Nice agreement, the voting system will be supplemented by a population safeguard. When a decision is to be adopted by the Council by a qualified majority, a member of the Council may request verification that the member states constituting the majority represent at least 62 per cent. of the total population of the Union. If this condition is not met, the decision in question shall not be adopted.

  The effect of these changes is to ensure that in an EU of 27, a decision cannot be passed in the Council where QMV applies if the three largest member states—Germany, the UK and France—are opposed.

  The Nice agreement also stipulates that a majority of member states must support a qualified majority for a decision to be passed by QMV.

  Plan Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings his Department has held with NGO's in Colombia to discuss the operation of Plan Colombia. [142315]

  Mr. Battle
  We hold frequent meetings with NGOs and human rights organisations to discuss Plan Colombia and the peace process more widely. I met a number of NGOs and peace organisations during my visit to Colombia in September, including representatives from Christian Aid, CODHES, Mandato Ciudadano por la Paz, Indepaz, Redepaz, No Mas, and also Padre Francisco de Roux and Monsignor Pedro Rubiano. NGOs participated in the London meeting on Colombia on 19 June, at our 226W
  invitation, and the Madrid and Bogota Conferences on 7 July and 24 October respectively. We value all these contracts and will continue this substantial dialogue.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the representations he has received concerning Plan Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [142314]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK Government have received a number of representations, both verbal and by correspondence, about Plan Colombia. These have been from MPs, NGOs and members of the public, but we also have a substantial and on-going dialogue with other Governments.

  Plan Colombia sets out the Colombian Government's proposals for tackling the violence, social and economic inequalities, abuse of human rights, and drugs cultivation and trafficking. We have encouraged the Colombian Government to consult NGOs and civil society about the implementation of Plan Colombia. There are some welcome signs that this is happening. Economic Development Minister Ramirez Ocampo has held a series of meetings with NGOs and civil society groups about Plan Colombia and the peace process more widely, and we were pleased that the Colombian Government participated in the NGO sponsored Costa Rica meeting on 17 October. We hope this dialogue continues to strengthen.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total UK Government financial involvement in Plan Colombia is, broken down into EU funding and bilateral arrangements. [142313]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no UK Government financial involvement in Plan Colombia either bilaterally or through the EU. Assistance through the EU of 105 million euro will support human rights, long-term economic and social development, and an end to violence.

  Recruitment (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Northern Ireland Office and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland on the inclusion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the provisions of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [142304]

  Mr. Vaz
  There are no plans to designate the FCO for the purpose of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures his Department has put in place to ensure that its recruitment practices in Northern Ireland appeal to both Protestants and Catholics; [142305]

  (2) what percentage of staff in his Department and overseas posts come from Northern Ireland; and how this is broken down between the Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland; [142306]
  227W
  (3) how many Catholics from Northern Ireland have been recruited to (a) the Policy Entrant/Fast Stream and (b) the Operational Entrant/Main Stream in each of the last 10 years; [142307]

  (4) what measures his Department has put in place to attract more applications from Northern Ireland's Catholic community; [142308]

  (5) how many recruitment initiatives have been undertaken by his Department in Northern Ireland in predominantly (a) Catholic and (b) Protestant communities in the last 10 years. [142309]

  Mr. Hain
  In 2000 the Department adapted its previous policy of advertising in UK national media. It now additionally advertises in leading publications in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the light of advice from the Fair Employment Commission at the Northern Ireland Office, all jobs in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (except those at clerical grade A1, which are advertised in London only) are advertised in the Belfast Telegraph. Care is taken to ensure that advertisements appeal to a wide cross-section of the UK population.

  In line with its diversity policy, the Department does not require applicants to provide information on religious affiliation during (or after) the recruitment process. Nor does it have information that would enable it to say how many staff are from Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom. The Department is therefore unable to provide information on the percentage of staff employed in any capacity from either community in Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland is included in the Department's recruitment initiatives. For example, in November 2000 the Department visited Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster to discuss careers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Europe with young people from eleven schools, encompassing both Catholic and Protestant students. The Department does not retain records of university visits and other recruitment initiatives for more than the current year.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's recruitment and advancement strategy and accompanying targets for recruiting(a) Catholics from Northern Ireland, (b) ethnic minorities, (c) women and (d) people with disabilities. [142310]

  Mr. Hain
  A copy of the FCO's strategy for improving minority ethnic representation ("Bridges into the Future") is available in the Library of the House. The Department is currently developing a broader diversity strategy. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Departmental Report, to be published in the spring, will give further details. The Department does not have specific targets for the employment of Catholics from Northern Ireland or from any other part of the UK. The Department's objective is that 10 per cent. of recruits to the Diplomatic Service each year should be of minority ethnic origin,228W
  that 50 per cent. should be women and that by 2005 disabled staff should account for 3 per cent. of its Senior Management Structure.

  Tibet
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's request to the Chinese Government to open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama about the Tibetan situation. [142155]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government believe that a long term peaceful and political solution in Tibet can be found only through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, in particular the Dalai Lama. During the last round of the UK/China human rights dialogue, held in London between 16–18 October, the Chinese side briefed us on recent talks that had taken place between the Chinese authorities and Gyalo Thondup, the Dalai Lama's brother, in Beijing. We welcomed these preliminary discussions, and expressed the hope that both sides would work promptly towards high level talks.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that the work of the Camelot Foundation continues regardless of decisions about the future of the National Lottery. [141699]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: I recognise the value of the Camelot Foundation's work. However, the future of the Foundation is a matter for Camelot Group plc.

  Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the report of the Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade. [143279]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Advisory Panel's report will be published on Monday 18 December, when copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 was for 2001–02. [141444]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The account code structure of the Northern Ireland Office does not allow for production costs of official publications to be separated from the normal costs of office expenditure, such as general printing and the purchasing of non-departmental publications.

  This information could be provided only by a manual exercise at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teachers
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what meetings his Department has held with London borough chief education officers to discuss a pan-London strategy for the recruitment and retention of teachers in London. [141945]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I discuss education issues with individual London boroughs regularly. Most recently I discussed a range of issues, including teacher recruitment with the ALG on 11 December. My right hon. Friend announced on 29 August the package of measures for London.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department has made of the number of new teachers that will have to qualify each year for the next five years to fill projected teaching vacancies; and what targets his Department has set for recruitment of new teachers for each of the next five years. [141947]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The firm and indicative targets are announced for rolling three-year periods. On 8 December, I announced that 29,820 places would be available on initial teacher training courses in England in 2001–02, and that the indicative intake targets for 2002–03 and 2003–04 were 29,535 and 29,095 respectively. Those figures will be reviewed at the appropriate time. The targets that I announced do not take account of the 1,680 employment-based training places that will be available in each of the next three years and for which funding had already been announced. These mean that there is provision for 31,570 people to enter initial teacher training in 2001–02 and that, on current estimates, we plan to make 31,215 places available in 2002–03 and 30,775 in 2003–04.

  We expect these targets, together with the new £6,000 training salaries that we are now offering graduate trainee teachers, to allow good progress to be made towards recruiting the number of entrants to initial teacher training that we estimate will be needed to ensure an adequate supply of newly-qualified teachers. We have already, this year, secured the first rise in recruitment to initial teacher training since 1992–93, with more than 2,000 more people currently in training than at this time last year.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what payments the Treasury(a) has made and (b) intends to make directly to schools in the form of flat-rate payments; [141954]

  (2) what payments his Department (a) has made and (b) intends to make directly to schools in the form of flat-rate payments. [141955]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are making School Standards Grant of approximately £290 million available in 2000–01. In 2001–02 the amount of such grant will increase to £540 million, and will continue for the following two years with a 2.75 per cent. annual uplift. Schools receive this grant in lump sums based on the size 230W
  and category of school; in 2001–02 a typical primary school will receive £20,000 and a typical secondary school, £60,000.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the payments made to all local education authorities from his Standards Fund expressed in amounts per pupil for each year since 1997. [141956]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows payments from the Standards Fund, shown as an amount per pupil, for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, for each local education authority. The figures for 1999–2000 are estimated payments, as audited outturn statements have yet to be received from all authorities. The figures include all grants paid through the Standards Fund payment system, excluding New Deal for Schools Capital, which is not part of the Standards Fund programme. Details for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Standards fund payments grant per pupil

  £

  Local education authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  City of London

  89

  111

  797

  Camden

  37

  71

  202

  Greenwich

  31

  53

  162

  Hackney

  35

  66

  239

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  32

  61

  158

  Islington

  41

  58

  168

  Kensington and Chelsea

  41

  58

  198

  Lambeth1

  41

  90

  217

  Lewisham

  35

  49

  137

  Southwark

  41

  57

  173

  Tower Hamlets

  37

  51

  256

  Wandsworth

  49

  79

  173

  Westminster

  30

  54

  204

  Barking and Dagenham

  44

  71

  97

  Barnet

  22

  47

  92

  Bexley

  21

  51

  73

  Brent

  42

  63

  102

  Bromley

  30

  56

  89

  Croydon

  28

  43

  103

  Ealing

  34

  45

  116

  Enfield

  30

  35

  99

  Haringey

  33

  53

  189

  Harrow

  22

  35

  81

  Havering

  25

  37

  62

  Hillingdon

  28

  84

  133

  Hounslow

  30

  47

  117

  Kingston upon Thames

  23

  42

  57

  Merton

  30

  38

  146

  Newham

  30

  57

  118

  Redbridge

  27

  45

  85

  Richmond upon Thames

  24

  33

  150

  Sutton

  30

  52

  88

  Waltham Forest

  33

  43

  147

  Birmingham

  28

  47

  120

  Coventry

  38

  63

  132

  Dudley

  28

  63

  109

  Sandwell

  29

  62

  139

  Solihull

  31

  65

  113

  Walsall

  34

  60

  138

  Wolverhampton

  37

  58

  148

  Knowsley

  28

  67

  128

  Liverpool

  31

  44

  120

  St. Helens

  25

  43

  97

  Sefton

  22

  46

  96

  Wirral

  28

  45

  95

  Bolton

  27

  44

  151

  Bury

  25

  79

  126

  Manchester

  34

  53

  161

  Oldham

  25

  46

  204

  Rochdale

  34

  59

  133

  Salford

  25

  48

  124

  231W

  Standards fund payments grant per pupil

  £

  Local education authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Stockport

  33

  61

  120

  Tameside

  29

  52

  111

  Trafford

  30

  52

  101

  Wigan

  36

  64

  117

  Barnsley

  33

  49

  111

  Doncaster

  27

  38

  110

  Rotherham

  27

  47

  142

  Sheffield

  29

  56

  128

  Bradford

  25

  47

  157

  Calderdale

  33

  52

  110

  Kirklees

  34

  64

  142

  Leeds

  29

  50

  116

  Wakefield

  31

  61

  107

  Gateshead

  32

  56

  130

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  43

  86

  112

  North Tyneside

  37

  59

  109

  South Tyneside

  37

  59

  110

  Sunderland

  26

  42

  78

  Isles of Scilly

  123

  144

  496

  Bath and North East Somerset

  17

  50

  116

  Bristol, City of

  28

  47

  107

  North Somerset

  28

  48

  98

  South Gloucestershire

  31

  68

  135

  Hartlepool

  29

  63

  110

  Middlesbrough

  24

  46

  137

  Redcar and Cleveland

  33

  63

  104

  Stockton-on-Tees

  27

  49

  114

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  28

  40

  206

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  31

  53

  110

  North East Lincolnshire

  22

  59

  93

  North Lincolnshire

  27

  81

  130

  North Yorkshire

  30

  53

  107

  York

  38

  65

  115

  Bedfordshire

  31

  51

  116

  Luton

  26

  42

  149

  Buckinghamshire

  27

  52

  130

  Milton Keynes

  30

  48

  106

  Derbyshire

  32

  93

  103

  Derby

  27

  100

  153

  Dorset

  30

  58

  104

  Poole

  26

  54

  92

  Bournemouth

  32

  49

  85

  Durham

  34

  61

  121

  Darlington

  28

  63

  130

  East Sussex

  27

  55

  105

  Brighton and Hove

  24

  57

  110

  Hampshire

  27

  43

  73

  Portsmouth

  24

  40

  101

  Southampton

  24

  41

  114

  Leicestershire

  28

  53

  94

  Leicester

  23

  55

  144

  Rutland

  50

  85

  124

  Staffordshire

  27

  48

  86

  Stoke-on-Trent

  30

  52

  143

  Wiltshire

  35

  60

  113

  Swindon

  30

  53

  100

  Berkshire

  28

  n/a

  n/a

  Bracknell Forest

  n/a

  46

  105

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  n/a

  52

  90

  West Berkshire

  n/a

  61

  118

  Reading

  n/a

  69

  125

  Slough

  n/a

  66

  135

  Wokingham

  n/a

  44

  96

  Cambridgeshire

  31

  53

  106

  Peterborough

  n/a

  50

  125

  Cheshire

  29

  50

  84

  Halton

  n/a

  48

  97

  Warrington

  n/a

  61

  120

  Devon

  33

  73

  106

  Plymouth

  n/a

  61

  95

  Torbay

  n/a

  46

  115

  Essex

  31

  52

  78

  Southend-on-Sea

  n/a

  48

  77

  Thurrock

  n/a

  47

  94

  Herefordshire

  n/a

  60

  149

  Worcestershire

  29

  42

  94

  232W

  Standards fund payments grant per pupil

  £

  Local education authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Kent

  30

  46

  85

  Medway

  n/a

  44

  94

  Lancashire

  32

  57

  126

  Blackburn with Darwen

  n/a

  51

  184

  Blackpool

  n/a

  68

  114

  Nottinghamshire

  26

  45

  86

  Nottingham

  n/a

  66

  171

  Shropshire

  33

  66

  104

  Telford and Wrekin

  n/a

  82

  135

  Cornwall

  35

  59

  140

  Cumbria

  36

  63

  107

  Gloucestershire

  36

  66

  96

  Hertfordshire

  31

  52

  82

  Isle of Wight

  38

  65

  111

  Lincolnshire

  32

  53

  92

  Norfolk

  33

  62

  99

  Northamptonshire

  33

  54

  102

  Northumberland

  34

  59

  114

  Oxfordshire

  33

  61

  121

  Somerset

  32

  62

  119

  Suffolk

  29

  43

  75

  Surrey

  28

  51

  83

  Warwickshire

  29

  52

  105

  West Sussex

  32

  54

  84

  1 Estimated for 1998–99

  n/a—Authorities affected by local government reorganisation in April 1998

  Note:

  Payments to Lambeth were stopped after September 1998 due to unresolved issues surrounding their audited outturn statement.

  Student Absences
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will issue further guidance to local education authorities and higher education institutions concerning students who are temporarily absent from their studies due to(a) illness and (b) caring responsibilities. [141312]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department issued further guidance in early November 2000 to all local education authorities and Higher Education institutions on the provisions for students who are temporarily absent from their course due to illness or caring responsibilities. Similar information was also made available to students in Higher Education.

  Under the Education (Student Support) Regulations, full-time students in England and Wales who are absent from their course because of illness are entitled to continue to receive student support for the first 60 days of absence. Before academic year 1998–99 this was only 28 days. Local education authorities also have the discretion to determine whether student support should be continued when a student is absent for reasons other than illness or caring duties.

  Full-time students who have suspended their studies because of illness or caring responsibilities, and who are required to wait until they are permitted to rejoin their course, can now claim Jobseeker's Allowance and Housing/Council Tax Benefit from when they recover from illness or their caring duties end.

  The revised guidance encourages local education authorities to use the discretionary powers available to them to continue paying student support when a student is temporarily absent from their course.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Modern Apprenticeships have been started in each of the last five years. [141695]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The numbers of people starting Modern Apprenticeships in the last five years in England are given in the table:

  Number

  1995–96

  25,800

  1996–97

  70,300

  1997–98

  84,200

  1998–99

  119,100

  1999–2000

  170,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures for the first two years are for Advanced Modem Apprenticeships only

  2. From 1997–98 they also include Foundation Modem Apprenticeships.

  Maintained Sector
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the maintained sector have a charitable trust to raise funds for education-related purposes; [141697]

  (2) how many (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the maintained sector seek voluntary contributions from parents towards the running costs of the school. [141698]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The information is not held centrally.

  Colleges of Agriculture (Funding)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out details of the funding for colleges of agriculture for(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [142284]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: £61 million has been allocated to 20 colleges of agriculture for the 2000–01 academic year. Provisional allocations for colleges of further education, including colleges of agriculture, for the 2001–02 academic year will be made at the end of February 2001. Allocations for the 2002–03 academic year will be made in 2002.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the 753 staff of his Department employed in the Government Offices will transfer in April 2001 to the Learning and Skills Council; and what fraction of the aid budget will be transferred as a result. [142289]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The work that Government Offices (GO) currently perform in respect of TEC contracts will no longer be necessary once the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is in place. There will therefore be no formal direct transfer of staff and work from Government Offices to the LSC. We do, however, expect a small number of GO staff to find opportunities with the Learning and Skills Council over
  234W
  time. We have estimated that, as a result of the creation of the LSC, GO running costs will be some £15 million less than they otherwise would have been.

  Lifelong Learning Directorate
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of the 1,013 staff employed in the Lifelong Learning Directorate of his Department, how many will transfer to the Learning and Skills Council on April 2001; what budget will be allocated to them; and what functions will remain in the Lifelong Learning Directorate. [142290]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: We estimate the equivalent of 90–100 full time posts will transfer to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) from the Department as a whole. As individuals are being given a choice as to whether they join the LSC or not, the number of people actually transferring with the work may be less than this.

  We have set an overall administration budget for the LSC of £188 million for 2001–02. It is for the LSC to decide how it uses that resource to achieve the objectives it has been set.

  The Lifelong Learning Directorate is responsible for the oversight and delivery of the Government's policies to promote post-16 learning, including: quality and delivery of the post-16 agenda; adult learning and skills; higher education; youth policy; qualifications and the Connexions strategy.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the level of funding per student in higher education is in 2000–01 and is planned to be in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [142291]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 November 2000, Official Report, columns 810–11W.

  Blind and Visually Impaired People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what he is doing to encourage the wider dissemination of career information in alternative formats to blind and visually impaired people. [141554]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: Section B 11 of the Requirements and Guidance for Careers Services states that information must be made available in ways that ensure clients with disabilities, including those with learning difficulties or sensory impairments, are able to access it. Equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle in provision of careers guidance and will be equally applicable to those working in the Connexions partnerships. Suppliers of career resources are encouraged to make their materials available in alternative formats to meet the needs of particular groups including blind or visually impaired. These include audio tapes, large print Braille and facilities in electronic formats, including websites to permit access by speaking browsers.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the implications of the extra Golden Jubilee bank holiday in June 2002 for the timetable of public examinations during that summer. [141555]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The awarding bodies were notified that HM the Queen's Golden Jubilee will be on Monday 3 June 2002 and that the spring bank holiday has been moved to 4 June 2002. Examinations will be rescheduled to take place in the last week of May and no examinations will take place in the week beginning 3 June 2002.

  Adult Basic Skills
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out his strategy for improving adult basic skills with particular reference to(a) the costs of the programme, (b) methods of delivery, (c) professional development for those involved in tuition and (d) the criteria for its evaluation. [141556]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: On 5 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a statement on how the Government propose to improve adult basic skills. Measures include new standards, a national test and curriculum, new learning materials and programmes and action to target specific groups of adults with basic skills needs. Spending on this programme will rise from £241 million in 2000–01 to £313 million in 2001–02, £366 million in 2002–03 and £403 million in 2003–04. Raising standards through training and qualifications for new and existing teachers will be a key part of the strategy. The national strategy, to be launched early next year, will be evaluated through pathfinder projects and regular monitoring of progress at national level against the target of reducing the number of adults with weak literacy and numeracy skills by 750,000, by 2004.

  Joint Academic Network
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in linking further education colleges with the Joint Academic Network. [141557]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: At the end of November, 212 of the 420 English FE colleges have direct connections to the Joint Academic Network (JANET). These connections were funded by the National Learning Network initiative. A further 114 colleges have connections to JANET via a local university, and these will be converted to direct connections in due course. The plan to have all English FE colleges connected to JANET by spring 2001 remains on target.

  Needy Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he will encourage higher education institutions to attract additional funds to assist needy students. [141558]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The Government have increased the resources available through the Access and Hardship Funds to £87 million in 2000–01,
  236W
  over four times greater than in 1997–98. Additionally, Opportunity Bursaries for young disadvantaged students will also be available from 2001. This carefully targeted extra support is a key part of our widening access policies, which are designed to ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have the confidence to enter higher education and the help they need to complete their studies. We have made available £2.7 million of the total amount of £4.4 million provided for specific administrative funding in 2000–01. We believe that higher education institutions should also use their own funds to ensure these essential services are properly resourced and effectively delivered.

  Of course we welcome initiatives such as the Ogden Bursary scheme, and the recent one announced by Edinburgh University with the Royal Bank of Scotland, which are excellent examples of private/public sector partnerships providing further opportunities for more of our disadvantaged young people to benefit from higher education. We have responded to these initiatives by increasing the income students can receive through bursaries without it affecting the level of student support they receive from the taxpayer.

  Equality
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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 services and employment for which his Department has responsibility. [141486]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: As an equal opportunities employer, the Department is committed to fairness and equality of opportunity for all in employment and advancement on the basis of suitability. As an employer we aim to develop DfEE into an organisation that values the diversity of its staff and enables all to realise their potential by valuing the contribution of all and recognising the positive benefits that difference can bring.

  The Department also aims to ensure that it mainstreams equal opportunities in all its policies, programmes and services in line with the joint-departmental guidelines "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" issued in 1998.

  Nuffield Languages Inquiry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the final report of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry, 'Languages: The Next Generation'; and if he will make a statement. [141492]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: We have analysed and assessed the recommendations of the Nuffield Report and will be producing a clear statement of response in the new year. This statement will take account of Nuffield's proposals, as well as highlight 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

  237W
  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 closely in consultation with them.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the public bodies which(a) are under a duty to and (b) may advise local education authorities of special educational needs of children under the age of five years in order to assist them in planning provision for compulsory years of school attendance; and if he will make a statement on the collation and coordination of such information of needs. [142629]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government attach importance to effective identification of special educational needs in respect of children under five. Early education settings are

  Adult learning committee members

  Name

  Current main role

  John Monks (Chair)

  General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress

  Alex Pratt

  Managing Director of Sunalex Ltd.

  Chris Humphries, CBE

  Director-General of British Chambers of Commerce (but soon to move to become Director-General of the City and Guilds of London Institute)

  Alexandra Burslem, OBE

  Vice Chancellor of the Manchester Metropolitan University

  Jane Drabble

  Formerly Director of Education at the BBC

  Hugh Try, CBE

  Deputy Chairman, Galliford Try plc and Chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board

  Tony Chandler

  Head of Learning and Organising Services at UNISON

  Janice Shiner

  Principal and Chief Executive of Leicester College

  Alan Tuckett

  Director of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education

  Michael Brunson, OBE

  Freelance writer and broadcaster. Previously Political Editor of ITN

  Paul Convery

  Director of the Unemployment Unit and Youthaid

  Patrick Passley

  Lecturer in Law, Barnet College and Commissioner on the Commission for Racial Equality

  Judith Armitt

  Chief Executive of Medway Council

  Young people's committee members

  Name

  Current main role

  Chris Banks (Chair)

  Managing Director of Coca-Cola Great Britain Ltd.

  Ian Ferguson

  Chairman of Data Connection Ltd.

  Imtiaz Farookhi

  Chief Executive of the National House Building Council (NHBC)

  John Rourke

  Principal of St. Charles Catholic 6* Form College, London

  Helen Edwards

  Chief Executive of Nacro—the crime reduction charity

  Kim Parish

  Personnel Director of Scottish and Newcastle Retail (S&N plc)

  Bill Connor

  General Secretary of USDAW

  Sue Peacock

  Head of Research and Development at EMTA (the National Training Organisation for Engineering Manufacture)

  Maggie Galliers

  Principal of Henley College, Coventry

  Dr. Kevin Conway

  Principal of Greenhead College, Huddersfield

  Ian Gartshore

  Head-teacher of Downham Market High School, Norfolk

  Alex Williams

  Community Scheme Manager at Manchester City Football Club

  Rosalie Clayton

  Director of Education at Peterborough City Council

WALES

  Business Rate
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of revenue raised in Wales from the business rate in each of the last four years. [141387]
  238W
  required to have regard to the current SEN Code of Practice and this has been amplified in a full chapter of the draft revised Code issued for consultation in the summer devoted to identification, assessment and provision in early education settings. This chapter refers to the legal requirement placed on child health services to inform both parents and the appropriate local education authority where they believe a child has special educational needs. The draft Code offers advice on contact between early education providers and child health services and we are currently considering comments offered on this, and other, sections of the draft document.

  Adult Learning and Young People's Committees
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the appointment of committee members to the Learning and Skills Council's Adult Learning and Young People's Committees. [143116]

  Mr. Wicks
  Bryan Sanderson, Chairman of the Learning and Skills Council, has today announced the appointment of the members of its Adult Learning and Young People's Committees. They are:

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total amount of revenue raised in Wales from the business rate between 1996–97 and 1998–99 was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  427,156,005

  1997–98

  460,306,025

  1998–99

  464,847,538

  239W
  Since 1 July 1999, this has been a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on enhancing the status of St. David's Day; and if he will make a statement. [141374]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a number of matters including this one. The UK Government are currently considering this issue, but have not yet formed a view.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [141455]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The figures are as follows:

  Year

  £

  Welsh Office

  (a) 1996–97

  134,327

  (b) 1997–98

  104,834

  (c) 1998–99

  139,232

  Wales Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales)

  (d) 1999–2000

  8,508

  (e) 2000–01

  15,353

  1 To date

  Planned experience for 2001–02 is £9,000

  New Deal
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of the New Deal for over 50's in Wales. [142376]

  Mr. Hanson
  The New Deal for 50 Plus operated on a Pathfinder basis in Flintshire and Wrexham from October 1999. It went nationwide in April this year.

  I am pleased to be able to report that, up to the end of November, 1,200 people in Wales had secured jobs through the programme.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the eligibility criteria for the determination of the public funding by the Legal Services Commission of cases before employment tribunals. [142382]

  Mr. Lock
  Sir Andrew Leggatt is conducting a review of all tribunals. He will, among other things, assess the extent to which current procedures and other arrangements, including representation, comply with our ECHR and EU obligations; and to identify the options for 240W
  ensuring compliance in the future. It would be premature to make any decisions on extending publicly funded representation in employment tribunals until Sir Andrew's review has been completed.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the work of his Department. [142381]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department prepared at all levels for the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998; for example, ensuring that all judges and magistrates and the Department's staff were trained; that judges have speedy access to ECHR case law, and that the High Court has sufficient judges, if needed, to deal with any additional workload. Guidance was issued to clarify best practice in certain areas and necessary changes to procedure were made.

  It is too early to make an assessment of the impact of the Act on court workload but so far there has been no turbulence in the courts.

  Enforcement Review
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the report of the First Phase of the Enforcement Review; and if he will make a statement.[142269]

  Mr. Lock
  Those proposals not requiring primary legislation and not likely to be affected by Phase 2 of the Review will be considered by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee in the New Year. Phase 2 of the Enforcement Review is itself continuing.

  Commonhold and Leasehold
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to introduce his bill on commonhold and leasehold. [142149]

  Mr. Lock
  Following this Government's policy of exposing their legislation to maximum expert scrutiny at the earliest convenient stage, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill was published in draft in August this year and the consultation period ended on 20 October. The great majority of responses were encouraging and many contained helpful advice and comment on points of detail. Taking advantage of this expert input to the legislative process, the Government continue to develop their proposals in light of the consultees' comments. We hope to introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142224]

  Jane Kennedy
  The policies developed by this Department generally relate to England and Wales as a whole and it is therefore not possible to say what the specific impact is on the Blackpool, South constituency.
  241W
  However, the Blackpool Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP), which covers Blackpool, South constituency, is one of 145 CLSPs throughout England and Wales. The Commission's total expenditure in the Blackpool Community Legal Service Partnership area, including both new legal help matters and contingent liability, is £935,933.79. The Community Legal Service Partnership covers the whole borough of Blackpool. It does not include any of the surrounding areas, which are part of the North West Lancashire Community Legal Service Partnership.

  In the Blackpool, South constituency, 18 agencies have been awarded contracts with the LSC. This includes 17 law firms and one CAB. The total value of the contracts awarded amounts to £626,920. The 18 agencies are all holders of the CLS Quality Mark. In addition there are a further 12 organisations in the constituency who provide General Help or General Help with Casework who have committed themselves to applying for the CLS Quality Mark by October 2001.

  Additionally a contract has been let with Wyre CAB at Cleveleys to give Debt advice and some of this work is carried out in Blackpool. A contract with Preston and Western Lancashire Race Equality Council in Preston includes delivery of part of their service in Blackpool.

  In addition I have set out details of claims issued at Blackpool county court in the 12 months period either side of the Civil Justice Reforms in April 1999. This allows for a comparison to be made of any changes in the levels of claims made as a result of the Civil Justice Reforms, and is a more useful indicator than just providing all the claims issued since May 1997.

  Month claims issued

  Number

  1998

  May

  438

  June

  534

  July

  560

  August

  526

  September

  603

  October

  380

  November

  594

  December

  550

  1999

  January

  427

  February

  510

  March

  663

  April

  657

  Introduction of Civil Justice Reforms

  May

  176

  June

  454

  July

  401

  August

  465

  September

  410

  October

  395

  November

  358

  December

  407

  2000

  January

  181

  February

  342

  March

  544

  April

  501

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many asylum appeal cases awaiting a decision there were at 31 December(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) at the end of each month in 2000. [142780]

  Jane Kennedy
  Asylum appeals outstanding at Adjudicator level on each of the dates specified were as follows:(a) 31 December 1996–20,455
  (b) 31 December 1997–22,482
  (c) 31 December 1998–12,602
  (d) 31 December 1999–4,327
  (e) 31 January 2000–3,825
  29 February 2000–3,581
  31 March 2000–3,805
  30 April 2000–4,354
  31 May 2000–5,048
  30 June 2000–6,957
  31 July 2000–9,894
  31 August 2000–11,853
  30 September 2000–13,233
  31 October 2000–14,216
  30 November 2000–14,641.

  These figures represent all cases within the system at the relevant points in time. The increase in cases in the system over the last few months reflects the higher throughput of cases as the capacity of the Appeals system has increased significantly.

  Asylum appeals outstanding at Tribunal level on each of the dates specified were as follows:
  (c) 31 December 1996–207
  (d) 31 December 1997–1,018
  (c) 31 December 1998–1,703
  (d) 31 December 1999–2,050
  (e) 31 January 2000–1,996
  29 February 2000–1,725
  31 March 2000–950
  30 April 2000–755
  31 May 2000–576
  30 June 2000–492
  31 July 2000–471
  31 August 2000–424
  30 September 2000–401
  31 October 2000–432
  30 November 2000–491.

  Once again these figures represent all cases within the system at the relevant points in time.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what joint progress the Department for Education and Employment and the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit have made in reducing bureaucracy and red tape in schools. [142682]
  243W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Department for Education and Employment and the Cabinet Office have today published a joint report setting out the outcomes of their project to reduce school paperwork. The estimated potential savings for schools are around 4.5 million hours every year. For a typical school, that constitutes a saving of over 200 hours per year.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list her Department's spending on official publications for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 and the planned expenditure for 2001–02. [141440]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Cabinet Office spending on publications is given in the table.

  £

  Actual

  1996–97

  2,660,505

  1997–98

  2,114,993

  1998–99

  2,752,521

  1999–2000

  3,105,505

  To end November

  2000–01

  1,591,508

  Plan

  2001–02

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Cabinet Office currently comprises Cabinet Office administration (including the Prime Minister's Office, Government Car and Despatch Agency, and NDPBs) and Central Office of Information, which is a trading fund.

  2. Figure for 1996–97 includes the costs of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Chessington Computer Centre, Recruitment and Assessment Services, and Occupational Health and Safety Agency. These Executive Agencies were privatised during 1996–97 and expenditure for that year is available in their respective Completion Accounts.

  3. Figures are taken from accounting definitions and may include procurement of publications not produced by the Cabinet Office, but will not include staff costs or external consultant costs.

  4. Planned expenditure for 2001–02 is not yet available.

  Anglo-Irish Relations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions the joint Steering Group co-chaired by the Irish Department of the Taoiseach and the Cabinet Office has met since 10 November 1997; on what date the most recent progress report on East/West co-operation was drawn up; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [142273]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Good Friday Agreement established a British-Irish Inter-governmental Conference to promote bilateral co-operation. Progress was reviewed at the BIIGC Summit on 17 December 1999, after which a communiquéas issued. Officials have maintained contact with the Taoiseach's Office to review progress since.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people have been employed in the civil service under the New Deal for the Young Unemployed to date. [142161]

  Mr. Stringer
  As at 1 October 2000, the information on all Civil Service Departments (including their agencies) participating in the New Deal is as follows:

  New Deal starts as a 1 October 2000

  Main Department (including agencies)

  Number

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  58

  Intervention Board

  3

  Cabinet Office

  13

  Privy Council Office

  1

  Charity Commission

  25

  Culture, Media and Sport

  4

  Ministry of Defence

  118

  Education and Employment

  2,182

  Office for Standards in Education

  1

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  63

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  4

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  8

  Government Communications Headquarters

  1

  Government Offices for the Regions

  8

  Health

  39

  Home Office

  89

  International Development

  7

  Law Officers' Departments

  15

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  38

  National Assembly for Wales

  36

  Northern Ireland Office

  11

  Scottish Executive

  54

  Registers of Scotland

  1

  Social Security

  603

  Trade and Industry

  51

  HM Treasury

  3

  Office of Government Commerce

  1

  HM Customs and Excise

  73

  Inland Revenue

  317

  Office for National Statistics

  10

  Royal Mint

  3

  Total

  3,840

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she has taken to ensure that Government Departments 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 in each case, in service provision, employment, drafting of legislation and other activities; and if she will make a statement. [142517]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  As an equal opportunities employer, the Civil Service is committed to fairness and equality of opportunity for all in employment and advancement on the basis of suitability for the work.

  A central commitment of the Civil Service reform programme is to achieve a dramatic increase in diversity. The aim is to develop a service that values the diversity of its staff and enables all to realise their potential by recognising the contribution of all and the positive benefits that difference can bring.
  245W
  In respect of the services that Government Departments provide, all Departments aim to ensure that all the Government's activities, including policies, programmes, legislation and services are taken forward in line with the joint-departmental guidelines "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" issued in 1998.

TREASURY

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the introduction of the new children's tax credit. [141843]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new children's tax credit is a tax cut for hard-working families. It will be worth up to £442 a year or £8.50 a week when it is introduced from April next year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his recent pre-Budget Report that it was his aim to increase this to £520 or £10 per week in his next Budget.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his plans to introduce a new children's tax credit. [141866]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received a number of representations on this along with all other aspects of the tax system. The new children's tax credit is a tax cut for hard-working families. It will be worth up to £442 a year or £8.50 a week when it is introduced from April next year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his recent pre-Budget Report that it was his aim to increase this to £520 or £10 per week in his next Budget.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact he estimates the new children's tax credit will have on the incomes of working families. [141871]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new children' s tax credit will be worth up to £442 a year or £8.50 a week for hard-working families when it is introduced from April next year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his recent pre-Budget Report that it was his aim to increase this to £520 or £10 per week in his next Budget.

  Child Poverty
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the fiscal measures he plans to introduce to relieve child poverty. [141847]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to tackling child poverty. That is why we have set a long-term commitment to halve it within 10 years and to abolish it within a generation.

  The Government's tax and benefit reforms are already providing extra support for all families with children, and targeting help on those who need it most. It is estimated that the measures introduced in this Parliament will lift more than one million children out of poverty.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the efficiency of delivering EU structural funds to the United Kingdom's four objective 1 regions. [141850]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Single Programming Document (SPD), drawn up at the start of the Objective 1 period, forms the basis of ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed Objective 1 programme. I am pleased that the European Commission is promoting the Cornish document to the rest of Europe as a model of good practice.

  We are concerned continually to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Structural Funds.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the operation of the Working Families Tax Credit. [141851]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received representations about the operation of the Working Families Tax Credit from a number of sources including applicants. Within its first year of operation, Working Families Tax Credit already helps over 1.1 million families with average awards of £73 per week.

  Cleaner Vehicles
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives he has introduced for motorists to convert their vehicles to run on low emission fuels; and if he will make a statement. [141852]

  Mr. Timms
  The cleaner vehicles programme offers grants of up to 75 per cent. of the cost of converting vehicles to natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and electricity. Its funding has been almost tripled for this year, to £10 million. We have introduced a sharply reduced rate of duty on liquid petroleum gas, and the new graduated VED system for new cars being introduced in March will offer new reductions for cars using low emission fuels.

  In the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor set a challenge to British industry to develop proposals for practical alternative fuels. Our intention is to be in a position to announce significant duty reductions for the most promising alternative fuels at the time of the Budget.

  Public Services
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for capital investment in public services over the next four years. [141854]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public sector net investment is set to double over the period 2000–01 to 2003–04. Detailed plans on how this additional spending will be delivered are set out in recently published Departmental Investment Strategies.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals to help the poorest pensioners. [141855]
  247W
  Dawn Primarolo
  We are significantly increasing the Minimum Income Guarantee next year for two million of the country's poorest pensioners. The new, aligned rates will be £92.15 a week for single pensioners and £140.55 for couples. These will then be raised in line with average earnings, reaching £100 and £154 a week by 2003. In addition, we are consulting on a new Pension Credit which will benefit 5.5 million pensioners with low and moderate incomes.

  Minimum Wage
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the minimum wage on average earnings. [141856]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to follow up its February 2000 report by further monitoring and evaluating the impact of the National Minimum Wage, and to make recommendations. It will report by 2001.

  Working Families (North-West)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working families he estimates in the north-west(a) pay no income tax and (b) pay tax only on the lowest band rate in the current financial year. [141857]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Some 180,000 working families are estimated to pay no income tax in the north-west and Merseyside in the 2000–01 financial year and some 300,000 individuals in that region are expected to have a lop marginal rate.

  Sterling
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the impact of the level of the pound on manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement. [141858]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers hold regular discussions with business on a wide range of issues.

  Rare Species (Customs Seizures)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics HM Customs and Excise has available for the number of(a) rare animals and (b) rare plants seized over any period during 1999–2000. [141859]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The last period for which HM Customs and Excise have fully adjusted figures for seizures of endangered species is 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000. During this period Customs seized:

  Number

  2,720

  —

  Live animals and birds

  559

  —

  Plants

  1,586

  —

  Parts and derivatives of endangered species

  2,810

  Capsules/Pills

  Medical preparations containing parts and derivatives of endangered species

  58,483

  Grammes

  Medical preparations containing parts and derivatives of endangered species

  343,845

  Grammes

  Caviar

  Widows Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men applied for the Widows Bereavement Allowance in the year April 1999 to March 2000. [141860]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not maintain records for the number of claims it has received from men for the Widow's Bereavement Allowance. There is no entitlement in UK law for widowers to claim this allowance.

  Departmental Policies (Employment)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policies on the levels of(a) employment and (b) unemployment in the UK. [141862]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over the past three and a half years, we have taken the tough decisions necessary to secure a platform of stability to help us attain our central objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the election employment has risen by over one million and unemployment has been cut by over 500,000.

  Family Support
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax measures he has introduced to support the family. [141863]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's tax and benefit reforms mean that by 2001 families with children will be on average £850 a year better off, and the direct tax burden on a family on average earnings with two children will be at the lowest level since 1972. The Children's Tax Credit, due to be introduced in April 2001, will reduce the tax burden by up to £442 a year for five million working families with children.

  Small and Medium-sized Companies
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to strengthen the competitiveness of small and medium-sized companies. [141864]

  Mr. Timms
  Economic stability is the only sound base for competitive enterprise and industry in a global economy. To this end, the Government have cut public borrowing, ensured low and stable inflation and achieved the lowest long-term interest rates for over 30 years. This sound policy platform has encouraged small and medium-sized businesses to invest for the long-term in the skills and infrastructure they require to compete and succeed. To strengthen further the competitiveness of small and medium-sized companies, we have also introduced major reforms to ease compliance with regulation, boost the level of finance available and to improve the level of skills. By focusing on these areas the Government aim to make the UK the most competitive environment for business in the world.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much would be raised, in the current and
  249W
  each of the next four financial years, by raising tax to 50 per cent. for those earning more than £100,000 per annum. [141865]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on 28 November 2000,Official Report, column 591W.

  Lone Parents (Employment Prospects)
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's policies on the employment prospects of lone parents. [141867]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Improving the employment prospects of lone parents is a key priority for the Government. The lone parent employment rate has risen from 44 per cent. in 1997 to 50 per cent. in spring 2000—the highest rate for 20 years. Many more lone parents say that they would like to work and so the Government have set a new objective: that 70 per cent. of lone parents are in employment by the end of the decade. Policies such as the New Deal for lone parents, the Working Families Tax Credit and the National Childcare Strategy are already helping the Government to achieve this aim.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of measures taken by his Department to reduce youth unemployment. [141868]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Youth unemployment has fallen by over 80 per cent. since May 1997.

  This Government announced in November that they had met their manifesto commitment of moving 250,000 young people into jobs during this Parliament.

  By helping young people into work, the New Deal is not just addressing their needs today but seeking to ensure that their long-term employment prospects are more secure.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from businesses on the climate change levy. [141869]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have developed the climate change levy in an open and consultative way. The levy was developed on the basis of the work of Lord Marshall's Task Force which examined "Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy". This was followed by an extensive consultation exercise following the announcement of the levy in Budget 1999. More recently, the Government have consulted on the draft legislation underpinning the levy, on support for energy efficiency measures and on "good quality" Combined Heat and Power.

  During this process, the Government have received many representations from business and other interested parties and these views have helped to refine the design of the levy.

  Living Standards
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact he expects the measures contained in his pre-Budget statement to have on the living standards of the average family. [141870]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The living standards of a single earner family on average earnings with two children are expected to increase by 10 per cent. in real terms over the Parliament.

  The children's tax credit, to be introduced from April 2001, will be worth at least £442 a year to this family. As the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget statement, his aim is to increase it to £520 a year, equivalent to a cut in the basic rate of tax of 2½ per cent. for this family.

  Social Exclusion
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the impact of his taxation reforms on social exclusion. [141872]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government believe that where work is an option, it remains the best route out of poverty and social exclusion. But those who cannot work have a right to security and support.

  Over 1.1 million families are now receiving the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), nearly 300,000 more than its predecessor, Family Credit, at its peak. Families receiving the WFTC are receiving on average £30 a week more than under Family Credit. A lone parent on Income Support with two children under 11 is now £25 a week better off in real terms than in 1997, and a couple nearly £30 a week better off.

  As a result of measures introduced in this Parliament it is estimated that more than one million children will be lifted out of poverty. And by next year the poorest pensioner households will be at least £800 a year better off in real-terms than in 1997.

  Environmental Taxation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve the scope of environmental taxation. [141848]

  Mr. Timms
  The climate change levy comes into effect next April and we plan to introduce the aggregates levy from April 2002. We are also planning a number of reforms to existing taxes to help meet our environmental objectives, including a package of measures responding to the urban task force aimed at regenerating Britain's towns and cities.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for meetings with the Regional Development Agencies in England to discuss their involvement with the implementation of measures contained in his pre-Budget statement. [141844]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers have met the Regional Development Agencies on regular occasions in the past to discuss a wide range of issues affecting them and we look forward to further meeting with them in the future.
  251W
  On the measures we announced in the PBR, RDAs have been fully consulted at every stage. For example, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury attended the Joint meeting of Chairmen and Ministers in October. Further consultation is continuing with them on the implementation of these measures.

  Tourism
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the impact of the exchange rate on the British tourist industry; and if he will make a statement. [141853]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government regularly assess the effects of the exchange rate and all other relevant factors on the UK economy. Developments in individual industries, including tourism, are also closely monitored by both the Treasury and other Departments.

  VAT
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change VAT levels. [141845]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government have not changed the main rates of VAT in this Parliament, and we have no plans to do so now.

  Subsidies (Environment)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the examples of justifications of a subsidy which is damaging to the environment which were submitted to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury during the Spending Review 2000; and if he will make a statement. [142539]

  Mr. Timms
  Departments' submissions during Spending Review 2000 are confidential.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 2 November on the Climate Change Levy. [142731]

  Mr. Timms
  I expect to do so shortly.

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142230]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Blackpool, South parliamentary constituency, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 1,858, or 50 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 80 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 78 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work
  252W
  pay. To the end of September 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 931 young people in the Blackpool, South constituency gain valuable skills and experience—474 (51 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In May 2000, 3,300 families in Blackpool, South were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent pre-Budget report, all pensioners, including 20,600 in Blackpool, South, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 13,500 in Blackpool, South.

  Tax (Self Assessment)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what improvements he plans to make in the income tax self assessment scheme, with particular respect to investigations. [142474]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government announced on 10 November that they intend to bring forward changes to the law in the next Finance Bill, and that the Inland Revenue will improve its procedures for conducting inquiries in consultation with interested representative bodies (Inland Revenue Press Release PR174/00).

  These improvements are the result of a joint report, "Income Tax Self Assessment Inquiries", published by the Inland Revenue and the Chartered Institute of Taxation on 10 November 2000 and which has been placed in the Library.

  Tax Investigations
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Inland Revenue does not give reasons for investigations of individuals' tax affairs. [142475]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax inspectors have the statutory right to inquire into any tax return to check whether it is correct. They do not need to have grounds for suspicion, and the return may be chosen at random or following an assessment of risk. Disclosing how a return has been chosen would reduce the future effectiveness of the selection methods. Any person whose tax return is the subject of an inquiry may appeal to the General Commissioners for a direction that the inquiry should cease.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Communications Data
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce powers to permit(a) the storage of communications data relating to all telephone calls and telecommunications and (b) access to this information by law enforcement

  253W
  agencies and the security services; what representations he has received relating to this issue; and if he will make a statement. [141749]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department has received representations from the National Criminal Intelligence Service on behalf of the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies underlining the importance of communications data to their investigations, and arguing for mandatory retention of such data. We will consider these representations but the Government have no current plans to legislate.

  Law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies access communications data now in a number of different ways including the Data Protection Act 1998. Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 puts in place statutory controls, for the first time, governing access to such data. Access must be properly authorised, for specific purposes only, and is subject to independent oversight. The relevant RIPA provisions will be commenced next year.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on enforcing the return of Kosovan nationals to Kosovo during the winter period; and if he will make a statement. [143118]

  Mrs. Roche
  In response to a request to host countries by the United Nations Authorities in Kosovo (UNMIK) to cease enforcing the return of Kosovans to Kosovo during the severe Balkan winter, we have given this careful consideration and decided that a wholesale suspension of enforced returns back to Kosovo would not be justified. We do not accept that single people or couples who have put forward manifestly unfounded applications and who may, for example, have arrived in the United Kingdom in recent months and long after peace was secured in Kosovo and who have families and homes there, could not return to them. But we have agreed to temporarily suspend the enforced return of families with children or vulnerable dependants or other vulnerable cases in recognition of the difficulties that larger family groups and vulnerable people may present to UNMIK in terms of providing support and accommodation during the winter period.

  This position has been fully explained to UNMIK who have also been assured that, in line with their previous request, we will continue to inform them of returns in advance where it is possible to do so. UNMIK have said they understand our position and have expressed gratitude for the considered way in which the United Kingdom has approached the accommodation problems in Kosovo.

  Immigration and Asylum Act
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if arrangements for the implementation of the marriage aspects of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 have been made; and if he will make a statement. [143117]

  Mr. Straw
  The marriage powers in section 24 and Part IX of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, will come into effect on 1 January 2001.
  254W
  In support of this, The Reporting of Suspicious Marriages (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and The Reporting of Suspicious Marriages (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2000 were made on 8 December. These provide for the reporting of suspicious marriages in Scotland and Northern Ireland to the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).

  The Reporting of Suspicious Marriages and the Registration of Marriages (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000 were made on 29 November. These regulations provide for the reporting of suspicious marriages in England and Wales to IND, and prescribe procedures for the Registrar General for England and Wales to waive or reduce the new 15 day waiting period, and various consequential amendments to forms. The related Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees)(Amendment) Order 2000 was laid before Parliament on 30 November. This Order prescribes the fees payable for the entry of a notice of marriage in the marriage notice book and for an application to the Registrar General to waive or reduce the 15 day waiting period.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report will be published of the joint Home Office-Lord Chancellor's Department research into stipendiary and lay magistrates, which was announced in November 1999. [143120]

  Mr. Straw
  The research which was jointly commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Department last year to assess the relative costs, effectiveness and other benefits and disadvantages of the lay and professional judiciary in the magistrates courts has been published today under the title "The judiciary in the magistrates courts". A copy of the report has been placed in the Library; it is also available on the Home Department website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  The report has been passed to Lord Justice Auld to inform his review of the work of the criminal courts, the conclusions of which are expected in the new year.

  Terrorism Act
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the draft United Kingdom-wide codes of practice under the Terrorism Act 2000. [143119]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before Parliament the draft code of practice for the audio recording of interviews. It is my intention to lay the remaining two United Kingdom-wide draft codes of practice, relating to the functions of Examining Officers and Authorised Officers, early in the new year.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what notice period will be required for separated children in local authority care homes or temporary accommodation seeking asylum when they are dispersed by the National Asylum Support Service at the age of 18; [142043]
  255W
  (2) if separated children with siblings still in the care of a local authority will be referred to the National Asylum Support Service for dispersal; and if he will make a statement. [142044]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children reaching 18 may apply to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) for support. Those requesting accommodation as part of their application will normally be offered accommodation outside London or the south-east in line with our dispersal policy. It is open to an applicant to put forward reasons why they do not wish to leave the area where they are living. This could include the presence of younger siblings still in the care of a local social services department. Full consideration will be given to any compassionate factors. Applicants for support who have been offered accommodation in a dispersal area are expected to travel to their new address within a few days of receiving the details of the support Main Home Office package which is being made available to them.

  Released Prisoners
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to assist released prisoners find accommodation; and what follow-up assistance is available. [142040]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are funding a number of initiatives to help released prisoners find accommodation. Ministers have approved six pilot projects focusing on the resettlement of short-term prisoners. The Rough Sleepers Unit (RSU) is also funding four prison-based housing advice centres run in partnership with the voluntary sector. The Prison Service has also funded the National Association of Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders (NACRO) Prison Link Unit since 1988 to deliver pre-release information including housing.

  Leaflets issued by the RSU about housing and benefits are being piloted in Her Majesty's Prison Pentonville and other London prisons with a view to providing them in all prisons early in 2001. I launched the leaflets at Her Majesty's Prison Pentonville on 11 December.

  Around £10.5 million a year is spent on probation accommodation grants. This supports some 6,000 places and represents 40 per cent. of the probation services' partnership purchases nationally and 3 per cent. of its total revenue spending.

  In addition around £400,000 a year is spent by the probation service on services which can be regarded as accommodation related, such as grants to private or voluntary sector organisations to provide housing advice, help people under supervision by the probation service find accommodation, or to assist people to maintain tenancies through support workers.

  CJD-related Deaths
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidelines to all coroners instructing them to identify, report and publish information arising from early death which may be attributed to CJD; and if he will make a statement. [141372]
  256W
  Mr. Boateng
  Coroners are required solely to investigate relevant deaths reported to them. There are no powers to require them to exceed their statutory responsibilities in the way proposed. Details of the numbers of deaths arising from all types of CJD are already published monthly by the Department of Health.

  Departmental Electricity Bill
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total electricity bill of his Department was for each of the last four years. [141385]

  Mr. Straw
  The table shows the expenditure on electricity for the years of 1995–96 to 1998–99 inclusive. Figures for 1999–2000 are not available yet.

  £

  Main Home Office

  1995–96

  11,529,981

  1996–97

  1,320,031

  1997–98

  1,194,929

  1998–99

  1,264,912

  1 Figures for 1995–96 include United Kingdom Passport Agency (UKPA) and Forensic Science Service buildings. Figures for other years exclude agencies save for a building shared by the main department and UKPA.

  Note:

  The costs relate to key buildings only.

  Metropolitan Police Officers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the qualification requirements to join the Metropolitan police based on(a) UK residence and (b) UK Commonwealth and Irish citizenship; and if he will make a statement. [141329]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Home Office Circulars 99/1982 and 33/1987, issued to police forces on 3 November 1982 and 15 June 1997 respectively, provide guidance on the nationality qualifications for applicants to the police service in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan police. To be eligible for appointment as a constable a candidate must be:(a) a British citizen; or
  (b) a Commonwealth citizen (other than a British citizen) or a citizen of the Irish Republic, in which case he or she must satisfy one of the following conditions:
  (i) at least one of his or her parents must be, or have been at death, a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic; or
  (ii) he or she must have resided in a country or territory within the Commonwealth or in the Irish Republic, or have been employed elsewhere in the service of the Crown, or partly have so resided and partly been so employed, for at least five years out of the last eight years preceding the date of his or her appointment. If not qualified under (i) or (ii) he/she must satisfy the chief officer of police that he/she is so closely connected with a country or territory within the Commonwealth either by ancestry, upbringing or residence, or by reason of national service, that an exception may properly be made in his/her favour.

  There is no statutory requirement for an applicant for appointment as a police officer to have resided in the UK prior to application which is a matter to be determined on a local basis by chief police officers. No record is held centrally of which forces have a residency requirement as part of their recruitment process.
  257W
  Cabinet Office guidance, on which police forces base their policy for carrying out security clearances of applicants, recommends that the normal residency requirement for security clearance is that the applicant has been resident in the United Kingdom for the previous three years. However, if the applicant has spent the previous three years in another country, discretion may be given to undertake overseas security checks where this is possible.

  Consultation with the police service in 1998 identified no consensus for change to the present nationality requirements. We are giving further consideration to whether it would be appropriate to propose any changes.

  Porton Down
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific criminal allegations are being pursued by Wiltshire police in the investigation of the Porton Down volunteers scheme; and if he will make a statement. [142377]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are currently 10 cases under investigation by the Wiltshire police. These consist of nine individuals who took part in separate experiments and a company of 20 servicemen who took part in an experiment as a group. The offences being investigated in respect of these cases are the administering of a noxious substance and assault offences.

  In addition, the Wiltshire police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of an individual during an experiment in May 1953 and the subsequent evidence given to the Coroner's Inquest regarding that death.

  Gammahydroxybutyrate
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the findings of the risk assessment on GHB carried out by the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction; [142404]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the decision by ACMD to review its view on GHB in relation to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; [142405]

  (3) what action he proposes to take in response to the WHO recommendation that GHB should be scheduled under Schedule IV of the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971. [142406]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is little I can usefully add at this stage to my reply to my hon. Friend's question on 29 November 2000,Official Report, column 681W. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) have concluded, separately, that the available data do not support calls to increase the controls on GHB. But both organisations have decided to see if additional data can be obtained to better inform their decisions. I look forward to receiving their further advice in due course.

  I have seen the report of the World Health Organisation recommending that GHB should be scheduled under Schedule IV of the United Nations (UN) Convention of Psychotropic Substances 1971. I understand that all parties will be voting on this recommendation at the
  258W
  meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in March 2001. In order to assist the Commission in making a decision the United Nations International Drug Control Programme has asked for further data from parties' Governments about GHB in general, but specifically about seizures. We are in the process of collating data from a range of sources in order to comply with this request.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers(a) were recruited and (b) retired, resigned or were dismissed, in each police force and in total (i) in 2000 and (ii) in each of the previous three years; what was the net change in the number of officers in each case; and if he will make a statement. [141708]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Police numbers are not assessed on a calendar year basis. The most recent available data, for the last three financial years, are given in the table. It should be noted that these figures relate to numbers of officers, as opposed to full-time equivalents.

  Police officer recruitment, wastage and net change, England and Wales, for years ending March 1998, March 1999, and March 2000

  Year ending March 1998

  Police force

  Officers recruited

  Total wastage

  Net change

  Avon and Somerset

  138

  148

  -10

  Bedfordshire

  49

  67

  -18

  Cambridgeshire

  65

  68

  -3

  Cheshire

  94

  102

  -8

  Cleveland

  71

  41

  30

  Cumbria

  79

  56

  23

  Derbyshire

  66

  93

  -27

  Devon and Cornwall

  179

  129

  50

  Dorset

  129

  108

  21

  Durham

  123

  79

  44

  Essex

  124

  157

  -33

  Gloucestershire

  34

  65

  -31

  Greater Manchester

  437

  380

  57

  Hampshire

  201

  157

  44

  Hertfordshire

  78

  95

  -17

  Humberside

  88

  112

  -24

  Kent

  119

  139

  -20

  Lancashire

  135

  135

  0

  Leicestershire

  118

  93

  25

  Lincolnshire

  61

  74

  -13

  London, City of

  34

  73

  -39

  Merseyside

  181

  178

  3

  Metropolitan Police

  1,200

  1,561

  -361

  Norfolk

  84

  88

  -4

  Northamptonshire

  57

  57

  0

  Northumbria

  275

  204

  71

  North Yorkshire

  65

  52

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  111

  113

  -2

  South Yorkshire

  145

  124

  21

  Staffordshire

  239

  161

  78

  Suffolk

  76

  64

  12

  Surrey

  116

  119

  -3

  Sussex

  135

  181

  -46

  Thames Valley

  276

  188

  88

  Warwickshire

  67

  66

  1

  West Mercia

  79

  99

  -20

  West Midlands

  444

  446

  -2

  West Yorkshire

  203

  232

  -29

  Wiltshire

  71

  63

  8

  Dyfed-Powys

  42

  32

  10

  259W

  Police officer recruitment, wastage and net change, England and Wales, for years ending March 1998, March 1999, and March 2000

  Year ending March 1998

  Police force

  Officers recruited

  Total wastage

  Net change

  Gwent

  39

  50

  -11

  North Wales

  48

  55

  -7

  South Wales

  168

  153

  15

  Total all forces

  6,543

  6,657

  -114

  Year ending March 1999

  Officers recruited

  Total wastage

  Net change

  Avon and Somerset

  142

  104

  38

  Bedfordshire

  36

  63

  -27

  Cambridgeshire

  46

  66

  -20

  Cheshire

  112

  72

  40

  Cleveland

  0

  78

  -78

  Cumbria

  34

  60

  -26

  Derbyshire

  52

  59

  -7

  Devon and Cornwall

  57

  111

  -54

  Dorset

  44

  64

  -20

  Durham

  106

  42

  64

  Essex

  96

  122

  -26

  Gloucestershire

  64

  60

  4

  Greater Manchester

  217

  346

  -129

  Hampshire

  117

  137

  -20

  Hertfordshire

  79

  91

  -12

  Humberside

  48

  94

  -46

  Kent

  120

  149

  -29

  Lancashire

  55

  99

  -44

  Leicestershire

  88

  94

  -6

  Lincolnshire

  6

  61

  -55

  London, City of

  18

  58

  -40

  Merseyside

  234

  136

  98

  Metropolitan Police

  1,629

  1,725

  -96

  Norfolk

  28

  64

  -36

  Northamptonshire

  29

  60

  -31

  Northumbria

  233

  160

  73

  North Yorkshire

  17

  44

  -27

  Nottinghamshire

  22

  110

  -88

  South Yorkshire

  130

  144

  -14

  Staffordshire

  31

  96

  -65

  Suffolk

  57

  54

  3

  Surrey

  138

  82

  56

  Sussex

  109

  201

  -92

  Thames Valley

  153

  136

  17

  Warwickshire

  50

  55

  -5

  West Mercia

  109

  100

  9

  West Midlands

  466

  341

  125

  West Yorkshire

  17

  198

  -181

  Wiltshire

  49

  55

  -6

  Dyfed-Powys

  30

  25

  25

  Gwent

  61

  50

  11

  North Wales

  59

  72

  -13

  South Wales

  183

  166

  17

  Total all forces

  5,391

  6,104

  -713

  Year ending March 2000

  Officers recruited

  Total wastage

  Net change

  Avon and Somerset

  104

  146

  -42

  Bedfordshire

  37

  58

  -21

  Cambridgeshire

  23

  54

  -31

  Cheshire

  36

  90

  -54

  Cleveland

  68

  59

  9

  260W

  Year ending March 2000

  Officers recruited

  Total wastage

  Net change

  Cumbria

  23

  66

  -43

  Derbyshire

  79

  47

  32

  Devon and Cornwall

  74

  134

  -60

  Dorset

  87

  75

  12

  Durham

  51

  58

  -7

  Essex

  93

  169

  -76

  Gloucestershire

  59

  53

  6

  Greater Manchester

  286

  296

  -10

  Hampshire

  152

  190

  -38

  Hertfordshire

  167

  115

  52

  Humberside

  91

  95

  -4

  Kent

  174

  156

  18

  Lancashire

  99

  111

  -12

  Leicestershire

  67

  69

  -2

  Lincolnshire

  34

  67

  -33

  London, City of

  0

  50

  -50

  Merseyside

  41

  145

  -104

  Metropolitan Police

  994

  1,477

  - 483

  Norfolk

  43

  57

  -14

  Northamptonshire

  19

  38

  -19

  Northumbria

  121

  151

  -30

  North Yorkshire

  10

  66

  -56

  Nottinghamshire

  104

  92

  12

  South Yorkshire

  128

  137

  -9

  Staffordshire

  22

  81

  -59

  Suffolk

  17

  56

  -39

  Surrey

  183

  80

  103

  Sussex

  101

  185

  -84

  Thames Valley

  190

  189

  1

  Warwickshire

  59

  38

  21

  West Mercia

  15

  102

  -87

  West Midlands

  255

  327

  -72

  West Yorkshire

  61

  209

  -148

  Wiltshire

  29

  66

  -37

  Dyfed-Powys

  54

  39

  15

  Gwent

  82

  68

  14

  North Wales

  79

  56

  23

  South Wales

  124

  131

  -7

  Total all forces

  4,535

  5,948

  -1,413

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum removals there were in the first half of 2000–01; how many he estimates there will be in the second half of 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [142773]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of asylum removals between 1 April and 30 September 2000 was 4,870.

  The Government are determined to increase substantially the number of such removals. We have set a target of 12,000 removals of failed asylum seekers in this financial year increasing to 30,000 in 2001–02, 33,000 in 2002–03 and 37,000 in 2003–04. To achieve this, we are pursuing a number of measures, including recruiting an extra 400 immigration officers for enforcement work, expanding the detention estate and setting up a network of reporting centres.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-asylum offenders were removed in the first six months of 2000–01; how many he estimates will be removed in the second half of 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [142778]
  261W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Between 1 April and 30 September 2000, 2,440 immigration offenders who had not made an asylum application at any stage were removed from the United Kingdom.

  It is likely that non-asylum removals in the whole of the financial year will exceed our original target of 3,500.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of substantive asylum applications are decided within two months; and if he will make a statement. [142777]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  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.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-asylum after-entry decisions were made in the first six months of 2000–01; how many he estimates there will be in the second half of 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [142775]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There were 140,000 non-asylum after-entry decisions made in the period April to September 2000, excluding those in respect of European Economic Area cases but including cases dealt with by the Public Caller Unit which did not involve a decision. It is expected that the number of such decisions for the whole of the financial year 2000–01 will exceed the annual target of 205,000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and dependents, by nationality, have been housed at Oakington since the centre opened. [142803]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 1 December, the number of principal applicants held at Oakington since its opening is shown in the following table. A breakdown of the number of dependants by nationality could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nationality

  Number

  Albania

  322

  Bangladesh

  68

  China

  387

  Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)

  12

  Czech Republic

  303

  Estonia

  22

  Ghana

  30

  India

  44

  Iraq

  38

  Kosovo/Kosovo Albanian

  273

  Lithuania

  73

  Latvia

  31

  Nigeria

  19

  Pakistan

  254

  Poland

  113

  Romania

  265

  Slovakia

  23

  Tanzania

  3

  Uganda

  23

  Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

  42

  Zimbabwe

  189

  Total

  2,534

  262W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum decisions were made in the first six months of 2000–01; how many he estimates there will be in the second half of 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [142779]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In total, 57,655 initial asylum decisions were made in the period April to September 2000. We remain on course to achieve our target of 130,000 to 150,000 decisions for the whole year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which the introduction of the vouchers system of asylum support has deterred the making of asylum applications by economic migrants; and if he will make a statement. [142789]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The introduction of the new asylum support arrangements, including the voucher system, is part of the Government's wider strategy to deliver a fairer, faster and firmer immigration and asylum system. The number of asylum applications from Central European countries, where the vast majority of applications prove to be unfounded, have dropped since April this year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which asylum support vouchers are used fraudulently; and if he will make a statement. [142787]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The National Asylum Support Service's Performance Monitoring (Investigations) section has the responsibility to detect and deter fraudulent abuses of the asylum support arrangements.

  There have been no substantial incidents of fraudulent abuse of vouchers.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many IND staff are employed at Oakington; and what their grades and functions are. [142769]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is a total of 72 Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff currently employed at Oakington with grades ranging from Assistant Director to Administrative Assistant. They act as a liaison point between the centre and immigration offices, conduct substantive asylum interviews and decide whether applicants should be granted temporary release or detained at the end of the Oakington process.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and dependants have been housed at Oakington Reception Centre since it opened. [142771]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 1 December, 2,534 principal applicants and 483 dependants have been housed at Oakington Reception Centre since it opened on 20 March.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many internal flights have been taken by asylum seekers attending IND interviews; what the cost was; what his policy is on the taking of such flights; and if he will make a statement. [142785]
  263W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) have not used internal flights to transport asylum seekers to IND interviews and has no current plans to do so.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers housed at Oakington since the centre opened received an initial decision on their case while they were staying there. [142768]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 1 December, of the total of 2,534 principal applicants who have been housed at the Centre since its opening on 20 March, 2,170 asylum seekers have received an initial decision on their cases while at Oakington.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers housed at Oakington since the centre opened have moved into(a) accommodation provided through the National Asylum Support Service, (b) another detention centre, (c) private accommodation and (d) have left the UK. [142770]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 1 December, 462 asylum seekers and their dependants housed at Oakington Reception Centre have been transferred to detention centres and 298 have left the United Kingdom. Information on those moved to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) of private accommodation is only available from 25 May. Since that date, NASS has provided accommodation for 693 principal applicants and their dependants and provided subsistence only support to 409 principal applicants and their dependants who moved into private accommodation.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to amend the Immigration Rules to include the proposals put forward in his consultation document on the refusal of entry to those with certain criminal convictions; and if he will make a statement. [142784]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials are working on implementation of the proposals set out in the consultation paper, as indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) on 24 October 2000,Official Report, column 115W. We will bring forward the necessary changes as soon as practicable in the new year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the conclusions were of the inquiry ordered by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), into the asylum cases highlighted by Refugee Action as contributing to the reasons for the closure of their Liverpool office on 2 November. [142783]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Refugee Action raised several points that are currently being pursued. A key point was that Refugee Action could not deal with the number of inquiries from asylum seekers claiming their vouchers were late in arriving. National Asylum Support Service has now addressed this problem by expanding the Voucher Inquiry team and the provision of additional telephone numbers for inquiries.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to obtain 264W
  information from (a) other Government Departments and agencies and (b) other organisations on persons suspected of being immigration offenders. [142781]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The statutory powers available to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) are contained in sections 20 and 21 of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, which came into force on 1 January 2000. These provisions allow information on suspected immigration, and other, offenders to be exchanged for specified purposes between IND and the police, the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. They also contain order-making powers which will enable further purposes to be specified, and additional statutory gateways to be established with other agencies. In addition there is already excellent co-operation between IND and a number of other governmental and nongovernmental bodies.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when it was decided to alter the target for the reduction of the backlog of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision to the equivalent of some two months' work, as stated in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate business plan for 2000–01; what level of applications this represents; what progress has been made; if the target will be met; and if he will make a statement; [142791]

  (2) by when he intends to eliminate the existing backlog of asylum cases; and if he will make a statement. [142782]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" set out the Government's aim to reduce the asylum decision backlog to frictional levels by 2001. The commentary in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND) 2000–01 business plan was to give an indication of what is meant by frictional levels. Subject to the level of intake, we are on course to achieve this.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken by the National Asylum Support Service is to process an application for assistance; what his target time for processing such applications is; and if he will make a statement. [142793]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the current average time taken by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) to process an application for assistance is not available.

  Targets for the time taken to process NASS applications were published in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate business plan, Annex E, Objective 18. These targets were 70 per cent. in two days and 100 per cent. in seven days.

  Nationality Cases
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions on nationality cases were made in the first six months of 2000–01; how many he estimates there will be in the second half of 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [142774]
  265W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of decisions taken in nationality cases in the period April-September 2000 was 45,714. At the end of November 2000 this had risen to 62,170. The estimated number of decisions to be made in the period October 2000-March 2001 is 45,306.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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 in each case, with respect to the services and employment overseen by his Department. [142516]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The purpose of the Home Department is to "build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained".

  The Home Department has seven main aims of which Aim Five—"Helping to build, under a modernised constitution, a fair and prosperous society in which everyone has a stake, and in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced"—specifically deals with the promotion of equality between all people. In respect of the services that this Department provides, we also aim to ensure that all our policies, programmes and services are taken forward in line with the joint-departmental guidelines, "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment", issued in 1998.

  A range of initiatives are set out in "Race Equality and Public Services", published in March 2000. This will help reduce the sometimes differential and adverse impact of public services on minority ethnic communities.

  As an equal opportunities employer the Home Department is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all staff, regardless of ethnic origin, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, disability or any other irrelevant factor.

  As an employer we aim to develop into an organisation that values the diversity of its staff and enables all to realise their potential by valuing the contribution of all and recognising the positive benefits that difference can bring. The Home Department and its Executive Agencies have prepared a joint Diversity Action Plan with the aim of working towards diversity including incorporating diversity awareness and actions in all the management processes. As part of this all middle managers will receive mandatory diversity awareness training by the end of 2001. Our plans for diversity cover the specific areas identified here and other where these emerge as concerns from annual staff surveys, formal or informal other avenues of communication.

  In the specific areas identified we have taken the following steps:

  (a) older people: we all work within the Department for Education and Employment's Code and Practice. With regards to internal progression arrangements we do not ask applicants to state their age, and individuals are assessed on their merits. We do not require age to be stated on our recruitment application forms.
  266W
  (b) disabled people: a Disability Support Network Group is being set up to cater for the needs of those in the organisation and aim to ensure that staff with disabilities are employed in all areas. This follows a survey of all staff earlier this year. The Home Office Management Board has had a detailed session on next steps for those with disabilities and plans further work in 2001.

  (c) ethnic minorities: work with, and the needs of, ethnic minorities has been a priority issue within the Home Department. The Home Department has therefore recognised the need for a full-time senior Race Adviser to the Permanent Secretary.

  Steps have been taken to improve relations between ethnic minority staff and all other staff, and to promote equality awareness. In November 1999 a Network for Ethnic Minority staff was set up to encourage ethnic minority staff to share views and experiences within the Home Department. The Department race action plan and local action plans set out key developments and targets.

  Public appointments: the Home Department has reached its target of recruiting the figure of 9 per cent. ethnic minority representation in public appointments.

  Prison Service: the Prison Service has taken steps to promote equality of ethnic minority staff, by devising its Respond Programme, which aims to achieve racial equality for staff and prisoners. An outreach recruitment programme has helped to attract ethnic minority groups, and a network for ethnic minority staff is to be established encompassing the three local groups already formed.

  The Prison Service aims to have a representation of 3.8 per cent. of the workforce as ethnic minorities by March 2001.

  Fire Service: the Fire Service is currently aiming to increase its representation of ethnic minority staff to reflect the communities that it serves.

  Passport Agency: the United Kingdom Passport Agency is currently taking steps to promote equality of ethnic minority staff by devising a system of Harassment Contact Officers.

  (d) religious minorities: equality awareness of religious minorities is being promoted within the Home Department. A faith forum was set up in November 2000 to discuss and advise on matters relating to religious discrimination and of facilities required by individual faiths such as Muslim prayer rooms.

  (e) women: equality awareness of women is being promoted within the Home Department. Steps are currently being taken within the Fire Service department of the Home Department where efforts are being made to increase the representation of women in the workforce. The Home Department and the Fire Service have targets to improve the representation of women at more senior levels. A range of policies such as flexible working arrangements, child care provisions, special needs and career breaks are available to enable staff, particularly those with caring responsibilities to balance their work and home responsibilities.
  267W
  (f) gay and lesbian people: a group of Home Department staff have suggested setting up a network to challenge prejudice against gay and lesbian people within the Home Department and the feasibility of doing this is being considered.

  The Promotion of Diversity in a General Context

  Equality advisers: there are 60 trained Equality Advisers who advise and assist individual Home Department Directorates on Equality Issues and provide an input into the Department's race policies.

  Training: all senior managers attended a programme of race equality workshops for senior managers in 2000.

  Race equality targets: targets have been set for the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority staff and a first report on progress in reaching the targets was published in October 2000.

  Recruitment and promotion: the Home Department is currently devising a direct recruitment campaign with the aim of promoting greater equality and attracting a wider range of staff. This will be monitored through the ratio of those successful in the process. Assessment centres are also under development where steps will be taken to ensure it caters for all, with an awareness of diversity issues and the promotion of equality, including training for all assessors.

  Harassment contact officers: new harassment and discrimination procedures were established in June 1999 where a pilot Harassment Contact Officer Scheme was set up. This advises and offers support to individual members of staff.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has issued to local authorities regarding CCTV cameras, with special reference to(a) who has access to the film, (b) for what purposes and in what circumstances the film may be used, (c) the monitoring procedure to ensure film is not mis-used and (d) introducing a complaints procedure for the mis-use of CCTV footage. [142311]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are advising crime and disorder reduction partnerships to adhere closely to the Data Protection Commissioner's code of practice for users of public space closed circuit television (CCTV) systems. The code outlines legally enforceable standards and makes good practice recommendations on compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. It includes advice on subject access, disclosure of images, information security, monitoring procedures, and the requirement for a complaints procedure. A copy is available on the Commissioner's website: www.dataprotection.gov.uk.

  All schemes funded under the Crime Reduction Programme, CCTV Initiative are required to operate under codes of practice designed to ensure their fair and lawful use. Before schemes are approved, individual codes of practice are assessed to ensure they take due account of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Police Manpower (Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) police
  268W
  constables there were in Sussex in (i) 1979, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1997 and (iv) the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available. [142766]

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

  Year

  Total number of police officers

  Number of constables

  1979 (December)

  2,777

  2,059

  1992 (March)

  2,984

  2,261

  1997 (March)

  3,085

  2,374

  2000 (30 September)

  2,812

  2,119

  Replica Guns
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people carrying replica guns were(a) injured and (b) killed by the police in (i) 1990, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1999. [142619]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested information is as follows:

  1990
  Information not available.

  1997
  One many carrying a replica handgun and an antique pistol was injured by the police.

  1998
  One man carrying a replica pistol was killed by the police and one man carrying a replica 9mm handgun was injured by the police.

  1999
  Two men carrying replica firearms were injured by the police. In addition, two men carrying air weapons were fatally injured by the police.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on amending the Firearms Act 1968 to include a ban on replica guns. [142618]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Affairs Select Committee and the Firearms Consultative Committee have recommended that there should be restrictions on the availability of replica firearms and their possession in a public place. We have also received representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers about the use of replica firearms in robbery and other crimes, and from the Gun Control Network. We intend to consider all these recommendations and representations carefully in consultation with the police service and other interested parties.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the supply of places for juveniles on remand or sentenced provided by(a) the Prison Service, (b) local authorities and (c) the independent sector over the next five years. [142593]

  Mr. Boateng
  The estimate of the supply of places for juveniles on remand or sentenced provided by all three sectors—Prison Service, local authorities and private are
  269W
  shown in the table. There are no formal estimates of supply of Prison Service places beyond 2002–03 at this stage.

  Estimates of supply for juveniles over the next five years

  Prison Service

  Local authorities

  Independent sector

  2000–01

  2,970

  300

  120

  2002–03

  2,970

  300

  230

  2003–04

  1—

  300

  450

  2004–05

  1—

  300

  500

  2005–06

  1—

  300

  660

  1 No estimates beyond 2002–03 at this stage

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) 15 and (b) 16-year-olds are on remand in adult prisons; if he will list the prisons concerned; and how many were so remanded on the equivalent date in 1999. [142595]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no 15 or 16-year-olds on remand in adult prisons. The number remanded to adult prisons in 1999 is set out in the table.

  Receptions of 15 and 16-year-olds on remand into adult prisons in England and Wales in 1999

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Prison

  15

  16

  15

  16

  Altcourse

  17

  29

  4

  12

  Cardiff

  8

  20

  10

  13

  Doncaster

  52

  72

  22

  38

  Exeter

  3

  4

  —

  5

  Gloucester

  4

  18

  2

  5

  Hull

  13

  21

  3

  12

  Low Newton

  2

  5

  1

  2

  Norwich

  2

  20

  4

  11

  Parc

  5

  19

  1

  7

  Swansea

  3

  12

  —

  3

  Total

  109

  220

  47

  108

  Notes:

  1. Provisional figures

  2. Total receptions cannot be calculated by adding together receptions in each category because of double counting

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the change in demand for places within the juvenile estate over the next five years. [142594]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office publishes a long-term projection of the custodial population annually in February of each year. Projections are provided according to various alternative scenarios. For the February 2000 projection the middle variant projection assumes growth in the use of custody by courts but no change in the average sentence length. The higher variant projection assumes that custody rates and sentence lengths increase. Both variants include an assumption of an increase in the juvenile estate due to the introduction of the Detention and Training Order in April 2000.
  270W
  The projection made in February 2000 predicted the following numbers in the juvenile estate:

  Variant

  Middle

  Higher

  1999

  2,690

  2,690

  2000

  3,000

  3,020

  2001

  3,010

  3,050

  2002

  2,990

  3,040

  2003

  3,010

  3,090

  2004

  3,000

  3,100

  2005

  3,040

  3,160

  The increase observed in 2000 was due to the expected impact of the introduction of the Detention and Training Order in April 2000.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what areas(a) a shortage and (b) a future shortage of places within the juvenile estate has been identified. [142592]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Youth Justice Board's commissioning strategy has identified three areas—London, Wales and the North-west, where there are currently overall shortages of secure accommodation for both male and female juvenile offenders.

  The Board's current commissioning plans, which are subject to negotiations with the Prison Service and planning applications and approval for potential new sites seek to redress the shortages in Wales by late 2003–04. Options for London are under consideration which will release some of the pressure by March 2002, with further sites addressing the shortfall by March 2005. Some inroads into the North-west shortfall are expected in 2001–02 but the necessary new accommodation is not expected to be available until 2004–05.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to end the remand of 15 and 16-year-old youths to adult prisons. [142596]

  Mr. Boateng
  Juveniles remanded to prison are held in Prison Service juvenile accommodation whenever possible. On 13 December 224 15 and 16-year-olds male remandees were held there and 17 in ordinary prisons for exceptional reasons.

  Our wider priorities for the replacement of juveniles were set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on 29 March 2000, Official Report, column 138W.

  Petition (Thorrington)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the petition from the residents of Thorrington and others presented to Parliament on 27 July. [142751]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have written on two occasions to the hon. Member for North Essex about the issue raised in the petition, namely the placement of asylum seekers at the Silver Woods Hostel (formerly the Silver Springs motel). My first letter preceded the presentation of the petition to Parliament and the second was sent in response to the hon. Member's further letter of 7 September.
  271W
  I can only confirm that the present use of the hostel for asylum seekers is not a matter for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has any responsibility and he has no powers to prevent that use. The National Asylum Support Service has not designated Thorrington as a cluster area for the dispersal of destitute asylum seekers and their families and has not sought to accommodate asylum seekers there.

  Economic Migrants
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that the UK should be made a less attractive destination for economic migrants; and if he will make a statement. [142788]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our policy is to reduce misuse of the asylum system by people who are not refugees. The changes we have made to that system are designed to minimise its attractions to unfounded applicants while ensuring that those with genuine claims are not left destitute.

  At the same time there is a developing debate in the United Kingdom and elsewhere flowing from an analysis of the potential economic and social benefits of migration. The Immigration Rules already set out circumstances in which people may come here for work and other purposes. The United Kingdom is quite rightly an attractive destination for legitimate migrants, who make a strong contribution to our economy and our society. But this is a wholly separate issue from our unwavering determination to restore the integrity of the asylum system.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time for granting citizenship is; and if he will make a statement. [142776]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The current average waiting times for applications, as at 30 November 2000, are shown in the table.
  272W

  Months

  Naturalisation

  15.8

  Registration

  8.6

  Overall

  13.5

  Illegal Immigrants (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action was taken against three suspected illegal immigrants arrested in a lorry on the A40 near Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, on 5 December. [142626]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Three men were arrested by the police on the M5 on that date. They were interviewed by immigration officers and are being treated as illegal entrants. Their cases are currently under consideration.

  Immigration Appeals
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made for legal aid for appeals under the Immigration Appeal (Family Visitor) Regulations; and how many have been accepted. [142242]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 11 December 2000, Official Report, column 36W.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals have been received by the Immigration Appeals Advisory Service since the Government introduced the £500 charge for appeals in respect of family visits; and what has been the result of the appeals. [142240]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Immigration Appellate Authority received the first Family Visit Visa Appeal on 27 October. From 27 October to 7 December (inclusive) a total of 14 Family Visit Visa Appeals were received for an oral hearing. Of this number two appeals have been determined, both of which were allowed.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Home Secretary has not renewed Sir David Ramsbotham's appointment as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for another three years, despite the terms of his original contract.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, Sir David Ramsbotham was appointed for a period of five years expiring on 30th November this year. Under the terms of his appointment, that period may be extended by a maximum of three years by agreement between Sir David and the Home Secretary. There is no entitlement, by contract or otherwise, to any extension of the appointment.
On 9th June the Home Secretary announced that, with Sir David's agreement, his appointment was to be extended until the end of July 2001, when Sir Graham Smith, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, also retires. The Home Secretary also said that aligning the dates on which both appointments expire provides flexibility in considering how to ensure that arrangements for inspecting the prison and probation services best support closer working between the two.
The response to the consultation exercise which we held in the autumn showed clear support for bringing the two inspectorates closer together, while keeping the two chief inspector posts entirely separate. In the Government's view, the retirement of the current chief inspectors provides an appropriate moment to establish new working arrangements in order to achieve that. Both Sir David Ramsbotham and Sir Graham Smith have made a significant contribution to raising standards in the prison and probation services, and we are most grateful to them for that work.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, to which I listened very carefully. However, could not the facts of the matter be interpreted slightly differently? At the time that it was proposed to merge the two chief inspector posts, it was suggested to Sir David that he should retire and that his appointment should continue for only another seven or eight months. That proposition is no longer on the table. It has gone.
Does the Minister agree that under those circumstances everything possible should be done to ensure that an outstanding chief inspector such as
484
Sir David—whose thematic reviews, for example, of young prisoners are becoming a bench-mark for the treatment in prison of those between the ages of 15 and 21—continues in post for another three years? Is that not now a possibility? Will not the Minister, with the Home Secretary, review the matter? Surely it is impossible that the appointment of someone who has shown the frankness, honesty and bluntness of Sir David should be prematurely terminated because he has perhaps become a thorn in the flesh of some senior civil servants.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is worth reminding the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we have already extended Sir David's term of office for a further eight months. I made that plain in my first response. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that it would be improper for me to do anything other than follow the normal conventions in these matters. It would be wrong for me to comment on the decisions made about the appointment of individual public servants, whether by our administration or by previous administrations.
I believe there is widespread admiration for the important work carried out by Sir David and Sir Graham. We are most grateful to them for the robust, independent and, yes, sometimes irritating reports that have been produced. Those reports have an important bearing on the way in which we view prisons, the way in which the prisons work and the way in which we formulate policy. Therefore, we all pay tribute to Sir David for his hard work in the past and we shall be most grateful to him for completing his term until July 2001.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, when the noble Lord referred to the fact that Sir David's contract had been extended by eight months, he implied that it was an act of graciousness by the Government. In reality, is it not the case that the Government did so for self-interested reasons? They were considering the amalgamation of the two posts but then dropped that misconceived idea. That is why the contract was extended and for no other reason. Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that many of us take the view that an outstanding Chief Inspector of Prisons is being treated with a singular lack of graciousness by the Government?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord heard what I said earlier. I did not consider my comments to be ungracious; however, it is for others to interpret them. We are most grateful to Sir David for the independent and robust way in which he has carried out his duties. The fact is that we have extended his period of appointment—it is not a contract—for a further eight months.
The noble Lord is right to say that we were considering the future of the inspectorates for probation and prisons. We carried out a consultation exercise, the fruits of which were clear. People believed that there was great sense in bringing the two inspectorates closer together for good public policy

485
reasons. Now we have embarked upon another approach, and there the matter rests. We believe that the right policy is in place. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on decisions made about public appointments and it is not a course that I intend to follow.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, if the Government have not yet committed themselves to anyone else for this appointment, is it not still possible for Sir David to be asked to complete a further term as from next year? In the absence of my noble friend Lord Janner, perhaps I may express the hope that the issue of age will not be held against a person who is extremely competent.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not believe that the question of age arises in this case. We have said that the next chief inspector will be appointed in accordance with Nolan principles, which, among other things, require open competition, designed to attract as wide a field of candidates as possible, and an independent assessment of the selection process. Of course, Sir David is eligible to reapply for the post, should he wish to do so.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, perhaps I may express the hope that these exchanges will be drawn to the attention of the Home Secretary. Sir David Ramsbotham has been an outstanding Chief Inspector of Prisons. His reports have been penetrating and very critical of the regime and administration of the prison system, emphasising the lack of attention to education and training. They have often been uncomfortable for the prisons department and for the Home Secretary. That is what they should be. I hope that the Government will think again about reappointing Sir David because one needs a robust and independent-minded person, and that is what he has shown himself to be par excellence.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord heard what I said. He has used many of the same words as I used. I agree that robustness, independence and so on are important virtues. I accept that and the Government accept it. That is why we need a truly independent inspectorate. At this point perhaps I should give credit to noble Lords opposite who were in government in the early 1980s and who, following the May report, established a more independent inspectorate for prisons. They were absolutely right to do so. We believe in the independence of the inspectorate. It provides a great service to the Home Office and to the Prison Service as a whole.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the system of prison inspection in this country, and in particular the work of Sir David Ramsbotham, is highly regarded throughout the world and is being copied as a model by other jurisdictions? Therefore, can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to alter the terms of reference of the inspectorate and, if so, in what way?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of the high regard in which our prison inspectorate is held, both nationally and internationally. We have no plans to qualify in any way, shape or form the independent nature of that inspectorate. However, following the consultation to which I referred earlier on the prospect of bringing the work of the probation and prison inspectorates closer together, there will of course be an opportunity to review the terms of reference within which those two independent inspectorates function. However, that is as far as our consideration of the terms of reference will go.

Orthodontic Treatment for Children
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the orthodontic treatment within the National Health Service of children with crooked teeth or defective bite.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government want to ensure that dentists can identify appropriate cases for treatment and use the most clinically effective and cost-effective approach while maintaining high quality standards. That will be achieved by concentrating NHS resources more on cases of true clinical need and less on minor cosmetic work.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he therefore deny reports in two national newspapers which say that the provision of orthodontics to children is to be removed from the National Health Service? Is he aware that at present there are 650 specialist practices which do nothing but tooth straightening but half of the straightening of teeth is carried out by 8,000 ordinary dentists in practice?
The British Dental Association is extremely concerned about what will happen to general practitioners and the role they play in straightening teeth. Does the Minister not agree that aesthetics are very important but in this case it is more than aesthetics; it also a question of a child's bite and his whole mouth arrangement?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that was an extremely instructive question. I certainly agree that aesthetics are important for many people. However, I do not think that we should go down the route of certain countries where there seems to be a fashion for everyone to have orthodontic treatment and they all seem, to me at least, to end up looking as though they are wearing false teeth.
On the specific matter which the noble Baroness mentioned, she is right that many general dental practitioners undertake the work that she described. Certainly, under the new arrangements, many of them

487
can continue to do some limited orthodontic work. We are trying to ensure that the most pressing treatment is delivered as quickly as it possibly can be because at present we have a situation were people who really need treatment are having to wait too long, and we must put that right.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, children's teeth are very important and I share many of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. Fluoridation is a matter of some controversy in this context too. Can the Minister give an indication of the Government's response to the York University study into fluoridation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, fluoridation had a very good ride in the debate on health yesterday. York University undertook a very thorough review. It found that evidence showed that fluoridated water helps to reduce tooth decay. It found no clear evidence of other adverse effects on general health associated with water fluoridation, other than the increased risk of dental fluorosis. The report also identified the need for more good quality research. We have asked the Medical Research Council to suggest where it might be possible to strengthen the evidence. We have said also that we consider that, in those parts of the country where dental disease is a particularly serious problem, fluoridation is one policy which health authorities may consider.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that what he described as minor cosmetic work could be of very great importance to a young teenage child? Is he suggesting that under the new regulations—and I apologise for not knowing what they are—many children will have to put up with minor irregularities which may become very important in their lives?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are talking about very minor cosmetic treatment which it would be unnecessary for dentists to provide. At the moment, we reckon that 20 per cent of children have orthodontic appliances every year and about 120,000 of those will have work done in the GDS. It is expected that there may be a reduction of about 20,000 in the number of children who will have orthodontic appliances. However, I assure my noble friend that in those cases where a child might not need treatment for a clinical reason but there was a particular problem in relation to appearance, application can be made to the Dental Practice Board for approval in those circumstances.
I should say that this matter is out for consultation and we are at present considering the comments that we have received.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, what yardstick is it intended to apply in determining what is cosmetic and what is a necessary straightening of teeth for the child's future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is all very straightforward. There is an index of orthodontic
488
treatment need which attempts to rank those matters in terms of dental health need. That consists of ranking that on a scale of one to five. That is based on reasonably objective measurements. There is a separate aesthetic component on a scale of one to 10 where number one is the most attractive and 10 the least attractive. Essentially, it is considered that grades 1 and 2 need either no treatment or little treatment and grade 3 is borderline but it will be tipped into treatment need when associated with an aesthetic component of six or above. Grades 4 and 5 all benefit from treatment on health grounds alone. So there is a very careful scheme under which those judgments are made.

Healthcare: Reciprocal Arrangements
3.16 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom's reciprocal healthcare arrangements with other countries are in practice fully reciprocal.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the arrangements give travellers healthcare on the terms available to the host country's own people. As countries have different healthcare systems, variations in benefits provided are inevitable. Overall, however, the Government believe that the present arrangements provide a reasonable outcome for the people of this country.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, if it were a truly reciprocal arrangement, surely it is wrong that if we fall ill in France, we have to pay 25 per cent of the costs of treatment whereas if a Frenchman falls ill in England, he receives that treatment totally free of charge? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm that in April of this year, a certain London psychiatric hospital stated that it thought that 20 per cent of its beds were being utilised by foreigners?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I know that various allegations have been made over the years. I have yet to see hard conclusive evidence that that is so.
On the substantive point raised by the noble Lord, it is true that, for example, France and Belgium require a personal contribution of respectively 30 and 25 per cent of costs from patients in many cases. But there are also examples of UK citizens receiving more favourable treatment in other EEA countries than they would from the NHS; for example, prescription charges are lower in several countries, and access to dental treatment and physiotherapy is immediate and free in Germany. The EEA countries and those with which we have a bilateral agreement number over 50. To negotiate NHS-type provision for people in those countries and vice versa would be a bureaucratic

489
nightmare. Although in some cases, UK citizens may be disadvantaged, surely the arrangements represent a sensible and reasonable outcome.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is not part of the problem with this issue of so-called "health tourism" that it is possible for a visitor to this country simply to lie when he is asked whether he has lived here for more than certain length of time? Is the Department of Health considering some form of smartcard identification system which could weed out people who were trying to abuse the system?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, although allegations have been made, hard evidence is very difficult to find. Hospitals are asked to ask all patients whether they are ordinarily resident in the UK. If they are not ordinarily resident, further questions may be asked to determine whether they are liable to be charged for using the NHS.
I accept that the guidance currently issued to the NHS on how to deal with the kind of issues which the noble Earl mentioned may well be in need of updating. That is being done at present. When that work is completed, we shall issue it to the health service. If there are specific problems such as those which the noble Earl mentioned, I hope that we can deal with them. Overall, I believe that the general arrangements that we have in place are very sensible.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that sometimes the provisions are too fiercely enforced against British citizens who return to this country? When charity workers who have worked abroad for a temporary period in Asia or Africa return here, they are not eligible for National Health Service treatment except in the case of an emergency. Will the Minister undertake to look at that matter as part of a revision of the Patient's Charter to see whether that unfair provision can be mitigated?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for advance notice of that Question. People who work abroad, either for the UK Government or in employment that is financed in part by the Government, retain their entitlement to free hospital treatment. That would include anyone recruited to work abroad under the British volunteer programme. In addition, people who have lived in the UK for 10 years and who are now employed by charitable organisations abroad outside that category may retain their entitlement to free treatment for at least five years and perhaps for longer, depending on their individual circumstances. If there are specific issues that the noble Lord would care to bring to my attention, I shall investigate whether there is a problem in the way in which the regulations are drawn at the moment.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, will the noble Lord reflect on the fact that the French system, which, as I understand it, applies equally to their own citizens
490
as to citizens from other countries in the European Union, has a great deal of merit? As the Government grapple—not with a great deal of success—with the problems of the National Health Service and with the financing of it, there may be some merit in looking again at the French system as a model that we may follow.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is unusual for the Benches opposite to propose France as the model that we should follow. I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe that the essential components of our National Health Service—a service that is free mostly at the point of delivery and funded out of general taxation—is the right one. I do not accept the points that the noble Lord makes about our stewardship of the NHS. We are bringing in extra staff; we are building many new hospitals; and under the NHS Plan we shall make the service truly great again, underpinned by the enormous extra resources that we are committing to it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, following the Question posed by my noble friend, what happened to the European health card which was intended to facilitate the reciprocal arrangements throughout the European Union?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Baroness means by a "European health card".
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there were proposals for a health card, a smartcard, that could be used throughout the European Union. It would enable people to be recognised as having particular health conditions and it would make for easier understanding of the system in the countries concerned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I am not aware of progress in relation to a smartcard, but I shall certainly find out whether any progress has been made. However, I am certain that generally the arrangements between countries in the EU are working fairly well in relation to reciprocal healthcare. Where there are problems, for example, with the administration of E111 forms, this Government are always prepared to take up individual cases with the country concerned.

Transport Policy: Railways
3.23 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the state of the railways, they will reconsider their transport policy.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government's integrated transport policy was

491
outlined in the transport White Paper and supported by our 10-year transport plan that set out a £180 billion programme of spending, including £60 billion for rail to ensure that our transport policies are delivered.
Our rail policies are founded on increased investment to maintain, renew and enhance passenger arid freight services and will be delivered inside the frameworks approved only recently by Parliament in the Transport Act 2000. We shall, of course, make adjustments as necessary to ensure that we carry out safety recommendations arising out of the inquiry currently being conducted by Lord Cullen.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I welcome the thrust of the noble Lord's reply and the Government's announcement this morning of further spending that will help in the longer term. However, we have a more immediate problem. As the train delays are to continue until Easter, and possibly beyond, and as increasing numbers of hard-pressed people are having to switch from rail to the airways and to road travel, will the noble Lord take every step—we have great faith in him—to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the chaotic situation on the railways in our airports and on the motorways?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we shall try to ensure that there is no repetition of the situation on the railways. In some sense, that situation is unique because it has been caused by a phenomenon known as "gauge corner cracking" and a rate of propagation that was quite unexpected by the engineers. Be assured, we are doing everything in our power to try to support Railtrack in its attempts to deal with the problem. At a Rail Recovery Action Group meeting this week I was assured by Railtrack that by the end of January 85 per cent of services will be returned to normal.
We have brought the Rail Recovery Action Group together because we believe that having the Health and Safety Executive, the DETR, the Rail Passengers' Council, the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack round the same table will not only give the Railtrack bosses the confidence that they need to proceed, but it will also lessen the distractions on their valuable time. Their priority must be to get the railways running again.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the sheer scale of the present problem is without precedent not only in this country but also in any other major railway passenger system? Does he also agree that the fragmentation of the post-privatisation management structure is a major part of that problem? Is it not time that we considered returning to a more logical structure, while retaining a mixture of public and private finance? We must not simply try to patch it up and continue with the present system.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I respect the analysis offered by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in view of his background as Secretary of State for Transport. I believe that the railways are too
492
fragmented; and I believe that that is accepted even by the previous administration now that they can see the outcome. Further, I believe that it is also a matter of management. We are assured by the management now in place in Railtrack that they understand where some of the difficulties have arisen through over-extended lines of supply and communication with their maintenance contractors. I also understand that the strategy of Sir Alastair Morton and his refranchising of the railways anticipates that there will be a consolidation of ownership there too. By giving as much support as possible to the industry, I believe that we shall see changes occurring that will be consistent with the analysis that the noble Lord offers and that we shall see a rationalisation of the railways in the future.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that much of the splintering of the railways is a result of the privatisation caused by the previous government which his 10-year plan is supposed to put right? Does he agree with the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in another place, published yesterday, that Railtrack's management has been guilty of systematic, often-repeated failings, and that radical changes should be made to the way that the company is managed.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I believe that the Railtrack board itself has accepted that it may have done better in the past. It is a company that emerged from public ownership only a few years ago. I believe that it is still in the process of finding the right kind of balance and expertise that it needs to manage such a complicated system. I do not believe that it is necessary to intervene in the ways suggested, such as government shareholdings in the railways. The shareholders, through the board, should ensure that they have the right management in place. If the right management is not in place, the board can take action; if the board does not take that action, the shareholders can take action and ultimately the market can deal with it by a takeover of that company if it does not perform as the shareholders want. I suggest also that within the structures that have been created, we shall be able to help it to manage better.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does the noble Lord still say, as he did in the famous New Statesman article, that, "There is no rail crisis", or does he agree with the Prime Minister who said earlier this week that travelling on the railways is absolute hell?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful for that question. In the unlikely event that the noble Lord opposite is a subscriber to the New Statesman, he will see in it today a letter from me which puts on the record that my reply to the question of, "Is there a crisis on the railways?", was, "I think that there is a crisis and that crisis must be managed". I then went on to talk about other crises of investment, confidence and political control. I agree that what is happening on

493
the railways is dreadful for too many people. That is why we are working with such vigour to try to get things sorted out as quickly as possible.

Culture and Recreation Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision in relation to the safety of sports grounds and the arrangements to be made for or in connection with spectators at certain football matches; to make further provision in relation to the regulation of Royal Parks and the functions of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; to make further provision in relation to culture, films, libraries, museums and galleries; to make further provision in relation to the Osborne Estate, public statues in Greater London, and certain bodies established by the Development of Tourism Act 1969; to make provision relating to the Superannuation Act 1972 in connection with culture or recreation; and for connected purposes.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to give effect to the Statute of the International Criminal Court; to provide for offences under the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland corresponding to offences within the jurisdiction of that court; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a committee of inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Pearson of Rannoch.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Appointment of Deputy Chairman, Select and Joint Committees, POST and PARBUL
3.34 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington.
Moved, That, unless any Lord objects, leave be given to the Chairman of Committees to move the seven Motions standing in his name en bloc.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I make no apology for appearing to do a hat trick in raising this matter on three successive occasions. Here again we have two Select Committees appointed on which no Peeress sits. It is a pity, particularly with regard to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. I know that there is nothing we can do about it on this occasion. But I hope that the Committee of Selection, which is an all-party group, will bear that in mind in future Sessions.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did hear the two previous interventions which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made in this regard. My noble friend the Leader of the House gave similar answers on both occasions, which I repeat and endorse. I recognise that the noble Lord has a valid point and undertake to transmit it appropriately.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee Personal Bills: Select Committee Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee Statutory Instruments: Joint Committee Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the seven Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

495
Moved,
Deputy Chairmen of Committees—That the Lord Boston of Faversham be appointed to the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session
Hybrid Instruments—That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Burnham,

L. Campbell of Alloway,

E. Courtown,

V. Craigavon,

L. King of West Bromwich,

B. Thomas of Walliswood,

B. Wilkins.

Personal Bills—That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal Bills and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Hogg of Cumbernauld,

B. Knight of Collingtree,

L. Sandberg,

L. Templeman,

L. Wilberforce.

Standing Orders (Private Bills)—That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

B. Ashton of Upholland,

L. Brett,

V. Bridgeman,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Greaves,

E. Liverpool,

E. Sandwich.

Statutory Instruments—That the Lord Lea of Crondall be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Walker of Doncaster.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)— That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

E. Erroll,

L. Flowers,

L. Oxburgh,

L. Winston.

496
Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)—That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):

L. Burnham,

L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.

Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000
3.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House has before it two orders which are closely connected. The first one which we are to consider is the Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000. This order extends the commission's funding life until 20th August 2001. After that date, the commission will continue to operate as a grant-giving body, but we propose that it will get no further direct income from the National Lottery.
Although we are debating the two orders separately, it may be helpful for me briefly to describe the second order, as it takes up the story where the first one ends. In that way I hope to give the House an overview of the Government's intentions. The second order—the Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2000—provides that once the extension to the Millennium Commission's funding life comes to an end, all the lottery income which previously went to the commission will instead be allocated to the New Opportunities Fund.
I return to the first order. The Millennium Commission was established by the National Lottery Act 1993. Its purpose is to fund projects,
"to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third Millennium".
Under the 1993 Act the Millennium Commission stops receiving funding on 31st December 2000. However, the Act recognised that that date may have to be extended and allows that to be done by order.
The decision to extend the funding life of the commission was made by the previous administration. The then Secretary of State for National Heritage, Virginia Bottomley, said in another place on 20th January 1997 that,
"An Order will accordingly be brought forward to extend the funding life of the commission for one year".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/97; col. WA448.]
The reason for that was to cover variations from the estimates in the Millennium Exhibition Business Plan without prejudicing the commission's existing grant programme.

497
This Government reaffirmed that commitment. Before going any further, it may be helpful for me to say a little about the mechanics of the order-making power. The nature of the legislation does not allow the Government to make an order which simply states that the Millennium Commission will receive £X million. It does, however, allow the Government to extend the life of the commission to a specified date. The order before the House extends the commission's funding life to 20th August 2001. We estimate that that will mean that the Millennium Commission will receive £2,286.5 million of income from the National Lottery. After that date, we propose that the commission will receive no further income from the proceeds of the National Lottery.
I should point out that the previous administration proposed an extension until the end of 2001. Our proposed extension is shorter than that.
Let me say a few words about how we arrived at this new figure—£2,286.5 million—which is an increase of £269.5 million on the previous announced total of £2,017 million. The purpose of the increase is two-fold. First, we agree with the view of the previous administration that the Millennium Commission's other projects should not be adversely affected as a consequence of additional grants to the Dome. That accounts for £198 million of the increase, £179 million of grants and £19 million of lost interest on that amount.
Secondly, there are some additional worthwhile activities which we believe that the commission should undertake within its lifetime budget. Those account for the remaining £71.5 million of the increase. The additional £71.5 million will enable the commission to do a number of things which would not have been possible under its previously agreed income ceiling. Those are as follows: it will be able to put £6.5 million towards the cost of New Year's Eve 2000 celebrations; a further £10 million will be available to support projects reflecting the achievements and aspirations of black communities in the UK; and an additional £30 million will be available to support the commission's existing £3 billion programme of projects, many of which are still being completed. With this funding, the commission will be able to ensure that its capital projects have a solid foundation on which to build for the future.
This order allows for the Millennium Commission to use £25 million to support science centres. While formal decisions cannot be taken unless and until this House supports the order before us today, the Millennium Commission is minded to set up an endowed fund to provide resources in a few years for refurbishment work on the network of science centres around the UK which the commission has funded.
As well as being fun to visit, science centres are playing a key role in informal education, both for school children and for adults. It is increasingly important that people have the opportunity to widen their knowledge of science, technology and medicine as these will have a major impact on their lives.
498
I am pleased to say that the Wellcome Trust, the world's largest medical charity which has also made a major contribution to science centres across the UK, has agreed to consider working in partnership with the commission and providing some funds to increase the value of the endowment. This fund will enable the centres to maintain their attractiveness both as visitor centres and educational resources.
All of those are extremely worthwhile initiatives and I am extremely pleased that the commission will be able to support them if the order is approved. I indicated that much of the increase is required to make good the undertaking by this and the previous administration that the Millennium Commission's other programmes should not be affected by grants to the Dome. Without this order, there would be a hole in the commission's budget plans due to the grants made to the Dome. This order repairs that hole and ensures that the commission's other programmes do not suffer.
In other words, some of this additional money is as a consequence of the Dome, but it is not for the Dome. It is to make good the money that the commission has already agreed to pay to the Dome so that the commission can carry out all its other non-Dome-related activities—the vast bulk of its work.
What would be the effect of the order not being approved? Would it stop grants to the Dome? No, it would not. Those grants have already been made. The effect would be to take money away from the Millennium Commission's other commendable and popular programmes. So whatever noble Lords' views of the Dome, I hope that they are clear that a vote against the order would not be a vote against the Dome but a vote against the commission's other programmes. And it would be an abandonment of the Opposition's stated policy that the commission's other programmes should not be damaged by support for the Dome.
I look forward with pleasurable anticipation to the debate on the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000, unless they give a clear undertaking to the House that no additional money beyond that already reported to Parliament will be paid to the New Millennium Experience Company or to any other body which may have responsibility for the Millennium Dome or be its proprietor".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Minister explained why the Government believe that this House should agree to the order as it stands.

499
Never has an order looked so innocuous but signified so much. We are asked to accept that the Millennium Commission should continue to receive lottery funds intended for millennium year projects for an extra 33 weeks to a sum of approximately £269.5 million. Why do the Government need to do this? The Minister gave us some of the details. It is because the money which the Millennium Commission should have had available to spend on the good-cause projects has already been blown. It has been poured into shoring up the finances of the Dome. But, as the Minister rightly says, if the commission does not receive more money, the good causes will suffer.
The Minister mentioned science centres and I am grateful to him for that. I visited the Bristol project just over a year ago. I remember Bristol city centre a lifetime ago, in the late 1960s, when I was at university there. It had inner-city dereliction, a socialist local government which was at war with itself and nothing much was going well for the people living in the area. When I returned a year ago I saw a harbour-side which had been transformed. I visited a project which I found most impressive, as indeed were the people who were running it.
I am in no doubt that the Bristol project will play an important part in the regeneration of the city centre. I believe it is vital that the good causes get the money they need in order to survive and thrive. Therefore, noble Lords opposite and my noble friends might be wondering why I have tabled my amendment. It is a fair question and I shall give a fair answer.
First, I want to be absolutely sure that any extra money going to the Millennium Commission goes to the good causes and not to the Dome. The Minister gave encouraging assurances. Secondly, I believe that the public deserve to hear the Government say that as far as the money pit of the Dome is concerned, enough is enough; that no more of the public's money—their lottery money—should be handed over to the New Millennium Experience Company, apart from that which has already been reported to Parliament.
The Government appear to have acted as though the Millennium Commission were a bottomless pit of money that could be mined for the benefit of the Dome. The Minister rightly referred to the previous government's action with regard to giving a commitment that the life of the Millennium Commission could be extended in certain circumstances. In addition to the quotation from Hansard which he made, I refer the House to the Written Answer of my right honourable friend Virginia Bottomley on 20th January 1997, where she stated that any application for extra money with regard to the Dome and in consideration of the extension of the Millennium Commission,
"will only be made for contingencies and inflation which at present cannot be predicted".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/97; col. WA 448..]
At that stage, no one could have predicted the chaos that would characterise the finances of the Dome during the guardianship of this Government. There has been an extraordinary failure of corporate governance, one that has been examined in detail by
500
the National Audit Office. We have had a detailed debate on that matter and I shall not abuse the procedure of the House by going through it.
The Millennium Commission originally budgeted for £399 million as a grant to the Dome, with a contingency of an extra £50 million which it expected to be repaid. That £50 million contingency was handed over in November 1999. I was intrigued by the Minister's comment today and tried to listen carefully to the figures he gave. He referred to the grant as being £179 million and the fact that extra interest would increase it to £198 million. Was he thereby saying that the Government expect that £50 million contingency money to be repaid to the Millennium Commission? If not, the amount outstanding to the Millennium Commission would not be £179 million plus interest but £229 million plus interest.
After receiving that £50 million, this year we saw the Dome snaffle up an extra £179 million. In February it was given £60 million. In May it was given £29 million. Then on 5th June, the right honourable Chris Smith said on GMTV that the Government had made it clear that the Dome should not come back and ask again. He said that it should budget with the money it had already received from the commission.
But in August the Dome was back again for another£43 million. In September it was back again for another £47 million. Indeed, on two occasions the commission's accounting officer gave advice to the members of the commission that the extra grant to the Dome would not represent good value for money for the public and a letter of direction had to be sought.
The financial chaos oft he Dome since May 1997 has been an extraordinary saga—but one which needs to come to an orderly end. I, my noble friends and my honourable friends in another place have repeatedly asked the Government to put on record that the grant made in September would be the last. But so far we have not received that assurance. One has to wonder why.
I am not usually given to cynicism, although in politics perhaps one becomes used to trying to be a little more cynical rather than innocent, as of course we all are. If the Government cannot give the assurance which I seek in my amendment today, will the Minister tell the House why extra money will be needed for the Dome and how much? It is only when I know the answers to these questions that we on these Benches can decide whether to press the amendment. I commend it to the House.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000, unless they give a clear undertaking to the House that no additional money beyond that already reported to Parliament will be paid to the New Millennium

501
Experience Company or to any other body which may have responsibility for the Millennium Dome or be its proprietor".—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches have had uncharacteristically lengthy discussions on these two statutory instruments. I congratulate the Minister on his clear description of what the orders entail. As to the first one, the purpose of which has now been explained by the Minister, I and my noble friends did not gain much assistance from the Explanatory Note. It is not good enough simply to provide an existing lump of legislation with hardly any further enlightenment. If that is the trend, one almost reaches the stage where one requires an explanatory note of an explanatory note. Having said that, the matter is now extremely clear.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness is unexpectedly helpful. We should perhaps be grateful to the noble Baroness who may well have inspired the very clear explanation of the Minister. The prolongation of the existence of the Millennium Commission was foreseen in the original legislation put in place by the previous government. However, they never contemplated today's rather sombre situation as regards the Dome. Enough has been said about that, and we do not want to join in any rancorous discussion about apportionment of responsibility for the present situation.
We on these Benches completely understand the reason for the date given by the Secretary of State. The original legislation provided for a period of six months rather than a year. Presumably, the reason for it, which has been reinforced by the Minister, is that, apart from the list of good causes described by the noble Lord—incidentally, we entirely support it—money is required purely to decommission the Dome. Can the Minister tell the House at what stage noble Lords will be given further information about the exact amount required for decommissioning? At the moment that matter is left rather open. The Minister's key remark, which we completely understand and accept, is that the money is only for non-Dome-related activity beyond what is required for decommissioning.
I understand from the observations of the noble Baroness that she is unlikely to press her amendment to a Division. However, if the noble Baroness did so, in the light of her remarks we on this side of the House would not follow her into the Lobbies. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has been instrumental in throwing further light on the situation. The position is now much clearer than it was the day before yesterday when I and my colleagues discussed these matters which we did not then fully understand.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I rise briefly to observe that the same facts can appear to be different to different observers. The noble Baroness described her time in Bristol in the 1960s. During that time I was president of Bristol Borough Labour Party and, therefore, took some responsibility for the policy of the council. The noble Baroness described the centre as
502
having been regenerated. It is true that the centre is now an absolute delight to the middle and chattering classes of Bristol. However, the previous centre, which included some very good public lavatories and flowerbeds, was perfectly adequate. Public lavatories are always anathema to the middle classes because they do not like people stopping and slamming car doors. All of that has gone.
The only common denominator that remains is the statue of Burke. When I was a small boy I could not understand why Burke had been so famous when, looking at his statue, he had been the Member of Parliament for Bristol for only four years. It was only later I discovered that he had gone to Bristol from a pocket borough. Having represented the constituency for four years, he found the electorate rather tiresome. His main opponent, Kruger, refused a fat bribe to withdraw from the contest and Burke went off to another pocket borough. Burke is now hailed as the very acme of democracy and representation of the people and his statue remains in Bristol.
This matter is not of great interest to many Members of the House. However, if the noble Baroness visits some of the haunts of the working classes in Bristol she will find a very different view about the regeneration of which she is so proud.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Anelay, I am as anxious as anyone to see that money goes to the New Opportunities Fund and other good causes. My reason for rising this afternoon is to ask for responses to a number of questions. Some of those questions have been put before but not answered and there are one or two new queries. Those matters should be dealt with before we pass this order. We must have those answers because, as the Minister said in moving the Motion, a hole will appear in the budget if funding is not provided. I am worried about what happens if the current estimates of cost and future income for the Dome prove to be substantially wrong. Who then provides the funding, or is there a possibility that in that situation the Government will be forced to return to the House to ask for a further extension? If there is a potential hole we need to be absolutely confident about the numbers that we are talking about.
In the debate on 29th November the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, told the House that the Dome needed about 4.6 million visitors, but he did not answer the question about the number of paying visits. The latest forecast by the New Millennium Experience Company is that it expects 4.6 million revenue-generating visitors by the year end. Is that number about right?
I turn to the present forecast cost. I was astonished by an Answer given in another place on Monday by Janet Anderson. She told the House that the total forecast project cost, based on the budget placed in the Library on 2nd October, was £798 million, including closure costs of £30.3 million. My astonishment arises from the fact that when I went to the Library of this House the budget of the New Millennium Experience Company that had been placed in it on 2nd October

503
related to September. I understand that a subsequent budget forecast by NMEC for October dated 25th November had been placed in the Library. I am extremely puzzled as to why a Minister answering a Question in the other place in mid-December should refer Members to information that was already a month out of date. The matter is of some significance, because in the interval the estimated cost had risen from £798 million to £801.6 million.
Sums of money of between £3 million and £4 million may not be very significant, and there appears to have been some casualness about such expenditures in the past. But it is a little worrying that in a short space of time the budget has increased in this way and the Government have made statements to the public about forecasts that are already out of date. Therefore, I should like to know what the latest forecast cost is and whether the Government are confident about it.
The total £30.3 million decommissioning costs—I should say "decommissioning and closure" costs because there are two separate items which have to be taken together and some numbers have gone up and some have gone down—are £10 million higher than the August estimate. We should be a little concerned about the closure and decommissioning costs because if the estimates prove wrong we could be in some difficulty when the order comes to an end.
One reason why the decommissioning and closure costs may prove inadequate could be a collapse of the present negotiations with Legacy plc. So I should like to know whether the Government are absolutely confident that the present assessment of decommissioning and closure costs are accurate and adequate. Of course, there will be a real problem if the Legacy deal collapses because it is quite clear from the National Audit Office report that the cost of demolishing the Dome would increase those estimates substantially.
4 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am slightly puzzled as to why he thinks there may be a problem. The whole history of the Dome, which I regard as an outrage, has been a simple one: when one runs out of money, one votes some more. What will happen if it runs out of money—the collapse of the new purchaser or for whatever reason—is that they will vote more. With all the history to date, Parliament will vote it more money.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it is precisely because I have the same fear in mind that I am making the speech that I am. The Minister in introducing the debate gave us an assurance—or I thought he gave us an assurance—that this was to be the end of the matter. He was not going to come back for more. I suspect that in order to persuade my noble friend not to press the Motion in the debate he is likely to repeat that undertaking. I am expressing some scepticism about the reliability of the numbers we are being given and want further assurance upon the matter.
504
The third point concerns the prospective sale to Legacy plc. I am aware that if I ask any questions I shall be told that the matter is commercially confidential, it is subject to negotiations and they might break down, although the noble and learned Lord, when he made his statement at the end of July about the previous prospective sale to Nomura, posed few doubts about it. However, he made one statement about that Nomura sale which is relevant. He said that there would be an early payment of £105 million with £53 million going to the NMEC.
In the debate we had on 29th November I asked a specific question. I asked if there was to be an early payment by Legacy plc, and, if so, when. I did not get an answer to that question. I should like an answer to that question today. I particularly want an answer to that question in the light of another extraordinary reply given by the Minister in another place on Monday. I find the words that she used not only extraordinary but rather worrying. She was answering a question about the value of the sale. We have been told in The Times, not by the Government, that the total value of the sale is £125 million, which is £25 million less than the consortium offered previously when they were in competition with Nomura. I do not know whether that is right or not because the Government have not put a final figure on the matter. The Minister in another place said:
"The details of the sale are commercially confidential, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that £50 million will be paid on completion, and that the value of the total offer has been assessed to be more than £100 million".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/00; co1.336.]
I repeat that,
"the value of the total offer has been assessed to be more than £100 million".
Instead of an advance payment of £105 million, we shall now have a payment on completion of £50 million and a total deal assessed to be more than £100 million. What on earth do those words mean? My suspicions were roused. It seems rather unlikely that they mean there will be a cash payment. If there is not going to be a cash payment, I wonder what exactly will go back to the Millennium Commission. Incidentally, what impact will that have on the interest charges which have already added a considerable sum to the original total of £179 million which was going to be raised in order to cover the additional grants given during this year to the New Millennium Experience Company?
I have an awful suspicion that we shall see some creative accounting; that we shall be told that the future earnings can be discounted back and valued in some way. I may be entirely wrong. It may be that the answer given by the Minister in another place was off-the-cuff and she was inadequately briefed, and it will be a cash payment; there will be an early receipt; and we shall get an early payment back to help fill the hole to which the noble Lord referred in opening.
I believe that before we pass the order we should have answers to those questions. We should have answers about the latest estimate of paying visitors, not the inflated totals of those who are invited in for

505
jollies. We should have some clarification of the two budgets, to which I refer, of total costs. I would prefer to have details of the latest budget rather than the one offered to the other place by the Minister. I should like clear answers to the questions that I have asked about the sale to Legacy plc, the date of an early payment and whether it will be real money or some product of creative accounting.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I have had the honour and experience of serving on a regional millennium committee. Therefore, it is not in my own interests to be too critical of the order and that which went before. In my view the moneys were well spent, not just in my region but in others. Naturally, we could not satisfy all the applicants, but then we assumed, rather cynically, that the bids had been somewhat inflated in the first place and that applications were made for rather more money than they expected to receive.
I have one question to put to the Minister: will there remain a restriction on capital projects, which capital expenditure guidelines we rigidly observed in our committee? We had the inevitable borderline cases and sometimes it was extremely difficult to draw a dividing line. It would be helpful to have clarification regarding, what one might call, the "new money" which is to be available in the months remaining. Apart from that query about the grants for capital expenditure, I have no great reluctance in supporting the order.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, when we last debated the matter a couple of weeks ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, recited at length the numbers of parliamentary Questions, debates and other exchanges which had taken place on the matter. It is therefore the case, I fear, that those of us who have taken an interest in these things may be running the risk of becoming a bit boring on the subject. If I am about to fall foul of that sin, I apologise in advance to noble Lords.
I shall confine my remarks to one question. It is clear—is it not?—that back in July of this year things really began to get very bad for the New Millennium Experience Company. The suggestion has been made by those more expert in these matters than I that perhaps the New Millennium Experience Company was trading at that time while insolvent, a time when the noble and learned Lord was a shareholder—the only shareholder—in the company. He was not a director, but he was the shareholder. It would be a serious matter if the company was trading while insolvent, although I recognise at once that the law in these matters is far from straightforward and that no doubt the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues took the best possible advice.
However, there has been a suggestion that at that moment the Government somehow gave assurances of one kind or another, be they formal or informal, to the New Millennium Experience Company that it would be provided with the necessary funds if things went badly wrong or if the Millennium Commission,
506
against expectations, had not advanced the additional funds that were required. It may be that, armed with those assurances, the directors of the New Millennium Experience Company were able to satisfy themselves that they were not trading insolvently. If that is so, it is no doubt perfectly well understood. But the noble and learned Lord has been very cagey about whether or not such assurances, whether formal or informal, were ever asked for or given. I hope that we can have a clear answer to that question.
Is it or is it not the case that certain assurances were given by the Government to the New Millennium Experience Company at about that time which would have covered the position if the Millennium Commission had not in the event advanced the additional funds that were required? As I said, up to now Ministers have been very cagey about that. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, comes to reply we can have a clear and plain description of the position.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall not repeat all the questions that have been asked by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. My noble friend referred to a later budget of income and expenditure, which I have not seen, that has been placed in the Library. Perhaps I may move on to an estimate of the assets and liabilities—for those who have not been trained as accountants, that is not the same as an income and expenditure statement—which we were told in the NAO report was expected to be produced by the end of November. That estimate of assets and liabilities should show NMEC's assets, what they are worth and what liabilities have accumulated and are expected to be paid out. We could then see the net financial position on an estimated basis. That was supposed to be done by the end of November. I should like to know when that estimate can be made available to us.
An important part of the overall financial position will be the financial deal that is done with Legacy. When will we be given a full estimate—not the words that were given in another place—of the straightforward cash-flow from the Legacy deal? We need that information to work out what the final financial position will be.
When the Minister explained the financial impact on the Millennium Commission, he in effect assumed that nothing would be received by the Millennium Commission in respect of the Legacy deal. Will he confirm that the working assumption now is that whatever moneys come—if any do come in cash form—there will be nothing surplus to be repaid to the commission, which was always the intention when the early grants were made? I should be grateful for the noble Lord's views on that point.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I shall declare a series of interests. I have been a Millennium Commissioner since the inception of the commission in February 1994. I have been co-chairman of the finance committee for most of that time and chairman of the internal audit committee for the whole of that time.

507
I rise to speak principally as an individual who has given seven years of his life to the Millennium Commission. The work that we have done has been tremendously exciting and rewarding, but there has also been a large amount of frustration and disappointment in a number of areas, the performance of the NMEC being one of them. However, it is worth putting on record that as long ago as 1995 or thereabouts, when we conceived and then gave birth to what later became known as the NMEC and talked about visitor figures of 10 million to 12 million, we realised that 12 million was certainly in the top echelons of possibility and that there was considerable risk. As an aside, it looks as though the Tate Modern will have 1 million visitors a month. That puts the matter in perspective. The information we had at that time from other events made the 12 million visitor figure plausible.
However, at that stage we had no idea of the content. We had a dream. Following the Great Exhibition of 1856 and the Festival of Britain, which were both great successes, we believed that the kingdom was ready to put on another exhibition. I believe that it was. Unfortunately, the general election got in the way. I do not say that from a political point of view. But the management team lost several months of clear decision-making while it had to hold back waiting to see what would happen in the election and whether a Labour Government would agree to take on the exhibition. That definitely was a shame. Those points are not generally known.
It is also worth making the point—a good many political points have been made and I have taken no part in them—that at the time of the election and soon after it there were negotiations between the present Prime Minister and my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine and others about what would happen to the NMEC. We were delighted when the Labour Party agreed that it would take the NMEC on. It did so on condition that it had three months to carry out an in-depth investigation into the finances of the whole process, which one assumes it duly did. I have recently ascertained this figure. Had the Labour Party chosen to kill the project there and then, it would have cost £25 million. I was given that figure today.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not think—I say this, admittedly, with the benefit of hindsight but the noble Lord was there at the time—that that would have been a fantastic bargain?
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not believe that it would have been a fantastic bargain. In money terms, one might say that, but I still believe that there will be legacy in terms of what has been achieved on the Greenwich peninsula, with all the inward investment that has been made and the infrastructure that will be there in 20 years' time. The whole regeneration of that part of London was what I stuck my hat on.
I played Devil's advocate to the exhibition from day one, as my colleagues on the commission know only too well. What I was very disappointed about—
508
I raised the point on many occasions—was the fact that Mr Blair chose to raise the political temperature by claiming the project as a fine example of Blairism. That was a great shame because at that stage it was not a political show; it was purely a national show. It was also a shame that the place was so mismanaged, which it clearly was. The NAO has demonstrated that. However, I still stand by it. I believe that the decision at the time was right.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He referred to the legacy of the improvement of the Greenwich peninsula cited that, in responding to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, as being the value of the project. That is well so. I can understand the Government and, in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, saying that. However, I do not recall, from the rationale given to the public or to Members of this House, that public support for this venture rested on the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula, admirable though that aspect has been. Rather, it was sold to the country as a national exhibition, entertainment and celebration which, unfortunately, has gone wrong.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, it was always clearly stated within the commission's raison d'être that part of the reason for undertaking this project was the regeneration of Greenwich. That element was very much a part and parcel of the argument and debate as regards where the exhibition should be held. I walked about the Greenwich site in gumboots and a hard hat when it was a nasty, smelly former gasworks. A great deal of work went into the site. Throughout this project, I have been comforted by that effort. From day one, I was not one of those great believers that the exhibition would be the howling success that it has now not proved to be. However, I did believe in the legacy.
This afternoon, I should like to put that argument to one side. As I understand it, and speaking for my colleagues, although obviously I cannot vouch for them, I do not believe that another penny will move from the Millennium Commission to NMEC or anywhere else. We have a programme of which we are intensely proud. We have spent something in the region of £1.3 billion of our own, which has generated one-and-a-half times that of public sector money right across the country on 190-odd projects on over 3,000 sites, as well as distributing around 34,000 Millennium Awards and many other activities. The projects about which we are excited are not only the big ones. Having said that, re-linking the River Clyde to the River Forth with a fantastic piece of engineering in the form of a huge caisson wheel to take the place of six locks which will not be reinstated, was a tremendous success. From the Dome to the Eden Project, everyone has heard about these.
However, hundreds of other projects have been completed in local communities. In my own Province of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Millennium

509
Halls have regenerated or built 54 new village or community halls. I believe that the figure is something over 400 for the whole country. Thousands of miles of cycleways have been constructed. Woodlands have been planted close to urban areas and green spaces have been preserved. New science centres have been set up, as well as practically a new university in Scotland. These are wonderful projects that we have overseen. We should not consider only the highly visible projects such as the British Museum, Tate Modern, Cardiff Arms Park and the Millennium Stadium in Glasgow.
If this order is not passed, nearly all of those projects will suffer to some extent. Some of them may well fail. I stand here as a Millennium Commissioner, speaking for myself—with some passion, I know. I truly believe that this order should be passed. Furthermore, I can assure noble Lords that, to the best of my ability, not another penny will pass from the Millennium Commission to NMEC.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will allow me, perhaps it would be better if I commented on the succeeding contributions and then finish by referring to the words of the amendment that she has moved. However, I cannot do so without saying, first, how grateful I was for her support for the science centres and other good causes. That support has been echoed in the debate by a number of other noble Lords.
Perhaps I may turn to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I am grateful for his general response to the order and for his support, in turn, for the good causes. He asked me a specific question as regards when further information on decommissioning costs will be available. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made a point on the same issue. A budget for decommissioning is in place. It will enable NMEC to carry out its decommissioning to the level to which it is legally obliged to carry out such work, but any further decommissioning required as a consequence of the Legacy plc deal or, indeed, a deal struck with any other buyer—the Legacy deal is not sewn up—is a matter for discussion between Legacy or another buyer and the competition team. It is therefore not possible to give him an answer at this time as regards the final decommissioning costs. We do not yet know what will be the level of decommissioning. For that reason, there have been and may well continue to be different costs for decommissioning because it is a moving target.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, commented on an increase from the August figures. A part of that was due to the need to take into account the PricewaterhouseCoopers figures, but, in his own calculations, the noble Lord does appear to be putting PWC figures alongside NMEC figures. I do not think that it is possible for that to be done in quite the way followed by the noble Lord.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I should point out that I have quoted figures taken exactly from the NMEC.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed the noble Lord did so, but he asked also about the reason
510
for the increase. The reason for the increase is, as I have said, because the PWC figures have been taken into account.
I do not think that I should interfere in any dispute that might have taken place between the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about Bristol. That is not a city I know as well as I would wish to know it.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked a number of specific points which I shall attempt to answer. He asked for the latest figures for the number of paying visitors to the Dome. My understanding is that 4.7 million people have already visited and that bookings are very good until the end of this month. Indeed, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I have just given advice to the Clerk of the Parliaments, who intends to visit on Sunday. We said that he ought to purchase tickets in advance for himself and his family because it is likely to be full—as I found when I visited three weeks ago. Indeed, although I paid the full price for my tickets, I had to pull strings in order to get in because it was full on the day that I went. That was because 20,000 Girl Guides were visiting the Dome on that day. That was "fun", as well.
The noble Lord went on to ask me about the budget. The total budget stands at £798 million as compared with the original budget figure of £758 million. NMEC is confident that it can achieve solvent liquidation within this figure.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have in front of me the NMEC forecast for October 2000. The figure that has just been given, £798 million, is set down under the heading, "August forecast post-PWC report". The current forecast is £801.6 million. Those figures have been placed in the Library of this House and are dated 25th November. My complaint here is that the Government keep referring back to the budget of previous months. Surely we are entitled to the latest figures?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that a difference of something considerably less than 1 per cent of the total—£3.5 million on £800 million—is one which needs to be continually reported to this House. However, if I am wrong about that, I shall be glad to write to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, also asked me whether the figures given by Janet Anderson in the House of Commons were correct. I can confirm that the figure of £50 million on completion from Legacy, and a total assessed figure of more than £100 million, is correct. However, negotiations are of course still continuing. At this time, Legacy is only a preferred bidder. Until the negotiations are completed, there will not be and could never be a final figure.
I do not have the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. If he will allow me, I shall write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked me a question which he said had not been answered before. I am surprised. He asked me whether the Government

511
had given assurances to NMEC to enable it to continue trading. I can confirm that no such assurances were given. Whether that answer was not given clearly before, I do not know.
I believe that I now have an answer to the difference between the £798 million and the £801 million. The £801 million includes the London New Year's Eve event, to which I referred in my opening speech.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, quite rightly said that an income and expenditure account is not the same as an asset and liability statement, although she referred at different times to that and to a cash-flow figure. Again I have to give the same answer: until the negotiations with Legacy or any other buyer are complete, it will not be possible to give a final balance sheet or cash-flow figure.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The NAO report referred to an estimate of assets and liabilities being made available by the end of November. Can the Minister say whether that has been received and will be made available to the House?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not aware of any such commitment being given that it should be made available to this House. I can give the noble Baroness a commitment that as soon as any estimate of the assets and liabilities is received and can be made available to this House—in other words, it can be released from commercial confidentiality provisions—it will be made available to the House. I undertake to ensure that the noble Baroness is made aware of its availability.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his sterling service on the Millennium Commission over a period of nearly seven years and for his reminder of the longer-term regeneration benefits of the Dome project. I can confirm that he is right in his response to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the regeneration effect in east London has been an objective of the Dome project from the very beginning; it was contained in the original press release. I am also grateful for the noble Lord's description of the achievements of the Millennium Commission.
I return now to the terms of the amendment—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the Minister comes to the amendment, he mentioned the additional £3 million identified by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and said that it was the cost of the New Year's Eve celebration. I imagine that he was referring to this coming one. Is that the celebration that was cancelled by the Mayor of London, Mr Livingstone? Does it reflect the costs of the fireworks that he bought and which will not now be set off?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The Mayor of London—
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, if the Minister will permit me. Yes, it is. We took the money, which has
512
been distributed throughout greater London areas. The festival will now be better enjoyed by local people in various boroughs than would have been the case with the celebrations proposed originally.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can confirm that. I am glad that my own borough of Haringey is one of those which will receive money for this purpose. I am sure that the noble Lord is right in saying that New Year's Eve celebrations which are held more widely among the population are more effective than the centralised celebrations of the kind that caused the Mayor of London such difficulties.
Turning to the terms of the amendment, it seeks a specific assurance that,
"no additional money beyond that already reported to Parliament will be paid to the New Millennium Experience Company or to any other body which may have responsibility for the Millennium Dome or be its proprietor".
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that, particularly in the light of NMEC's improved financial position, we do not expect or intend any additional money to be provided to the Dome. In particular, I can confirm that none of the additional money provided for in this order, beyond that already reported to Parliament, will be paid to NMEC or to any other body which may have responsibility for the Millennium Dome or be its proprietor.
In the light of what I have said already about the destination of the additional money flowing to the Millennium Commission as a result of this order, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that that is a full answer to the issue that she has quite properly raised in the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions that have been posed.
Perhaps I should begin by referring to the novel intervention of one of the Minister's noble friends. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, suggested that I might visit, what he calls, the working class areas of Bristol. I offer him a deal. If he shows me where they are, I shall follow him there. I await with interest what I am about to see. It could be, perhaps, a different experience.
This has been a serious debate on a serious matter in which noble Lords have raised a variety of questions. Some of the answers have been a little jaw-dropping in regard to the information we have or have not quite received—certainly in respect of the information about the current budget and the amount of money that has been dispersed in relation to New Year's Eve. But those are matters to which noble Lords may wish to return by way of written questions and further debates in the future.
Returning to the specifics of my amendment, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have asked questions. Perhaps I may trespass on the good humour of the House and refer in particular to the speech of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. It was an honourable speech—that was no surprise to me for I know him to be an honourable man—and I thank him for what he said.

513
The Minister has given assurances which are sufficient to encourage me to withdraw my amendment. I say that because when this Minister gives such commitments and assurances, I know that I can trust him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2000
4.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House now knows, the first order extends the funding of the commission until the 20th August 2001, after which it will receive no more proceeds from the lottery. This order, the Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2000, takes up the story from that point by determining what happens to the Millennium Commission's share of lottery funding thereafter.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is no longer in his place. He and I have both inadvertently misled the House on the previous order and I should like to put that right. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has indicated to me, sotto voce, that the £3 million extra was for last year's London river event. I allowed myself to be distracted by the confident assurance of a member of the Millennium Commission. I apologise to the House for that error.
It has been a long-standing government policy that once the Millennium Commission's share of lottery income ceased, its share should be transferred to the New Opportunities Fund. The second order before us gives effect to this policy. It provides that immediately after the Millennium Commission stops receiving new income from lottery proceeds, the New Opportunities Fund's share of lottery income increases from 13⅓ per cent to 33⅓ per cent. In other words, from the 21st August 2001 onwards, NOF will receive one out of every three pounds paid into the National Lottery Distribution Fund.
The creation of NOF as a new UK-wide lottery distributor focusing on health, education and environment reflected the Government's intention to target lottery funding more directly on key areas of social inclusion and disadvantage. The fund has established itself as a major grant-maker and has developed innovative grant-making practices. It has enabled much-needed educational, environmental and health-related initiatives to go ahead which would not otherwise have been funded. Barely two years from its creation, NOF is already making an impact on the nation's quality of life. From a healthy living centre for
514
the elderly in Devon to new childcare provision where none previously existed in County Tyrone, NOF money is flowing into projects of great benefit to people and communities.
A recent MORI survey confirmed public support for the targeting of lottery funding on the areas of health, education and environment in which the fund distributes grants. When asked to identify the two or three most important areas for lottery funding out of a list of 10, 69 per cent of respondents identified health, 55 per cent education, and 26 per cent the environment. Over 2,000 grants have been awarded, many involving large numbers of individual projects. Over £614 million has been allocated to projects. The impact of these grants already includes childcare schemes that will create more than 110,000 new childcare places; training in the use of information and communication technologies for over 160,000 teachers; new cancer equipment in hospitals; and new preventive health services for deprived communities. NOF's increased income will allow it to target more areas where a real step change in the quality of people's lives can be achieved.
The Government launched the consultation paper, New Opportunities from the Lottery, on 6th November, which proposed a number of new initiatives for NOF to fund. In summary, these proposals are: £750 million for additional sports facilities for schools and wider community use; £50 million for outdoor adventure and other activities for young people; £300 million to boost the fight against heart disease and strokes, providing extra money for the fund's existing initiatives to combat cancer and provide palliative care for adults and children with life-threatening and chronic illness; £200 million for the provision of childcare places for children aged nought to three years, together with further support for the over-threes, particularly in deprived areas; £150 million for a programme of environmental renewal and community regeneration which would support community regeneration, promote recycling and develop renewable energy sources; and an amount to be provided as small grants for community groups to support local health, education and environment projects.
The order fulfils a second purpose. In the event that the Millennium Commission receives more than £2,286.5 million in the period up to 20th August 2001, the order ensures that any additional amount is transferred to NOF—in other words, the order acts as a cap on the Millennium Commission's income. I commend the order to the House. Together, the two orders give a coherent account of our plans for extending the funding of the Millennium Commission and redirecting the commission's funding to NOF after 20th August 2001. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the order. It

515
indeed gives effect to the Government's intention that 33⅓of all lottery funds shall be handed over to the New Opportunities Fund when the commission completes its financing of the millennium projects next August as a result of these provisions.
In the past we have made our views and concerns about the New Opportunities Fund very clear. We believe that the fund diverts money which would otherwise have gone into the arts, sports, and good causes, as originally agreed by Parliament. I want to make it clear again today, as I have in the past, that I have absolutely nothing against the projects themselves; they are good causes in their own individual right. My objection is to the fact that the Government are taking money from the arts, sports and good causes lottery funds to provide for them.
The National Lottery was established in 1994 in order to,
"restore our heritage and promote projects which will become a source of national pride";
It became a massive success story. Lottery money has brought about a renaissance in the arts in Britain and it has revolutionised sport. Today, the Minister has referred to £750 million which will go through the New Opportunities Fund to sport in schools and for use by the wider community. But surely money such as this would be better channelled through Sport England, with its excellent track record, rather than being subject to the vagaries of lottery funds.
The Labour Party opposed much of the National Lottery scheme at its inception, saying that the Conservatives would use the proceeds as a surrogate for government expenditure. Time and again, during debate on the Bill in Committee in another place, Labour Members accused us of that—and it was untrue. The Conservative government presided over the lottery for three years and no such action was taken. That action was taken when this Government took over. My worry has always been that the creation of the New Opportunities Fund has made a mockery of the additionality principle under which the lottery fund was established.
We believe that the National Lottery should not be used to fund projects which should be the Government's core responsibility. The Government should have the courage to say which projects are worthy of core government funding and back them. We should not go on year after year committing projects to the New Opportunities Fund.
It is important that the projects that currently receive funding are not subject to any risk of losing it and thus losing their future security. We must all work to achieve that. Today, I shall not ask my noble friends to oppose the making of this order.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister and other noble Lords that we on these Benches greet this order with less enthusiasm than we did the previous one. We disagreed in the first place with the redistribution of these moneys to areas
516
that were a departure from the five original good causes. We have rehearsed these arguments on various occasions.
We have no objection to the New Opportunities Fund. We fully support the concept behind many of the projects listed by the Minister. He referred to the popular support for the use of lottery funds in areas such as health, education and the environment. There is no argument with that. Unlike many other countries in Europe, were they to face the same debate, in this country the prospect of lottery moneys going to the arts—it may be a question of language or of history and culture—is met in some cases with indignation and in many cases with reserve. If asked where they would like funds to go, many people in this country would say that they do not want money to go to the Royal Opera House, that they do not like going to museums and galleries and that they do not like Radio 3. There is a division in our society as regards the role of the arts and the good that they do. That is a fact of life. I know that the Minister fundamentally shares my views. He has been an effective, excellent Minister for the arts and we have had some excellent debates on various subjects in this House.
My noble friends on these Benches agree, as may other noble Lords, that it is a great pity that this escalation in the amount of money going to the New Opportunities Fund—from 13⅓ per cent to 33⅓ per cent as a result of the inclusion of Millennium Commission moneys—accentuates the problem. There may be an overlap in funding; there may be matters which can be dealt with by the New Opportunities Fund.
However, one considers, for example, the tragic events that recently took place in New Cross and in other deprived areas. I shall probably receive a measure of agreement from the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, who talks about "working-class interests" and "working-class areas", although they are not terms that I would use. It has been said on television by child psychologists and others that such projects as sports centres and new schools are not always the answer in terms of improving the lot of people living in abject misery. It is much more fundamental and basic than that; and the arts can do so much.
It is not a question of opening theatres or providing access to better television programmes or, indeed, organising trips to museums or to performances of Shakespeare. It is much more basic. People in this country, especially young people in deprived areas, need to know that there are new perspectives available to them that they could be enjoying. They need to know that there is a new quality of life, which is not currently open to them but which will be available if the arts are carefully projected, planned and funded. We were so overjoyed when the lottery was created, with approval by Parliament, because we believed that those areas would be covered. Such areas are not easy areas to deal with out of central taxation. Therefore, we are somewhat dejected that this trend to move away from the arts and sports into other areas seems to have become a part—an accelerating part—of the Government's programme.

517
There is nothing better for young people in deprived areas, as well as those in other areas, that will give them self-confidence, a feeling of self-worth and which will—probably more than anything else—unlock the creativity that is to be found within all of us. It enables people to do things that are positive in life rather than engaging in certain negative activities in deprived areas, such as, vandalism, absenteeism, crime, and so on. The trend that is illustrated in the order by way of the proposed shifting of funds, which were originally so welcomed by the arts community—as well as by the sports community, because sports play a similar though not as basic a role as the arts—is a fairly desolate progression.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to our views. But perhaps the noble Lord can tell us in his reply whether the imbalance created by the order could in some way be corrected by the department. I know that both he and the Secretary of State basically share much of the thinking that I am trying in my inadequate way to articulate. I wonder whether they can redress this imbalance by finding further funding. That will enable better concentration in these areas to take place, so that this will seem less of a deprivation to the arts community.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am tempted to follow the noble Viscount who has just spoken, but the Minister and I debated these issues at length in the Moses Room when the legislation was before the House. I rise to speak because I am rather anxious on this occasion that the noble Lord should be spared embarrassment. I believe that he should qualify the answer that he gave very much on the spur of the moment about the extra £3.8 million, which he put down to some kind of celebration. I have the advantage of having the two comparative budgets in front of me today. I think it is very unfair that the noble Lord should be asked to produce an immediate answer. It is clear that the increase comes from an increase in the other close-down legacy costs. It would be wise for the noble Lord to seek further advice and, perhaps, return to the matter by placing the relevant information in the Library of the House, or by providing it in some other way. I shall certainly not hold it against him if he finds that he has to change the advice that he has been given—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord now and say that I shall certainly do so.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am happy to accept the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about deprived areas because I used to represent one of the most deprived areas in Bristol. In fact, the council has just closed the secondary school in the area, which was the heart of the community. It was labelled a "sink" school and castigated publicly by the authorities; and then those authorities closed it on the grounds that parents were reluctant to send their children to the school. I am afraid that my own
518
Secretary of State endorsed this, although when I was the Member of Parliament for the area I managed to persuade Sir Keith Joseph to keep it open.
But what is becoming objectionable here is the blanket of secrecy about the source of this lottery money. It is the most successful lottery in the world, and produces an enormous revenue. But, basically, that comes from the working-class people of this country. They are the people who play the lottery. Yet there is no acknowledgement of that fact. We have been given figures this afternoon regarding so many million on one cause and so many million on another cause. We are told about a MORI poll relating to what people think about the question of whether 67 per cent should be spent on this, that and the other. The one thing that we are not told is who is actually playing the lottery and producing the cash.
As the Minister will know, I referred in an earlier debate on the matter to the conversations that I had with Camelot. I recalled how a very helpful person on the telephone said, "Oh, yes. We do survey the social classes that the money comes from, and there is a regular report". When I mentioned this in the House, as I told the Minister during that debate, I received a "snow job" of information from Camelot within days, followed by persistent questioning about who in the office had actually revealed this information. As your Lordships know, one does not give away one's sources. But we are still not told who are the players. We deserve to know that. When we are considering the allocation of the resources and where they should go, the people who are paying in should receive special attention.
Therefore, can there not be some proper acknowledgement of where this money is coming from, so that we can make a better judgment as to its disposal? As the noble Baroness said, basically things are now going on which would otherwise be funded by the Government—ergo, if it is the working class who are playing the lottery, it is a tax on the working class.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fully recognise that both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, are expressing concerns that they have held consistently and honourably since the origin of the New Opportunities Fund was established under the National Lottery Act 1998. They have not changed their views in that respect, and it is entirely appropriate that they should express them again. It is also entirely appropriate that I should give the same answers, because they are still true.
The first answer that I have to give is that, as we anticipated in 1998, increased receipts from the National Lottery into the National Lottery Distribution Fund have meant that there has been no loss in cash terms to the original four "good causes" of arts, sports, heritage and charities. Of course, there has been a loss in percentage of a larger figure, but money has not been taken away as a result of the creation of the New Opportunities Fund, or, indeed, of NESTA.

519
I believe that I should also repeat the argument that I used about additionality, because that is still true. The projects of the New Opportunities Fund add to, but do not substitute for, services that are already provided by government. The NOP's money is for specific, time-limited initiatives that are additional to core taxpayer-funded programmes. Sometimes they overlap with some of the projects that might be undertaken by the arts, sports, heritage or charities lottery distribution bodies. The example of sports facilities for schools and for wider communities, to which I referred when introducing this order and which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned in her speech, is very appropriate.
The noble Baroness asked why the money should not he spent through Sport England. The answer is that there is no reason why it should not be. The New Opportunities Fund is a UK-wide provision, but there is no reason why Sport England and the other sports bodies in the other countries of the United Kingdom should not be involved. Indeed, they are being consulted to ensure that the money is targeted to achieve the maximum benefit for young people and the communities in which they live. So nothing has really changed since 1998. With this order, we are doing what we said we would do two years ago when the Millennium Commission came to an end. I understand and respect the reservations that the opposition parties have expressed regarding that provision, but we still do not accept the argument put forward.
As for my noble friend Lord Cocks, he has, as recently as Monday of this week, made the point that this is a regressive tax. I cannot contradict him because I ought to have the information but do not. As I said on Monday, this is a matter which in the first instance Camelot has a duty to establish. I rather think that the amounts paid by people in socio-economic groups C2, D and E are similar to or less than those paid by A, B, and C1s, but they probably account for a higher percentage of their income. I think that that is a proper definition of a "regressive tax". However, we shall see what information we can find on the subject and we shall see in what way we can best share it with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and with other Members of the House.
I want to say a few words to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about arts provision. I entirely take his point that there is unfortunately in this country a great deal of public reservation about arts expenditure. That is expressed as reservation about expenditure on particular projects such as the Royal Opera House. However, one must consider the wonderful Great Court at the British Museum—that museum is visited by nearly 6 million people a year—and the projects which have until now been supported by the Millennium Fund and may be supported by the New Opportunities Fund in the future. I believe that the balance between arts, sport, heritage, charities and the new good causes of health, environment and education is a proper balance. On that basis I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Common European Policy on Security and Defence: EUC Report
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonrose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The Common European Policy on Security and Defence (15th Report, Session 1999–2000, HL Paper 101).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this report to the House on a topic which has for the past month occupied so much newsprint and air time. In politics timing is everything. When we published our report on 25th July it sank without trace. There was not a ripple of interest. However, for the past month it has been the hottest topic around. This week, like London buses, we have had three debates on this topic in a row. Our committee was gratified to note that all the concerns discussed in the report have been featured in the past few weeks. I do not think that any issue that has been lately debated was not discussed in our report.
The newly-formed House of Lords committee on European foreign and defence policy was initially chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I am delighted to see that he is present. But since his translation to the Front Bench opposite in April I have had the honour and pleasure to be chairman.
We took evidence on 10 occasions and also visited Brussels where we had meetings with the Secretary-General of NATO, Mr Javier Solana, and with Chris Patten. We are grateful to our Clerk, David Batt, and to our specialist adviser, Dr Anthony Forster, Director of Research at the Staff College at Shrivenham and also to our witnesses, in particular, to General Klaus Naumann who came from Germany and gave us frank and illuminating evidence
I begin by summarising the historical background to this initiative. There has been a long search for agreement between various European Union nations on matters of security and defence. This was given a fresh impetus by the ending of the Cold War, American troop withdrawal from Europe and the decline in the relative importance of territorial defence of member states. However, new security challenges and problems in the Balkans also led to strengthened support for a WEU (Western European Union) solution to purely European issues. It has become essential that Europe should be able to manage and intervene in crises of disorder and unrest.
In June 1992 at the Petersberg Hotel near Königswinter the WEU produced the Petersberg Declaration enumerating the so-called "Petersberg tasks". These included the deployment of military units in humanitarian and rescue tasks, in peacekeeping tasks and in tasks using combat forces in crisis management including peacemaking. It is this final task of peacemaking with combat troops that has caused us most unease and the most discussion due to the lack of clear definition and the overlap with the main tasks of NATO.

521
The WEU, however, made no further progress on that project and failed to establish appropriate mechanisms to underpin any effective military intervention. In December 1998 at an Anglo-French summit at St Malo there was an agreement between the two most effective military powers in Europe, France and Britain, that Europe should contribute more to military and humanitarian missions and rely less on the United States. This agreement was driven by at least two major factors. The first was European failures in Bosnia and Kosovo. Only half the European troops required were actually deployed as only 2 per cent of our largely conscript armies were capable of such deployment. Conscripts on short-term engagements lack both training and professionalism.
Moreover, Europe lacks equipment such as "heavy lift" and the satellite intelligence that is provided by the United States. It is not a matter of a lack of troop numbers. We have within European Union countries 1.9 million men and women under arms compared with 1.4 million in the United States. But our expenditure is only 60 per cent of theirs and we lack equipment and training. Instead of conscript armies with limited military utility in the modern world, we need highly mobile, combat-ready forces with appropriate logistical support in the form of planning, analysis and command and control. This will be expensive, as will be re-equipping.
The United States is also increasingly reluctant to get involved in European adventures and is not willing to commit ground troops. There is also in the United States a strong feeling that Europe should do more in the way of burden sharing within NATO. On the other hand, as has been highlighted by many speakers in the past few weeks, the United States attaches great importance to NATO and would not wish any European initiative to undermine it. Our committee's report emphasises our concern about this issue.
At Helsinki in December 1999 the European Council adopted a strengthened European policy on security and defence and declared,
"its determination to develop an autonomous capability to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises.
Much of our report and the public discussion since have centred on the extent to which Europe can either decide or act autonomously and on the relationship between EU members and members of NATO, including militarily important countries such as Turkey and Norway. That has also been a matter of considerable concern.
On 20th November this year in Brussels more concrete form was given to the European defence initiative with a conference at which each member state pledged its commitment to the headline goal of a force of up to 50,000 to 60,000 troops to be deployable within 60 days. I am rather astonished that this is called a rapid reaction force. In the police service rapid reaction is a matter of minutes and hours, not 60 days. However, the rapid reaction force has been the title under which this body of people has become known.
522
It is also intended that these troops should be sustainable in the field for a year. It is intended that this will take effect by 2003.
On 30th November our committee reconvened to hear evidence from the policy heads of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. We have published a short supplementary report about their evidence.
The commitments conference provided satisfactory pledges of a pool of 100,000 troops, 400 combat aircraft and 100 ships. These are, of course, purely paper commitments and many of them overlap with other commitments to the United Nations, for example.
Progress has been made in many respects on the European defence initiative and since the deadline for the completion of this initiative is 2003, we hope that many future hurdles will be satisfactorily overcome.
However, there are still many issues which need to be resolved. Some of these will be taken up in greater detail by other members of the committee who will take part in the debate. They will address concerns such as the definition of tasks. They are referred to generally as "Petersberg tasks". But that is ill-defined and does not take account of such things as mission creep. (We have all learned a new vocabulary!)
Another question which concerns us is overstretch, particularly of our troops, and the double and triple hatting under various obligations. There is also the question of planning, analysis and command and control. Although we have been assured to the contrary by our own Ministers, we are sure that there will be the costs of equipment and training. Our committee will continue to examine those issues in the months and years ahead.
I believe there are two major issues. First, this initiative has to be fully interlocked with NATO decision- making and support. I welcome, therefore, the Prime Minister's Statement after the Nice Summit in which he said:
"It was made plain, first, that European defence would operate only when NATO chooses not to be engaged; secondly, that it be limited to peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis management tasks; and, thirdly. that …the commitment of national assets to any EU-led operation will be based on 'sovereign national decisions'".—[Official Report, 11/12/00; col. 120.]
My second major concern is that this is essentially a political initiative. I am concerned that to some extent it does not take sufficient account of the needs of troops in the field. If it is to work, it must be based on sound military planning and decision-making.
It has been clear to the committee throughout that the European initiative cannot be free standing. To set up parallel structures to NATO would be inordinately expensive and would severely weaken not only NATO but also our relationship with the United States and other important countries such as Turkey. However, if this initiative is successful and produces more effective European military forces, then NATO will be not be weakened but strengthened. I beg to move.

523
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The Common European Policy on Security and Defence (15th Report, Session 1999–2000, HL Paper 101).—(Baroness Hilton of Eggardon.)
5.12 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am sure that I shall carry every member of the committee with me in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, for all she has done in leading us during the past few months since my noble friend Lord Howell disappeared to the Front Bench. She has led the committee extremely well. I should like to he the first to pay tribute to her.
Over the past 13 or 14 years I have heard the continual cry from my friends in the United States that, "You Europeans must start to do more about your own defence. You must make a better effort within NATO, with United States support and without it, to look after your own interests". I heard that cry in the 10 years before I joined your Lordships' House when I was a member of the NATO assembly. I heard it in the seven years before I joined your Lordships' House when I was the leader of the British delegation to the OSCE assembly. I have heard it in the almost 14 years that I have had the honour to be the secretary of the British-American Parliamentary Group. It has been a continual loud cry from our American friends.
What is clear is that military forces in the European states are neither sensibly co-ordinated nor seriously effective to deal with the Petersberg tasks to which we are now committed. If Europe is to do more in response to the pleas from the United States, serious changes are necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the fact—it is a surprise to many when they hear it—that the Americans have fewer troops under arms at 1.4 million than we have in the European states at 1.9 million. As my noble friend Lord Hurd said recently, although within the European states we spend only about two-thirds of the amount spent by the United States, we do not get two-thirds of the capability of the United States. Clearly, it is entirely right that we move in that direction.
I have made this clear to noble Lords previously but I think that it is worth saying it again. In approaching this problem, I am no Eurosceptic. I do not react like one of Pavlov's dogs at the mere mention of the word "Europe". I am convinced that the currently proposed European reaction force is in no way a European army. I see the current proposals as a logical outcome of the past 10 years of negotiations by three Prime Ministers.
In assessing how Europe should do more, we have to pose a number of questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, posed some of them. Some have been satisfactorily answered by Ministers within this week. On Tuesday of this week, to my pleasure, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said at col. 345 of the Official Report, that,
"none of what we are doing means weakening NATO, nor building a competitor to the alliance".
524
That was a welcome statement. On Monday, at col. 120 of the Commons Official Report, the Prime Minister said that,
"European defence would operate only when NATO chooses not to be engaged".
Those are statements I wish to hear in contemplating this initiative. These should be the rocks of the policy which the Government are enlarging. Woe betide this Government or any other government if they were to use stealth policies to side-step those essential conditions.
However, over the next year a number of vital questions arise which could cause the whole policy to sink or swim. I hope that when the Minister responds she will be able to answer them. First, we want to have made clear to us the attitude of the United States to the proposals. One seems to be able to read whatever one wishes into Mr Cohen's various statements. We have heard quotes from him which seem to lead us in many directions. But now that we have a new President-elect in Washington, it is essential that we get from the new administration as soon as possible a clear statement of full-hearted support for this project. What are the Government doing to clarify the attitude of the United States?
My second question has not been satisfactorily answered at Nice or at the earlier pledging meeting in Brussels. How will the non-European Union or non-NATO European states be integrated? Turkey is an obvious example. We now hear of recent discussions between France and Russia on these matters. We must have it made clear where Russia fits in.
We must have made clear to us what tasks are to be undertaken by this European force. I have detected a certain backsliding by the Government in recent weeks on the issue of tasks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, rightly said, the Petersberg tasks clearly embrace peacemaking. However, that word seems to have dropped out of a good deal of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, the noble Baroness and others. I hope that the Minister will make it very clear that peacemaking continues to be one of the force's tasks.
I think that I saw the Minister nodding at me a few moments ago. If peacemaking is still to be undertaken by the force, we want to know a great deal more about how the essential heavy lift and intelligence provision is to be acquired. It is clear that if the Americans are not involved and we are into the business of peacemaking, we shall need a great deal more heavy lift and intelligence provision than we currently have. We need to know how long it will take for those resources to be put together.
Are the Government satisfied that the United Kingdom could continue to enjoy its current privileged intelligence relationship with the United States under the new circumstances? Would the United States allow us to take the intelligence position within a European organisation that they have been able to give us within NATO, where intelligence information is not freely shared among all the allies? It is vital that the United Kingdom continue to be able to share intelligence and information from the Echelon

525
system and other sources that we currently enjoy within a worldwide system that includes Menwith Hill and Fylingdales.
How will it all be paid for? The evidence that I heard in the Select Committee over the first eight or nine months of this year led me to doubt greatly whether all the changes can be achieved and the new facilities acquired across the European states against a background of falling defence budgets merely by shuffling the money and the effort. The states that have signed up to the commitments have to understand that a sensible force of 60,000 troops—which comes to 180,000 troops if we take into account rotation over a year—cannot be put in the field on the basis of present budgets.
Finally, there is a crucial question about command and control. It is a great sadness to me that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, is unable to be with us today through ill health, because he has added a huge amount of expertise on the subject in the sub-committee. The command and control structure is unclear. What will be the role of Deputy SACEUR? What will the command structures be? Will we need a new headquarters—maybe at Northwood or in France—for these enterprises?
I was interested in the reply that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, gave on Tuesday, when she was asked whether a separate command structure or operational planning system would be created. She said:
"I should make clear again that the EU is not establishing such things".—[Official Report, 12/12/00; col. 345.]
With respect, that does not answer the question that my noble friend Lord Howell put to her at col. 235, when he quoted from the Presidency Conclusions about the defence arrangements—Standing Arrangements for Consultation and Co-operation between the EU and NATO. The document said:
"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".
There is some misunderstanding on the issue, which I hope that the Minister will clear up, particularly given the piece on the front page of The Times this morning, which speaks of the French still demanding that the European Union force should be independent of NATO. The issues appear not to fit together. It is essential that the Minister clarifies the situation.
Finally, I hope that the enterprise is successful. I hope that it is a more powerful manifestation of Europe's defence capacity and responsibilities. It would be unmitigated disaster if it fell flat on its face and the European nations were unable to come together and look after their own responsibilities.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the two very thoughtful speeches that have just been made. This is the first time that I have taken part in a defence debate in the House. I confess at once that I do not feel qualified to discuss many of the technical questions that have been raised about the
526
rapid reaction force. I leave them with great confidence to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and her colleagues. Many of those important issues of the kind raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, are highly relevant to the issues under discussion.
I shall concentrate on the broader picture. It might be said that we had the opportunity to discuss the broader issues on Tuesday, when I was away, but that would be a wrong view in a debate that is explicitly focused on the so-called rapid reaction force. We should be clear about the long-term vision behind it. What are we trying to accomplish?
I found this recent Select Committee report and its evidence extraordinarily interesting. I do not say that in the usual way in which we pay compliments in the House, when any report, however dull, is praised as enormously exciting and any speech, however bland, is regarded as the most eloquent speech ever delivered. I genuinely found the report very interesting, particularly the evidence.
What are the main issues? First, it is clear that it will take time for the force to develop. As the noble Lord, Lord Carver, said on Tuesday, what has been announced is a first step. He added that he thought that it was a step in the right direction. I shall say more about the direction in a moment. At this stage, it is still largely a paper exercise.
Secondly, we do not yet have a clear common European defence policy, because that depends on having a common foreign policy. There is not yet a clear European foreign policy. To reassure possible critics, it has been emphasised on the British side again and again that it is not a European army. The force will operate only when NATO is not engaged. It has been emphasised again and again that NATO is the basis of our defence policies. We have received many reassurances that it is an inter-governmental operation and that it will not be moved into the first pillar of the European Union. After all, as the Nice conference made very clear, at the moment inter-governmentalism rules. Whether or not that is for the best is a separate question.
As I said, I want to ask a fundamental question. This is a first step, but a first step to what? I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked some very pertinent questions in the course of the evidence. She stated:
"It seems to me quite extraordinary that we should be prepared to accept and involve ourselves in yet another [commitment]"—
when we have many other commitments—
"when surely either the United Nations or NATO ought to be able to deal with most of the problems that any of us could encounter militarily".
I believe that it must be clearly established when the force will operate independently and for what purpose.
The French have a clear view about the ultimate reason for the force. In a way they see it—not now but in time—as an alternative force to NATO. They see it as part of the vision of the European Union as a superpower. They do not see Europe as a superstate—that concept appears to be almost wholly confined not only to Conservative Europhobes but to those who

527
live in a strange world where every new step in Europe leads immediately to a superstate. That is not something which worries other Europeans. But the French see the need for some redress of the balance in a world where the United States is over-mighty. They envisage a multi-polar world and Europe as one of the poles.
It may be somewhat unfashionable but I have some sympathy with the French view, and I do not see myself in any way as anti-American. Why? First, if we are to be realistic, I believe that we should realise that the European Union and the United States often see the world differently and have somewhat different interests. They take a very different view of the Middle East and a somewhat different view of UN peace-keeping. In his speech on Tuesday, my noble friend Lord Roper pointed out that the European Union spends more than 50 per cent more than the United States on UN peace-keeping. The European Union is more interested in Africa; the United States is much more directly concerned with East Asia. That is inevitable. Of course there are different interests, but that does not mean to say that they need clash.
Secondly, if we are being realistic, it is unwise to take for granted for all time the United States commitment to European defence. I am amazed by how long that commitment has continued. Decades ago—certainly 10 years ago—the US commitment was questioned constantly, but the Americans have continued to commit themselves to the defence of Europe and to committing forces to Europe. In my view, the United States has been one of the most enlightened world leaders of any power in the past which has been a world leader. Despite areas where one might differ about the effects of its policy—perhaps in South America or the Middle East—overall, it has kept the peace and has done so in a most enlightened way.
I have no doubt that, while NATO lasts and is effective, it should be the basis for our defence policy. If it is the basis for our defence policy with a firm American commitment, we should accept the American overall command. It is an effective alliance; it can take effective decisions. However, it takes time for nations to adjust to new circumstances.
It seems to me inevitable that a change of balance of power in the world with the end of the Soviet Union means that we cannot expect the United States to be for ever committed to the European Union's defence in the way in which it has been in the past. Many more voices have been raised in the United States, particularly among those who have been advisers to what is likely to be President Bush, which have questioned the nature of United States commitments in different parts of the world. The US does not see itself as continuing as the world policeman in every part of the world.
That is no argument for following any policy which is likely to accelerate United States withdrawal. I believe that we should be extremely careful in that regard. Everything that has been said by the Government and by the noble Baroness's committee has quite rightly indicated that that must be avoided.
528
However, it makes sense to prepare now for the circumstances which may arise if the American commitments fade. Therefore, I return to the fundamental question: first steps to what? And what should be the nature of the force to which we are committed? Must it remain for ever a purely inter-governmental arrangement?
At the moment I do not personally advocate a federal Europe. I am not absolutely sure what a federal Europe means. The kind of federal Europe advocated by Mr Joschka Fischer is a very decentralised one. However, at present the tide is flowing against federalism in Europe. When there is talk of a democratic deficit, I do not believe that that will be met by granting more power to the European Parliament, although there may be a case in individual instances for more accountability to the European Parliament.
At the moment, democracy in Europe is based on national Parliaments. They are real; they are what citizens care about, and those citizens do not know who their MEP is. That does not mean to say that there is not an important role for the European Parliament, but that is not the direction in which sentiment is flowing at present.
There is a further, important point which I have stressed time and again. I wrote about it in a paper on the euro and tax; I have spoken about it in this House; and it was emphasised on Tuesday in a notable contribution by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. It is nonsense to talk about a federal Europe when it will have no resources. Everyone is agreed that a maximum of 1.27 per cent of the budget should be available at the centre. But one cannot run an effective federal superstate with a central budget of 1.27 per cent of GDP.
Nevertheless, with national vetoes there are limitations to the inter-governmental approach, especially if one seeks to evolve an effective foreign policy and common defence. There will be a need for decisive action and quick decisions. That is the whole virtue of NATO at the present time—it can be effective because it takes decisions quickly.
If in Europe we base our policies on national foreign policies, the influence that they can have is extremely limited. I do not say that such influence is meaningless—we have only to consider the intervention of Britain in Sierra Leone, the intervention of France in Francophone parts of Africa or, indeed, the role played by Italy in the Albanian crisis. However, the European Union as a whole can be far more effective than the sum of its parts. If we are to have real influence on the world, it must be within the European context. There is every reason to wish to see effective European common foreign and defence policies. In time, that will be possible only if there is, in this field, some extension of qualified majority voting, perhaps with an opt-out. Personally, I prefer the idea of an opt-out to an opt-in.
What sort of institutional solutions will that require? In my view, those are some of the most difficult questions which the rapid reaction force will have to face. I do not favour the move of defence into

529
the first pillar. I do not think that it would be helpful to have direct control by the European Parliament in that particular field. But we should not let a serious debate about maximising the influence of European defence and foreign policies be inhibited by phobias about a European superstate.
A European superpower perhaps. I do not particularly like the superlatives. But the question is: how can we make the European Union a more powerful force in the world? In the field of trade, there is no doubt about it: we need an effective European policy on trade. If, in co-operation with the United States, in time, looking at the long-term—and not in opposition, rivalry and competition with the United States—we create an effective European defence force, then that is something which will be good for Britain, good for Europe and good for world peace.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I begin by thanking the sub-committee for producing these two excellent reports. They are reports of great intellectual distinction, as one might have expected from the members who make up that particular sub-committee.
So far there has been a lot of talk, as, indeed, there was on the debate on the gracious Speech, about what one might call the nuts and bolts of the European security and defence initiative. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, that raises much wider problems than the somewhat mechanistic problems of how to set up a force and who commands it.
Two major issues emerge from a careful reading of the report. They are two issues on which I suspect the Government's mind is already made up. They have their policies clearly defined and I believe that it would take a lot of argument to shake them from them. So perhaps I should be directing my strictures this evening to the Opposition Front Bench in the contingency that they might perhaps soon be responsible for those policies.
The two major issues to which I should like to refer are our future place in what is now a totally new international global structure; and secondly, and perhaps not entirely unconnected with it, the role of armed force in the conduct of international relations, which is becoming rapidly very confused.
I take first the place of this country in the international structure of today and the future. As has been pointed out already in the debate this evening, and, indeed, is pointed out very clearly in the report from the sub-committee, we are now in the post-Cold War phase. The assumptions and scenarios which underpinned all our foreign and defence policies for all those years have now gone. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, rightly said, there is now a very distinct possibility that the United States will—withdraw is perhaps too strong a word—resile or recoil a little from too much involvement in the rest of the world and certainly too much involvement in Europe.
As the noble Lord rightly said, if we are sensible and intelligent about our policies, we must prepare for that. It would be foolish not to. However, having said
530
that, I draw different conclusions from the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, about how we should be preparing for it.
This idea of a common security and defence policy and a common defence and foreign policy for Europe has a direct impact on the role which I believe this country should be playing in Europe, although, as I said, it would be of only limited utility for me to try to impress those issues upon the Government.
I agree that it is foolish and profitless to talk about a European superstate. There is also not much use talking about a European superpower. I feel that Europe cannot ever be a superpower, a superstate, united states or any other kind of common organisation of that kind. Unlike the United States, it consists of a large number of countries of different languages, cultures, backgrounds, history and, more important, interests in foreign policy. In my view—and I hope this is not too heretical—the whole idea of a common defence and foreign policy for Europe is a pipedream. I do not think that it could ever possibly be evolved.
And yet, as we know, there are still people, in spite of what has been said by noble Lords this evening, who are pushing in that direction. There are federalists in Europe. There are people who believe in a high degree of political integration in Europe and they are trying to bring it about. I advance the proposition that the European security and defence initiative is a part of that process.
I do not suggest that there is any conspiracy or hidden agenda; that those who propose the establishment of this force are using it consciously as some kind of trick to bring about a greater federation in Europe. But there is a dynamic here which simply cannot be ignored.
I wish that we could get away from this ridiculous idea that it is not a European army. Perhaps I may borrow a phrase from someone else. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, the chances are that it is probably a duck. As Romano Prodi said, you can call it Margaret; you can call it Mary-Ann; but it is a European army. I do not see why people do not accept that. There is nothing wrong in having it if that is what you believe is wanted. I do not happen to believe that it is wanted, but that is another matter.
The whole idea of common European institutionsߞthe euro for one and the common defence policy for anothe—has a dynamic towards an increased political integration in Europe. The whole idea of a common foreign policy, a common defence policy, a European central bank, all the other institutions, are moving inexorably with a dynamic of their own towards closer political integration in Europe. For some people, that may be all very well. For some people, it obviously is. But I want to make the point—and this is where I come to our role in the world—that that will have a considerable effect upon our relationship with the United States of America.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, raised the question of intelligence, as, indeed, I did on the debate on the Address. That is an absolutely vital link that we have

531
with the United States of America. If we move any further towards political integration in Europe, and especially defence and foreign policy integration, that link will be placed under threat. We should be in no doubt about that. Any respectable commentator in Washington, journalist or politician, will underline and endorse that.
I bring this part of my speech to a close. I believe that we should be thinking very hard about the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that if we are to have a role in the world, it must be in Europe. I dissent from that most strongly. It is not necessary that that role should be in Europe at all. If the other countries of Europe wish to become closer, wish to become federal and wish to have a European army, let them do so. But we must be looking at our own national interest, which may lie elsewhere.
It may be idiosyncratic on my part, but I believe that our links with the United States of America are far more important than our links with Europe. In considering our future we must also not forget certain countries that we do not seem to talk about much nowadays, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I believe that those countries should be considered in relation to our future role in the world. At the moment in this country we appear to have become disastrously eurocentric in our policy thinking.
I turn to the use of armed force, which is entirely relevant to the common defence policy. We are moving into a time when the use of armed force is changing. The Kofi Annan doctrine in the United Nations and the recent changes in the strategic doctrine of NATO mean that armed forces, national and others, are mainly for the purpose of intervening in—one may say interfering in—the domestic affairs of sovereign nation states. The aim of armed force now appears to he humanitarian and peace-keeping rather than what I take to be the conventional use of armed force in international affairs.
The result is that our forces are now dispersed in penny-packets all over the world. They cannot be trained in the high-intensity warfare in which they should be trained and which—make no mistake—may yet still be required of our forces. The idea that high-intensity warfare will exist no more is a very dangerous assumption indeed. Now we have armed forces that are stretched beyond their capacity because we do not seem to be able to provide the equipment or the manpower to fulfil all the commitments. However, I am sure that the decisions have been made and I am probably being quixotic in thinking that there is any possibility of changing them now.
However, I want to mention the effect of the growth of the European strategic defence initiative upon NATO. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said that it was not clear to him whether the force would be autonomous, with a separate chain of command. I am not surprised that that is not clear to the noble Lord; I do not believe that it is clear to anyone.
The fact is that after the conference in Nice, the Prime Minister said that the matter had been settled; that there would be no separate chain of command;
532
and that the whole of the European strategic defence initiative and the whole of the European army would function under the umbrella of NATO. No sooner had those words left his lips than the French said exactly the opposite. They said that there has to be a separate chain of command which has to be autonomous and it must be within the European Union and not within NATO.
If the French are saying one thing and the British are saying another—the two most important countries, politically and militarily, in Europe—what will be the outcome? The matter is not settled at all. The Government may claim that it is, but it is not. There will be major debates and arguments before such a force can be set up.
Bringing together those two issues, I believe that if we do not handle this issue properly we shall face a serious breach in our precious links with the United States of America. What for? I believe that it is dubious whether the European strategic defence initiative will come to anything.
The report of the Select Committee makes it clear that the capacity of Europe to enter into something like this is limited. In the report one can see that the level of expenditure on defence in Europe has declined. The majority of EU countries spend less than 2 per cent of their GDP on defence. That is in the report. Unless that is changed, the possibility of a European strategic defence initiative coming to fruition is remote. That outcome would be dangerous. If we sacrifice our links with the United States of America and with other countries in the interests of something that in the end will be a damp squib, we shall find ourselves in an extremely dangerous situation.
I end by looking at page 30 of the 15th report of the Select Committee. A number of points made there should be inscribed in letters of fire in 10 Downing Street, in the Ministry of Defence and in the Foreign Office. I shall read some of them. First:
"We confirm that we do not believe that the EU should consider the creation of such an army".
Secondly:
"it will be vital for the EU first to secure the goodwill and tacit support of the United States".
If anyone believes that that support and goodwill will come in the context of a French view of the European strategic defence initiative, they live in a dream world.
I end by reading what I believe is at the heart of the report and what I believe should ring in our ears as we go away tonight:
"We cannot express too strongly our anxiety at the danger of the CESDP turning into a damp squib and consequently into seriously deteriorating relations with the United States".
5.56 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, first I pay tribute to our chairman, not merely for her chairmanship of the committee but also for her cool, elegant presentation of the main findings of our report earlier this afternoon. It is of enormous help to be able to speak against a background of that kind.

533
I cannot proceed without paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who has made more sensible comments on this subject than anyone since the public controversy of whether we are to have a European army or not burst out some months ago. It has been a real joy to listen to him. I agree with virtually every proposition on which he has spoken, including his clear statement that it is ridiculous for us to imagine that we have only a European role to play and that therefore we need and should envisage an ever-closer integration of our country, in all its affairs, including military and foreign policy, with that of the European Union, when quite clearly our interests, connections and strength lie just as much outside that continent as they do inside. That is one of the great truths that we have to remember. So frequently in these ongoing debates we forget that.
The noble Lord referred to the European army and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, dismissively, but correctly, said that a lot of rubbish has been talked about it. I agree, although one cannot help but be amused by the fact that the main references to a European army have come from the lips of that well-known eurosceptic, the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, whose words were sensibly quoted by the noble Lord.
I am amazed at the lack of historical knowledge that so many commentators display. One more recent statement on the subject came from the present German Finance Minister, Herr Hans Eichel. In January 1999, just before he took over as Finance Minister, when talking about EMU and the fact that they had achieved agreement, he said,
"We will now strive towards political unification … EMU will not be enough. Why do we still need national armies? One European army is enough".
Those sentiments, as those who have studied these matters know well, were stated with perhaps even greater force and clarity a few years earlier by Chancellor Kohl. Those of us who have some memory of events—most of us are not youngsters in this House—will remember in 1953 the first attempt to create a European army. The European Defence Community agreement of 1953 was passed under the French initiative, and would have been achieved but for an extraordinary failure of nerve when the French abandoned it. They lost their nerve and withdrew from it.
But agreement on that European army was achieved down to battalion level. The armies of the six had been brought together. So when people say that European armies and things of that kind are just Eurosceptic rubbish, they are being ridiculous. In fact it is worse than that. Those comments come from people who believe that there has been no history or that history began on 1st May 1997.
I put that matter to one side; it is only part of my complaint. I am grateful to my committee colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for spelling out so well the fact that many questions remain to be resolved. Our committee has been rather "cool" about it. We
534
said that if, as the Government appear to think, it is simply a question of strengthening the European side of NATO so that it can take more effective action with the United States, excellent; we are genuinely for that. The trouble is that we know very well—again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—that not everyone in Europe believes that that is what it is or should be about.
Our principal opponent in all this is the Government of France. But they are not alone. Although other governments are somewhat cross-pressured, the truth is that there is a difference of purpose which exists between our stated position and that of a number of our European allies.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, rightly asks what is the purpose. Is this not just the first step? It must be embarrassing for the noble Lord to admit that it is the first step, because we know the steps he wants to take and the general direction of his thinking.
I too want to turn to the question of purpose. There has been a misunderstanding from the beginning of this public debate. People talk about a European defence policy. But it is nothing to do with defence—again as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out. NATO is about defence of the borders of its member countries, which includes most of the European Union countries, though not all. This is about something entirely different; it is about the projection of military force by the European powers elsewhere in the world.
Some people may say that it is an excellent thing for Europe to develop the capacity for intervention elsewhere. But I have considerable reservations in that regard. I trust NATO and the American presence much more than a separate European initiative and armed force.
A point so often forgotten in these debates is that what the European Union is trying to do is not just to create a military availability for projection elsewhere; it is trying to create a common foreign and security policy. In the evolution of that policy it begins, quite properly, by using the mechanisms of the Rome treaty. It is the Commission that initially applies all the economic and trade sanctions against an offending nation, such as Serbia. Then we get a foreign policy "creep", quite naturally. If the enemy does not respond to external economic pressures, we put in a police force. In fact we created one in the last summit but one. If that does not work, we then have to put in military force.
What is evolving is not merely a kind of European military weapon of defence; it is a growing comprehensive European Union foreign policy reflecting its own priorities, its own interests and now backed up with the military means of enforcing, if necessary, those policies. That is not a minor matter; it is a major development in European history and the history of the European Union.
As I say, we start from the knowledge that we and the principal partner, the French, have an entirely different agenda. Let us be clear about this. The French intend to create an autonomous military power, and they have every entitlement to do so. I do

535
not know whether anyone has read recently the St Malo joint declaration which we trace back to the fons et origo, of the whole of this enterprise. That communiqué is only around four paragraphs, part of which reads:
"The European Union needs to be in a position to play its full role on the international stage"—
"its" full role, whatever that might be—
"… to this end, the Union must have capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military force, the means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so. (St Malo Joint Declaration, Chirac/Blair, 4 Dec.1998)".
It goes on, and this is perhaps even more significant,
"The European Union will also need to have recourse to suitable military means (European capabilities pre-designated within NATO's European Pillar or national or multi-national European means outside the NATO framework)".
Both are envisaged. And we signed that declaration in St Malo with the French. So this is clearly something about which we must have our eyes wide open from the beginning; that we are embarking upon a venture for which our principal partner has an entirely different objective, or is likely to have.
We then move on, inevitably, to United States worries. It is hardly surprising that the United States expresses concern. I am not pleased with the Government. They have rather foolishly, but deliberately, tried to minimise the extent of American concern. Statements have been made that there is not a single American of distinction who does not willingly associate with our joint endeavour in the European Union defence capability.
The Americans are entirely in favour of the European end of NATO being strengthened within NATO. However, as one would expect, they are desperately concerned about the three "Ds". The first is decoupling from the Europeans the second is the duplication of the facilities which NATO already has; the third is the disintegration as it might affect members of NATO who are not members of the EU, for instance Turkey.
The Americans have said that repeatedly. General Wesley Clark said it—I could quote him but I shall not. Most recently—and most embarrassingly for the Government the—American Secretary of State for Defence, on the eve of the Nice meeting, deliberately restated what the Government have denied by stating that everyone in important positions in America is wholly happy with what is happening. On the contrary: the Secretary of State clearly raised the danger not merely of weakening but of destroying NATO.
Anyone who has been following these events knew from the beginning that such problems and tensions existed. It does the Government no credit to pretend that they did not exist and, frankly, their credibility has not been helped by their handling of that situation.
I have a final point to make about autonomous capacity and European separation from the Americans. Two important aspects of military action were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Jopling, who are committee members. They
536
referred to the necessary intelligence gathering and to heavy-lift capacity for transferring tanks, guns and so forth. The French are developing precisely that intelligence gathering capacity in their Helios 2 satellite system. And who is their partner in that enterprise? It is Germany, which signed up for its development in June this year.
Beyond that, Europe has chosen for its heavy-lift capacity the A400M, the military version of the airbus. The French will have more than 75 and we and the Germans will have about the same. Whether they are assigned to NATO or whether from the start they will be available in a national capacity is not clear. Obviously, they will be available in both capacities if needed. I should have thought that that was conclusive evidence of the way things are going.
Finally, we signed almost blindly the commitment to a rapid reaction force: one of our aircraft carriers, a substantial number of our aeroplanes and almost certainly 36,000 troops in order to make that real. And we have not catered for any increase in our military spending. It does not sound right to me, particularly when a year ago we made the same commitment in larger quantity terms to the United Nations. In that memorandum of understanding, we agreed to have available rapid reaction forces for UN Security Council purposes world-wide.
I apologise for speaking at length but I believe that it is a major issue. We are engaging in something which could turn out to be disastrously and dangerously wrong for our own country. That does not have to be the case but, my goodness, we need to be vigilant in the period ahead.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking members of Sub-Committee C for their work in providing the 15th report and the update which we are considering tonight. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, who chaired the sub-committee during that period.
On Tuesday, I was pleased to hear that I shall be joining Sub-Committee C and I look forward to taking part more actively in its work. The report is extremely valuable, as is the update which the sub-committee produced a few days ago.
I am also grateful to the Government for their reply to the first part of the report. However, as it was made in October, no doubt the Minister in reply will be able to update it.
The noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Chalfont, will not be surprised to hear that I do not share all their views. But I do share their concern about the relationship between this country and the United States. However, there is an important difference. I see absolutely no contradiction between being a good Atlanticist and a good European. In my view, this is not a zero-sum game; if we do it well, it can be a win-win situation. We need to think about how we can do it well and how we can make sure that it is a win-win situation.

537
That view is held not only by a few eccentrics in this country but by most of our European allies. They are both our allies within NATO and play a part in the European Union. I am sometimes surprised when I hear remarks about countries in the European Union, because people seem to overlook that they are also our partners in NATO. It would appear that NATO cannot be so effective if those inadequate countries are members of it!
I return to our relationship with the United States. I agree with the committee that if the project does not succeed a great deal of harm will be done to the NATO alliance, which we agree has been the cornerstone of our defence, and to the European Union—but some may be less worried about that than I. I agree with noble Lords who have spoken that it will not succeed unless European countries are prepared to strengthen their defence capabilities in order to fulfil their obligations under NATO's defence capacity initiative and to the European Union.
That can be done either by increasing the resources which they devote to defence or by using the existing resources more effectively. One of the reasons why Europeans get bad value for money is the absurd duplication among European countries. By using our resources more effectively, we shall be able to achieve better value for European taxpayers. It will not succeed if we do not obtain the necessary agreement between the European Union and NATO, a point which the Prime Minister made in his Statement on his return from Nice.
On the other hand, if the European countries live up to their commitment, by increasing the defence capabilities of the European members of NATO it can provide the basis for a more effective transatlantic partnership on defence and security. It can provide us with an ability to be better partners of the United States. In addition, it can provide the European Union with the crisis management capability which would give substance to its common foreign and security policy.
Having decided to initiate that policy, there is an obligation on the member states of the European Union to do their best to make it succeed. Failure to do so would have a negative effect on the arrangements for collective defence which we have developed and relied upon for the past half century.
However, tonight I want to concentrate on one of the most difficult remaining aspects. Even as we speak, it is being considered at the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels. I hope, as was suggested by the Foreign Secretary at lunch-time, that it will be possible for them to welcome unanimously the decisions made in Nice.
The matter to which I refer is the relationship between the developing European security and defence policy and Turkey, which was referred to this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in his interview on the BBC. Turkish membership of NATO during the cold war was critical to our collective defence. At that time we argued that 25 Soviet divisions were deployed
538
just on the border with Turkey. Therefore, if they were there they were not facing us on NATO's central front. Now that Turkey does not have that function she has legitimate concerns about the risk of being marginalised in the post-cold war situation.
It was partly because of that—I remember it well—that Turkey was pleased to become an associate member of the Western European Union in the early 1990s when it was thought, following the Treaty of Maastricht, that the WEU might have some responsibility in developing European security and defence policy. But when Turkey saw the more recent developments, it was anxious to maintain the privileged position that it had enjoyed in the WEU along with Norway and Iceland. There was very lengthy discussion on this matter last year at the Washington NATO summit. One of the most difficult tasks at that summit was to get Turkey's agreement to this matter.
At the Cologne and Helsinki Councils, the European Union tried to find ways to work with the six members of NATO who are not also members of the European Union, Turkey, Norway and Iceland, together with the three new members, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. As for the last three, this is only an interim problem as they are likely to be members of the European Union by 2004. Neither Norway nor Iceland currently seeks membership. The problem arises with Turkey. It has been accepted that in due course Turkey should become a member of the European Union, but it is a country with which negotiations have not yet been initiated.
Two problems have arisen: the interaction between Turkey's immediate relationship with the European security and defence policy, which we are discussing this evening, and its long-term aim to become a member of the European Union. As we have learnt from recent discussions, that has become linked with Turkey's option as a member of NATO to block NATO's relationship with the European Union on defence. The EU has tried hard to find a mechanism whereby the six European members outside the European Union, and the nine other European countries which are candidates for membership, can be involved in the policy formation process and, if they contribute forces to an action, the operational decision-making of the EU's force.
However, the EU has maintained that the specific decision as to whether to use force would be reserved to the 15 EU members. Turkey has been reluctant to accept that position, although it has proved acceptable to the other countries concerned, including apparently the United States. Turkey has been perceived as maintaining a block on the availability to the European Union of NATO planning staff and the equipment conditionally promised to the European Union in the Washington declaration of last year. In spite of those problems, we should remember that at the capabilities commitment conference held in Brussels on 21st November Turkey pledged a brigade to the force which was to be set up.

539
Recently there have been more worrying developments. Last week, just prior to the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers, the Turkish Defence Minister, Sabahattin Cakmakoglu, gave a press conference in which he said that Turkey had not been given the role which it wanted and expected in the common European security and defence policy. He went on:
"If the arrangements in question are not bettered in a way that will satisfy us, it would be impossible to record progress in [the] demands of the EU from NATO".
There is no doubt that if such a block were maintained it would considerably strengthen the arguments put forward by some EU countries that the European Union should develop its own parallel systems of planning, command and control, with all the costs and disadvantages referred to in the report which have been discussed both in this House and another place in recent weeks.
It has been suggested by American journalists writing in the International Herald Tribune and elsewhere that it was Turkish obstructionism within NATO that could block a satisfactory agreement which was one of the principal targets of the anger of Secretary of State Cohen at the meeting in Brussels last week. Since then, in the Nice documents, which we have an opportunity to consider this evening, the European Union has made further progress in offering facilities to European members of NATO outside the EU.
The EU has also made progress in the past 10 days in providing an outline road map at least for the progress of Turkey to membership of the European Union. But there remain Turkish objections to the agreement which in some European countries are seen as approaching a blackmail. According to reports from Ankara that I have received, those objections have led to such concern in Washington that earlier this week President Clinton wrote to the Turkish Prime Minister, BÜlent Ecevit, to try to persuade Turkey to support the development of the common European security and defence policy within the European Union at today's NATO Foreign Ministers meeting. The President was reported to have stressed that co-operation between NATO and the European Union would be to the advantage of all. Such a message from the President of the United States will have removed any illusions in Ankara that might have arisen from reading much of the British press and listening to some of the observations made from time to time in another place and occasionally even in your Lordships' House. Ankara will see that the United States wishes this project to succeed if the President is prepared to write in those terms to the Prime Minister of Turkey.
I hope, therefore, that the president's letter and other contacts which have taken place at a very high level earlier this morning between the Turkish and the American authorities will lead to a more positive approach from the Turkish Foreign Minister at the NATO meeting today in Brussels. I do not know whether when the noble Baroness replies to the debate
540
she will be able to give us any information on today's developments in Brussels, but I very much hope that there has been a satisfactory outcome.
I am aware of Turkey's concerns and the complications created by the involvement of Cyprus in the ESDP, but I believe that an inflexible attitude from Ankara would have a serious effect on long-term relations between the European Union and Turkey. To remove this Turkish objection and possible veto to NATO co-operation with the European Union will not guarantee the necessary agreement between the EU and NATO which is central to the satisfactory development of the European security and defence policy, as is made clear in the committee's report. However, without it the opportunity to reach such an agreement and to develop a satisfactory policy will be very small.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord in the middle of his extremely interesting speech, but before he sits down perhaps he will deal with the following point. The noble Lord referred to our EU partners also being our NATO partners. Does he agree that our most significant partner in the EU is France, which is not a member of the integrated military structure of NATO and is, at best, an equivocal member of the alliance?
Lord Roper: My Lords, it would take too long to discuss the relationship between France and NATO since the time of Suez, when France pursued a different option from this country. Both of us had problems with the United States at the time of Suez. The French believed that they could never trust them and had to build something of their own and we decided that we had to be as close to the United States as possible. But it is worth remembering that in the past decade—President Chirac has taken a number of steps in this direction—the French have played a much more active part within NATO actions; in KFOR, in SFOR and in the extraction force which was planned to go into Macedonia to take the Kosovo verification mission out of Kosovo if that had been necessary. If one goes to KFOR or SFOR one will find that the French are now, de facto, integrated, even though, for reasons of theology, the Quai d'Orsay, is not always prepared to admit it.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it has been both a pleasure and a challenge to have been a member of the committee which produced the report. I joined it fairly late in the gestation of the main report. Therefore, I can pay my own tribute to the work of the committee, to its advisers, to its clerk and, not least, to its admirable chairman.
The committee identifies many concerns for the future which I share: notably, how we are to ensure accountability to national parliaments; how we are to ensure that NATO is not sidelined and the years of building up an effective military machine working by common consent are not wasted; and, not least, how we propose to provide the resources to meet an ever

541
increasing number of commitments which may conflict. As the Secretary of State has said of our defence forces, there is only one set of people available for all these tasks.
I do not find the experience of Nice reassuring. It is good to hear that,
"any significant operation will require NATO assets and any such operation will be planned at NATO by the planning staff at SHAPE".
I quote from the Nice declaration.
According to the French provisional version of the Treaty of Nice, Article 25, however, the EU Political and Security Committee will exercise, with council authority, the political control and the strategic direction of crisis management operations. The declaration annexed to the final act of the conference says that in conformity with the texts approved—the presidency report and its annexes—the object of the EU is to become rapidly operational. That does not sound like merely having a committee structure.
A decision to that effect is to be taken at latest in the Belgian presidency in 2001. The revised Article 17, which applies to the Petersberg tasks, including missions of combat troops for purposes of crisis management, including missions to re-establish the peace, also lays down that the present article shall form no obstacle to the development of a closer co-operation between two or more states on a bilateral basis in the framework of the EU and of NATO, so long as that does not hinder the operation of the existing Article—a reference, I take it, to enhanced co-operation.
The French text of the revised Articles 17 and 25 contains a number of references to paragraphs and sentences deleted from the original draft, so it is difficult to know what the original proposals were. The revised Article 25, however, refers to the presidential conclusions and annexes. So what do they say? The draft presidential annexes circulated on 30th November say that the European Council approves the presidency report plus annexes, on the European security and defence policy and advocates that the EU should quickly be made operational in this area. There is no reference to any amendments or deletions. That can only mean that the draft presidency report, with its annexes, as published in November, was approved without any changes.
It is reassuring that, despite the many references to EU autonomy and the need to respect the autonomy of EU decision-making, the draft report, now approved, says that in operations requiring recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, operational planning will be carried out by the alliance and planning bodies. That is unequivocal and clear enough. But it leaves it to the EU to decide whether and when to involve NATO. I think that what concerned the committee was that while the EU clearly needs to develop a suitable planning and analysis capacity, it is imperative that it should not set up rival structures to duplicate NATO.
It is not reassuring to read both in the French presidency report and its Feira predecessor that the EU has set up an ever proliferating list of committees.
542
Bureaucracy breeds more bureaucracy and, moreover, it engenders a wish to be seen doing something. The whole tenor of the report is that the EU and NATO are equally effective and their relationship is only consultative.
The Poles, as one of the new NATO members who are also to join the EU, said in their written evidence to the committee that they were anxious not to have to face such duplication. They cannot afford it and believe it can only cause strain on limited assets and confusion over tasks. After all, they are used to NATO procedure. Many of these committees were set up expressly to relate the headline goals from the NATO audit, but the mission of the EU military committee apparently is to:
"provide military advice to the Political Committee and military direction to the EU military staff"—
and—
"exercise military direction of all military activities within the EU framework".
That is pretty comprehensive.
I cannot see how such an ambitious project can fail to produce serious problems of command and control and of duplication of all too limited resources. Nowhere in any of the annexes, or reports I may say, is there any reference to budgets and costs, with one important exception under Article 48.
We must be concerned about a gradual blurring of the lines between national defence and NATO's defence role on the one hand, and the offensive military adventures undertaken for primarily political reasons for no obvious reason of vital national interest on the other. It could be a dangerous illusion to suppose that the paper tiger that we are setting up could actually fight. The political consequences of a failure in any of the Petersberg tasks could be extremely unfortunate.
Unless these forces have trained together and have a common experience of command and control, it will be of little use on the day for the various national contingents to step forward and proceed to act as an effective force. NATO has been doing this training for years and we cannot afford to waste that investment nor duplicate it.
The presidency report states:
"The main challenge for member states is to develop military capabilities which can be put at the disposal of the EU for crisis management purposes".
It goes on to speak of launching and conducting EUled military operations in response to international crises and of a strategic partnership between the EU and NATO in the management of crises with due regard for the two organisations' decision-making autonomy.
I believe that we must keep a close eye on the emerging tendency of some powerful elements of the EU—among whom I would certainly name the Higher Representative and the French, for different reasons—to marginalise NATO. As I said earlier this week, the Russians, whose strategic aim must be to see NATO dissolved, have spoken of a document approved at an EU meeting with the French in October in Paris, in

543
which Russia expresses readiness to co-operate with the EU in the fields of defence and security. Defence is NATO's province. Mr Ivanov said:
"We think that this is very important in order to create a single security system in Europe".
The EU had not yet, he said, passed the founding document, but when relevant structures are set up, when we clearly know the legal basis of the EU in this field, we shall start discussing specific spheres for our co-operation. That is presumably a first fruit of the common position on Russia under which Mr Solana discusses security with the Russians. The latter clearly found it a promising alternative to the NATO-Russian Council and a first possible move to make NATO redundant.
My other concerns have been touched on in the brief additional report on the capabilities' goals which has just been published. Does it really make sense that this country whose defence budget has been progressively cut since 1990, apart from a very minor rise which I know the noble Baroness will tell us about later, which is already committed to NATO under Article 5 and to Europe for the Petersberg tasks which have no geographical limits and whose forces are already engaged in Iraq, in Kosovo and in Bosnia and committed in Northern Ireland and in Sierra Leone, should also have signed in April last year, as has been said by other noble Lords, a Memorandum of Understanding with the UN? That could require us to commit forces up to brigade strength anywhere in the world for any length of time that the UN requires. It contains an annex setting out in great detail the exact numbers of helicopters, surface ships, aircraft and all too scarce special forces such as engineers, as well as armour and even hospital ships. We are told that that is only a hope, not a real commitment; "If we happen to have all that to spare when the UN wants it, well then…".
The sensible Prahami report this year to the Security Council, which owes part of its great common sense to the presence on it of General Naumann who spoke before our committee with such excellent equal good sense, makes the point, equally valid for the EU's plans, that if a UN force is to be deployed, then the various national components in it must have trained together and developed a common doctrine, leadership and operational practices. How do the Government, with our limited resources, propose to meet this not unreasonable condition, both for the UN and the EU, when even now it is proving difficult to release troops, pilots, ships and so on for NATO exercises? More to the point, the UN report quotes two billion dollars as the 2001 budget on peacekeeping operations before any of this has been considered, and that is before any of the proposals in the report, arising out of the memorandum of understanding, signed so far by, apparently, 11 countries, is implemented. When are we going to stop being told, reverting to the EU, that we need only to refocus our defence expenditure?
I know that the Minister will point to the money to be spent on strategic lift and aircraft—that is good—but are we really sure that either we or any of the other EU countries will be able to foot the bill when it comes
544
to having a Petersberg task? Certainly, accordingly to Le Monde a week or two ago, the French military are deeply concerned about the cost of moving over to a professional army by 2002. Their forces are, as they say,
"living from day to day financially",
and being told—a familiar theme to us—that there must be compensatory cuts rather than budget increases. I hope very much that those words will not continue to apply to us. We are taking on too much and counting too much on being well out of Kosovo and Bosnia before any new political adventure occurs to the EU.
It is the idea of the political committee in the EU having such power in military terms which frightens me. In 1960 and 1961, in the Congo, I saw the appalling results when a large military force containing a number, then, of experienced troops from India, Malaysia and Nigeria to name only three, was totally mismanaged by a political committee in New York, with devastating results for the unfortunate country to which they were supposed to be bringing peace and stability. That was an extremely expensive operation and it was absolutely worthless. I do not want to see our troops one day in that situation, whether the political committee concerned is sitting in the EU or the UN. I only hope therefore that our troops in Sierra Leone, while they act to support the UN, never come under UN command. The people of Sierra Leone and our forces deserve better than that.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating our previous chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and our present chairman, my noble friend Lady Hilton, on the conduct of these debates. We have gone through a rather difficult period, if I may put it like that, because in several respects the scenery has shifted as we have gone along. What was agreed at Nice seems to have been put in jeopardy yesterday. What was the agreed position for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, on the "Today" programme seems to be in doubt. My noble friend said that it is a question of language. I do not believe that it is a question of language. It is a question of principle. Furthermore, the scenery has shifted yet again in the United States. We now have the result of the presidential election. We know that there is a president-elect who is, if the campaign statements are to be relied on, more reluctant than previous presidents to commit US forces to European problems. We need to consider those facts and think about how we should react.
I welcome the initiative that has been taken. I say that outright because I do not want to be negative or critical. Nevertheless, there are certain problems. First, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reinforce what was in the gracious Speech, which proclaimed the supremacy of NATO as the basis of the United Kingdom's defence and security. That is your Lordships' primary interest. Secondly, if the so-called French insistence on independence, autonomy or whatever one calls it is adhered to in any reasonable

545
respect, that cannot be consistent with NATO's supremacy as our guarantee of security and defence. Those are the two principles on which I would start.
All these things have to go through a long process. But I do not think that, operationally, they make up for any serious military capability or initiative. The Petersberg tasks include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. As far as I can see, the humanitarian and rescue tasks could properly be performed by what is proposed. What I cannot see is how, if the United States and NATO decide not to participate in one of the tasks—given the new administration, I suspect that that may be a problem—the proposed rapid reaction force will accommodate that situation. I ask my noble friend to respond to that point.
The Petersberg tasks are okay on humanitarian relief, rescue relief and so on, but we all know that any operation in which one becomes engaged can soon become a much larger operation. Humanitarian relief may start with one thing, which may be in the province of what is proposed, but it may end up in peacemaking or indeed in making war. What will happen if, in a situation like Rwanda or Sierra Leone, the rapid reaction force goes in to rescue citizens of the European Union or others and finds itself in a conflict situation? It may well be at that point that those members of the organisation who had decided to participate in a limited operation then say, "We are terribly sorry. We are out of the party. This has developed into guns and casualties and we do not want to become involved". What then happens? Do we make a telephone call to Washington to say, "We're terribly sorry. We've embarked on something which we thought was in our remit, but it has now exploded into something rather serious. Could we please have some help from the United States?" What would be the response? Such a situation is known—in the jargon, I am afraid—as "mission creep". An operation is embarked upon, but then it turns out that the operation is not only of a rescue or humanitarian nature, but has become a serious war.
It is that kind of circumstance which gives rise to my unease about what is proposed. Unless the United States is prepared to back this proposal to the hilt, we, the Europeans, will find ourselves in an impossible situation where British troops are in the field and being shot at without proper logistic and intelligence support from the United States.
Although I support the initiative, I look to my noble friend to explain how it will work in practice, if she is able to do so. There are serious problems as regards the whole relationship between the European Union and NATO which I know will be handled by the Swedish presidency. It is a matter of extreme concern, not only to myself but also, I am sure, to other noble Lords.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, with the exception of two notable interventions, the debate so
546
far can be summarised briefly as, "Good policy, look out for the elephant traps". That seems to be the general feeling and I believe that it reflects the sentiment underlying the report of the sub-committee. When we discuss security and defence we often refer to "double-hatting". The sub-committee utilised its own variety of that system. I should like therefore to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, the chairman. He launched the inquiry on the right lines. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who brought it to a satisfactory conclusion. That demonstrates that certain varieties of double-hatting can be extremely effective from time to time.
I believe that the report we are discussing today renders a service in at least three respects. First, it traces the key elements of the defence component of the common foreign and security policy of the Union and shows how far it has developed in a short period of years. Some, including those sitting on the Benches in front of me, may find it disconcerting to see that there has been a progression from a few words in the Maastricht Treaty to an agreement, as we have today, on a European Union force, not a standing army, but a capability of up to 60,000 troops. Most will probably feel that it is right that the Union should put itself in a position to respond, if NATO does not wish to act, to humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. These are of course the so-called "Petersberg tasks" which were drafted in 1992 by the Western European Union in order to distinguish them from common defence. That is why the Petersberg tasks are set out in this way. There was an extremely long argument over the phrase "peacemaking". I have heard it before and, while it is an important point, that argument took place when the tasks were first drafted.
The defence of our territory is, of course, a matter for the United Kingdom itself and for NATO. The European Union rapid reaction force is to respond to a different kind of potential need, as described in the Petersberg tasks. The experience of recent years, in particular in Bosnia and Kosovo, has shown that problems of racial strife can give rise to such suffering that a peacekeeping or humanitarian role could be justified. So it is now the intention of the European Union that some forces should in effect be earmarked so that they could form a rapid reaction force—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said, a "fairly" rapid reaction force—to respond to such a need. I think that most people in this country think that in certain cases, we do have a moral obligation to act and that, if NATO does not wish to act, we should still respond to that moral obligation.
Secondly, the committee's report clearly describes what is the headline goal and, in the very recent update report, the committee reports on the key elements of the commitments conference of 20th November, when the member states of the Union agreed to the assembly of a pool of 100,000 troops, from which up to 60,000 could be used at any one time. Other noble Lords have already pointed out that it is a matter of satisfaction that a number of other states currently outside the

547
European Union, in particular Turkey, have also agreed to make a contribution. Certain points of detail may still be under discussion, but Turkey has agreed to make an important contribution, and I welcome that very much.
I conclude that in general there is a broad measure of agreement in western Europe on the approach. That seems to be the reasonable conclusion to draw from the response of the various states which took part in the capabilities conference.
Thirdly, the committee picked out the key political and practical points which follow on from the decision to go forward with the rapid reaction force. These are important points. It is essential that we should stress them and that they should be properly monitored. Indeed, that is an important contribution from the committee. A particular point is that NATO should be the first choice to lead any military mission and that the European Union should act alone only when the alliance as a whole is not engaged. As others have pointed out, this goes to the heart of our relationship with the United States, to which I shall return in a moment.
For the same reason, it is important that the rapid reaction force should be operational by 2003 so that we can demonstrate a real European contribution to the peacekeeping role. Furthermore, all the partners must show that they can meet the costs. I think that it was legitimate for the committee to raise its concerns as regards command and control. The Government seem relatively relaxed about it, but it is a very important point because this function is essential. The relationship with NATO needs to be clear.
I turn now to relations with the United States, which, through NATO, has made such a huge contribution to our collective defence over many years. For myself, I see a real consistency in United States policy over the period. It has been fully committed to NATO and to collective defence but, not unreasonably, it has looked for a strengthening of the European pillar of that defence. It looks for "a realistic effort" from the European allies. I choose this phrase, which is half a century old. In September 1950, when President Truman deployed four US divisions to Europe, this action was subsequently endorsed by Congress only on the basis of a resolution which insisted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
"should certify that the European allies were making a realistic effort on behalf of European defence".
This demonstrates that I have a very long memory. It has been the consistent position of the United States over a long period.
Subject, therefore, to the essential points made by the United Kingdom Government and by the committee on the maintenance of NATO's position and on the avoidance of duplication, it seems to me that the strengthening of Europe's capacity to respond to what now seem to be the type of crises which do arise is in line with the thrust of US policy over very many years. I personally find the remarks of Secretary Albright, Mr Strobe Talbot and Secretary Cohen all consistent. I know that they had points to make, points
548
to criticise and points to stress, but they seem consistent with the well-established core of United States policy, even when they stress that changes resulting from the European Union initiative must not leave NATO in a weaker position. Why should they? That is a very good point to make from their point of view. The policy of the United States does not seem to be at risk in the way that we are going forward. We should remember that we are talking about a British/ French initiative.
Of course, we do not know what will be the policy of the new US President and administration on the role of NATO, but, if they want to maintain their commitment, the strengthening of a European capability to deal with limited crises—which is, in effect, what it will be—must be also in the interests of the United States also.
Having finally received the draft Treaty of Nice—I do not think that I am allowed to speak French here, so I shall not quote from it in French, which is the only text I have received—I have been struck by the force with which the maintenance of NATO's role is stressed. In Article 17 of the Treaty of European Union, which is revised in some other aspects, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the treaty stresses that the Union policy respects the obligations resulting from the NATO treaty for members such as the United Kingdom which consider that their common defence is realised in the framework of NATO.
In addition, there is the formal declaration, to which reference has been made, annexed to the final act of the conference—and which will therefore appear in the treaty documents—stressing that the objective of the European Union is to be rapidly operational, and setting the timetable for the decision making by the European Councils.
In sum, the committee has been right to point to the potential problems and to emphasise the possibility of difficulties in terms of potential overstretch of our own forces in the United Kingdom. I am glad to see that in their reply the Government have sought to respond positively to these points. They have pointed out that the intention is further to develop the role of DSACEUR in order for him to assume fully and effectively his European responsibilities, and thus to avoid duplication of NATO structures, and that the UK will influence the ongoing work.
Quite often there is a tendency to assume that something will not work; it is an old British habit. Of course, we need to stress the risks and the dangers, but that is quite different from saying that something will not work. I have complete confidence that the reaction force will come into effect and will work.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, as a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, may I say how pleased I am to have completed my first report. It was a privilege to do so in such distinguished company—a former Chief of Defence Staff, a former Secretary-General of the European Commission, a very senior

549
police officer, distinguished former Secretaries of State, diplomats and so on. Indeed, this is the House of Lords at its best, providing added value to the work of the democratic Commons. We have produced two excellent and unanimous reports. Despite wide variations of views, there was not a "Chadless" vote in sight.
In August, our principal report was published. Two months later the issue of the so-called European army blew up in the media, but your Lordships' report was largely ignored. That may have been a failure of the fickle press— which nevertheless, in contrast, at the same time took up your Lordships' report on, for example, complementary medicine—or, alternatively, it may have been our fault for failing to communicate our work to the press, the media and the public outside. Perhaps we need a rapid reaction force or unit to help us in that task. I suspect that for too long the House of Lords has suffered from overstretch—too few resources for current and future tasks. It is time that we considered resourcing better your Lordships' House, especially the work of its specialist committees.
Noble Lords will recall that our August report welcomed this British initiative. Nevertheless, the report correctly set out our real concerns and identified deficiencies that must be remedied if the Government's ambitions are to be fulfilled.
Two things have happened since the publication of the report to confirm our original optimism: first, the Nice IGC, where the French view was marginalised. Indeed, it seemed to me that the French came out of the confessional with our PM more supplicant than priest and agreed to a text which, for all its post-conference splutterings, is British in tone and tenor. Secondly, the November capabilities commitment conference was a big and successful first step on the road to the realisation of our 2003 goal.
Your Lordships will recall that we were seeking to provide a rapid reaction force of 60,000 troops capable of being mobilised within 60 days, sustained for 12 months and backed up by a further 180,000 troops ready to relieve the core 60,000. We got more—not only assurances on the 180,000 back-up troops but also an immediate down payment of 100,000 troops, exceeding the core 60,000 target by 40,000. In addition, commitments were given with gratifying alacrity by the four non-EU countries, which could quite reasonably have withheld their hand at this early stage. They did not. That says a lot for the acceptability of the idea of the rapid reaction force and for the power of the European Union to unite countries across the continent to the wise and common purpose of collective security and defence. It was truly a leap of Bob Beaman proportions, which has jump started this British initiative of strengthening defence and security in the European Union and within NATO.
How does the rapid reaction force support British objectives? I suggest that the acid test is to determine what the added value is to Britain of investing in this initiative. First, Britain aspires to a leadership role in Europe. Here we have demonstrated it. This in turn
550
will help us in our ambitions to institute other reform, including economical, institutional and market oriented.
Secondly, it gives coherence and focus to our existing bilaterals, typified by the German, Italian and British joint air group, which will see Luftwaffe pilots training with the UK's Tornado force; or by Exercise Quickstep, carried out in conjunction with the French armed forces—a veritable pas de deux planned by the dancing major conducting the previous Conservative administration.
Indeed, previous Tory governments have rightly encouraged such co-ordination and integration. Presumably, they did not fear then, as they do now, that the cannabis of such bilateral co-operation would somehow lead on to the cocaine of the rapid response force, which they now so clumsily misrepresent, misinterpret and malign as a putative and spectral European army.
Thirdly, it means that soldiers from the 2 million currently under arms in the European Union can be mobilised into an effective and efficient force of some 60,000 troops. The various conflicts in the Balkans have exposed Europe's previous failures to apply its existing assets to practical problems. It must be in Britain's interests to foster this distinct piece of enhanced co-operation, which gratifyingly enlists all 15 EU states and beyond.
Fourthly, the proposal will have the beneficial effect of prompting our European allies to modernise their military capabilities and, it is to be hoped, injecting more money into their military budgets. They are far more likely to undertake their own defence spending reviews now that such reviews have a definable content. The egregious case of the German armed forces mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, where men are in over-supply to machines, is well known. The German aspiration to spend existing resources better is to be applauded and will be accelerated by the need to prepare for the rapid reaction force. Getting Britain's allies to change and improve is in Britain's direct interest. It is our own form of encouraging burden-sharing among EU allies within NATO, a point made tellingly by the noble Lord, Lord Roper.
Fifthly, the proposal will strengthen the drive towards a common procurement policy for arms and equipment among EU members. That, in turn, will stimulate a dormant, or perhaps sleepy, single European armaments market—which is, again, good news for Britain and its defence industries. These are jobs for Britain, born of defending Britain.
Sixthly, the proposal will aid and abet the process of enlargement, especially for countries in eastern and central Europe which set such store by their security and defence needs. A safer Europe means a safer Britain.
Seventhly, a better use of existing resources will help with the vexed question of overstretch. This initiative's attack on duplication and overlap represents a gain for British policy. The example of the Nordic countries providing a joint field hospital facility is a noteworthy

551
example of the potential to fight overstretch. Incidentally, overstretch is not a function of how many hats you wear for various defence purposes but of whether the hat is waterproof against a foreseeable tempest. If the cap fits, Britain should wear it.
This initiative will strengthen NATO, the lodestar of Britain's and Europe's defence and security policy. That is why the Americans support this initiative. They look with despair on the jigsaw of Europe's armed forces and weep! It is no wonder. They long for the burden to be shared on a more equitable basis.
There are some who are opposed to the proposal for a rapid reaction force and who cite a minority of siren voices on the American scene warning of the potential break-up of NATO. But let me state clearly my belief that giving succour to the slumbering isolationist tendency in United States politics is more likely, not less likely, to encourage complementary and heretical moves by some of our European allies to develop a fully-fledged European independence in the fields of defence and security.
I might add that we give our sincerest wishes to President-elect Bush for his imminent presidency. But he must examine closely the proposed national missile defence system, one of whose unfortunate side-effects might be to encourage isolationism in each of our continents. Governor Bush, who in the past has shown little interest in foreign affairs, must appreciate that the future is a different country. We must do things differently there. Any such American hibernation from the challenges of the future would frustrate Britain's vital interest, which seeks to ensure that all our relationships, not just with America, remain special.
Our report rightly highlights the need for more work to be done on the lacunae of deployability, sustainability and the command and control mechanisms of the rapid reaction force. That work, I am confident, will be successfully completed.
The anxieties concerning the remit of the force, regarding the harder end of the Petersberg tasks, must he assuaged. Nevertheless, at the moment, it is surely true that were we to contemplate serious peace-making without NATO, a lack of heavy lift facility and suitable intelligence-gathering systems would ground our force quicker than a Charlie Dimmock makeover!
With the Petersberg tasks, we should emphasise Britain's opportunities. Our experience gained in Northern Ireland should ensure us a leading role in Europe in practical peacekeeping.
But what are the views of the Opposition on the rapid reaction force and of the Nice IGC confirming it? Some Conservatives have agreed that Britain got the best deal it could from Nice. The noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Howell, are opponents who always advance forceful arguments that test our own. But others have continued unthinkingly to speak of a European army. Indeed, it might be said that the variety of views among the Conservatives in both Houses are as thick as the leaves that fall in Vallombrosa, and sometimes thicker than that!
552
Do the Official Opposition, in the form of one Mr Francis Maude, the invisible man who apparently signed the common defence paragraphs of the Maastricht Treaty in invisible ink, really want to repudiate Nice? Do they really want to wreck the rapid reaction force, which so clearly serves British interests and enhances its influence? The high command of the Conservative Party must really become more choosy about the choice of barge poles with which it seeks to push Britain further into the Atlantic. Must we be for ever, at its behest, left on the Continental Shelf?
This is a good beginning. The rapid reaction force is up, if not yet running. It is an initiative that deserves our support, our comfort, our care and our scrutiny in your Lordships' House as it grows from European adolescent to NATO adult in our widening family of transatlantic nations.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the sub-committee. I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on his former chairmanship, and our current chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton.
It was extraordinarily interesting working on the sub-committee and, despite considerable disparity of opinion at times, it was very good-humoured. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, refer to the fact that differences of language are not always at the root of misunderstanding but they can, of course, contribute to it. Those of us who were present will remember for a long time the slightly surreal moment when a gentleman from France gave evidence to the sub-committee and appeared to say that he was in favour of a European army, which is how most of us understood him; then, as he faced a barrage of protest, he explained that what he was really saying was that he was not in favour of a European army. Language can make quite a difference.
I said that there was a wide range of opinion among members of the committee, and that is clearly true. But there was one consistent, refreshing and uniting theme. It is clearly expressed in the opinion of the committee given at paragraph 95. It states:
"Europe's critical need is for forces that can contribute effectively in international crises. Therefore what is needed is military capabilities, not symbolism".
The committee liked General Naumann's expression of Europe's need for "capabilities, not new institutions".
Therefore, it is important that the capabilities commitment conference in Brussels on 20th November, to which reference has been made, was in practice, as is stated in our committee's update published this week,
"the first major test in the development of the CESDP".
The purpose of the conference was to reach an agreement on the commitment of troops sufficient to meet the policy's headline goal. As the noble Lord,

553
Lord Harrison, made clear, it succeeded in that. We state in the update to our report that the Capabilities Commitment Conference (CCC),
"has succeeded in reaching its main aim".
The first test of reality against rhetoric has been met.
It is also important to state that we face a situation today whereby 11 out of 16 European NATO member states are now increasing their defence expenditure. Perhaps I may express it like this: the "post-lottery win" euphoria of 1989 and the end of the Cold War has now come to an end—and a good thing too!
Of course, this is not the first, or the last, time that your Lordships' House has, or will, debate the CESDP. Indeed, our Select Committee promises to return to the subject. When we do so, it will be important for us to strive again to seek reality and to resist hyperbole. Good reconnaissance seeks to distinguish between shadow and substance, suspicion and fact.
I was told last week about a recent dinner party here in London where one European Union member state's ambassador to the Court of St James was rather startled when a guest sitting opposite him at the table rather aggressively asked him to justify his nation's support for "this rapid reactionary force". We must be very careful that we do not become a rapid reactionary force. It was also refreshing when, a short while ago in this House, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, condemned,
"any hysterical reaction against closer European defence co-operation",
in the discussion on European defence co-operation. His views are clearly treated with the very greatest of respect in the House.
In fact, when one considers the situation, it seems as if the real mover of what has now been agreed at Nice was not in some ways Maastricht in 1991, with its commitment to the,
"eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence"—
a commitment signed up to by the Conservative government at that time. Indeed, when looking at Nice, whether or not we read it in French or in English, it is clear that NATO remains the basis of our collective defence. This is about something different. The impetus has come not from euro aspirations but from proven European weakness, which was demonstrated at Kosovo and in Bosnia, and the salutary realisation that Europe must enhance its capability if it is not to try the patience and comprehension of the United States to breaking point.
It was over Kosovo that Europe could only fly one-fifth of the strike sorties. As the committee's report testifies, despite spending the equivalent of 60 per cent of the United States' total defence budget, only 2 per cent of European forces were capable of being deployed in Kosovo. That is fact. As the committee
554
says in paragraph 9 of the report, European countries have had to acknowledge that they are over-dependent on the United States. Further on, in paragraph 12, we say:
"European governments have come to accept that in the future they cannot take for granted US involvement in the humanitarian, crisis control and peace support missions in which the EU has an interest".
That has to be a realistic judgment. It is one upon which we should ponder most carefully as we now move towards a new presidency in the United States.
Kosovo, as the Americans say, was the "wake-up call". If the CESDP had not been conceived at Maastricht, given objectives at Amsterdam, headline goals at Helsinki, the means to turn the EU into "an intelligent customer" of military capability at Cologne and its own commitment to pool capabilities given in November in Brussels, we would have to start again now right at the beginning and move even faster. In the circumstances, I find it extraordinary that Mr William Hague has already made entirely clear in another place—and committed his party to it—his intention not to ratify the Nice treaty at this stage.
If we were to turn our backs on the painstaking advances that have been made in the field and oppose what was agreed in Nice, we would be rejecting reality and Europe's responsibilities. It would be such an action—not one what was agreed at Nice—which would justifiably invite the exasperation of the United States and, in the end, risk the United States' ultimate disillusionment with the transatlantic European Union American Union Alliance.
The report before us this evening is a valuable document. I hope that the House will welcome it. From these Benches we welcome the CESDP. We welcome the commitment of the United Kingdom Government to it and we shall continue to look, with hope, for deeds and not words. I also hope that we shall be assured tonight by the Minister of the Government's consistency of purpose and commitment to that policy. We are still told that apparently no real, if any, increase of resources will be required to make a reality of this policy by Her Majesty's Government. Can this really be so? The Government are eager to point to this policy as an example of their commitment to leadership in Europe. But leadership always carries a price: it requires credibility. Simply to point to the Strategic Defence Review as that job completed is surely too complacent and potentially misleading.
Finally, there is a sense in the House—as, indeed, there was in the committee—that what we are discussing here is truly significant. We do not know the ultimate destination of the course upon which we have embarked. But two things have become quite clear and have been the major motor of this policy. The first is that Europe must do more if we are not to invite America to do much less. Secondly, at the end of the day, Europe must take the responsibility that its wealth and strength provide and be prepared to play its full and proper role.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I intend to be very brief because the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, approached me a short while ago and whispered in my ear a reminder that the most important social function of the parliamentary year will be starting in about one minute's time. I do not want to delay those who wish to attend that function. This is not in any way to denigrate the importance of this debate, but we held almost exactly the same debate (at even greater length) on Tuesday last. As the Minister gave a very comprehensive reply to all the points raised on that occasion, I hope that she will find it possible to respond fairly briefly tonight.
In any case, I find it almost unnecessary to say anything, as it has been said very much better by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Shore. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord has just returned to his seat in the Chamber. I should like to say how much I admire what he had to say and to express the surprise that I sometimes feel that he does not move one seat backwards or, possibly, one seat further forwards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, pointed out that the report was published in July not with a bang but with a whimper. I took note of that point and believe that particular attention should be paid to the evidence, which seems rather more timeless, rather than the report itself. That is not to say that the report is not of great value. I pay particular attention to the statement of my noble friend Lady Park to Dr Menon—namely, "I could kiss you". I wonder whether that was a declaration of interest.
The report is of particular value in that the British Parliament comprises the only people not to have been told how many people are involved. On its first page the report quotes the Helsinki Agreement which states that member states must be able by 2003 to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least a year military forces of up to 50,000 to 60,000 persons. It is not unreasonable to ask how many people in total will be required to sustain these numbers; how they are to be split up among the European nations and, most importantly, how they will be paid for.
It is not only in taking a look at the logistics of getting the various forces together that the report is of great value. It makes it clear that it will be necessary to add another superstructure, exactly the thing that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in his speech at the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of NATO said that we did not need. He is quite right. It is interesting to speculate whether, and to what degree, the present Secretary of State is in agreement with his predecessor.
There is no doubt that such a superstructure is also planned physically. A purpose-designed twin office block is to built at Kortenberg to house the staff of EU military structures and policy unit and the external affairs directorate-general. I wonder whether it will house one set of staff or two.
556
In the British view, the EU command and control are intended to complement NATO. But in the report Dr Menon says that the,
"French Government has a different view of the sequence notion to the Americans, that the EU should decide first and then go to NATO".
As was made clear on Tuesday, the US is a vital component of all NATO tasks. Speaking without notes, the noble Lord, Lord Shore, could remember only two of the three "Ds". The third is no discrimination against non-EU members of NATO. I have some notes on that subject. As he said, the other two were no decoupling and no duplication.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, commented favourably on the evidence given by General Klaus Naumann. His evidence I believe to be absolutely vital and almost the most important element in the whole report and the evidence. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will read it with much care, if they have not done so already, and that they will ensure that all their European partners do so too.
As all the speakers in today's debate know, the committee has sat on the fence. Its members rightly felt that they had raised a large number of questions which have to be answered. It looks to me as if, on occasions, their collective tongues are firmly in their cheeks. I particularly like the point in their consideration of the Petersberg tasks where they say that peacemaking can include war fighting.
Members of the committee may correct me but they seem to have a wholehearted cynicism about the whole project. However, this is balanced by what was undoubtedly the principle adopted in Nice; namely, "We must do something; this is something; we must do it". I should like the Minister's comments in brief.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he asked members of the committee whether they had cynicism. I think that I can speak for all Members of the Committee when I say that we had no cynicism at all. We were trying to set out the agenda without any particular bias one way or another. There was no cynicism.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I consider that to be a pity. I think that we should all be cynics.
7.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon and her committee for tabling this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government and to thank all noble Lords who have participated for their valuable contributions to the debate. I am also grateful to the committee for its detailed and constructive report on this important subject and for the update published earlier this week. I take this opportunity to respond to the points made by the committee and to address some of the key criticisms which have been levelled at the initiative. I shall do my best to bring your Lordships up to date, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, suggested.

557
Since the publication of the 15th report by the Select Committee, the profile of the Common European Policy on Security and Defence has been, as we all know, substantially raised, in particular in the aftermath of the Capabilities Commitment Conference and now in the reactions to the Nice European Council. It is regrettable that in general too much attention has been focused on the rhetoric and perhaps too little on the facts. However, I am bound to say that all the contributions from noble Lords this evening have been honourable exceptions. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that I did not detect the note of cynicism that he detected in the report of the committee chaired by my noble friend.
As I think most of us acknowledged, recent developments are a direct consequence of the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. Perhaps more significantly, they are a continuation of the pragmatic approach that the United Kingdom has always taken to ensuring that the organisations that provide our security adapt to the changing circumstances of the world in which we live. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of discussions on the modernisation of NATO, just as we have taken, and will continue to take, a leading role in the debate on the new arrangements for European defence.
Ever since the Prime Minister called for fresh thinking in the autumn of 1998, we have shaped the course of the debate. We said then that NATO remained essential to European security. That remains our position. It is our cornerstone. It is fundamental. I assure my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel that that is the position. Our commitment is unchanged and it is undiminished.
We also said that Europe needed to take a greater share of the security burden. We have begun to make this ambition a reality. We have consistently ensured that the debate has focused on what really matters, the strengthening of European military capability, as so cogently argued by my noble friend Lord Harrison.
I welcome the committee's recognition that above all else European defence needs improved military capability. Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, I stress that this is about military capability; it is not about symbolism or new institutions. We fully agree with the points that the committee made. Without better European military capability, the new arrangements will amount to very little, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said.
That is why the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of efforts to strengthen Europe's military capability. Last year, with Italy and then with France, we put forward the case for concrete targets for improvement by EU member states. We challenged Europe to do better. This challenge resulted in the Headline Goal agreed at Helsinki last December which requires EU member states by the year 2003 to be able to deploy up to 60,000 ground troops and maritime and air elements within 60 days and sustain them in a theatre of operations for at least a year. These troops should be capable of conducting the full range of
558
Petersberg tasks. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that the full range includes peace enforcement.
Since Helsinki, on the basis agreed by heads of state and government at the Feira European Council, defence planning experts from the member states have developed the Headline Goal into a detailed statement of requirements. They have done so with significant support from NATO experts. I emphasise to noble Lords that defence planners from NATO headquarters and from the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) have been in regular and close contact with EU colleagues. The EU's activities have been fully transparent to NATO. I hope that that is an important reassurance for many noble Lords.
At last month's Capability Commitment Conference, the EU member states and other European partners identified the type and level of forces that they are willing to make available and from which elements could be assembled but on a case-by-case basis for crisis management. It is enormously important that we are clear on that point. Much of the worry and concern about European defence has arisen from an entirely false premise, the premise "European rapid reaction force". We have not done so. We have not created, or even taken the first steps towards creating, a European army. I was enormously grateful for the clear acknowledgement of that point from the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Taverne. The report of the French presidency to the Nice European Council is explicit on this point. It says:
"This does not involve the establishment of a European Army".
We have earmarked forces for use in possible EU-led operations, just as we earmark forces for NATO or for UN operations. This is not a question of semantics, as some seem to suggest, but a fundamental point, and for some a fundamental misunderstanding. We have not given away the right to say where and how British troops will be deployed. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on that point. We have not placed another burden on our already overstretched Armed Forces. We have not signed up to duplicate or independent structures that would in some way damage NATO. We have simply taken steps to ensure that European nations are better able to act in crises—a lesson learned, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, reminded us, as a result of Kosovo.
The Capability Commitments Conference looked to the future. As well as earmarking certain forces, the EU member states identified where their military capability is lacking, as my noble friend Lady Hilton said—for example, in enabling capabilities such as strategic lift and in the characteristics of our Armed Forces, which were enumerated so well by my noble friend Lord Harrison, and availability, deployability, sustainability and interoperability. We committed ourselves to identifying additional measures to respond to those needs. This determination will encourage more efficient defence spending and better European military capabilities for NATO and for Europe.

559
In addition to the 12,500 troops, 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft, we announced major equipment undertakings, including strategic air and sea lift and precision guided munitions and logistics. We are keen to take forward a number of promising ideas for multinational defence co-operation that we have discussed with several partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, asked what our EU partners were doing. It is a very good question. Eleven of 16 European members of NATO have announced real-term increases to their defence budgets for next year. Given that, we hope that it is true that European nations are beginning to deliver. The committee rightly recognised the importance of a system of review against individual and national targets. Nice agreed a mechanism for peer review of performance against collective and national aspirations which will now be implemented and aligned with NATO's defence planning system.
The committee and noble Lords have raised a number of key concerns that must be addressed. The first is planning. Some of the misunderstandings about what we mean about the planning process lie at the root of some of the arguments, so I must be clear about what has and has not been agreed. The EU has not agreed to establish a separate operational planning system. Nor does the EU have any plans to do so. The EU military staff, established in interim form by the Helsinki European Council, is a centre of military expertise whose advice and support will ensure that the EU political authorities—the representatives of the 15 member states—are able to take competent and sensible defence decisions. I am sure that no one could argue that military support to decision making is unnecessary, especially when troops are deployed into areas where they may risk their lives.
The EU military staff will also act as a link to the military command chain and to operational planners. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked how that happens. As regards many EU-led operations, certainly when the EU draws on NATO assets and capabilities, operational planning will be conducted at SHAPE, under the supervision of the Deputy SACEUR. The Deputy SACEUR will often in such cases act as the operation commander at the head of an operational command chain drawn from NATO but under the political control and strategic direction of the governments of the EU. The ability of the EU to draw on NATO's planning and command and control structures, as well as other common assets and capabilities, is a key piece in the jigsaw. NATO Foreign Ministers are taking stock of the progress made in discussing the way ahead. We hope that we shall be able to say more about that when the discussions are completed. The noble Lord asked me whether I could bring any further light to bear on the discussions today. I am afraid that I am unable to do so. But we shall do so as soon as we are able.
560
In other circumstances, for smaller or less demanding operations, the EU may draw on existing European national and multinational headquarters, for example, the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters, for operational planning and as the basis of a command chain.
In a similar vein, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney also raised questions about intelligence. Let me say again that it is inconceivable that we would deploy British troops without the best possible intelligence support. Of course we would not do so. I am sure that no noble Lord would wish us to do so.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I am reluctant to interrupt, but she stated that in the course of the debate on the gracious Speech. Of course whenever we deploy British troops we want the best intelligence. We have it. This is nothing to do with any European security and defence initiative. If we deploy British troops, we ourselves have sufficient intelligence capability to get all the intelligence we need to deploy those troops. We do not need to share it with anyone else.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if the noble Lord will kindly let me finish, perhaps I may be able to answer that point.
Arrangements are being defined that will allow EU member states to feed intelligence into the EU decision- making process. It is just the same as in NATO. And just as in NATO, it will be done on voluntary basis. We will follow that model.
Perhaps I may cast a little more light on the issue for the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. British intelligence will be directed to British staff officers in the EU military command. Decisions as to how that intelligence should be used or shared, to take up the noble Lord's point, will continue to rest in the capitals from which it emanates, just as it does in NATO operations today.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, raised concerns about our intelligence relationship with the United States. We have no reason to believe that our relationship with the United States in this important area would be in any way prejudiced by this initiative. We would be operating on the basis which already pertains, which we already all know and understand. It operates very effectively when we operate within NATO.
I must address another great concern voiced by some noble Lords today: America's views on this issue. I strongly endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about the Americans wanting Europe to strengthen our military capability. As the secretary of the British-America parliamentary group, the noble Lord speaks with particular authority because it has strong contacts with the United States over a long period. The bottom line is that the American

561
administration has been consistent in its support for this initiative. Only three weeks ago Robin Cook and Madeleine Albright published a joint article in the Observer addressing criticisms and inaccuracies. But the administration has also, and rightly, been consistent in its insistence that it matters how European defence is implemented. Of course it does. Enormous care must be taken on this. State Secretary Cohen was clear on this when he spoke at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting earlier this month. But the fact is that we agree with him. We see eye to eye with him on this issue. We must not do anything that damages the transatlantic interest and we will not damage NATO.
I was going to go into some detail with the noble Lord, Lord Shore, about his quotes from Mr Cohen and Wesley Clark. If he examines our debate of 12th December—I know that he will because he is an extremely conscientious man—I am sure that he will find the context of those remarks is a little fuller than his remarks earlier today may have led us to believe. Of course it is important what is happening with the incoming administration. We have had some interesting indications of the beliefs of the incoming administration through some of the remarks already made, notably by the adviser Mr Zoellick to President-elect Bush. I welcome the committee's recognition that NATO is an effective organisation and that the common European security and defence policy must strengthen, not rival, the alliance. I entirely agree with the well argued comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, on that subject.
The Nice agreement is specific about the relationship between the EU and the alliance. It says that NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members. That is the position not just of the United Kingdom Government, but of the whole European Union. It says that NATO will continue to play an important role in crisis management and that the EU will act in crisis management where the alliance as a whole is not engaged. I am sorry that we have repeated that again and again, but it is enormously important, because if I left that point out on this occasion, there might be thought to be a change in the Government's stance. In the coming weeks will shall all have to contend with the fact that every public statement that anybody makes on the initiative will be examined in detail and pored over by every commentator who has a pen in his hand or a microphone in front of him to find some different nuance in what is said. We have to look at what we have agreed and written down between us. In that respect, your Lordships will not find such a gulf of difference between what we say and what our EU allies say.
I believe that I have dealt with the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on the role of the military committee, but I shall be pleased to write to
562
her further on that if she wishes. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, raised important points about mission creep, but I am afraid that such issues will always be raised when we are militarily engaged. It is not peculiar to an EU-led engagement, as we have seen from the amount of comment—a good deal of it hot air and nonsense—in our media earlier this year about our operations in Sierra Leone. For day after day we heard about nothing but mission creep. It is always right and proper for the Government to keep reviewing the deployment of our troops and to ensure that they are there for the purpose that was originally designated or a purpose that is in concert with how matters are developing on the ground.
I should say something about France, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and, in a very different way, by my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, is right in so far as France and Britain have always had different approaches to European defence matters. That is why we have worked so closely with France throughout the process. It has succeeded only because we have been able to find a large amount of common ground. We are not trying to camouflage the disagreements over detail. There are disagreements in every multinational organisation. However, France has signed up to the same agreement as everybody else—an agreement that ties in European defence arrangements closely with NATO. There is no suggestion that the French wish to depart from that agreement.
We have had a good debate. The subject has generated a great deal of hot air elsewhere, but your Lordships have brought a good deal of wisdom to bear on the matters. This has been a timely opportunity for us to set out the position after the Nice European council. We have long argued that Europe needs to face up to its security responsibilities. We have shown in Kosovo that Europe can be a force for good in the world. However, we are not yet doing all that we can. We must strengthen our military capabilities and co-operate more fully at all levels through NATO and the EU.
The recent developments are not about a European Army, undermining NATO or relinquishing sovereignty. Neither are they about adding to the burdens on our Armed Forces. They are mechanisms to ensure a more effective defence effort by European forces, to ensure that European nations can play a more effective part in the alliance's operations and to ensure that, where NATO is not engaged and if its member states wish, the European Union can take action. Through positive, constructive engagement, the United Kingdom has ensured that the EU has followed the right road. Nice was another milestone along that road, which will allow Europe to be able to discharge our responsibilities as one of the richest, most developed groups of nations in the world. It is important that we shoulder those responsibilities properly.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful to the contributors to this debate, which I have found very interesting. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, is going to take over as champion of Turkey—an issue that I have pursued in the committee. The committee showed genuine support for the project and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, should not confuse friendly advice with cynicism.
564
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for emphasising her reassurances about the role of NATO—for the third time this week, I think. I put her on warning that the committee will return to the subject in the months and years ahead.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.

  The Magistracy: Report
  The Magistracy: Report
  Local Transport Capital Settlement
  Local Transport Capital Settlement
  Home Office Certificates of Identity
  Home Office Certificates of Identity
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988: Visitors' Permit
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988: Visitors' Permit
  Kosovo: Enforced Returns during Winter
  Kosovo: Enforced Returns during Winter
  Terrorism Act 2000: Codes of Practice
  Terrorism Act 2000: Codes of Practice
  Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: Marriage Provisions
  Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: Marriage Provisions
  Illicit Trade: Advisory Panel Report
  Illicit Trade: Advisory Panel Report
  Fisheries Control and Enforcement: International Co-operation
  Fisheries Control and Enforcement: International Co-operation
  NHS: Delayed Discharge of Elderly Patients
  NHS: Delayed Discharge of Elderly Patients
  Patient Treatment: Withdrawal for Research Purposes
  Patient Treatment: Withdrawal for Research Purposes
  Lifespan NHS Trust: Discharge of Chiropody Patients
  Lifespan NHS Trust: Discharge of Chiropody Patients