Sitting of 17 February 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      MERSEY TUNNEL BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 2 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Specialist Schools (Deprived Areas)
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What measures he proposes to assist schools in deprived areas to secure the private sector funding required to achieve specialist status. [109128]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The sponsorship requirement for specialist schools has been reduced from £100,000 to £50,000. In addition, we provide grant in aid to the technology colleges trust and the youth sport trust in their work to help potential applicants raise sponsorship and to raise funds directly themselves. We have agreed with the trusts that emphasis will be placed on areas of deprivation and that they will assist nationally in encouraging sponsors to do that. So far, £45 million has been raised through that mechanism; £25 million since May 1997. I pay tribute to the technology colleges trust and the youth sport trust for the enormous effort that they have put in to make the partnership successful.
    Mr. Pickthall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful answer, but I am sure that he understands the immense difficulties faced by schools in towns such as Skelmersdale—deprived, low-wage towns, which do not have many or any large firms, and where those firms are heavily involved in other partnerships. Such schools do not get the attention that inner-city schools manage to achieve from time to time. Does my right hon. Friend realise that £50,000 is still a great deal of money for a school to find, and can result in the school leadership
    1086
    having to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to rustle up money from a large number of sources? Can he go even further with areas such as Skelmersdale?
    Mr. Blunkett: We are aware of the enormity of the challenge of raising £50,000 for schools in some areas. That is why, with Sir Cyril Taylor and the technology colleges trust in particular, we have been working to get major companies to put up resources specifically targeted at areas such as Skelmersdale, in a way that assists schools to continue the task of linking up with those companies, raising the resources and acting as a mentor and boost to the school.
    Mr. David Ruffley: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the problems experienced by schools making bids in rural areas? Stowmarket high school in my constituency made a bid for specialist status this past year and was turned down. One reason was that it could not raise the full £50,000. In a rural area such as Stowmarket, there are simply not enough local private sector companies and bodies to make the necessary donations. Will the Secretary of State therefore consider making allowances when schools such as Stowmarket high, in rural areas such as mine in mid-Suffolk, make bids for specialist school status?
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that it would be possible to change the regulations specifically for schools in areas such as mid-Suffolk, given the level of inherent wealth and employment in East Anglia. However, we would be prepared to look more closely, with the TCT, at ways in which we could link schools in areas of deprivation within areas of greater wealth and privilege, so that we can link companies that are prepared to reach out to them. [Interruption.] There are murmurings from the Opposition Front Bench, but East Anglia has virtually reached full employment. Encouraging companies to reach out to deprived areas in such regions is an important part of the trust's work.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the specialist schools initiative has been widely welcomed, there is a problem with the amount of money available for co-operating with other local schools for community projects? During the Select Committee's visits, we found that there was often a lack of co-operation between schools. We want schools to open doors and co-operate, but perhaps too little money is available for that.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased to respond positively to my hon. Friend. We changed the regulations to ensure that co-operation is essential, first in developing the bids, then in implementing specialist status, so that the schools must reach out to feeder schools, other neighbouring schools and the wider community. We place considerable emphasis on that, because we want the near-500 specialist schools that now exist to cascade their resources and their work outwards. Part of the resources that they receive from the Government depends on the work that they do with the wider community.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on a recent visit to Gateshead, the Select Committee on Education and Employment learned that

    1087
    none of the local Labour Members of Parliament had ever, in 10 years, visited their highly successful city technology college? Does he agree that, if those Labour Members were to visit their local city technology college, they would learn about attracting private sector funds to schools in deprived areas?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have visited several of the original technology colleges, and I am certain that, as those schools reach out, as they are doing, voluntarily coming into the programme that we have laid out and working closely with their neighbouring schools, Members of Parliament of all persuasions will be delighted to welcome that and to engage with their activities.

    New Deal (Over-25s)
    Mr. David Lepper: If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the development of the new deal for the over-25s. [109129]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The new deal for those aged 25 and over has already helped 33,000 long-term unemployed people into jobs, and we have set aside a further £100 million to strengthen the new deal from April this year. From April 2001, we will be introducing a substantially strengthened new deal for this group, building on the successful approach of the new deal for young people.
    Mr. Lepper: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Will she note that, since the introduction of the new deal, the number of long-term unemployed over-25s in my constituency has fallen from about 1,500 to about 450? Will she join me in congratulating the Brighton Employment Service staff on the vital role that they have played in making the new deal work for my constituents after years of underfunding of training and employment services by the previous Government? However, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a real and continuing need for many people who left school in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, demoralised at the prospect of never having a job, is help with basic literacy and numeracy skills? How will her proposals help those people to overcome that barrier to employment?
    Ms Jowell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's support for the new deal which is delivering large numbers of his constituents from unemployment into work. I also join him in praising the efforts of the Brighton Employment Service, which has enabled 325 people from Brighton to move through the new deal for the over-25s into work—a higher rate of achievement of jobs than the national average. It is to be congratulated on that.
    My hon. Friend has identified a critical challenge for the new deal, which is tackling the high level of illiteracy and innumeracy. Estimates suggest that about 20 per cent. of all unemployed people have literacy skills below level 1, and about 50 per cent. have numeracy skills below level 1. The new deal is about making people employable, getting them into one job so that they can sustain their place in the labour market. Lack of basic skills is an obstacle to that and a pathway to social exclusion, which is why we will redouble our efforts to ensure that all those
    1088
    leaving the new deal, whether young people or older unemployed people, are liberated from illiteracy and innumeracy and have the skills to stay in work.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: How much does it cost for each person over 25 to obtain a full-time job through the new deal?
    Ms Jowell: If we take all the starts on the new deal, the figure is approximately £500 per person [Interruption.] I am answering the question. If we consider the number of people who have started work33,000—the figure is £3,500.

    Education Spending (Redbridge)
    Mr. Mike Gapes: When he next plans to visit Redbridge to discuss the level of education spending. [109130]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the London borough of Redbridge. However, I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards was able to visit Glade primary school to see the two new classrooms provided through the Government's class size initiative.
    Mr. Gapes: Despite the welcome increase in resources that the Government are making available for education in Redbridge and the good results in our borough, there is widespread local anxiety among teachers, parents and governors that all three political groups on the Conservative-led council do not propose to spend that money on education and that part of it is being spent on other matters. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Department holds urgent discussions with the council and all three political groups to ascertain whether we can solve that problem?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is a strong and powerful advocate of the schools, pupils and governors in his constituency. I join in his commendation of the high standards that schools in Redbridge achieve.
    However, let me make it clear that unless the local authority is willing to ensure that this year's 6.6 per cent. increase in its education standard spending assessment is passported to education and delegated effectively to schools, it will let down the schools, pupils and governors in the constituency.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given a clear signal to local authorities that we expect our commitment to education to be replicated by local education authorities. We shall monitor LEAs to ensure that they make the same commitment to education as the Government, schools and parents.

    Standard Spending Assessment
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on inequalities in education standard spending assessment per pupil between local education authorities. [109131]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The Government are well aware of the widespread concern about the fairness of the current formula for funding local authorities. We announced in November 1998 a review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant that is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for standard spending assessments. We will issue a Green Paper on options for change by the summer.
    Mr. Heath: How can it be right for the Government to fund every child in every school in Somerset by £1,500 a year less than a child in a school in a leafy suburb of London? Does not the standard spending assessment contribute to that injustice? Local education authorities, which are struggling with that problem throughout the country, find it difficult to understand that stability means prolonging injustice.
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no justification for the figures that he cited. As soon as we took power, we started discussing a change in the formula with local authorities. In the first year, we were unable to reach agreement because not one local authority said that it had too generous an SSA. We have put in train consultation and work that will bring about change.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the problems of SSAs did not begin in 1997 and that the previous Government failed year after year to tackle them. We have acted quickly; we began the discussions in our first year in office, and we shall deliver shortly.
    Mr. Mark Todd: May I draw the Minister's attention to a question that I asked in 1998 on the same subject? I spoke of the inequity of funding for Derbyshire and Derby City schools. Derby City schools receive 13 per cent. less per pupil than a school in Slough, and Derbyshire schools receive 12 per cent. less per pupil than a school in East Sussex. When I first asked the question, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said that he could not justify the existing system and that he intended to change it. That was in July 1998. When can we expect action?
    Ms Morris: As I said in response to the previous question, we will issue a consultation paper in the summer, we will have the chance to discuss those options and we will make the change once we have got it right. On such an important matter, rushing and getting it wrong would be the worst thing that could happen. We need a system that offers local authorities and schools a stable formula in the years to come and I am happy to defend taking a bit more time to get it right because that is in the interest of children, teachers and parents. I know that my hon. Friend would also acknowledge that the Government
    1090
    made significant funding available for Derbyshire as part of the school class size initiative. It was one of the local education authorities that received most funding, which means that children in Derbyshire, Derby and elsewhere are in smaller classes than they would have been, had the Government not come to power.
    Mr. John Redwood: Does the Minister know that Wokingham is given grant to support spending of only £2,218 per primary pupil and only £2,873 per secondary pupil, whereas neighbouring Reading, which has similar costs and problems, is allowed £2,500 and £3,270? Many constituencies represented by Labour Members receive more than £5,000 of allowed expenditure. Does she agree that that is grossly unfair and that, because of that injustice, there is not enough money for places such as Wokingham? Does she agree that the Government do not put their money where their mouth is? They are all spin and no delivery.
    Ms Morris: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has a bit more time on his hands now. Perhaps he might use it profitably by looking back at expenditure in his schools when he was a leading member of the Conservative Government. I cannot recall whether he ever held an education portfolio, but he cannot escape his responsibility for having let down children year after year. Under the Government, there has been a 5.6 per cent. overall increase in SSAs this year and money for books, class sizes and the national grid for learning on top of that. That is a record of which to be proud. We need to consider the funding formula for schools and that is exactly what we have done in our three years in power. The right hon. Gentleman's Government failed to do anything in their 18 years.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the unhappiness in Cambridgeshire caused by the differential between Cambridgeshire's SSA and that of some neighbouring authorities, but does she agree that there has been a real-terms SSA increase under the Government and that, in addition, the standards fund has brought £11.3 million into Cambridgeshire in the current year and is projected to bring in nearly £15 million next year? Does that not show where the Government's priorities lie? The Conservative Government developed the formula, but consistently failed to reform it.
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many questions have rightly been asked about the formula for distributing money to local authorities, but it is timely to remind people that that does not represent the sum total of the money that the Government put into education. When the standards fund and the literacy and numeracy strategy, which are funded centrally, are added together, expenditure far exceeds the 5.6 per cent. that has gone to local authorities, as she acknowledged.
    Mr. James Clappison: Has not Ofsted's inspection of LEAs revealed that the biggest inequality is how well local authorities manage their resources? Are not 17 of the 23 LEAs in which it identified serious concerns Labour authorities, and has it not uncovered sorry stories of incompetence and political interference in LEAs under Labour up and down the country? For

    1091
    example, notwithstanding the promise of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), that Islington would provide education
    "in a class of its own",
    Ofsted found the authority to be "inadequate and ineffective". What about Sheffield under Labour control and the damning conclusions of Ofsted's report? There were
    "financial difficulties and poor budget planning"
    and school buildings were in an
    "unacceptably poor state…frustration and demoralisation".
    What message does the Minister have for Sheffield? If these Ministers have any time on their hands, would it not be better spent cleaning up their own back yard?
    Ms Morris: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would want me to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point: Sheffield is run by the Liberal Democrats, not Labour. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will be pleased to learn that the same applies to Islington.
    The hon. Gentleman was able to ask his question only because this Government have decided to inspect local authorities, because this Government have taken powers to ensure that they can do something when they are shown to be failing, and because this Government have made certain that the amount spent by local authorities and passported to schools is available to the public. None of that happened when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government. The information is now available, and we have already shown by our actions and our words over the past year that where there is failure—whether it be in a local education authority or in a school, and whether an authority is run by the Tories, the Liberal Democrats or Labour—we will take action. What we are about is raising standards for individual children, and not playing politics, as the hon. Gentleman has done.
    Mr. David Taylor: Further to the question from my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), may I point out that there is an even worse case in terms of the county funding league? Leicestershire is used to heading the league in sporting terms, but in funding terms we do not, and the gap is becoming slightly larger: it is now £13 million a year. Does the Minister agree that that is a void into which many schools and students can plunge?
    Ms Morris: The sum total of contributions from Members today simply enforces the Secretary of State's wish to change the formula and to ensure that it is fair and robust, so that, at future Question Times, Members can line up to congratulate us on the changes that we have made.

    Mature Students
    Mr. Peter Brooke: What assessment he has made of the effect of Government policies on applications for higher education from mature students. [109132]
    Mr. John Heppell: If he will make a statement on support for mature students in higher education. [109135]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): The number of mature students entering higher education remains healthy, but we accept that mature students often have bigger financial commitments than others. We have therefore announced a package of measures, costing £68 million in a full year, which addresses their concerns. For the coming year, bursaries for mature students will be available, largely to support child care costs.
    This week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the development of new two-year foundation degrees, which will be particularly attractive to mature students. He also announced a new framework for vocational qualifications, both in institutions and in the workplace.
    Mr. Brooke: Given the fall in the number of applications from mature students, who are one of the glories of our higher-education system, does the Government's concern about the trend extend to accelerating their promised review of tuition fees?
    Mr. Wicks: The fall in the number of mature students is very slight—less than 1 per cent. More are now choosing to study part-time. The number of 20-year-olds is smaller than it was some years ago, and we also have a buoyant labour market, which is enabling many people to choose to work and to study—in other words, to enter the sector part-time. We are confident that the opportunities for mature students will be buoyant in the future, not least because of the additional support that we are giving them.
    Mr. Heppell: The Minister says that many mature students now choose to study part time. In fact, many are forced to do that because of work or family commitments. Can the Minister assure us that part-time students who have had a bad deal in the past, especially under the last Government—people on low incomes, or those who have lost their jobs to study—will have their tuition fees waived? Will they also be given help with extra study costs, such as the cost of books?
    Mr. Wicks: It is certainly true that more mature students are now choosing to study part time, for the reasons given by me and by my hon. Friend. The former system of student support gave little if any help to part-time students, but we have changed that. In the current academic year, part-time students on low incomes will have their fees waived, as will those who lose their jobs while studying. In the coming academic year, part-time students will have access to loans for the first time.

    1093
    In addition, part-time students are eligible for the disabled students allowance. Many people with disabilities have no choice but to study part time. That will be a major step forward for that group in getting access to that education sector.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Is the Minister aware of his Department's research, which is now available in the Library, showing that mature students are deterred by tuition fees from accessing higher education and, indeed, that the Department knew that in advance? Does he not recognise that they and other disadvantaged students will be even more deterred by the threat of ever-increasing tuition fees, or, indeed, top-up fees?
    The two universities in Oxford need to increase access to those groups, not just to restrict access to clever students who happen to be rich. At a time when Scotland is abolishing tuition fees as a discredited policy, should not the Minister explore that option, instead of considering new ways of imposing or increasing such fees?
    Mr. Wicks: The proposals in Scotland do not involve the abolition of tuition fees—[Interruption.] I shall tell it to whoever wants to listen.
    We are putting in place the £68 million package to help mature students, particularly those with children and child care costs. We are very sensitive to the family dimension—so much so that we have recognised, for example, an anomaly whereby school meals for children of mature students were not covered. We are putting that right. We are very sensitive to the issue. We want to enable more mature students to enter the system.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the new package of financial support for mature students. Last week, I sat with a mature student in my constituency and went through the new proposals. That exercise demonstrated that they will be a real and significant help, but does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of university top-up fees is one of the measures that could affect access to university by mature students? Will he therefore reaffirm the Government's opposition to differential top-up fees?
    Mr. Wicks: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. I know of his interest in the matter. On top-up fees, the Government policy has not changed. The current system of student support is working well. Student numbers are up and more money is going into colleges and universities. The Government have announced an 11 per cent. real-terms boost for higher education funding in the current Parliament, but they recognise that a debate is under way in the wider world, which should be conducted with intellectual rigour. However, we are confident that the system is working well—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not want to hear it, but more students are entering our system and more of those students are doing well. We are funding the higher education sector in a way that the last Conservative Government could not even begin to understand.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: On this morning's form, Ministers are clearly collectively preparing vigorously for
    1094
    opposition. In his answers, the Minister has already had to concede that mature student applications are falling and that, despite the dirty deal done in Scotland, tuition fees remain a reality in Scotland, even if deferred. As a result of his clear embarrassment, he has had to concede an access package as well.
    In the light of that tremendous mega-mess for student support, which differs between Scotland and England, with new anomalies introduced every day, can the Minister answer a specific question: will his proposed access fund bursary in England for mature students be available to Scottish students at English universities who do not benefit from the Scottish student support arrangements? If so, on which departmental vote will it be carried?
    Mr. Wicks: One of us has to learn opposition and, as the Minister for lifelong learning, I have a good guess who it will be. It is difficult to keep up with the Conservative U-turns. The Conservatives used to be against Scottish devolution; now I think that they are in favour of it. What their current position is on tax expenditure I do not know. I raise that because we would not think it sensible to spend hundreds of millions of pounds implementing Scottish proposals.
    We would not be prepared to take that money from nursery education, the school system or the national health service budget. I am not sure whether the Conservative Opposition are now proposing doing that.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What recent representations he has received about the new teachers' pay arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [109136]
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the introduction of performance-related pay for teachers. [109141]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): On 1 February, the School Teachers Review Body published its report, recommending a pay increase of 3.3 per cent. for all classroom teachers; continuance of the existing incremental scales through to the new threshold level; a £2,000 uplift for all those who go through the performance threshold; and a new incremental scale for those who have passed that threshold requirement, so that they are able to access salary increases up to £30,000.
    Mr. Clapham: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but how does he answer teachers in my constituency in Barnsley, who believe that the progressive measures that he has introduced—such as the new college for head teachers, better teacher training, 2,000 classroom assistants, and the building of more and better schools—have added to the opportunity and the context of achieving high standards in education, but who also believe that the introduction of performance threshold

    1095
    payments may well undermine morale, at a time when we are trying to achieve excellence in education? May I hasten to add that I have some sympathy for that view?
    Mr. Blunkett: Let me say this to my very good colleagues from Barnsley—my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). I used to teach in Barnsley. If I had told the coalfield community representatives I used to teach that they would receive an above-inflation pay increase; that, if they did their job well, they would receive £2,000; that, once they received the £2,000 uplift, they would enter a new incremental scale that most of those who work in manual and craft trades have never had; and that—when they had entered that incremental scale—they could earn up to £30,000, I would think that their morale would have improved. I should think that they would also wholeheartedly have welcomed that enormous boost in pay for teachers.
    Mr. Illsley: As my right hon. Friend is aware, Barnsley is a low-income area, where GDP is 66 per cent. of the European average and is lower than that of Poland and of poorer countries in the European Union such as Portugal. Consequently, we have less parental engagement in matters such as book purchasing, a lower incidence of computer ownership and internet access and hence lower educational achievement. Will not teachers in Barnsley, when judged on the basis of pupil progress and attainment, be at a disadvantage because of that lower educational achievement, which has been caused by low incomes? Might not assessing teachers on that basis also make it more difficult for Barnsley to attract quality teachers who could take advantage of the performance pay proposals?
    Mr. Blunkett: The answer to the first question is a resounding no. We have built prior attainment into the threshold requirements as an absolutely key issue, so that the point at which a teacher inherits a child will be taken into account in assessing progress. Every teacher who has entered the profession has done so for one reason only—to enhance their pupils' performance and achievement levels. Therefore—wherever they are and at whatever position they start—they will be rewarded on the progress that has been made with their pupils.
    With the objective 1 status that the Government have obtained for South Yorkshire, it will be possible to ensure that we uplift not only economic activity and employment levels, but our communities' aspirations and expectations, so that we are able not only to attract the best teachers but to ensure that pupils and parents are committed to ensuring that our area of South Yorkshire does not remain in that position for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Phil Willis: It is a good day for Liberal Democrats: we have had an announcement that, as a result of our efforts in Scotland, tuition fees have been abolished; and in three of the most severely failing boroughs—Liverpool, Islington and Sheffield—the Liberal Democrats are sorting out the mess that has been made.
    The Secretary of State will know that I have real reservations about performance-related pay. Does he agree that, if a performance-related pay scheme is to work effectively, money will have to be not only additional, but
    1096
    ring-fenced, and guaranteed to those who go through the threshold? We have guarantees in place for two years, but after that there are no more guarantees. Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to admit to the House today that the money will be ring-fenced, that every teacher will be guaranteed payments and that the payments will not come out of existing school budgets, the entire scheme will be a sham.
    Mr. Blunkett: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is difficult to see how anyone in Scotland has gained, with 40 per cent. of students not paying fees in the first place and now having the non-fee deferred so that they have to pay after they have left university. That is a very interesting double somersault.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I can give an absolute guarantee that the programme that we have set up within the spending review for the additional £2,000 uplift will continue to be available on a ring-fenced basis. We will guarantee that any teacher going through the threshold will receive it.
    Mrs. Theresa May: One reason why many teachers are worried about the new teachers' pay arrangements is their concern about where the money will come from in the long term. It is little wonder that they are worried, given that yet again this year the Government have failed to fund the basic teachers' pay award, despite all the Secretary of State's complacent claims about extra funding for local education authorities. Does the Secretary of State not accept that the reality is very different from the spin—that some local education authorities have received only superficial increases this year, and that that may very well give rise to real misunderstandings about their position?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased that it is Maths Year 2000. If we subtract a pay increase of 3.3 per cent. from the 5.4 per cent. average increase and then add the £50 million from the Department, the standards fund, the ring-fenced funding for 20,000 teaching assistants and all the investment in the literacy and numeracy programmes, it is clear that the pay increase is perfectly affordable so long as authorities passport on the money that is being provided for education to their schools and ring-fence the additional resources that are being provided for the £2,000 uplift and the future incremental scale payment. None of that was introduced by the previous Government and it is all guaranteed by the present Government.
    Mrs. May: I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not accept what I said because I was quoting his own words. In his letter of 8 December to the schoolteachers review body, he wrote:
    "I hope that the STRB will bear in mind the considerable demands on schools and LEAs. Some authorities have superficial increases which may give rise to a misunderstanding."
    He went on to say that some authorities
    "have increases which would make a pay award much greater than inflation very difficult to handle … There is real worry across the country".
    Those are the Secretary of State's own words. Is not the fact that an authority such as Sheffield has to cut school budgets in order to access Government funds the mathematics of the madhouse? The Government have failed to deliver on their election manifesto promise to

    1097
    increase the proportion of national income spent on education. They are failing to fund the teachers' pay award. It is just another demonstration that, on education funding, the Government are all mouth and no delivery.
    Mr. Blunkett: I said in that letter that there could be a superficial misunderstanding and that is clearly the case. As I said a moment ago, we added in £50 million from my own Department, over and above the revenue support grant provided by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to ensure that no authority would be unable to afford the teachers' pay increase. I lifted the match funding from the excellence in cities authorities, which happen to include Sheffield, and the £90 million that would otherwise have had to go into the teachers' pension fund requirement. All those measures have made the pay increase affordable.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Can my right hon. Friend promise us more teachers? Can he be absolutely certain that the large-scale extra moneys that he is making available for our schools are not being misdirected by councils? Does he accept that parents want more teachers in the classroom, but that there is a suspicion that some councils are not using the money for schools?
    Mr. Blunkett: That is why we have taken decisive steps to ensure that the authorities pass resources on to schools. We are monitoring that requirement—we will report on it in the summer—in terms of the administrative hold-back and the passporting to schools. By September, we will have an additional 6,000 teachers in our schools, largely through the ring-fenced funding—over and above the revenue support grant—to implement our class size pledge.

    School Selection
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on selection in schools. [109137]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The Government set out their approach to selection in schools in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. We want an education system that benefits the many, not the few, and we want all children in all schools to receive good-quality education.
    Mr. O'Brien: Selection also relates, by definition, to special needs, and the Prime Minister said, during the 1997 election campaign:
    "We will not close good schools just on financial grounds."
    This is the first opportunity I have had to condemn outright the Secretary of State's decision to close Brook Farm school in my constituency—on financial grounds—causing real distress to the staff, pupils and parents of that very special school.
    In relation to selection generally, on what basis did the Government decide that a mere 10 parents are sufficient to appeal to the schools adjudicator to rule against the admission policies and arrangements of a local education authority?
    Ms Morris: On the first of those two supplementary questions, I was fortunate enough to meet some of the
    1098
    representatives from the school to which the hon. Gentleman referred, who put forward a powerful case, and I understood the strength of their feelings. Decisions about the planning of special needs places are never easy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered all the evidence that he had before him. There is bound to be a need to look at the provision of special needs places at certain times and, given the local authority reorganisation that has taken place in the hon. Gentleman's area, it was appropriate to make the difficult decisions that have to be made. My right hon. Friend is confident that the children will continue to receive good-quality education, and that must always be what guides us.
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question, I cannot see why he would argue against giving parents the right to have their concerns considered by a third party.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: What conclusions does my right hon. Friend draw from the fact that in Trafford, where we have a wholly selective education system, one in three secondary-age pupils goes to a grammar school, whereas only one in 10 of those on free school meals does so and only one in 20 of those with special educational needs does so?
    Ms Morris: I conclude that more children who receive free school meals do not go to grammar schools. The point that my hon. Friend makes is interesting, but—although the statistics are right—we need to keep focused on the real challenge, which is to have high expectations of every child and to have a school system that values them. To give children on free school meals, and all the others, the best possible start in life, we must ensure there are good-quality teachers in well-equipped classrooms in schools that are ready to face the new century. With respect, the issue is not the structure but what is happening in the classroom.
    Mr. John Bercow: The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was grossly unsatisfactory. Why should unelected schools adjudicators, such as the Secretary of State's Sheffield socialist chum, the Rev. Dr. Alan Billings, be able to ride roughshod over the wishes of individual schools and elected education authorities simply because 10 local malcontents demand it? Given that a string of Labour Members of Parliament send their children to grammar schools but deny that other parents have the right to do the same, is it not now abundantly clear that Labour's message today is what it has always been—do as we say, not as we do?
    Ms Morris: That was one of the most interesting policy announcements made this Question Time—that the new Tory word for parents is "malcontents". I think that those "malcontents" are some of the most important people in the education service. It is crucial that we seek every opportunity to give parents a role in expressing a view about their children's education. It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's question that, were he ever to come to government, he would act to remove that power from parents. This Government want to empower parents, in this and other matters.

    Labour Market Access
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What role he plans for intermediary organisations in widening access to the labour market. [109140]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The Employment Service works with a wide range of organisations to help unemployed people find jobs. Intermediary organisations can offer valuable opportunities to unemployed people through work experience and by matching the skills that people have to offer with those needed by employers.
    Mr. Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that intermediary organisations have a significant role to play, and that their detailed knowledge will help communities and employers to match people with jobs? Is not that help vital in assisting people to find work?
    Ms Hodge: Intermediary organisations have a powerful role to play in matching job opportunities with the skills of individuals. The support for such organisations is evident in the work of the policy action team on jobs and of the new deal taskforce. The Tayside scheme which operates in my hon. Friend's constituency of Dundee, West is already successfully matching young jobseekers to job opportunities. Of the 28 people who started that scheme, 16 have found jobs.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister had the chance to review the Government's three years' experience of running the new deal, under which new deal officials are the intermediaries who help people into work? The statistics show that, in the year before the new deal began, the Government were spectacularly successful in getting people back to work. However, since the new deal was introduced, the same success has not been achieved. Is it not the case that people find jobs more readily for themselves than they do through the new deal? Will the Minister take that into account, in order to save taxpayers' money and get more people back to work?
    Ms Hodge: I disagree completely with the hon. Gentleman's contention. The new deal exists to support people who have been unemployed for six months and who therefore require help to get back to work. Our data so far show that, in areas where the new deal operates, we have achieved a return-to-work rate that is 18 per cent. higher than in the rest of the country, and that 6 per cent. more people are finding work. The new deal employment advisers are doing a spectacularly good job in improving peoples' employability. In addition, with the help of the intermediary organisations, we are finding new ways to match people with the growing job opportunities in the labour market.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's supply-side measures on employment, which include the new deal and intermediary agencies, are probably among the best that I have witnessed in 30 years in politics? They are also producing the highest employment rates that we have had for 30 years. However, is my hon. Friend also aware that the employment rate in the south-east is 79 per cent.,
    1100
    compared with only 67 per cent. in the north-east? If we are to achieve the one nation that the Government want—I share their ambition in that respect—do we not need a more even spread of prosperity?
    Ms Hodge: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, especially about the interventions in the labour market that have resulted from the new deal. I accept that work remains to be done, especially in the north-east, to ensure that people have more job opportunities. However, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, according to the statistics announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities earlier this week, the north-east is one of the fastest-growing labour markets in the country,

    Specialist Schools
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What proportion of secondary schools he expects to have specialist school status by May 2002. [109142]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Plans provide for more than 600 specialist schools to be operational by May 2002. That figure represents 19 per cent. of all maintained secondary schools.
    Mr. Prentice: I congratulate the Government on their decision to award technology college status to West Craven high school in Barnoldswick, in my constituency. When that decision was made, I reflected on the schools which have applied for that status and have been turned down, or which will be turned down in future. Once we have set up the complex matrix of art, technology, language and sport colleges, how will the 80 per cent. of schools that do not fall into any of those categories feel? Is there not a danger that they will feel isolated, and that they are failures?
    Jacqui Smith: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating West Craven high school, which set targets to raise standards in design and technology, science, mathematics and information communication technology. I share his concern that the good work of developing specialist schools should benefit other schools in the system. The Government have ensured that there is a link between the funding provided for the specialist facilities in the school and the support provided to neighbouring schools, as a fundamental part both of the process of planning to become a specialist school and of the evaluation of an establishment's progress once it is in the scheme.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister accept that, if schools are to enhance educational opportunity, parents must feel comfortable about choosing between different specialist schools, according to the aptitudes and needs of their children? Does she share my concern that, in areas such as Sheffield, parents are

    1101
    reluctant to exercise parental preference because schools are so full that parents are being offered their second or third choice rather than being able to fall back on catchment schools? Can the hon. Lady offer such parents any prospect of being able safely to express a preference between specialist and other schools, so that they can take advantage of the initiative?
    Jacqui Smith: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about parents being able to express a preference and have it recognised, that is not a function of the specialist school programme. What is important is the fact that the Government have enabled parents to obtain clearer information about admission arrangements—which is what parents expect and what we have delivered.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a world of difference between teaching in a secondary school in a comfortable suburb, with well-behaved middle-class kids, and teaching in an area where there is massive deprivation and frequently challenging classroom behaviour? I know that teachers are motivated by more than money, but should the Government not consider providing financial incentives to encourage more of our best teachers to work in some of our worst schools?
    Jacqui Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend's contention that many teachers fill a challenging role in some difficult schools—and I congratulate them. Our proposals in the forthcoming Green Paper on reform in the teaching profession will address the need to recruit teachers and to ensure that those working in challenging circumstances and making a difference to their pupils' progress—which is what they are in the profession to do—will receive the recognition they deserve. Enhancing the status of teaching will also improve professionalism and recruitment to precisely the sort of schools to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Adult and Continuing Education
    Mr. Andrew Love: What steps he is taking to increase the provision of adult and continuing education. [109144]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Adult and community learning is a vital part of the Government's plans to drive up achievement, widen participation and—most significantly—strengthen communities. With the establishment of learning and skills councils in 47 communities, we will aim at bringing about a step change in the scale and range of attractive and accessible opportunities available locally. We already plan to double our standards fund support for local authorities' adult and continuing learning, with £18 million from this coming April. That is just a small part of the money available from central and local government for adult education.
    Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that family learning initiatives can have a major impact on the educational achievements of children and parents? Will he commit himself to a major expansion of family learning initiatives in Edmonton and across the country?
    Mr. Wicks: My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in family learning. Next year, we shall spend £7 million on family literacy and numeracy schemes. We also include family learning in a wide range of educational programmes. I agree with my hon. Friend's emphasis on family learning. We must establish the idea that, when a child receives his or her first chance at education—in nursery or primary school—it can provide a second chance for the mother or father, not least in terms of basic skills. Educationally, what happens in the home may be at least as important as what happens in the school.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us 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 will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Opposition day [5th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Excellence in Education: the Government's Failure to Deliver". Followed by a debate on the Millennium Dome. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion (First Day).
The business for the week following the Adjournment will be:
MONDAY 28 FEBRUARY-Conclusion of debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion.
Third Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY 29 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill.
WEDNESDAY 1 MARCH—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 2 MARCH—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The business for Monday 6 March will be:
MONDAY 6 MARCH—Second Reading of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 1 March, there will be a debate on European Union humanitarian and development aid in European Standing Committee B.
I should like to give the House advance notice of business to be taken in Westminster Hall for the remainder of March.
THURSDAY 9 MARCH—Debate entitled 'Work/Life Balance'.
THURSDAY 16 MARCH—Debate on the Sixth Report from the Public Administration Committee Session 1998–1999 on Quangos.
THURSDAY 23 MARCH—Debate on Pensions Reform.
THURSDAY 30 MARCH—Debate on the Seventh Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1998–1999, on Women and Development.
The House may also wish to know that following discussions through the usual channels, it was thought to be for the general convenience that business on Tuesday 22 February should be taken on the pattern of sittings employed on Thursdays. Business will therefore commence at 11.30 am.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business, and for that for the following week.
1104
On Tuesday, the House heard two important statements, which require debate in Government time. The first was on the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, and the second was on the Waterhouse report on child abuse. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that she will find time for those debates in the near future?
On Monday next, the Government face defeat in another place on free mailshots for candidates in the London mayoral election, an issue on which they have few friends. If they are defeated, can the House have a statement on their plans, as time is beginning to run out?
I welcome the two-day defence debate. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that we shall also have the traditional three separate debates on defence matters?
When can we expect an announcement on the BBC licence fee? The Government have had the Davies committee's report for more than seven months, but there is still no sign of a decision.
Finally, next Tuesday marks the anniversary of the Prime Minister's statement to the House on the national changeover plan. Will he come to the House then to tell us the Government's estimate of the costs of changeover, and how it compares with the £36 billion estimated in today's newspapers?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman asked for debates on the IGC and the Waterhouse report. On the IGC, he knows that such matters do not move at break-neck speed, so I take heed of his observation. We shall look for an opportunity to find a slot in which those matters can be aired—although such an opportunity might not be exclusive to the IGC.
The Government realise that there is great interest in the Waterhouse report on both sides of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, time for debate on the Floor is at a premium, but we may be able to find time for an initial debate in Westminster Hall—we could explore that.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the possibility of a Government defeat in another place. It is interesting that he makes that point. If the Government are defeated, we shall have to take account of that and consider whether to make a statement to the House. However, it is a bizarre proceeding when a House in which not one person is elected presumes to make a judgment as to how an election should be run.
It is even more bizarre because the cost of a free mailshot, in what is—with respect to this great metropolis—a local election, would be about £15 million. I understand that that would be the cost of employing another 500 or 600 police officers. The people of London would probably think that Opposition parties had strange priorities if they chose to spend public money in that way. Standing would be a good investment for any candidate—another factor that a responsible Opposition might take into account—because, for a few thousand pounds, that person would get a free mailshot to every home in London.
It is bizarre that, for the first time since 1968—when, by a remarkable coincidence, there was also a Labour Government—the House of Lords might choose to flex its muscles in that way. I hope that it will have more sense than to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would hold the three separate day defence debates. We have given an undertaking that those debates will be scheduled

1105
in due course; we stand by that. I cannot tell him when an announcement on the licence fee will be made, although it will not be next week.
I have not read the stories about the national changeover plan to which he referred, so I am unable to assess their validity. I do not anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will rush to the House on Tuesday to discuss the matter.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May we have a debate on genetically modified foods and producer liabilities? I ask that for two reasons. First, I have received a letter from NFU Mutual Insurance to an east midlands farmer, Peter Lundgren, pointing out that he and other farmers are not insured for the loss of value of farm land on the open market resulting from the growing of GM crops; nor are organic farmers covered for the loss of GM status. No farmers will be covered for the potential loss of crops through cross-pollination.
Secondly, the matter needs to be debated urgently because I understand that Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials are advising the Government to accept the registration of GM crops on the European common register. That would invalidate all our constraints on field and farm trials and may saddle farming communities with liabilities and bankruptcies, which would be disastrous for everyone concerned.
Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's long interest in that matter. I am not aware of the advice given by MAFF officials to their Ministers—let alone the decisions that they may take. He raises a serious issue and although I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate, I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I endorse the request for an urgent statement on the digital licence supplementary fee. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was promised a statement by the end of last year—we are now two months into this year.
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to two important, topical Select Committee reports which were published this morning and on which we cannot wait for the usual long-delayed response from the Government. The first is from the Welsh Affairs Committee on European structural funds and strongly endorses the case put by the Opposition parties in Cardiff that a statement on matched funding must be made urgently by the Government. That is, of course, relevant to the situation in Cardiff. May we have that urgent statement?
May I also ask the Leader of the House—this is very topical—for an urgent statement on the future of National Air Traffic Services on which the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs has, this morning, published a damning report that is a complete indictment of the Government's policy? The Committee says:
"The current proposal for a public-private partnership for NATS is, in our view, the worst of all the possible options"
It also points out that
"we have noted the Government's paltry and, at times disingenuous, reasons for dismissing the alternative models."
1106
I draw attention to the fact that there is an increasing view on both sides of the House that the way in which the Government deal with Select Committee reports is far from satisfactory. This case is a litmus test of the Government's attitude to Select Committees and, not least, to the Labour majority on this Committee.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not recall that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) had extracted the undertaking to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I am always wary of promising anything. That is clearly a good rule to follow.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the reports published by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. On the first, the Government, of course, recognise the importance of European Union structural funds. However, I do not share in any way the hon. Gentleman's view that the concern that led representatives of the Liberal Democrats and others to eject recently the First Secretary in Wales was well founded. If it had not been for the Government's efforts, there would not have been any objective 1 funds to match in the first place. It is ludicrous that that pretext was used to achieve, in my opinion, entirely other ends. There is no doubt about the Government's firm commitment—in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom—on structural funds. We would not have worked so hard to negotiate them had that not been the case.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Select Committee report on the future of NATS. As he will appreciate, the report is based on evidence taken before the discussions that are under way in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill. In due course, the Bill will be reported to the House and there will be many opportunities to pursue the issue then.
Ms Rosie Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Government's announcement this week for clear targets to reduce car crime and burglary? The targets have been very much welcomed in my constituency because the audit carried out by the local police and local authority has identified those two problems as being of particular concern to my constituents. Would not such a debate provide an excellent opportunity to highlight the steps that the Government have taken to cut crime and to expose the record of the previous Tory Administration, under whom crime doubled and the number of criminals brought to book fell by a third?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct and I recognise the temptation that would be offered by a debate that would expose the record of the previous Government, under whom crime doubled. That would enable us to point out the steps that the Government have taken to set targets for the reduction in the number of crimes that cause particular concern and make people feel insecure. In some ways, such insecurity is out of all proportion to the impact of an individual occurrence. The debate would also give us an opportunity to trumpet the increase in police numbers that will take place under this Government. I believe that it will be more than 100 in the area that my hon. Friend represents.

1107
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have to judge their priorities firmly. Much though it is attractive to use opportunities to expose the Conservative party's record, I fear that this is another one that we shall have to pass up.
Mr. Graham Brady: Given that the Prime Minister has participated in only 5 per cent. of the Divisions in the House in this Session, we would hardly expect him to rush here to make a statement on Tuesday or any other day. The Leader of the House will be aware that, when the Prime Minister published the national handover plan a year ago, he promised to update the House on its progress on its first anniversary. Was this a meaningful promise from the Prime Minister or was it, like his health service spending plans, merely an aspiration?
Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman asking for a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman is in fact asking for a statement. As for his introductory remarks, I think that he has forgotten, or does not want to know, that the Prime Minister has spent more time in the House at Prime Minister's Question Time and answered more questions than did his predecessor. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members hate it, but those are the facts. My right hon. Friend has also given more statements on matters such as Northern Ireland, Iraq and international meetings than did his predecessor. There is no truth whatever in the continual allegations of Conservative Members that the Prime Minister is reluctant to come here. Indeed, I see every sign that he enjoys Prime Minister's Question Time, and he has good reason to do so.
I do not recall a specific commitment to come to the House on the anniversary of that statement, and if that fell, as anniversaries sometimes do, on a non-sitting day, no one would be able to assume such a commitment. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the Opposition are taking such an interest in the changeover plan; I thought that they were spending all their time resisting the notion of a changeover.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we have a statement on the resignation on matters of principle and policy, particularly towards the children of Iraq, by the distinguished international civil servant, Mrs. Jutta Burghardt? She is the third international civil servant who has been in Baghdad, seen the situation at first hand and then decided to resign, following the Irishman, Denis Halliday, and another German, Hans von Sponeck. When such people, who are close to the problem, resign on matters of principle, ought there not to be some explanation from the Government and the feeling that policy should be reconsidered?
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House knows of my hon. Friend's deep interest and concern in these matters and his sympathy for those who are affected by the problems that have arisen in Iraq as a result, of course, of the actions of the Iraqi Government.
1108
As to whether we should seek a statement in the House, the lady is, as my hon. Friend rightly says, an international civil servant. She is an employee not of the Government, but of the United Nations, and the policy to which she objects says that Iraq must face sanctions unless it complies with international demands to disarms. That is an international policy supported by many Governments.
There is, mapped out in resolution 1284, a clear path out of sanctions for Iraq and its people, if only the Iraqi Government would take it. Although I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern, which I presume also lies behind the resignation, the answer is in the hands of the Iraqi Government.
Mr. Roger Gale: It is now some four months since the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he would give those over 75 a television licence at the expense of the taxpayer. We were lead to believe initially that it was to be the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It then became apparent that the Department of Social Security was having problems with the computer programme, and for that reason details of the scheme have not been announced.
I was astonished to learn by letter from a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport this week that this is now a matter for TV licensing and the BBC and that, incredibly, the Department of Social Security is now deciding whether to make its computer information available to the BBC, so that it can work out the programme. The previous system was bad, but this is a shambles. Can we have a full debate on the concessionary television licence so that my elderly constituents, who are distressed and concerned, can find out who is responsible and when they will get the licence that they have been promised?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back he will recall that the Government undertook to seek to make such licences available from the autumn, and that remains our intention. With deep respect to him and without any disrespect to his constituents, frankly I doubt whether they will have the slightest interest in the mechanism by which the policy is delivered, as long as it is delivered, and that remains the Government's intention. He said that the policy is "at the expense of taxpayers", so I presume from that phrase that he opposes the idea of free TV licences.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on education funding, covering the passporting of money by local education authorities to schools and the inequity in education funding between different parts of the country? Schools in Nottinghamshire receive considerably less per pupil than schools in other parts of the country.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for another debate on the matter. As my hon. Friend knows, we have just had Education questions, and I am sure that he will take every opportunity to raise the concerns that affect his constituents. I believe that Nottinghamshire will benefit from receiving about £15 million from the extra money that the Government are making available. I understand his concern, which is felt by Members on both sides of the House, if he

1109
believes that that is not as fair a share as it should be. However, I offer him the consolation that this is extra money, which Nottinghamshire would not have received under a Conservative Government.
Mr. William Ross: Given the way in which matters have developed in Northern Ireland over the past week, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so that we can at least question him on what is going on there, or else can we have a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend is, and always has been, very willing and prepared to come to the House when he has something of substance to report, particularly when he believes that it would be helpful to keep the House informed. Equally, I am positive that the hon. Gentleman, like all hon. Members, would not wish to press for a statement at a time when the position may be less than clear and when it might not be wholly helpful to the peace process for my right hon. Friend to be making statements about a moving position. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will of course keep the House informed as and when he can.
Ms Debra Shipley: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on rogue companies? The operations of such companies have been brought to my attention by good and decent businesses in my Stourbridge constituency, which includes the manufacturing areas of Quarry Bank, Cradley and Lye. I refer to businesses that operate for a while, go into liquidation—leaving huge unpaid bills all over the place—and start up again a matter of days later, often in the same premises, sometimes with the same staff, the same furniture and even the same telephone number. When I asked the companies that approached me how many examples they had, they said, "It happens all over the country. How many do you want?" We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of rogue companies, and it is a very important issue.
Mrs. Beckett: I know, even from before the general election, of the close relationship that my hon. Friend enjoys with the business community in her area, and how well respected she is by it. Having met her in such company, I understand that she has strong links with its members in that the information that they have given her represents the position as they find it. She describes a problem that is very difficult to handle—successive Governments have grappled with it. Equally, I accept that it causes real problems for people who are genuinely enterprising and are trying to make a success of business on fair and reasonable terms. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on this in the House, but I draw to her attention the opportunities that the extra sittings in Westminster Hall present. That is something that many hon. Members in all parties might wish to pursue.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Can we have an early debate about the way in which the Government are undermining the independent role of regulators? The appalling instance yesterday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer intervened and overrode the Director General of Oftel by making a premature announcement in relation
1110
to new regulatory roles affecting the internet, wiped billions of pounds off the value of British Telecom shares and undermined the role of the independent regulator. That followed quickly upon the action of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in undermining the Director General of Fair Trading by suggesting that we were all suffering from rip-off Britain and having to pay very much higher supermarket prices than was reasonable. We now find that that was totally untrue and served only to undermine the value of the shares of leading supermarkets and make them more vulnerable to takeover. Is that not an appalling way to interfere with British business?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he should come to business questions more often. If he did, he would find that for a happy three quarters of an hour or so, we have a succession of requests from his right hon. and hon. Friends for Ministers to make statements and pronouncements on a range of matters. It would go down badly with most of them if I said repeatedly that in each case, it was a matter for the regulator. "I want the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and answer" is what they would say. I suggest that the Opposition get their act together and decide what they want.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I hear whispers that the countryside Bill will not be published this month. Is that true? If it is not to be published, who is holding it back?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot answer my hon. Friend off the cuff. It is possible that publication has slipped by a day or two, but if that proves to be the case, I advise him not to read anything deeply sinister into it.
Mr. John Hayes: The Leader of the House will be familiar with the concerns expressed by the British Medical Association about the Government's habit of announcing funds for the NHS, then re-announcing the same funds several times. The BMA stated in a letter to the Prime Minister—which, I must tell the right hon. Lady, has remained unanswered—that that makes it very difficult to deliver a stable service. Will she therefore give a commitment that in any announcements of funding that are made in the next week, real extra funding will be marked with an asterisk, and additional funding with a "B" for bogus, or even an "L" for something unparliamentary? That would allow hon. Members to determine whether it was real extra money or simply smoke and mirrors.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of what the BMA wrote to the Prime Minister. Of course the BMA is an effective, experienced and rightly respected group, which is expert, rightly, at lobbying for extra funds for the health service. I take with a pinch of salt the notion that it disrupts the stability of planning when announcements are made. Those who run the health service are well aware of what funds are being made available, the time scale and so on, and I doubt whether they pay much attention to the timing of press notices.
As to real extra funding, a great deal of hypocritical nonsense is spoken about that. There is real extra money—substantial extra money—for the health service, and every single penny that my right hon. Friend the

1111
Secretary of State for Health announces as extra is extra, over and above the plans that were in place when the party that the hon. Gentleman supported was in office.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I join the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in asking for a debate on matters relating to the internet? What the Chancellor said yesterday is supported by most of my constituents and most of Britain, who believe that British Telecom is effectively running a racket on the internet, denying millions of people access and should be stopped in its tracks.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that there is enormous interest in how we can best make use of the opportunities presented by the internet, in e-commerce, in modernising government and in various other areas. I am pleased to hear that, as I had hoped, the Chancellor's announcement has gained a widespread welcome.
Mr. Mike Hancock: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Audit Commission report on the appalling tragedy of the large number of people who are dying in our hospitals through diseases contracted in hospital? That is illustrated by the sad experience of my constituent, the late Mr. Ken Lynch. He died tragically after going into hospital suffering from an asthma attack, and subsequently being attacked by a psychiatric patient in the hospital, which resulted in him remaining in hospital for several weeks, during which time he contracted pseudomonas, from which he died, sadly, two weeks ago.
In reply to a question on the matter, it was stated that pseudomonas was not a notifiable disease, so deaths from that hospital-contracted illness are never reported as such. There must be a debate on this tragedy, of which the whole country should be ashamed. The sooner we have it, the better.
Mrs. Beckett: The House will understand and share the hon. Gentleman's concern and will want to extend its sympathy to his constituent's family. As I believe the heath service's chief executive said this morning, this is a growing problem throughout the world, which is increasingly being recognised and tackled. Sadly, not all infections are preventable, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have issued new standards on infection control against which NHS trusts must monitor their performance. I recognise that he is concerned about the monitoring of a specific disease, but I am sure that he will accept that it is the overall picture that is important. Compliance will be monitored against those standards by the Audit Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement, so we are putting in place structures that we hope will enable the problem to be tackled. All will recognise that it is a problem that we must do our utmost to overcome.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's press reports suggesting that a police report will recommend to the Government the reclassification of the killer drug ecstasy—effectively, a downgrading of that drug? Will not that send all the wrong messages to susceptible young
1112
people when we should be doing everything possible to discourage them from taking this drug, no matter how widely used it is reported to be? I am thinking of young people, such as my constituent, John Hoskins, a former British soldier, who tragically received poisonous ecstasy in a nightclub in the Medway towns last year. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a Home Office Minister to make an early statement declaring our position to be unchanged and stating clearly that we will fight the war on drugs without any softening of our approach?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers, nor am I aware whether such observations will be made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend is right to express concern, and I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to his remarks. My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister takes a close personal interest in this area of policy and met Keith Hellawell earlier this week. I hope that he will also know that figures show that the number of young people experimenting with drugs has fallen recently, which all will find encouraging, although there will inevitably from time to time be tragedies. Again, the House will sympathise with the family of the young man to whom my hon. Friend referred. I cannot promise an early debate on the matter, but I assure him that the Government take the matter seriously, and I will draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Christopher Gill: May we have an early debate on the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of the Government's health care provisions, particularly as it affects my constituents in south Shropshire and people living in north Worcestershire? The Leader of the House may recall that last year the Prime Minister said that all accident and emergency units throughout Britain would be upgraded, but my constituents' experience is that the accident and emergency unit at Kidderminster general hospital will be downgraded. The Leader of the House may not know that my constituents were also promised that various services would continue at Kidderminster general hospital until a new district general hospital was completed at Kidderminster, and that no services would be withdrawn from Kidderminster until 2003. It now appears that some will start to leave Kidderminster general hospital in June this year. The Leader of the House will recognise the huge disparity between what the Government continually tell my constituents and what is happening on the ground, and they are angry about that.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman, I am sure inadvertently, has misrepresented what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister has always been careful to be accurate in his phraseology. He has repeatedly said that all accident and emergency departments that had a considerable need for work to be done would be upgraded, and they have been. I have seen many of them in different parts of the country. But I understand and accept the hon. Gentleman's concern for the service that his constituents receive and their anxiety about changes. Changes in the pattern of hospital provision always cause anxiety. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter, although he knows that he can pursue the matter

1113
in Westminster Hall, but I undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Dan Norris: The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said this week on Radio 4 that the national minimum wage had not been effective in dealing with poverty. In the same week, the Low Pay Commission said that more than 1.5 million people had been taken out of poverty. On average, that is more than 2,200 people in every constituency in the country. Can we have an early debate on the national minimum wage to ascertain whether the Opposition's rhetoric is genuine, or whether it has more to do with the next general election, which is approximately a year away?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has moved from his former view that the minimum wage was an immoral policy to claiming that it is not an effective method of relieving poverty. Although that view is more tempered, it is no more accurate. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the tremendous beneficial impact of the minimum wage. Attractive though it is to continue to expose the Conservative party's deficiencies and difficulties, we must unfortunately deny ourselves that opportunity because the Government have more important things to do.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Lady has alluded to the fact that business questions make for a pleasant three quarters of an hour. However, many hon. Members are indifferent to it. Has the right hon. Lady seen the Library's research paper, which is entitled "MPs' Participation in Commons Divisions"? Is not she alarmed by the disproportionate number of Labour Members who appear not to attend at all? Some of her colleagues on the Treasury Bench do not do much better. Even the Prime Minister has only a 5 per cent. record. Should not we have a debate about that? There is no point in the right hon. Lady announcing the business when so many Labour Members do not attend our proceedings.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is a very regular attender, but he knows that, mercifully, only a tiny portion of the work of the House or the Government is done in the Division Lobby. He is also aware of the enormous amount of time that all hon. Members, including most Labour Members, spend in the House.
Mr. Geraint Davies: When will we have the opportunity for an important debate on the powers of the police and local authorities to tackle graffiti artists and their promoters? We should especially consider granting the police the same rights to stop and search people who carry sprays that the police believe are linked to crimes as those that apply to people who carry knives. Local authorities should have the same powers to tackle those who promote graffiti products as those that apply to promoting fly-posting. I have an advertisement from a Croydon-based company, which sadly advertises sprays on the internet and through mailing. It directly incites people to produce graffiti.
Mrs. Beckett: I appreciate that graffiti can cause great offence and do great harm to buildings, which must be
1114
protected. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety and the role that he seeks for his local authority and the police. However, I fear that, although the matter is important and causes anxiety, I cannot undertake to find time for special discussion of the matter. Perhaps he will be able to air the issue with Home Office Ministers and get a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Many Back Benchers are increasingly exasperated by Ministers' determined refusal to answer questions. The problem plumbed new depths yesterday. I am not referring to Prime Minister's Question Time, but to last night's debate on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill when new clause 2 was introduced. The new clause grants the Home Secretary powers that would make Attila the Hun blush. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department introduced the provision before midnight. Several Conservative Members, including such senior Members as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked pertinent questions in a non-partisan way about that devastating clause. The midnight hour passed, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department refused to answer. He said:
"Members want to go home. One can understand that."—[Official Report, 16 February 1999; Vol. 344, c. 1071.]
I could not understand it, and said so. May we please have a debate on ministerial responsibilities to answer questions in the House under "Erskine May" so that we can flush out the Cinderella Ministers who turn into silent pumpkins after midnight?
Mrs. Beckett: I have been a Member of the House for many years and I have never observed anybody at their best after midnight, although I have frequently observed Members who nurture the illusion that they are at their best, which is often unfortunate. Ministers always do their utmost to answer questions and deal with debates. I understand that the new clause dealt with order-making powers and they are frequently discussed by the House in a variety of contexts. My hon. Friend replied to the debate. If he did not do so to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, I am sure that he deeply regrets it.
Dr. George Turner: When will we receive the performance and innovation unit report on post office access? My right hon. Friend will understand that, although the Government are going ahead with a modernisation programme for the Post Office and trying to secure the future of village post offices, sub-postmasters and the public are worried by the uncertainty before the fleshing out of the detail. My local press is campaigning for the retention of the rural post office and I support that campaign. When the unit reports, can we have an early debate in the House to get the view of hon. Members on appropriate access to rural post offices? That would end a dreadful period of uncertainty.
Mrs. Beckett: Members across the House acknowledge that sub-post offices do tremendously valuable work and that is particularly true in rural areas. I had no doubts, but I am glad that my hon. Friend supports the campaign in his locality. I also share the view, which lies behind his remarks, that it is wrong and unfair to those who shoulder that responsibility to raise ill-founded anxieties unnecessarily and wrongly, but he is right to say that it is

1115
important for post offices to modernise the way in which they provide services and to look for fresh business and fresh opportunities that could revitalise the whole organisation, including smaller and rural post offices. The Government hope that they will take that course. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for another special debate, but he knows that the Postal Services Bill is going through the House and I am confident that he and other hon. Members will find opportunities to raise those matters.
Mr. David Heath: May I return the right hon. Lady to genetically modified crops, as that matter is rather more urgent than was suggested in the earlier exchange? Is she aware of the written answer given by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)? It made it clear that GM maize is about to be added not to the European register, but to the United Kingdom national seed register. Can she confirm that an announcement is likely to be made on Wednesday—conveniently, the House will not be sitting—and does she appreciate that a coach and horses is being driven through the policy on GM crops enunciated by the Minister for the Environment? Will she promise an early debate on this important subject?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot confirm the timing to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have undertaken to draw the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I shall certainly add the hon. Gentleman's remarks to them. I am not aware of either the decision that he suggests is due or whether it is likely to be made on Wednesday. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will communicate with him.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to hold the Welsh affairs debate on 2 March. That is greatly valued by Welsh Members, but does she agree that the Secretary of State's report on the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in north Wales merits its own debate, to which all Members of the House would want to contribute?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for what we tend to call the St. David's day debate. I understand his feeling that hon. Members should have an opportunity to air the issues arising immediately from the Waterhouse report, and also his feeling that that important matter should not completely obscure the focus on Welsh events that normally feature in that traditional debate.
As I think I told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), as we are to engage in a Welsh affairs debate in the near future, a debate in Westminster Hall may well be the most fruitful way of pursuing the other matter, at least initially. Obviously, hon. Members will want to consider the overall issues raised by the Waterhouse report in depth.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In connection with the devastating and stinging report of the Transport Sub-Committee, the Leader of the House gave a
1116
disappointing and fly-swatting reply to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). May we have a full day's debate on the devastating effect that the report has had? It has undermined the whole of the Government's policy and approach, in relation not just to National Air Traffic Services and public-private partnerships but to infrastructure programmes and funding.
Mrs. Beckett: As I reminded the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), there will be time to discuss those matters. Indeed, they are being discussed in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill even as we speak, and no doubt they will continue to be discussed. I fear that the hon. Gentleman will not find that any Leader of the House is keen to provide extra time for discussion of a matter that is already being discussed.
Mr. Nigel Evans: After business questions, will the Leader of the House and, perhaps, a few of her colleagues take a short stroll with me across the road to Parliament square to meet a number of pigmeat producers, and to see a pig in a makeshift sty? I fear that that is the closest that some of her colleagues will get to visiting a farm this year. The producers will be able to tell her about the deep crisis that the industry is experiencing, and about the number of producers who are going out of business in the current year. Perhaps that will encourage her to arrange a debate on the crisis.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the demonstration across the road; indeed, one could hardly miss it. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office was good enough to visit it on my behalf.
The Government well understand the difficulties experienced by the pig industry, and have taken steps to give what assistance they can. The Government do not rule out consideration of further problems that may arise, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find extra time for yet another debate on a matter that—I say this without criticism—has, rightly, been thoroughly aired in the House.
Mr. John Bercow: May we have an urgent debate on the estimate by Chantrey Vellacott, a leading firm of chartered accountants in the City, that it would cost more than £36 billion for Britain to abolish the pound and join the euro? Does the right hon. Lady not agree that such a debate would afford the Chancellor of the Exchequer a fine opportunity to explain to the House and the country his own eccentric view that it is sensible to spend such a phenomenal sum of public money permanently to hand over the running of the British economy to the governing council of the European central bank, which comprises three Germans, two Dutchmen, two Finns, two Frenchmen, two Italians, two Spaniards, a Belgian, an Irishman, a Luxembourger and a Portuguese?
Mrs. Beckett: It can hardly contain any Britons, as we are not part of economic and monetary union—something that I would expect to have occurred to the hon. Gentleman.
I have not seen the estimate to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I am aware that various estimates are made from time to time. The Chancellor has made clear from the beginning his view that it is not right to rule out membership of the euro for ever in principle, but

1117
that it is right to make a preliminary decision on whether or not Britain should join when the economic tests that he has set are met, and that that decision will of course be in the hands of the British people.
Whatever costs are identified in regard to any changeover plan, a large part of those costs will have to be incurred in any event, as, whatever we do in this country, the euro exists, although the Conservative party said that it never would. It is coming into circulation, and businesses here will have to prepare to handle it. That in itself will carry a cost.

Point of order
1.20 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will know, the Representation of the People Bill is before Parliament. The Local Government Association has issued a press release listing the number of areas that will be piloting some of the experiments at the May elections. The Home Office has not issued a statement; nor has a Minister come to the House to make a statement. Indeed, there has been no written answer to any parliamentary question on the list of pilot studies that will take place in May. Is it not appropriate that Parliament be told before newspapers, the Press Association and a number of other bodies about which pilots will take place in May?
Madam Speaker: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is that a statement might have been made in the House. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments.

Orders of the Day

  Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant document: The Fourth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1999–2000, on the Armed Forces Discipline Bill (HC 253).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  1.21 pm
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before dealing with the substance of the Bill, I should like to thank the Select Committee on Defence for finding the time to consider the Bill and for publishing its report in such a timely fashion. I shall address some of the issues concerning the Bill that have been raised in the report. However, I should first like to address a couple of more general points on which the report comments.
  The Committee recommends that the consolidation of service legislation should proceed with more urgency. I appreciate its concern—the project has been gestating for some time. However, as we told the Committee last week, we need to review the best approach to consolidation in the light of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Those are that we are making quite significant though necessary changes to the legislation in the present Bill. It seems likely that we shall make further changes in the quinquennial armed forces Bill in the next Session. In the strategic defence review, the Government indicated their wish to move from three single service Acts to a single Act covering the three services. That will be an important project.
  Taking all the elements of current and prospective legislation into account, we need to take stock of the best way forward. We hope to make an announcement shortly. In the meantime, I assure the House that coherent texts of the individual discipline Acts are available to commanding officers and others who need them, and that they are kept updated as the law changes, for example, with this Bill. We accept it as a legitimate concern that that should be the case.
  The Committee mentioned the desirability of early progress in the development of the tri-service Act. I fully agree, but we should not underestimate the scale of the task if the end result is to be greater than the sum of the present parts. It is a matter not just of rolling the three existing Acts into one, but of seeing how we can develop legislation that best meets the needs of the services in the 21st century.
  We agree with the Committee about the benefits of pre-legislative scrutiny. As it points out, it is Government policy to publish as much legislation as is practicable in draft. For future legislation that is sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, we shall consider means of making our intentions known to the Committee in advance.
  The Bill has already been subjected to substantial debate and scrutiny in another place. I put it in its broader context. We in the United Kingdom are rightly proud of
  1120
  our armed forces. As Minister for the Armed Forces, I am proud of the enormous esteem in which they are held here, everywhere they serve and even beyond those immediate areas.
  We place great demands on our armed forces. That is a function of our leading role on the international stage and of the Government's view that defence is about making the world a safer place for us all. We invariably have great expectations that the services will fulfil those demands. The House will know that we are never disappointed. We in turn have a responsibility to ensure that our service men and women are properly looked after. The Government do not shirk that responsibility.
  We all recognise that the nature of the demands that we place on the services has altered with the changing world order in the last decade or so. There is a measure of continuity in some of the places where we have standing commitments; elsewhere—for example, the Balkans, East Timor and the Gulf—the commitments have been less predictable. That we have been able to deploy forces to those places is evidence of the flexibility and adaptability of our defence capability. We are committed to developing that flexibility by modernising our forces to give them the means to deal with tomorrow's threats as effectively as they have dealt with those of the recent past. That is what our strategic defence review, which is now being implemented, was all about.
  As ever, however, much rests on the quality of our people, on their training, and on the sense of discipline that is instilled into them as an essential part of that training. As the Bill's title makes clear, the Bill is about the system of discipline in the armed forces. As we debate the Bill, the House will keep in mind the vital importance of maintaining an effective service discipline system which, as we all recognise, is essential to the cohesion and effectiveness of the services.
  There is a fundamental difference between discipline in the armed forces and discipline in other working environments. Good order and discipline is of course important in any organisation, but, in the services, it is backed by a code, the effect of which is that an individual who commits a disciplinary offence may be liable to receive a penal sanction.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I warmly endorse my hon. Friend's fine tribute to the men and women in our armed services. I believe that they are among the finest of the United Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking forces. However, the discipline Acts apply not only to members of the armed forces, but to civilians. What guidelines are given to commanding officers on, for example, detention of a civilian who is accused of an offence? Would such a person be placed in military detention?
  Mr. Spellar: The outcome will, obviously, depend on immediate events and the circumstances prevailing in the place where the offence was committed and the individual is located. The Bill will make amendments, which I shall deal with later in my speech, that have been designed to make necessary changes, including to the overall scope of the legislation. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend has just raised will be addressed when we discuss the quinquennial review of the overall legislation. This Bill is about making amendments made necessary by legal decisions, which form the backdrop to the type of decision that he mentioned.

  1121
  We recognise the unique demands of service life. We are talking about men and women who work long hours, under often difficult, dangerous and uncomfortable conditions. We are talking about asking men and women frequently to undertake tasks that may involve the risk of injury or death, in the cause of achieving the common objective. We are talking about asking them to subordinate their interests to the collective interest.
  In the United Kingdom, the links between the armed forces and the rest of society are close and valued on both sides. Indeed, our services make a great contribution not only to their local communities, but more generally. We are committed to services that properly reflect the values of the society from which they are drawn and which they exist to serve. However, the extreme demands that we can place on the members of the armed forces necessarily differentiate them from workers in other parts of society. In the armed forces, the effective enforcement of discipline can, as we know, mean the difference between life and death.
  The services need to be able to ensure compliance with lawful orders, potentially in the most demanding and dangerous operational circumstances, and that habit of obedience has to be instilled in peacetime. Therefore, there has to be legal authority for the chain of command to give such orders, and that authority has to apply in operational and non-operational circumstances alike. That is the fundamental purpose of the three service discipline Acts—the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957.
  It is also helpful to understand that the system for administering discipline is not simply about providing a means of dealing with those who disobey orders or who turn up late for parade. Such a system provides the legal structure for the services to deal with a wide range of offences both here and overseas, some of which would otherwise be dealt with by civilian courts. The procedures for courts martial and the like are therefore very properly subject to constraints similar to those applicable to the civilian courts.
  Accordingly, just as procedures for dealing with offences in the civilian courts are adapted in accordance with the needs of the time, so the discipline system in the services is kept under review, not least to reflect relevant changes in the civilian system and in the legal framework.
  The key here is to maintain the balance between keeping in step with the broader legal framework and wider society and preserving those aspects of the procedures that are key to operational effectiveness. That is why the service chiefs and their staffs were fully involved in drawing up the proposals in the Bill and recommending them to Ministers.
  There is, of course, a regular parliamentary process for reviewing the discipline system, with the five-yearly armed forces Bills. The House will be aware that we require a Bill on this regular basis in order to continue the existence of the service discipline Acts. This procedure is in turn subject to the annual continuation orders. The five-yearly Bills also provide the main opportunity to update the service discipline Acts.
  Traditionally, Parliament has approached the continuation and review of service discipline legislation on a consensual basis. I believe that this is an appropriate acknowledgement of its importance to us all.
  1122
  Accordingly, in opposition, we were pleased to support the important reforms to the system of service discipline included in the last quinquennial Armed Forces Act in 1996. As the House will recall, the more important of these arose in response to the European convention on human rights.
  As I have mentioned, there will be a quinquennial armed forces Bill in the next session, but the present Bill introduces some changes in procedure that we do not believe can wait until then. The proposals in the Bill are intended to ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Is not the true reason for the Bill's being introduced at this point the fact that the Human Rights Act 1998 stipulated that its provisions should take effect from 2 October 2000, so the Bill had to be introduced before the quinquennial review next year? Does the Minister agree that it would have been far better to wait a year before introducing the Bill and that the fact that the Human Rights Act was ill-drafted has caused it to be brought forward precipitately?
  Mr. Spellar: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's latter premise. A legal judgment—the Hood case—at the European Court of Human Rights would have left the position unsatisfactory from the point of view of service discipline. Another year's delay would have been quite unsatisfactory for commanding officers and could have undermined the effective system of service discipline. Having considered not only the judgment but subsequent legal advice, we thought it right and prudent to introduce the legislation in order to make the necessary changes that would mean that our discipline system was compliant with the ECHR and that there was therefore a robust defence for the position of commanding officers within that discipline system. That is why we are introducing the legislation now, ahead of the quinquennial review.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Can the Minister specify which portion of the Hood judgment led him and his advisers to believe that we needed to introduce the appeal system for those dealt with summarily by their commanding officers? He will be aware that that issue is causing the greatest concern in the armed forces.
  Mr. Spellar: As I said to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), the Hood judgment and subsequent legal advice on the implications of that judgment—
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: For whom?
  Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point, I am happy for him to do so. We considered both the Hood judgment, with its implications for whether the current procedures were compliant with the European convention on human rights, and the subsequent legal advice. I recall that when the previous Administration introduced the 1996 legislation, Findlay was the appropriate case. We also considered legal advice on the direction in which the European Court was moving in the Hood judgment. I shall come to the details subsequently.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: The Minister knows that I support the main thrust of what he is saying,

  1123
  especially the human rights element, but the Minister for Defence Procurement wrote to Lord Burnham to confirm that commanding officers would be given effective manuals to cover the period between this Bill and the armed forces Bill next year. Is the Minister convinced that that will be sufficient for commanding officers, or does the Ministry plan to give them some specific training to update them on matters relating to the European convention so that they are better able to stop cases ending up in the European Court in the intervening period?
  Mr. Spellar: It is not the decisions of commanding officers but the actual legislation that we are advised is potentially not in compliance. The manuals are a standard part of our custom and practice. As the legislation has been updated—the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957—it has formed the basic framework for commanding officers. As a result of the Bill, further training will be needed for existing commanding officers and others who will be involved in the process, and those modules will be incorporated into the normal training programme. That is the normal and sensible response to any change in legislation.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: What effect does the Bill have on the remarks by the Lord Chancellor during the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998? He said:
  "I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces. I have given an indication about willingness to consider designating military courts as the appropriate forum for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by Armed Forces personnel. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1998; Vol. 585, c. 768.]
  Therefore, in a sense, the Bill makes a monkey out of the Lord Chancellor. The undertakings that he gave in 1998 have been shown to be worthless.
  Mr. Spellar: The Human Rights Act 1998 has no impact in that respect, contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Gosport. The Bill is a result of decisions taken under the European convention on human rights and, therefore, the need for us to ensure that our procedures were compliant with that convention. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in the Defence Committee hearings, without the Bill, commanding officers could have been placed in the invidious position of operating under a framework that we already knew had been deemed to be non-compliant and, therefore, their decisions could be challenged in court. We thought that it would have been remiss to allow them to remain in that situation when we were fully aware of the court's decision and the legal advice. That is the straightforward reason behind the Bill.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) invoked correspondence between Lord Burnham and the Minister for Defence Procurement. The Defence Committee's report says that the Army estimates that about 20 per cent. of cases will be taken to the summary appeal court and that the Army intends to continue to review that process to ensure that the judgments of the appeal court are in line with the judgments of the commanding officers. Does not
  1124
  that make the important point that in the rush to produce the legislation so early, we are left with a sapping process whereby commanding officers will, almost de facto, have to look over their shoulders in concern about their own judgments and worry about the review process? That will undermine their assured concept of their own authority in front of the accused.
  Mr. Spellar: The situation that I described earlier would have had commanding officers looking over their shoulders at a judgment that had been made when they were operating a procedure that both they and the accused knew was non-compliant. That is precisely why we are taking action to deal with problems such as the hon. Gentleman described, in which commanding officers might be uncertain of their area of authority. As I recall, the Army spokesman told the Select Committee that dramatically wide variations in levels of sentence between units could create anomalies in the appeal process. Interestingly, the Navy spokesman said that for about 40 years the manual issued by the Navy had prescribed a range of options rather than precise penalties. He said that the aim had been to overcome any perceived unfairness in that regard.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: It has always been slightly inappropriate to use the Navy as an example, as it has a completely different culture. The Army is made up of regiments and smaller units, and has a very different approach. The Minister says that the Government will hold a review, in which judgments by commanding officers will be compared with those achieved through the appeal process. However, the problem is that the commanding officers will be the ones asked to change their opinions and positions, so the Minister's earlier statement that the aim is to achieve conformity rather than uniformity must be incorrect.
  Mr. Spellar: The evidence to the Select Committee made it clear that the goal was not uniformity but the establishment of a range within which decisions will be made. The Navy said that it did not employ a uniform table of sentencing and penalties, but that the range of options available to officers gave them considerable discretion. I also recall from the evidence to the Select Committee that the Army had been examining that possibility in any case. I think that the hon. Gentleman is tilting at windmills in this regard. He is right to say that the matter was raised in the Select Committee hearings, but the response from the services was quite robust.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I can confirm that the word "consistency" was used in the Select Committee's discussions. Does my hon. Friend agree that the danger that might arise if any great inconsistencies were allowed to persist would be that future legal challenges would render us unable to deal with the problem? Does he agree that the Government would not have had to introduce this Bill if the previous Conservative Government had got their legislation right in 1996?
  Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend invites me to go down a tempting path, but I fear that to do so would tempt providence in respect of possible future legal decisions. No Minister would be wise to claim that he had achieved the final, definitive version of legislation on this matter.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given that the European Court of Human Rights is constantly inclined

  1125
  to introduce more and more restrictions on what we in this country may do, will the Minister say whether there are any limits on the Government's willingness to accept its impositions? Is he aware of any other matters that the court is likely to bring forward in the lifetime of this Parliament?
  Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman responds to the mere mention of Europe as if he were the hon. Member for Pavlov, East. I remind him—as I reminded the Select Committee—that the 1996 legislation was passed in response to decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights. This Government, like all their predecessors since 1951, have taken account of such decisions and have shaped legislation to ensure that it is compliant. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take that matter further, he should do so with the people who were Conservative Ministers in 1996, or even much further back in time.
  We believe that our proposals reinforce the fairness that is at the heart of the services discipline system. They do not imply any criticism of the way the present procedures are operated or of those who have responsibility for operating them.
  The proposed changes, like those in the Armed Forces Act 1996, are concerned with establishing checks and balances, in a way proportionate to the need, in two areas not fully addressed in 1996. The first area covers arrangements for the pre-trial custody of persons being investigated or awaiting trial for alleged offences under the service discipline Acts. The second area is summary disciplinary proceedings—cases that are heard by the accused's commanding officer.
  Some uncertainty about the need for the Bill was expressed in the other place. As was said in response to interventions, the measure is concerned with modifying certain procedures where there are concerns about compatibility with the European convention on human rights, as described in the explanatory notes. However, the House should be in no doubt that the European Court of Human Rights has already found—in the Hood case in 1998—against the United Kingdom in relation to the present arrangements for pre-trial custody. It did so on the basis that the commanding officer did not have the requisite degree of perceived independence to decide questions of extended custody. The convention article in play on this issue is article 5—the right to liberty and security.
  There is no scope for arguing that summary proceedings are, on their own, compatible with article 6 of the convention—which provides the right to a fair trial. Again, that is largely because of the lack of independence of the commanding officer who hears such cases. Given that summary proceedings on their own do not provide a fair trial in convention terms, the question arises of what other procedures we should put around summary dealings to make them compliant. The firm advice is that the combination of the right of election to be tried by court martial and the right to appeal from summary hearings provide a set of procedures that are, in the round, compatible with the convention.
  The Select Committee report suggested that providing a right of appeal in addition to a right to elect trial by court martial from the outset may be a form of over-insurance against future court rulings. That is not the
  1126
  case. Without a right of appeal, anyone choosing to be dealt with summarily would be denied the possibility of eventual recourse to a compliant court. Although it may be argued that that is the individual's choice, the advice is that procedures should not rely too heavily on the individual creating conditions that are compatible with the convention. In any event, the new right of appeal will remove a disincentive to choosing to be dealt with summarily. Removing that disincentive will help to preserve the effectiveness of summary discipline.
  We are anxious not to add unreasonably to the already extensive burden of responsibilities shouldered by commanding officers—who are the key figures in maintaining and administering discipline in the armed forces. The Bill is designed with that in mind and provides the flexibility that commanding officers will need.
  The substance of the Bill is in four parts. The first deals with pre-trial custody, the other three with summary proceedings. Clauses 1 to 10 contain our proposals relating to pre-trial custody. At present, the commanding officer has the main responsibility for deciding whether a suspect or the accused should be held in custody pending charge or trial. There are already safeguards to ensure that responsibility is exercised appropriately and that no one is held in custody unnecessarily—but they are all internal, involving the chain of command within the services.
  The Bill strengthens these internal checks and formalises them in primary legislation. It requires the commanding officer to review the need for continuing custody no later than 12 and 36 hours after the time of arrest, applying Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 criteria. The Bill introduces external and independent checks in those relatively few instances where there may be a case for detaining an individual longer. In most cases, there will be sufficient information to determine whether there is a basis to prefer a charge before 48 hours have elapsed. However, if a commanding officer considers that continuing custody in excess of 48 hours is necessary while investigations continue, it is proposed that that should be subject to the approval of a judicial officer—on the basis of a custody hearing with the individual concerned present.
  The judicial officer will reach his decision on criteria similar to those used by magistrates in the civil courts. PACE criteria relate to the need to demonstrate that inquiries are being conducted diligently and expeditiously and that more time is genuinely required to obtain and preserve evidence. If the judicial officer is not satisfied that those conditions are fulfilled, the individual must be released. In any event, the judicial officer may not approve custody beyond 96 hours.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Would the Minister keep it in mind that the armed forces exist to fight? These matters need to be considered in the light of operational circumstances and the turmoil and heat of battle. At times, a period in excess of 48 hours may be wholly appropriate, but there will be no possibility of a legal officer getting to the scene or conducting a hearing. Ministers must bear in mind the reality that service men face in the conduct of their operational responsibilities.
  Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman might be surprised by the availability of video conferencing links between our many theatres of operation and the United Kingdom.

  1127
  [Interruption.] If he would wait a moment, I could cover the areas that he raised. Many theatres of operation are in daily, broadband transmission contact with the UK. There have been dramatic changes in that area.
  Secondly, it is easy to describe the circumstances of battle in general terms, as the hon. Gentleman did. However, specific cases might make it a little harder to sustain the hon. Gentleman's argument. For example, questions were raised in the Defence Committee about personnel in the middle of a conflict, and a service representative pointed out that holding someone in custody would not necessarily be desirable. In a battle for survival, every individual would be wanted, armed and ready, to fight the enemy.
  In other circumstances, it might be possible to move someone in custody away from the front and to a more secure position in the rear. That is quite traditional behaviour. We have to consider individual cases, and once the hon. Gentleman's arguments are considered in detail the requirements that we are placing will not seem as onerous as he thinks.
  Our procedures provide that a judicial office may come not only from the individual's own service, but from the others. In addition, the officer may come from a jurisdiction in which the legal system is similar to ours. In many cases, joint operations take place with other forces. We have discussed this point with the services, and the provisions have been examined by them. They believe that our proposals are compliant with operations, as well as being compliant with the convention.
  If the individual has not been charged after 96 hours, he must be released. Investigations into the alleged offence would continue, if necessary, after the 96-hour point. Neither the 48 nor 96-hour periods will be regarded as norms. The aim will remain either to charge or to release an individual as soon as possible.
  We recognise that in a very few cases it will not be possible for the suspect and the judicial officer to be brought together for a custody hearing within 48 hours. The flexibility rightly built into the Bill will allow these hearings to be conducted by live television links or similar means. We envisage that these will, in some cases, be the most convenient method of conducting custody hearings, and developments in technology have convinced us of their feasibility. However, where it is genuinely not possible to meet the 48-hour requirement, the Bill provides leeway for the judicial officer to hear an application for extended custody after the 48-hour point.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I fully understand the advantages of video links and so forth. However, the Minister is surely not suggesting that a video link—even broadband, or at different times of day, or when a ship is moving—is any substitute for a face-to-face hearing at which body language may be transmitted. Negotiations cannot be held over video links; they might as well be done by phone.
  Mr. Spellar: Given some of the hon. Gentleman's other contributions to debates in the House, I am surprised that he is so dismissive of technology. However, we take the point—not just about body language, but about other potential influences in the room. Part of the modus
  1128
  operandi for video linkage would be to get as wide a picture as possible, so as to obviate any suggestion of undue influence. Much of the work between theatre and joint headquarters is now undertaken by video linkage. Much of the world operates in that way and the services are increasingly doing so. Those facilities are more and more available in theatre.
  Dr. Godman: May I remind my hon. Friend that, for some years, the video linking of evidence—especially for the cross-examination of child witnesses—has been an established procedure in civilian courts?
  Mr. Spellar: I very much take that point. The procedure is also used in further remand hearings. There may be some scope for its extension in this country, instead of transporting individuals to courts.
  If an individual is charged, the need for continued custody pending trial must be assessed anew. As before, it will be for the commanding officer to take the initial view on that, but now applying criteria similar to those laid down in the Bail Act 1976. These include such issues as an assessment of the likelihood of an offence being committed or the possibility of witnesses being interfered with if the individual is not held in custody.
  If the commanding officer considers that there is a case for continued custody, the issue must be referred as soon as practicable to the judicial officer, who will also apply criteria similar to those laid down in the Bail Act. As I said, the Bill provides that that must happen "as soon as practicable". That gives the services the flexibility they need if, for operational reasons, it is not possible to arrange an immediate hearing.
  If the judicial officer decides that the accused should be held in custody, he may order custody only for a maximum of eight days, or for 28 days if the accused has consented to that longer period. The question must thereafter be readdressed by a judicial officer at intervals of no more than eight or 28 days as appropriate. However, after the first review, a hearing, as such, need be arranged only if the accused has new arguments to advance; otherwise, the judicial officer will conduct a paper review.
  In any event, arranging such subsequent hearings, where required, will pose few problems because an accused being held in extended custody prior to trial would, as now, invariably be returned to the United Kingdom, were he overseas in the first place. If, for any reason, that had not occurred, the option of using a video link would be available.
  Understandably, the Select Committee probed those procedures at some length and, in their report, suggested that the Committee stage will be an opportunity to confirm that the Bill covers all reasonable eventualities. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and I look forward to that.
  Clearly, the judicial officer is a key player in all the procedures that I have just described. Clause 7 describes who may be appointed as a judicial officer for that purpose, normally a judge advocate or a naval judge advocate—in other words, one of the figures who exercise independent judicial functions at courts martial. Judge advocates also have a role in other aspects of the Bill's proposals.
  The remainder of the Bill concerns the changes that we want to make to summary discipline procedures. For most purposes, as I said, an individual's commanding officer

  1129
  deals with the alleged offence. As we know, there are certain differences between the procedures in the Army and the RAF on the one hand and the Royal Navy on the other. Today, it may be easier if I refer mainly to Army and RAF procedures, referring to differences in the Royal Navy only where necessary.
  The House needs to understand that summary discipline is an effective means of dealing with minor problems quickly. The overwhelming majority of disciplinary cases are heard in that way. The three services need to be able to continue to deal with the present range of day-to-day disciplinary issues summarily.
  At present, those facing summary proceedings in the Army and RAF have the invariable right to elect to be tried by court martial instead. That right is slightly qualified in the Royal Navy because of the need to be able to deal quickly with minor disciplinary problems at sea, and because of the problems of convening a court martial on board ship.
  The increased right to choose to be tried by court martial was introduced in the Armed Forces Act 1996 because of concerns that summary proceedings, on their own, may not be compatible with the European convention on human rights. In the Army and the RAF, the right for an accused to choose to be tried by a court that complies with the convention can be exercised only after the commanding officer has found the charge proved. At present, if the case is heard summarily, the accused has no right of appeal to a higher court. Instead, he may ask for the matter to be reviewed by a higher service authority than his commanding officer. That is a safeguard, but it is not a judicial process.
  We believe that the procedures now need to be changed in two main ways. We intend to introduce a right of appeal from summary hearings to an independent and impartial court. That will provide an assured right of access to a court that complies with the convention. The Bill therefore proposes the establishment of a new summary appeal court for this purpose. That is covered in clauses 14 to 25. The new court will consist of a judge advocate and two independent officers, generally from the appellant's service but from outside his chain of command. There will, of course, be safeguards to ensure that no one hearing the appeal has been involved in the case previously.
  The procedure at appeal hearings in the summary appeal court will, as far as possible, mirror that of the Crown court hearing an appeal from a magistrates court. The summary appeal court will not be able to award a sentence more severe than that imposed by the commanding officer, so as not to provide a disincentive to accused wishing to exercise the right to have their cases heard by a court that complies with the convention.
  We wish to avoid any confusion that may arise from the introduction of this right of appeal. As I explained earlier, at present an accused in the Army being dealt with summarily is given the option of trial by court martial after his commanding officer has determined that the charge has been proved, but before sentence is passed. That procedure can easily be confused with an appeal, in that the accused has some idea of what his fate may be when he decides whether to involve a higher court. However, it is not an appeal because, for the subsequent court martial to be a proper appeal, the accused would also need to know what sentence he had been given by his commanding officer.
  1130
  We acknowledge that, within that procedure, there is room for confusion. We therefore consider it more sensible to alter the arrangements so that an accused will make the choice between being dealt with summarily or by court martial before the summary hearing. Indeed, that is already the position in the Royal Navy, and it seems to work there.
  I might touch here on another observation in the Select Committee's report. It suggested that the changes in the Armed Forces Act 1996 have led to a doubling of the percentage of Army discipline cases being dealt with by court martial. The Select Committee drew attention to the figures for 1996 and 1999. In those two years, the number of cases dealt with by court martial was more or less constant, approaching 400 in both years. In the same two years, the recorded number of cases dealt with summarily reduced from some 3,500 in 1996 to about 2,100 in 1999.
  However, as we told the Select Committee, the centrally recorded information about Army discipline cases is incomplete because it includes data only about cases that have to be recorded on a soldier's regimental conduct sheet. Most cases have not needed to be recorded centrally but, as we also told the Select Committee, a survey for 1998-99 showed that, in that year, 24,000 cases in all were dealt with summarily in the Army. If nothing else, that demonstrates that we need to be very careful about drawing conclusions from the partial figures that were understandably highlighted by the Select Committee. We certainly would not conclude that they demonstrate that an extended right to elect trial by court martial has led to a higher proportion of courts martial.
  We concluded that our statistics in relation to discipline need to be more comprehensive in future. We recognise that there have been problems in the past and we intend to do better in the future. That point will help me greatly in answering questions from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
  The Select Committee also registered concern that delays arising from individuals electing for trial by court martial might lead to rough justice being meted out by aggrieved colleagues of the accused. We do not accept the premise that the changes will create additional delays, any more than the 1996 changes did. However, it hardly needs saying that neither the services nor the Government would tolerate matters being dealt with in that way. Indeed, I am not aware of any evidence that that has happened in the wake of the 1996 changes.
  Mr. Robert Key: I acknowledge that great progress has been made—for example, by providing more courts in which courts martial are held. Is it envisaged that the new summary appeal courts will sit in the same courts around the country and use the same facilities? If it is, that will surely have great resource implications. Will the Minister also reassure us that he has visited the courts and seen a court martial in session?
  Mr. Spellar: No, I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. However, we have taken extremely good advice from those who are deeply involved in the system of service discipline at all levels. I take his point that we need to examine the work undertaken in the courts to ensure that justice is not only fair, but speedy and effective. As he graciously acknowledged, we have been making progress—not sufficient, but considerable—in

  1131
  that regard, but we certainly need to take similar measures for the appeals system, because if those procedures are dragged out it is bad not only for the individuals, but for the service.
  The change concerning the point of election for court martial is covered in clauses 11 and 12. I appreciate that I have departed from the sequence of the Bill, but those particular proposals are more readily understood in the context of the introduction of a right of appeal. Should the accused decide to be tried by court martial, the sentencing powers of the court will be limited to the maximum that the commanding officer could have awarded had he dealt with the case. That is to ensure that there is no disadvantage, real or perceived, for the accused in choosing to be tried by a court that is independent of his commanding officer and the chain of command.
  That limitation is not a formula for the accused to get off with an inappropriately light sentence. If the commanding officer is of the view that the offence is serious, he will still be able to recommend court martial in the first place. However, the decision on whether a case should be tried by court martial ultimately rests not with the commanding officer, but with each service's prosecuting authority, which broadly fulfils functions akin to those of the Crown Prosecution Service.
  Clause 13 and schedule 2 make the necessary procedural adjustments to the powers of the prosecuting authority under the new arrangements for electing trial by court martial. Once a case is referred to it, the prosecuting authority may consider that the original charge is inappropriate. Those provisions describe the procedures to be followed if the authority proposes to alter the charge.
  If the proposed new charge is of greater seriousness than the original, it may not be appropriate to give the accused the option of summary proceedings or trial by court martial. It will be clear that the matter should be dealt with by court martial. In other cases, however, there will be provisions to allow the altered charge to be dealt with as if new, with the accused being given the opportunity to be dealt with summarily or by court martial, or for the commanding officer to decide to dismiss the charge.
  For the convenience of the House, I have described the procedural changes in the Bill in some detail, but we should not let the detail obscure the reason for the Bill. Faced with the Strasbourg Court's decision on pre-trial custody and the unequivocal advice that summary dealings, on their own, cannot be argued to be compatible with the convention, no responsible Government could have failed to act. The Government are acting responsibly with the Bill, and the House would not have expected otherwise.
  There are no unnecessary frills in the Bill. Our aim has been to preserve the ability to deal with discipline cases summarily. The Bill achieves that. Where it provides alternative means of trial, these remain within the service system. That is a good outcome for service discipline.
  The detailed procedures in the Bill are the result of many months of detailed work with the services to ensure not only that the arrangements are compatible with the convention, but that they work. The services are confident that they will work without impeding operational
  1132
  effectiveness. The Government are confident that they will work and determined that they will not impede operational effectiveness.
  The Bill also delivers rights to the men and women who serve in the armed forces. It strikes the right balance between establishing those rights and preserving the vital system of discipline in the services. I commend the Bill to the House.
  2.8 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords] because it adds unnecessary administrative burdens and costs to Her Majesty's Forces, proposes hasty and impractical solutions to the administration of military law for forces on active service, transfers to civilians powers which rightly lie with the chain of military command, and, furthermore, because it fails to address urgent issues affecting the fundamental human rights of military personnel and their dependants, including deficiencies in the provision of legal aid and delays in the processes of military law, such as redress of grievance procedures, and because it has the effect of postponing yet again both consolidation of the Army, Navy and Air Force Discipline Acts and consideration of a single tri-service Discipline Act."
  I start by recording my great admiration for the world-beating standards of discipline and personal behaviour which continue to be the hallmark of Her Majesty's forces. As we embark on consideration of the Bill, we should remember that only a few go astray.
  Almost exactly two years ago, on 16 February 1998, I visited Trenchard Lines at Upavon, the headquarters of the Adjutant-General, for a briefing by the director of personnel services for the Army and others on the Army disciplinary system and the challenges that it was facing. Those challenges included personal behaviour and issues such as homosexuality, mixed-sex postings on increasingly purple operational tours and the consequences of changes to the service discipline Acts as a result of the Armed Forces Act 1996. They included also the anticipated changes that would be forced on the services as a result of European Court judgments and the proposals to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law.
  I was reminded of that last month, when I was visiting NATO headquarters in Brussels, when we drove past the site of the battle of Waterloo. The connection is that, in his briefing to me—which was clearly exceptional, because I can still remember it—the director of personnel services, then Brigadier Peter Curry, opened the day by reminding me that the Army exists to engage in war. He pointed out that Napoleon said "The moral is to the physical as three is to one." It is a good soundbite, and I am glad that he said it. He also learned the truth of it the hard way when he lost the battle of Waterloo. There are many reasons for that defeat, including Wellington's superior knowledge of the lack of undergrowth in the woods thereabouts, which was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). Above all, Napoleon underestimated the moral strength of the British and their allies.
  Morale arises from conviction in what we are doing and confidence in our leaders. Anything that undermines that conviction and confidence leads to a breakdown of trust. As Brigadier Curry put it, conviction and confidence are held together with the glue of discipline.

  1133
  The first priority must be confidence in the chain of command. That is particularly important in the Army. Land operations are very different from naval and air operations: there is more friction, operations take longer, every soldier carries a weapon and must use it.
  During the course of that briefing, I was struck by the open-mindedness of those tasked with the challenges facing the Army. There was a great deal of new thinking in the military community. There was also a recognition of the tri-service differences. That was manifest in the tri-service working group, which had discovered that it had to rely on logic rather than prejudice when it ran into inevitable differences of ethos and working practices between the three services. The very small number of dedicated men and women of all three services who have squared up to those intractable problems deserve our congratulations and thanks. A great deal has beenachieved.
  Two years ago, the Army had promised a new standards of discipline paper. Ministers, service chiefs and lawyers were wringing their hands, and who can blame them? That is why it is a triumph that, two years on, the chiefs of the defence staff have been able to introduce a code of social conduct in the armed forces which sets out a revised policy for all three services on personal relationships involving service personnel. The ultimate test is the service test which, quite rightly, focuses not on political correctness but on the operational effectiveness of the services. The test is short and straightforward: have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted, or are they likely to impact, on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the service? As my hon. Friend said when the Secretary of State announced that change, we cannot be sure whether the test will work, nor of the effect that it will have on operational effectiveness, and we will therefore ask the chiefs of staff to review the effects of the introduction of the service test.
  It was clear to us that the Government were reluctantly pushed into making this change. What else could explain the change in tone of the Labour party from Opposition to Government? Many of us were present at the Report stage of the Armed Forces Bill on 9 May 1996, when the then hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—now Secretary of State for Scotland—who was leading for the Labour Opposition, said of the Currie amendment to lift the ban on homosexuals in the forces:
  "There are logical, objective grounds for qualifying what is a very valuable civil right to preserve effectiveness. However, it is honourable and legitimate to say that the weight of the civil liberties argument is sufficiently great to overcome both the operational reduction in effectiveness and the case for privacy for heterosexuals. There is nothing dishonourable in making that balance and in arriving at a judgment that is different from mine, but the Labour Members of the Select Committee were not persuaded that that change was necessary."
  He said later:
  "Whatever happens, the people who will then be asked by us to remain the ultimate defender of both those liberties and those lives will be the men and women of our British armed forces."—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 503–051
  That was fighting talk, and it clearly convinced the hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who voted with the then hon. Member for Motherwell, North and myself in the same Lobby.
  Mr. Bruce George: And me.
  Mr. Key: And the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), of course, along with many others.
  I only wish that such focus and clarity were identifiable in the Government's attempt to incorporate into the three service Acts the consequences of putting the European convention on human rights into domestic law. It is because they have not made a sufficiently compelling case, either today or in another place, that I shall invite the House to vote for our reasoned amendment.
  In another place, one by one, the noble and gallant Lords expressed their dismay. Field Marshal Lord Carver said on 16 December 1999:
  "I contend that the present system under the Army and Air Force Acts is perfectly fair and can be defended in the courts as consistent with the convention."
  Mr. Spellar: Did not a number of the past service chiefs, on examining the legislation, and also the Army Act 1955, decide that, in fact, their concerns had been covered in the legislation? Did they not say that on Third Reading?
  Mr. Key: On Third Reading, as the Minister will recall, most of the noble and gallant Lords who had spoken in the debate, having had a jolly good Christmas, stayed away. Nevertheless, I shall come to that.
  Field Marshal Lord Bramall said:
  "More is being put into this Bill than is strictly necessary for compliance."
  Indeed, even the Minister, the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, said when, discussing the right of appeal against a summary sentence, that to continue with the present arrangements might not be "compatible with the Convention". I am sure that her words were carefully considered. She continued that the provisions would allow the possibility—not the probability—of a challenge to the powers of the commanding officer. Then the distinguished Scottish lawyer, Lord Campbell of Alloway said:
  "The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, put the matter very clearly; there is much provision in the Bill which is unnecessary. To put the proposition round the other way… which precise articles of the convention does the existing regime—the discipline Acts—breach?"
  The best the Minister could do for an answer was to say:
  "We need to consider what would happen if we did not make these changes. Failure to do so would render the system for service discipline vulnerable to challenge in our domestic courts. The risk of frequent and successful challenges to the system would create an untenable position. That would undermine service discipline and the authority of the commanding officer."
  She went on to say:
  "At that point, the disciplinary system would certainly lose credibility, as would commanding officers."
  We contend that the Bill will make a difficult position worse. It seems we are agreed that there is a risk that the chain of command will be undermined, one way or another.

  1135
  The arguments did not convince the noble and gallant Lords. Field Marshal Lord Carver went on to say:
  "I am sorry to say that the Minister used somewhat extravagant language: that the CO's judgment would be open to constant challenge by the courts. I do not believe that it would. The existing Army and Royal Air Force legislation is perfectly fair. The man has his choice when he knows the decision of the commanding officer. To force the individual to make up his mind prior to that is less fair and less just.
  I hope that the Minister will think again on the issue. There is talk that the chiefs think that the provision is marvellous; I know that they do not. They seek to make the best of a bad job."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1999; Vol. 608, c.366–72.]
  Lord Bramall continued the charge on Report, saying:
  "As has been said many times, the Bill will slow and confuse the administration of justice; it will undermine the authority of the commanding officer; it will be extremely difficult to administer, particularly on active service; and it will greatly add to the workload of the commanding officer and the various staffs involved at a time when they are already extremely stretched."
  Also on Report, Lord Campbell of Alloway said:
  "However, as yet no specific breach of any article of the convention has been identified which requires this massive amendment to the service discipline Acts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2000; Vol.608, c. 989–95.]
  On Third Reading, there was no Division. My noble Friend, Lord Burnham, who leads on defence matters for us in the House of Lords, said:
  "My hon. Friends in another place, who have yet to have the opportunity to debate the Bill, recognise the timing problem, but are far from happy about the way in which the Bill has been framed. Irrespective of what is resolved today in this House, they are likely to argue against it in principle."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2000; Vol.608, c.1340.]
  Quite so.
  Mr. Spellar: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us why his noble Friend did not divide the House?
  Mr. Key: Yes, absolutely—because of the traditions of another place. There are still some traditions in the other place, despite the Labour Government's attempt to change them. Unlike the Labour party, the Conservative party does not interfere in the workings of the other place. That is why the decision was taken by the Front Bench in the other place.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Even if the chiefs of the services will have to make do with the Bill if it is enacted, does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunity to consolidate the three single service discipline Acts has been missed?
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. He will recall the many years spent on the Select Committee trying to move that process forward. I shall deal with that in detail later.
  A substantial part of the Armed Forces Bill 1996 was taken up with amendments to the Army, Navy and Air Force discipline Acts in order to make them compliant with the European convention. In taking evidence from the Ministry of Defence on 27 February 1996, the Armed Forces Bill Committee interrogated a distinguished list, including civil servants, the judge advocate general, the
  1136
  chief naval judge advocate, the deputy director of legal services, RAF, and others, including the legal adviser to the Ministry of Defence.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South, now Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, asked the legal adviser:
  "Are you satisfied that these proposed reforms will go far enough to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights particularly given the views expressed by the European Commission on Human Rights?"
  He went on to ask:
  "Can you give me something rather more than a belief or perception? Upon which evidence is your perception based?"
  The legal adviser replied:
  "None of the criticisms made in the Commission's Report made any suggestion that the military system of justice should be dismantled so I do not think we have got any fears on that score. We do believe it is appropriate to have a military tribunal and we have had no indication that there is anything wrong with that."
  What has happened between 1996 and now? Not a lot of preparation for this rushed Bill, for sure. If the Government are to make fundamental changes to the system of military discipline—no one seriously believes that this is just a little tidying-up matter—Parliament might expect that a great deal of preparation had been undertaken, and that there could be no doubt about the facts of the matters that would be reformed. Some hope!
  Over recent weeks, as the Minister suggested, I have asked a number of straightforward factual questions. I am still waiting for some of the answers—I make no complaint about that. However, many of the answers give us no grounds to suspect that Ministers have the facts at their fingertips. If it is proposed to change the system in favour of the client, I should have thought it not unreasonable that basic information about the client base should be available.
  It was truly astonishing that the Minister for Defence Procurement told my noble Friend Lord Attlee that, over the past six years, no records have been kept that show how many soldiers elected trial by court martial. I am relieved to hear that work is in hand to assure that better records will be kept in future.
  Back to the Trenchard lines: morale arises from conviction in what one is doing and confidence in one's leaders. Conviction and confidence are held together with the glue of discipline. Where is the real conviction on the part of the Government that the Bill is necessary?
  It has been illuminating to hear the Minister today, and some weeks ago the Minister for Defence Procurement in another place, setting out the reasons why the Bill is being introduced, but not a single example has been given of service men and women's rights being abused through the current system of military discipline. In truth, the Bill has little to do with the fairness of military discipline. The system works. The argument that the Bill protects against abuses is weak.
  We are considering a Bill that will not improve our military discipline system. We contend that it will only make matters worse. It is, perhaps, a little ironic that, at the same time as the Government are introducing legislation to gold-plate our armed forces discipline system against a possible action in the European Court of Human Rights, they are seeking to curb a defendant's automatic right to trial by jury in the Criminal Justice (Modes of Trial) Bill.

  1137
  We hold the view that serious questions remain about the need for the Bill. During the passage of the Human Rights Bill in February 1998, assurances were given by the Lord Chancellor about its provisions applying to the armed forces. He said that
  "the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces. I have given an indication about willingness to consider designating military courts as the appropriate forum for the consideration of complaints of convention grounds by Armed Forces personnel."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1998; Vol. 585, c. 768.]
  It was, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, in 1951 that the United Kingdom acceded to the European convention. The noble Lord Renton told the other place on 29 November 1999:
  "I am one of the few people still living who attended the European Council when the European Convention on Human Rights was being considered. Indeed, I was closeted with M. Rolin, the Belgian lawyer, who represented Dr Mossadek at The Hague in order to agree with him—and eventually it was agreed by all concerned—the powers of the European Court of Human Rights.
  I feel obliged to mention that at that time—it was just a few years after the war—I do not believe that members of any party in this country gave a moment's thought to the effect of the convention on military discipline. But now we must consider it. I believe that the Government must review the convention and our acceptance of it in order to ensure that military discipline is maintained."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 691.]
  Last week, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the Minister for the Armed Forces told the Defence Committee that it was "a theoretical possibility" that the Government might withdraw from the convention and immediately re-apply, asking for a derogation to protect our vital defence interests. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he tell us whether at any time the Government have considered that course of action?
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that at no time has any hon. Member accused the French of not being communautaire? Have not the French always supported the European convention on human rights, yet do they not have a derogation for the application of military discipline? Should we not be equally communautaire?
  Mr. Key: I fear that, in 1951, we missed a trick but, as I was only six at the time, I am not prepared to accept responsibility. My hon. Friend is right. The French do not have such problems, because they have a derogation. Member states that have joined the convention in recent years have decided to opt out and to have that derogation in place.
  There are others, as distinguished as Lord Renton, who believe that the Bill is not necessary. The noble Lord Alloway, a senior lawyer, told the other place on 18 January:
  "This convention does not require any signatory state to enact legislation, such as proposed by this Bill, which would inhibit the maintenance of good order and discipline in its armed forces."
  He went on to state his opinion that
  "assuredly the convention does not require amendment to the service discipline Acts or the setting up of a summary appeal court, as proposed by the Bill. It is wholly implicit that convention rights and obligations imposed on civilians should suffer substantial erosion and limitation. The extent of such limitation has not, as yet, been examined by the Commission or the Court. The Court would not strike down the service discipline acts as such."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 981.]
  1138
  The central problem with the Bill is that in it, the Government are bending over backwards to comply with the provisions of the European convention on human rights. They are doing the maximum necessary to comply, and they seem hell bent on doing so.
  We do not consider that the current system is non-compliant with the convention. Indeed, it was argued convincingly in the other place that amendments made to the discipline system as a result of the Armed Forces Act 1996 made our courts martial convention compliant. The changes were made in response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that a court martial convened and presided over by a higher military authority was not "independent and impartial".
  In the other place, Lord Bramall, a former chief of the defence staff, reasoned that if
  "a soldier can have free and direct access to a European Convention on Human Rights compliant court—that is, a court martial, with its own right of appeal—the right of appeal against the commanding officer's summary sentence to a special court would seem to be superfluous."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1999; Vol. 608, c. 366.]
  We are minded to agree with that view.
  Irrespective of whether the Government consider the Bill to be absolutely necessary, we believe that it has fundamental flaws. Our main concern is that it undermines the integrity of those who command. It is an invitation to the barrack-room lawyer. The disciplinary system that we have at present clearly demonstrates that unit morale is supported and bolstered by the application of quick and firm justice.
  The procedures set out in the Bill remove part of the control of a commanding officer, and the timing leads to delays in getting a problem dealt with and finished. It is also damaging to put in place a disciplinary process which allows soldiers to complain about their commanding officers, thereby reducing their authority.
  No one can doubt that the upholding of a commanding officer's authority and trust is vital to the efficiency and morale of a unit. That is especially so in active and combat operations. The Bill, a so-called technical measure, strikes at the heart of operational effectiveness. Our fears were echoed by yesterday's Defence Committee report.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I confess that it is a long, long time since I was involved with summary charges and courts martial, but I recall my unit being inspected by a very young Brigadier Carver.
  With reference to the redress of grievance procedure, is it not the case that any person coming in front of his or her commanding officer has the right to challenge a decision taken in a grievance case? If so—some Conservative Members have much more military experience than I do—surely the right of appeal in the grievance procedure does not damage the standing of a commanding officer.
  Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is right for the second time this afternoon. I shall come to the redress of grievance. That is an important point, but the problem is one of a sin of omission. The Bill should tackle the redress of grievance. It is deficient. It could be much more efficient.

  1139
  The Bill provides for summary appeal courts to be established, but the accused will already have been given the choice of deciding whether to be tried by his commanding officer or by court martial. The accused will now be allowed to say that he or she does not agree with the commanding officer's decision, and can cause either the finding or the sentence, or both, to be referred to the summary appeal court. That will obviously undermine the commanding officer's authority, draw out disciplinary proceedings and undoubtedly incur further expense. The burden of work on all those involved will also increase.
  The Bill also introduces changes to the procedure for election for court martial trial, and that will encourage elections for trial by court martial rather than by commanding officers, which will also impact adversely on the commanding officer's authority.
  Several hon. Members have talked about the practicality of the enforcement of discipline in the field. The armed forces are deployed all over the world in a variety of different operations and security circumstances. That was the reason for a body of military law in the first place. The Bill may be workable in the UK's garrison towns and bases, but it would often be unworkable when our forces are operating in the most basic and possibly dangerous conditions in the field, perhaps thousands of miles away from Britain and its military legal apparatus.
  Under the Bill, detention must be authorised by a judicial officer after a certain time. How would such authorisation be given if, for example, a unit were cut off under siege conditions? That is not fanciful. Such conditions can exist in modern peacekeeping operations. One has only to think of the situation of the Dutch army in Srebrenica to envisage how disciplinary problems in the field can put matters in a new and dangerous light.
  The Government have argued that there is flexibility in the Bill to allow for such situations, and that, in such cases, an individual would be brought before a judicial officer "as soon as practicable". However, on 18 January, Baroness Symons, speaking in the other place, said that the Bill will not be set aside even in the "most extreme operational circumstances". Therefore, the Government are saying that, in most cases, that flexibility is worthless. Either that or they are telling us that they have engineered by stealth an effective derogation from the ECHR.
  Ministers have put much faith in modern communications to circumvent those logistical difficulties. In particular, Ministers have said that video links will be used to enable hearings with judicial officers. The Defence Conrunittee was intrigued to be told last Thursday about video conferencing. The director of personnel services for the Army explained that video conferences happen already, and such conferences take place daily with Pristina. He said that he had himself spoken to a judge advocate on a video conference facility as part of a trial. The judge advocate will have a portable system at home so that he can be dialled up literally at any time. That is probably just as well if one considers the time differences between East Timor and Belize.
  There will be static video conferencing suites. Portable systems can be taken home so that a duty judicial officer can be wired up to pretty well anywhere in the world because, as we were told,
  "IT-wise now, wherever our soldiers go, we have the IT systems."
  1140
  One or two people might not agree. That is not quite so convincing if the home football team cannot be viewed in real time or if "EastEnders" or "Brookside" cannot be watched live. We are unconvinced about the potential of video conferencing.
  The Government have decided that it is in the interests of justice, and compliant with human rights legislation, that video links should be used to enable hearings with judicial officers. We challenge that on two counts. The Bill does not say how that will work. Clause 8(2) says that the Secretary of State may make rules about that, but I think that he will have to do much more. First, he must address the technical challenges involved. There is no tried and tested system operating over long, even intercontinental, distances, and the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is ultimately responsible for such courts, has said in reply to parliamentary questions that it has no links with any commercial companies in that area.
  However, there are people who work with the military on satellite links. Has the Minister talked to the company that does the satellite transmission for the British forces broadcasting system, whose programming is generated from the company's studio production facilities near London? That company produces broadcast quality results based on a transmitted data rate of 8 Mb a second. If Her Majesty's forces rely on Inmarsat, the maximum data rate available is a mere 128 Kb a second. That may support low-quality video conferencing, which is, of course, bidirectional, but to achieve broadcast quality links a second path would have to be booked if bi-directional pictures were required. The lower power gives a poor and jerky image with feeds costing several pounds a minute.
  For broadcast quality live pictures, the existing technology requires that a portable satellite news-gathering terminal is sent to the source of the feed—a military unit somewhere in the world. Such units cost about £350,000 each. An SNG terminal costs approximately £1,500 a day to rent. That includes an engineer, but a second engineer will probably be needed at £250 a day, excluding travel and accommodation expenses. The space segment cost is dependent upon region and varies from around £350 to £400 an hour for Europe and the middle east to £500 an hour in remote regions of the world, such as East Timor. How will the defence budget bear those costs?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend simplifies the situation. Is he aware that, at certain times of the year and on occasions such as the world cup, it might be impossible or very expensive to hire a satellite? Can the Government guarantee that a satellite link will always be available during the Olympic games, the world cup, the European cup, or any other such occasion?
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I should not like to be on the lower deck of an aircraft carrier when the choice is between watching the world cup and the holding of a judicial review on the satellite uplift.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend has read out a catalogue of costs that are attributable to the Bill. I understand that the Government have estimated a total

  1141
  cost of £6.5 million a year. Are the costs that my hon. Friend has just invited the House to consider additional to, or included in, that figure?
  Mr. Key: I do not think that the Government know, and I certainly do not know. So far, there has been no suggestion of any of the costs associated with video links, which we have been told happen already as a matter of everyday business in the services. My hon. Friend raises an important point, which we will have to probe in Committee.
  Mr. Colvin: There is a mystery surrounding the £6.5 million of costs. That was the Government's original estimate of the cost of dealing with between 850 and 900 appeals to the summary appeals court each year, being in part the cost of the 50 Royal Military Police investigators that would be required. Now they have increased their estimate of the number of likely appeals to 1,500, without any change in the cost. That was a mystery to the Select Committee and it is a mystery to me too. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will give us the answer.
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. It has been suggested that this is a double bluff as part of the Treasury round whereby the Ministry of Defence will say that it cannot implement the Act without a substantial increase in the defence budget. The problem is that no one knows about the costs.
  Let us leave costs for a moment, because our second concern goes deeper. We are talking here about justice. In the UK under civilian conditions and in parallel circumstances, a solicitor would be sitting in court with his client. That proximity is essential if proper advice is to be given. That could not be achieved in a remote interview over a video link.
  I have read the transcript of the Select Committee's proceedings last Thursday. I know that we were told that advice had been taken and that wide-angled lenses will be used so that the sergeant major cannot stand behind the camera and threaten that the right answers must be given, or else. However, many judges and lawyers argue that the interests of justice cannot be served by a poor-quality, jerky video link, which could not give a judicial officer thousands of miles away a proper grasp of the circumstances and demeanour of an accused man or woman.
  If the Government were serious about improving the human rights of members of Her Majesty's forces, they should have turned their attention to the substantial delays in the military legal process compared with the civilian process. For many years, legal aid claims for existing members of the armed forces, some of their dependants and service police abroad have been met by the English Legal Aid Board. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde was right to raise that matter earlier. It is almost unbelievable that the Legal Aid Board secretariat published new guidance in December, which stated that the board proposed to end that practice. It is astonishing that the Government are bent on incorporating improved human rights provision in the service discipline Acts while cutting the availability of professional legal advice to members of the armed forces. Civilian solicitors will no longer be able to give advice to, for example, soldiers in Germany. There has been no sign of any reciprocal
  1142
  increase in the number of service legal advisers. Indeed, the Government have said that there is no plan to increase them.
  The Bill also fails to tackle the discrepancies in the judicial processes between the civilian and military systems. It is not too late to do that. We were heartened when the Minister for the Armed Forces told the Select Committee on Defence last Thursday that the Department would examine discrepancies in punishment systems and tariffs between the regiments of the British Army. We welcome that. The Government need to go much further. Redress of grievance procedures leave much to be desired. There are countless examples of justice being delayed literally for years. Apart from the injustice, there is the lack of common courtesy to one's employees, and standards of employment practice in the services that would be unacceptable in civilian life. It is good news that the Army intends to sharpen up its procedures. However, the problem is wider than that.
  Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of spending a day at sea on HMS Sandown. Have you ever wondered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what people on Her Majesty's ships do all day? They were just as curious about what Members of Parliament do all day. From the moment that I left the naval base at 8 am until the moment that we returned at 4 pm, there was a ceaseless round of sometimes intense activity. There was a fire drill, a man overboard exercise, a great deal of intense routine work, which involved highly skilled electronic observation and full use—for real—of much of the ship's capability.
  Dr. Godman: Was the hon. Gentleman sick?
  Mr. Key: No. I am delighted to assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not sick. Indeed, I enjoyed the delightful sight of the hon. Gentleman's constituency from HMS Sandown for a wonderful part of the day.
  A great deal of hard work was done. However, I was able to spend time with ratings, senior ratings and officers to listen to what was on their minds as well as trying to answer questions about everything from NATO and the role of HMS Sandown in the wider strategic picture to the real mysteries of parliamentary procedure. I wanted to know how on earth the chef fed the ship's complement on less than £2 per head a day.
  The senior ratings wanted to talk about military discipline. There will always be a big difference between the standards of discipline expected in the military, especially on one of Her Majesty's ships, and the more laid-back approach—as some perceive it—to life ashore. That is taken as read. HMS Sandown is a fine ship with a fine crew; no doubt part of that quality is achieved by the maintenance of tight discipline. However, those with no experience of the military should realise that the consequences of comparatively minor misdemeanours in the military are altogether more serious than those for an equivalent misdemeanour in civilian life.
  It is right to argue that a minor misdemeanour in the course of high intensity warfare puts at risk the life of the perpetrator and the crew. However, as was pointed out to me, oversleeping by 10 minutes on board ship leads to a serious financial penalty on a fixed tariff with the possibility, if matters do not improve, of derating and future career consequences.

  1143
  Matters are different in the Army. Any hon. Member whose constituency includes a garrison town knows that Friday and Saturday nights can be lively. I have been out with a Wiltshire constabulary night shift and observed off-duty soldiers in, we shall say, high spirits. If the civil police arrested them, they would spend the night in the cells. If they subsequently appeared before a magistrate, they would receive a verbal rap over the knuckles and a conditional discharge. However, that does not happen. The Wiltshire police inform the soldiers that they will radio for the Royal Military Police, whereupon the soldiers miraculously evolve into Olympic athletes. They know that if the RMP haul them back to their garrison and march them in front of the commanding officer in the morning, there will be a standard tariff fine of £750.
  When the Minister replies to the debate, will he tell us more about the anticipated timetable for consolidating the three service discipline Acts and introducing a single, tri-service Act?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am not entirely clear about the line that my hon. Friend is pursuing. Is he suggesting that magistrates courts could benefit from the example set by commanding officers?
  Mr. Key: That is an intriguing and tempting possibility. The answer might be yes. However, as my hon. Friend knows, if a Member of Parliament dares to suggest to magistrates that they are not tough enough, consequences ensue.
  I hope that we can receive more guidance on the reforms and the introduction of a tri-service Act. The Ministry of Defence has a duty of care but the fact remains that those brave men and women who join the forces are ultimately prepared to lay down their lives for their country.
  Civilian life will never be the same as military life. This Government—and, indeed, the previous Government—expressed an intention to enact changes. However, there is a growing credibility gap. The Government managed to make major constitutional changes swiftly. They destroyed the House of Lords as we knew it, and established a devolved Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales. However, there seems no serious intention to make progress on consolidating the service discipline Acts. All we have are aspirations. That will not do.
  The Secretary of State for Defence is a distinguished lawyer. He understands the relevant issues very well. We look to him to tackle the matter on behalf of all those who serve in Her Majesty's forces. We are considering more than a sin of omission. Failure to consolidate symbolises much of what is wrong with the Bill.
  The Government believe that the Bill is simply a technical measure, which tidies up bits and pieces to keep them out of trouble. If only that were so. The Bill represents the most fundamental challenge to military discipline and military effectiveness for many years. Hidden in the undergrowth of guesswork lie some good intentions. However, I remind the Government that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  There is a fundamental difference between the Opposition and the Government. Conservative Members believe that the Bill could damage the authority of a
  1144
  commanding officer and therefore fighting effectiveness. The prime responsibility of the armed forces is defence of the realm and the human rights of the people of these islands. It is vital that they should be able to discharge that duty above all else. When judges are called upon to interpret relevant articles of the convention, they must use common sense by recognising the fundamental difference between military and civil institutions.
  The problem is that the Government, as Baroness Symons said, have made the Bill part of their human rights agenda. In doing that, they have chosen to risk the capability of the armed forces against the possibility of an adverse judgment after some possible future legal challenge.
  The system of armed forces discipline works. The Bill does nothing to improve that system and has the potential to harm it significantly. In the words of Lord Craig of Radley, former Chief of the Defence Staff during the Gulf war:
  "We should be bending over backwards to protect the Armed Forces from any derogation of their strength and quality rather than bending over backwards, as the Bill seems to do, to knock the armed forces into line with every detail of the convention at any cost"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 680.]
  Many people share those views.
  I remind the House of articles 2 and 5 of the convention, which cover the rights to life, liberty and security. Without effective and efficient armed forces, the nation's ability to uphold those rights will be compromised. The Bill is not good enough. I urge hon. Members to vote for our reasoned amendment in the Lobby tonight.
  2.49 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who was a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, and I note that six other ex-members have been present this afternoon. However, I am a little sad that he has moved from his positive role to this backwater, which he endures with a smile and fine rhetorical flourishes. He performs gracefully, although his role is negative compared with his previous activity, and I am pleased that he remembers one of my rare incisive questions. However, he did not recall other remarks that he and I made and noted in the delightful series of Armed Forces Bill Committee meetings and I shall remind him of them in a moment.
  I am sad that the Bill is a party political issue. I do not think that it should be. The word "Europe" appears somewhere in the documentation, if one looks hard enough, and to display their anti-Europeanism the Opposition have to continue their tradition of receiving large sums from wealthy donors.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Where are they?
  Mr. George: I admit that the donations are drying up. I have driven behind one of Eddie Stobart's vehicles many times and believe that he still contributes to a dying cause.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury was a little unfair and I am sad that he led Conservative opposition to the Bill. There is no fundamental difference between us, but a difference of interpretation and I cannot believe that his

  1145
  Government would have acted differently. They supported the European convention on human rights and had a reasonable human rights record so the idea that they would have withstood the inevitable had they remained in office is fanciful and erroneous.
  Reading the Conservatives' amendment, I am touched by their apparent affection and support for leadership, particularly in the light of the fact that they collectively disposed of virtually every leader they had in the 20th century. At this very moment, the knives for the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), whose name is first on the list of those who tabled the amendment, are probably being sharpened. The Conservative party supports discipline, of which it has little, and the principle of command.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George: Having made those political and uncharacteristically provocative comments, I am delighted to give way.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The leaders that the Conservative party got rid of first proved themselves to be first-rate successes and changed the country for the better, but I want to pick the hon. Gentleman up on the reasons for our opposition, which were so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We have to judge whether the authority of commanding officers will be enhanced or reduced by the Bill. We judge that it will be reduced so surely it is our job to say that the Bill should not go any further until that criticism is met.
  Mr. George: I am not trying to evade the question and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall return to it, but there is a higher goal. Although the Opposition might not want to empathise with the Government, they should—in the light of their activities during recent events in Kosovo—show people outside that there are no basic differences between us on defence and security policy. Objections could have been made in Committee, as they were by Conservatives in the other place. The Opposition should not give the impression that there is a schism between them and the Government. That is unfortunate.
  The amendment's criticism of Government prevarication over the consolidation of the single service Acts amuses me enormously. The hon. Member for Salisbury kindly reminded me of the question that I asked during the Armed Forces Bill Committee proceedings, which were chaired by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)—a former member of the Defence Committee who I hope will return to it. We had a little bet on how long it would take before the Ministry of Defence went on the back foot and I think that I won with two minutes and 10 seconds or three minutes. It was put on the defensive when I asked what happened to the recommendations on consolidation in the 1996 Select Committee report. After all, they followed from the recommendations of the 1991 report. We are talking about prevarication and the previous Government prevaricated over consolidation so, "Physician heal thyself." However, I shall not go too far and rub it in by discussing Army medical services. I recall the questioning vividly and we asked why there was prevarication. The explanation was that a
  1146
  parliamentary counsel who had been loaned to the MOD spent two years working hard on consolidation, but went back to his previous job. The process fell apart. Those who appeared before us in 1996 said, "Sorry, we have not taken it any further."
  The Defence Committee does not always support the Government, but the problems of delay in consolidation have been exacerbated by the Strasbourg ruling. I hope that the leader of the team that deals with armed forces law will be given sufficient staff to create some rationality in service discipline by the time that the Armed Forces Bill Committee meets in 2001. Consolidation is part of that process. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the Defence Committee and the speed with which the evidence session was printed. He recognises that MOD legislation is rare. When it is introduced, I hope that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny and that that task will fall to the Defence Committee.
  I agree with a number of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Salisbury. There are fat manuals of service law and Parliament spends a lot of time on the subject. It is considered by a Select Committee of the House of Lords and the Armed Forces Bill Committee meets quinquennially. The other place dealt with the Bill competently a few months ago, we are considering it now and it may return to the other place, so the outsider would say, "Isn't the situation in the armed forces sufficiently grave, because of criminal behaviour and misbehaviour, to merit so much time?" Many people think that the armed forces are Leicester City, Manchester United and Chelsea writ large, but we all know that they are not like that. When we consider the misbehaviour and the crimes that are committed and dealt with, we should bear in mind the number of service personnel—they are equivalent to a small city—and the fact that they are subject to service discipline. When I became a Member of the House the number of people in the armed forces was the same as the population of a large city, but I shall not criticise the Opposition in great detail at this juncture. I am trying to be bipartisan.
  We should pay tribute to the members of our armed forces—and their dependants—because despite the fact that they enter a career in which one assumes that they are encouraged to show a great deal of physical aggression, in most cases that is canalised in the right direction. There is no correlation between the time that we and civil servants devote to armed forces law and the purpose of that law, which, in fact, is fairly limited because our personnel are so well-behaved.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury may have gone to Colchester at the same time as me. When I went there, we were taken around by a very articulate young man. We were gobsmacked to discover later that he was not one of the instructors, but one of those undergoing temporary incarceration. He went AWOL—not after we met him, of course—and set up a successful business. Only when the business took off did he feel that it was better to go back and receive the punishment that he admitted that he deserved. His progress towards millionaire status—and, if I remember rightly, an appearance on "Gladiators"—was deferred, if only temporarily.
  Meeting people who are in the glasshouse is not like visiting Strangeways prison in Manchester. These are not your criminal classes; they are people who committed acts that would have gone unnoticed in a place like this. We are talking about the misbehaviour of soldiers in garrison

  1147
  towns. I do not visit the Strangers' Bar often, but anyone who goes there—I issue an invitation now—will see rather noisy colleagues of mine letting off steam. If they were subject to service discipline, their conduct would no doubt lead to an inflation of the criminal behaviour statistics.
  The Bill, which has been rather disparaged by certain Members of the House of Lords, has had an eventful genesis. We should look abroad, to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg—although I should not mention that name, because it is European. The court upholds a tradition of human rights that is decades old; moreover, it confronts another tradition going back hundreds of years—the tradition of preserving human rights while also achieving the objectives set by Government, which involve the use of military force.
  There is clearly a clash. Justices coming, in some instances, from countries with a less than strong martial tradition are imbued with a set of legal principles that clearly cause difficulties for the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. In recent years, history has shown that when there is a clash between Strasbourg and the Ministry of Defence in court, the Ministry—as I have said in the Select Committee—has the same success as the district attorney in "Perry Mason", Hamilton Burger, who, on Sunday nights, lost every case on which he embarked. [Interruption.] I will tell the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) about that later, but I think that he is older than he looks. Indeed, there are probably repeats of "Perry Mason", in colour.
  As I have said before, problems are involved. Some would argue that the main purpose of the military is to fight and win wars, rather than to constitute an active microcosm of society. However, in 1951 a Government—I am not sure whether they were Labour or Conservative—signed a treaty by which we are bound. I have not heard Opposition Members or their predecessors urge us to extricate ourselves, in full or in part, from a convention that whoever it was willingly signed.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I think that a Labour Government signed it, but I know that, whichever Government did so, Ministers at the time were determined to be convinced before signing that our existing legislation was wholly compatible with the convention. Since then, there has been so much reinterpretation of the original convention that we are experiencing an endless stream of invitations to adjust our laws accordingly.
  Mr. George: I think that, in this respect, the French were either wiser or stupider than us—probably the former rather than the latter—in not signing until 1974. As the hon. Gentleman knows, once a country has signed, it is difficult for it to extricate itself from what binds signatories, and we were a signatory in 1951.
  I appreciate the Government's dilemma, which would have been a dilemma for the last Government. Whatever brave face the Government may put on it, the Bill may affect a commanding officer's ability to maintain respect. In my view, however, there was no alternative. We kept losing cases. Conservative Members, given their interest in business efficiency and their desire to reduce expenditure, would surely ask, "Why should we continue
  1148
  to lose cases? Why should we spend money on expensive lawyers, before losing cases and running up bills for the taxpayer?" I suspect that the Government had no real choice, and I would have expected some sympathy, if not support, from Conservative Members.
  Our lawyers have regularly been beaten around the head by their European counterparts. Even if the Bill becomes law, as it should and presumably will, there are no guarantees for those who have lost cases as often as my local football club has lost matches this season—although I still have faith in it. The Bill has been described as gold-plating, over-insurance and over the top, but even if compensatory measures that may not appear entirely necessary now are introduced, a Government who have lost so many cases in Strasbourg would surely be prudent to say much more than "We lost in the past; our new legislation will ensure that we do not lose in the future".
  Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
  Mr. George: As a military man, the hon. Gentleman can respond to that when he makes his own speech.
  The trouble with the military, it is said, is that they are too keen on fighting battles that they have won and lost. The trick is to anticipate the next battle, and it strikes me as prudent to gold-plate. We have been given examples of the next bunch of cases that are being dealt with, or are about to be dealt with, in Strasbourg. I think that the Bill is an instance of commendable efficiency and far-sightedness, a quality for which the Ministry of Defence is rarely known and to which the Opposition have never succumbed.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman is much respected on both sides of the House, not just for his position but for his interest in military matters over the years. He spoke of the genuine and serious difficulties caused by the inter-operation of the convention and the concept of command of the military by an elected Government. Let us put aside either party's concerns about Europe—or, perhaps, lack of concerns. Does he not believe that a serious issue is involved, which needs to be addressed in a larger forum in conjunction with other Governments: how far the operation of the convention can be allowed to interrupt a Government's obligations to those who elected them, in terms of the defence of the realm? Is that not a bigger issue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It probably is a bigger issue, but today we are debating the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not argue with me from a sedentary position when I am on my feet. I am merely reminding the House that this is principally a debate about the Bill. Allusion to the convention is in order, but this is not a debate about the convention.
  Mr. George: I was about to reply, but I shall now leave it until the end of my speech.
  By the end of the year, the Select Committee will have undertaken a wide-ranging inquiry into personnel matters in the armed forces, including discipline and grievance procedures. Paragraph 29 of the report, which was published yesterday, states:
  "We anticipate examining the ways in which Service personnel have access to rights which are considered appropriate and necessary for civilians in the UK, and the extent to which differences are necessary for the special circumstances of military life."

  1149
  We hope to report before the next quinquennial review is undertaken. I assure hon. Members that I have concerns, but I sympathise with the Government, who simply had no option. I would have hoped that Opposition Members appreciated that.
  The Bill went through the Lords and I read the speeches with some interest. In the Defence Committee, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to congratulate Baroness Symons, a civilian, on withstanding the charges of the Third Shock Army of the Warsaw treaty organisation—virtually every living retired chief of defence staff. I said that, despite the pressure, the "thin fur line held". Not only did it hold, but by the end of the debate the assailants were in rapid retreat and did not vote. That was not because of a tradition of not voting against the House of Commons—that is a fairly recent tradition from my reading of the Lords Hansard. The reason why they flew in the opposite direction was that someone had pointed out existing legislation to them. They realised that the wind had been taken out of their sails. As good military men, they realised that, when on a loser, it is wise to get out of the way before there is a rout. That was why they hauled up the white flag: they had lost the argument. Opposition Members should use different advisers this time, otherwise, they will have the same bump on the nose in front of the House of Commons Committee as their colleagues in the House of Lords in December.
  Dr. Godman: Is not the heart of the matter the legitimacy of proceedings that are undertaken against someone who is alleged to have committed an offence? Much concern has been voiced by Opposition Members about the need to protect the integrity of commanding officers, but I remind my hon. Friend of the observations of the Director of Personal Services (Army) when giving evidence to the Committee; they appear on page x of the report:
  "Genuinely, I believe, and I think this is the experience of most commanding officers, good soldiers will entirely accept that they have done wrong, they will be in front of the commanding officer and they will take their punishment".
  That was my experience all those years ago. I talk to young soldiers now. As long as they have trust and respect for their commanding officers, it will be fine.
  Mr. George: I agree and respect what my hon. Friend says. He has a background in the Royal Military Police, understands service discipline and what a little pressure from good men such as him can have on recalcitrant soldiers.
  Mr. Viggers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George: Yes. I was about to criticise the Minister and shadow spokesman for their verbosity and now I am subject to the same criticism from anyone who follows.
  Mr. Viggers: It is not in any sense a party political point, but may I say, representing as I do a garrison town, that, although the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) rightly pointed out that young service men will accept summary punishment, when they get home, their wives may be pretty upset and say, "If there is an appeal procedure, why not follow it through?"? I suspect that there may be such pressure.
  Mr. George: In giving evidence, the MOD discussed the extent to which it thought that that appeal system
  1150
  would be activated. It was fairly reassuring. We formed a coalition to maintain the hon. Gentleman's town as a garrison town, at least with regard to the hospital there. We share many views, but people talk about a licence for barrack-room lawyers. For God's sake, it is institutionalised barrack-room lawyering.
  If people cannot have easy recourse to professional lawyers, they may seek advice from fellow soldiers, sailors or airmen, which might put an additional burden on the system that is being created, or re-created. I can see that being a problem, but, as a devotee of Kipling, who wrote much on barrack-room lawyers, perhaps I do not perceive it with the repugnance that other people might.
  Mr. Hancock: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that Brigadier Ritchie, speaking for the Army, was questioned at length about the right of appeal, the way in which sentencing would be handled and the keeping of regimental traditions on how punishment was dished out, but said that the key thing was that, under the Bill, for the first time, there would be some consistency, which would be recognised and understood throughout the armed forces? That was the crucial change, which was essential to make the system work.
  Mr. George: I am glad to be reminded of the content of our questioning of MOD witnesses.
  Looking at the Committee report, I hope that, when the next legislation is introduced, the Government will avoid sending it to the House of Lords first—thereby providing justification for the four-star generals who were ennobled to prove that they still exist—and send it to the House of Commons first. I hope that they will activate the advice of the Leader of the House and the Select Committee on Modernisation that legislation be issued in draft, especially if it is basically uncontentious. I cannot believe, despite the rhetoric of Opposition Members, that it is a truly contentious Bill. When the next legislation is introduced, I hope that it will conform to that advice.
  The House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation warned the House of Lords that certain rules and regulations in the Bill could be modified without parliamentary scrutiny. It referred to clauses 8 and 22. It said:
  "the time may come when Parliament will wish to consider whether the more important provisions should be subject to Parliamentary control."
  The powers of the Defence Council to make, in essence, statutory or subordinate legislation should come before the House properly. The Defence Committee will watch for anything that comes out of the MOD that takes the form, in essence, of subordinate legislation and then seek the MOD's views, even though perhaps the House as a whole will have abandoned the principle of scrutiny.
  Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I am almost at the end of my speech. Some Opposition Members to whom I have spoken thought foolishly that the European Court of Human Rights was part of the European Union and were going to vote against the measure on principle. I remind them that it is not part of the EU.

  1151
  When people talk about anything European, their eyes glaze over. It is just like what happens with a full moon. A similar metamorphosis is contained in Lon Chaney's "Wolfman", where it was said:
  "Even a man who is pure of heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolf bane blooms and the moon is shining bright."
  When the moon shines bright and Europe is mentioned, people descend to a plain of rationality that is almost certifiable. The fact that the court is in France and almost in Germany should not lead to its condemnation out of hand.
  It is important to accept—the Minister and Mr. Woodhead explained it in some detail—the distinction between a reservation and a derogation. The horse has bolted. There is nothing we can do about it. As I have said, the French came into it late. To alter what we signed would require an immense effort.
  I hope that the Minister will do some legal research and explain the position to the Committee. I am sure Opposition Members will be interested, although hardly any of them are here. I will not be on it; absolutely not. I have done my bit for military justice until the 2001 Bill is introduced. As I said, I hope that the Minister will do that research, and explain to the wolfmen on the Opposition Benches what difficulties there would be in trying to secure a renegotiation of the convention.
  The wheels of the Ministry of Defence, like those of the millennium wheel, turn slowly. As I said, I do not think that the Ministry should be blamed completely for its rather retarded process of consolidation—which is something that it will have to do.
  Video-conferencing is one of the detailed matters dealt with in the Bill. Since we got out from east of Suez, British troops have not served in a vast number of places with jungles. Although I accept that there might be some difficulty in inserting a plug into a socket in some parts of the world, I should have thought—the Committee was given an explanation that should satisfy any rational person—that if there is any difficulty in charging someone immediately, it should not happen immediately. The person should be charged when the unit returns home.
  There was some nonsense on that point in the House of Lords. The fact is that, if someone aboard a Trident is suspected of an offence, the submarine will not surface so that the person can be taken ashore by Ministry of Defence police. It will not happen like that. If there is a crisis, the person will be charged later. I cannot see the problem with that.
  When the Defence Committee visited the Walter Reed hospital, in Washington, we saw an operation being performed in which a surgeon, in Washington, was advising a medic who was 8,000 miles away. Although I would not like to be a recipient of that type of operation, if it is possible to perform major medical operations in that manner, it should not be beyond the wit of even the Ministry of Defence to devise a similar technical system. The Committee considered such technical issues.
  I reiterate that I very much hope that, by the time that the Select Committee on the Armed Forces. Bill is constituted, we shall have a better idea of whether Opposition Members' rather fearful prognostications are justified. Perhaps there will be an opportunity in that Committee to do any necessary fine tuning.
  1152
  I have one request, which may not be popular, and on which I have not approached the Defence Committee, so I have no authority to make it, although the Committee has made it previously. Will the Minister give some consideration—in which he will certainly have to consult the Opposition—to constituting the Committee that eventually examines the Armed Forces Bill so that it includes not only the Defence Committee, but is augmented by a Minister, a shadow Minister and, if necessary, one or two other hon. Members? There is logic in that arrangement, and I hope that the Minister will consider agreeing to it.
  The Select Committee will examine in detail many of the issues that have been raised by Opposition Members, and we shall have far more time to deal with them than we had in our cursory analysis of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. However, I assure the House that we shall examine them in considerable detail. I hope that we—if we on the Defence Committee are burdened with the task, which I am pretty confident that we would be more than prepared to accept—will then be able to formulate some recommendations on them.
  Mr. Colvin: I am most grateful to my successor as Chairman of the Defence Committee for giving way. Will he give an undertaking that, when the Select Committee considers the Armed Forces Bill, it will seriously examine consolidating the three service discipline Acts into one Act? Not only the current Select Committee, but the previous Select Committee and the one before that have recommended that the Acts be consolidated. The recommendation was made also in the strategic defence review.
  I have read the evidence available to us today, but have seen no reference to the detailed reasons why the Government have not accepted the recommendation. The excuse has been given that there was simply not sufficient time to consolidate the Acts, but that is not good enough. Ministers will have to identify the stumbling blocks, and I hope that the Select Committee will consider the issue.
  Mr. George: If the Ministry of Defence is short of lawyers, I heard a very good programme last week on what citizens advice bureaux are doing to provide legal assistance. The Ministry of Defence might contemplate taking that course. However, the Select Committee will certainly consider the matter. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises, he made a grave mistake in leaving the Defence Committee. If there is an opening, perhaps he will decide to return.
  3.25 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who speaks from vast knowledge and a real sympathy and concern for the armed services. I do not follow him in his almost complete happiness with the Bill as it is currently constructed, but I do welcome his comment that the next armed forces Bill should be examined very carefully in advance by an expanded Select Committee. I hope that his idea finds favour with the Minister to whom it was directed.

  1153
  It is a pity that this debate is not about what disciplinary procedures best ensure the armed forces' high morale, sense of fairness and military effectiveness. In the past, those responsible for the armed services have not always been the first to realise what change, and when, is needed to the punishments that can be meted out to service men, or to the procedures by which they are imposed. I should be very surprised if there were not desirable improvements that are no part of this Bill and have not as yet been properly discussed. Times change, and the services increasingly need intelligent, educated and resourceful people who can take responsibility in very stressful situations, in which restraint is needed as much as aggression.
  Those people require an appropriate disciplinary environment of which reason, justice and open procedures are the hallmark. The need is magnified now by the fact that so much of their current duty involves defending the lives and rights of civilians who are being denied their rights, even the right to life.
  Despite what I said earlier, I believe that service officers are usually far ahead of leaders in other parts of national life in grasping the totality of what is involved in maintaining group morale and imposing constructive discipline whereby those who are punished for its infringement feel that they have been dealt with fairly and promptly—promptness being a very large part of fairness.
  It is no surprise to me that the chief inspector of prisons—a former general—and the recently retired prisons ombudsman—a former admiral—had a far greater and more imaginative and complete idea of what relationships between prisoners and prison staff should be than did those who looked to them to provide support for simple punitive solutions to the endemic and complex problems of the Prison Service.
  Alas, we are discussing not the optimum disciplinary procedures for the services, but something considerably more restricted—how to put the armed services disciplinary and judicial processes on all fours with the procedures required by the European convention on human rights, and how to do it with the least damage to the effectiveness of the three services.
  Therefore, unless we are saying—here I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South—that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the convention permanently, which we are not, or that we should withdraw temporarily in order to rejoin with a suitable reservation—like the French did when they first joined in 1974, but which would be a very hard exercise to pull off—it is clear that matters cannot simply be left as they are if, indeed, we really are out of line with the convention.
  As the hon. Member for Walsall, South animadverted, the MOD lost a series of sex discrimination cases after a European Court ruling, to the embarrassment of the MOD, at great cost to the taxpayer and with considerable damage to morale in the services. As the hon. Gentleman said, we do not want to go through that again, so I am sure that the Government are right to want to make certain that there are no effective grounds for challenge under the convention.
  I suspect, however, that the Government, mildly traumatised by what happened to their predecessors over sex equality, are determined to follow the more usual British tradition exemplified by the way in which we
  1154
  zealously apply an unnecessarily demanding interpretation of the requirement of EU directives. So I wonder whether the Government have not done exactly that and proposed changes which exceed what is necessary to bring us into line with the ECHR.
  Do the Government really have to give a service man charged with a summary offence the choice of a court martial before proceedings start; then, if he decides to submit to the judgment of the commanding officer, does he really have to have a second right of appeal to a court martial if he does not like the CO's conclusion or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, if his wife does not like it? That is certainly a more cumbersome procedure than the current one, but I would have thought that most service men on a charge would have preferred the current procedure—to see what evidence there was and what the CO made of it before deciding whether to opt for the full court martial.
  I would have thought that, in practice, the rights and convenience of everyone, not least the offending service man, would be at least as well served by retaining the present arrangements. However, I take it that it is the MOD's legal advice—the advice that has been given to the Minister—that, despite the manifest fairness and utility of those arrangements, the European Court of Human Rights would never be persuaded to endorse them. Perhaps in his reply to the debate, the Minister will explain more fully why not. It is an absolutely crucial point that lies at the heart of the Bill and it requires a full explanation. We also need answers to the excellent questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) at the start of the debate.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend who is making some extremely wise observations. The Government really have to decide which is more important: adherence to the principles set out in the European convention on human rights as adumbrated by those who are charged with its implementation, or the prime responsibility—I would say the overriding one—of Her Majesty's armed forces to maintain such good order and military discipline as to ensure morale and ultimate victory.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: In the last analysis, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I do not think that we have reached that point. I am not yet convinced that the current arrangements are not on all fours with the convention and I am trying to tease that out of the Minister. It is a central point. I do not expect him to intervene on me now, but I hope that he will give it a great deal of attention when he replies to the debate.
  At the same time, I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why, under the new procedures, if a summarily convicted service man appeals, the court martial will not be able to impose a heavier sentence than his CO has available to him. I know that the sentence of a court might well be heavier than the CO actually gave if that sentence was below the maximum, but why should the services not follow the civilian practice whereby, if the defendant elects for trial in a higher court, he runs the risk of a higher penalty than the lower court can impose? Why is the practice in civilian courts not at risk from the convention if it is judged to be unacceptable in the military process, or is it just a matter of belt and braces

  1155
  copper-bottoming of the military procedures—a course on which I suggested the Government had embarked? Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us.
  The matter is important because so much services opinion is concerned. I have to take that second hand as the extent of my military career was serving in my school combined cadet force, and I am not sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been career officers or have been in the services in some other capacity will be convinced that that provides me with a fundamental knowledge. However, I have spoken to a great many people in the services, I have listened to what some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, and I have read the debates in the House of Lords.
  It is clear that much service opinion is concerned that the new procedures will undermine the authority of commanding officers. We should not take that risk lightly. Anything that diminishes the commanding officer—in particular his ability to settle less serious disciplinary matters appropriately, firmly, without delay and in-house—will diminish a unit's morale and cohesion. It is on those qualities that much of a unit's effectiveness and the safety of all its members rely.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy in giving way. As I said earlier, my experience is very dated, but there is a substantial difference between the prospect of an offending soldier facing his commanding officer and the ordeal of appearing in front of a court martial. In my view, which is based on terribly dated experience, the vast majority of soldiers would rather face their commanding officer than appear before a court martial.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: That was the point that I was seeking to make. It is much more satisfactory all round, and it is now the law, that the service man should have the option. Why do we need to complicate that option and make it rather more difficult for the service man to know how best to use it in his own interest?
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I have been listening carefully. Having heard what my right hon. Friend said about his own experience in the CCF, let me reassure him that many of us have had that happy experience. I was a member of what was originally the very first school combined cadet force in the country, and benefited hugely from that experience—I come from a services family—so I do not think that my right hon. Friend should be at all reticent in expressing his views. Does he agree that the crucial question that we are addressing is whether the officers themselves feel that their place in the chain of command and the effectiveness with which they carry out their functions will be adversely affected? If, as my right hon. Friend believes, as I believe and as the officers to whom we have spoken believe, that is the case, there is a problem.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: That proposition sounds convincing. I am looking for the Government to say either that it is not so and reassuring us, or, as I was arguing earlier, that it is not necessary to make these changes to put the law as it affects military discipline on all fours with the convention. It is a crucial point because the only reason
  1156
  for introducing the Bill at this time is to make it convention-proof. We need to ensure that the Government have got it right, but I fear that, in trying to make it convention-proof, they have gone much further than they needed and risk the adverse consequences to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Another concern is the role of the proposed judicial officer who must endorse the detention of a service man if he is to be held for longer than 48 hours. That is an example of bureaucracy being added to the system, and it could further undermine the commanding officer. However, unlike some of my hon. Friends, I do not believe that it need do so. If tactfully and sensibly handled by the judicial officer and the CO, such oversight could be a useful resource for the CO, and it could also enhance the sense of fairness with which the summary proceedings are conducted from the point of view of the service man.
  I cannot see that there will necessarily be problems with the procedure in Aldershot or Gutersloh, but they may arise when units are engaged in active operations overseas or in demanding peacekeeping roles. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made well in his intervention. The Minister claimed in reply to my hon. Friend that modern means of communication could resolve the problem, and I am sure that it will be theoretically possible in most situations to maintain the necessary contact and secure the necessary approvals via electronic links. However, I should not like to have to rely on them on all occasions. I am more concerned that a senior officer, who should be devoting all his attention to the mission in hand could, and would on occasion, be distracted by the demanding procedures in the Bill. That should not be allowed to happen.
  It is not practical to have two sets of rules—one for home and one for abroad.
  Mr. Hancock: We went over that point at great length in the Defence Committee. It was very hard for any member to pinpoint an incident that would correspond to the problem you foresee of a commanding officer in the field being unable to follow the procedures to deal with a difficult problem. If a soldier had done something so bad, he would have been out of the unit and gone. There is no conceivable scenario in which someone would be left in that situation. The commanding officer would get on and do what he was paid to do and justice would take its course in the normal way. No one can present a single example that supports your argument.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must try to use the correct parliamentary language.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I always understood that war and active operations produced the most unexpected circumstances. The hon. Gentleman may be right—he was on the Defence Committee and heard the evidence given. I am willing to concede that it may be rare that such problems occur, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that he cannot speak ex cathedra and say that they will never happen.
  Mr. Blunt: I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who is my colleague on the Defence Committee, the conclusion that we reached on the custody issue:
  "We remain concerned that the legislation should cover all eventualities, and look forward to the government clarifying this issue during the Committee stage of the Bill."
  Sir Peter Lloyd: That is right; I invite the Minister to comment when he winds up the debate. I have given him a lot to do, but the Bill raises several important points and I hope that he will be able to respond to them. It is much better that the rules are sufficiently flexible for the relevant officer to be able to take action appropriate to the exigencies that he and his men may face. The legislation needs to be flexible so that the circumstances can be taken into account, whether they are common, rare or will never happen at all, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) suggests. I hope that the Minister can reassure us in detail that that flexibility is in the Bill and, if it is not and if the Bill receives its Second Reading, it will be added in Committee.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I, for one, will be brief. As has been said on both sides of the House, we are proud of our armed forces. They have gained a worldwide reputation for being among the best—and, in some cases, the best in the world. They uphold values of democracy, liberty and justice—the very values that form the core of British society. When tested in difficult operational circumstances in the Gulf, the Balkans and, most recently, East Timor, our armed forces carried out their duties in a manner that has consistently upheld such democratic values.
  The importance in the armed forces of a unique discipline system and a chain of command cannot be underestimated. It instils in our armed forces an overriding sense of duty, loyalty and discipline that builds both co-operation and professionalism, enabling them to maintain their effectiveness in peacetime and in conflict. In short, it means that, when they fight, they win.
  Our armed forces have to be prepared to move with a world that is changing at a lightning pace. They have to be able to respond to situations quickly, in a post-cold war situation that is characterised by globalisation and increasing interdependence between countries and regions, as well as the resurgence of nationalism, ethnic violence and regional instability. We need, therefore, to ensure that our armed forces operate in the most modern and effective way possible. We expect our forces to represent and uphold British values, and if they are to continue to do so, we must adapt to changing times. I believe that the Bill seeks to do that.
  The publication yesterday of the Defence Committee's report raises important issues relating to the passage of the Bill which need to be debated in more detail in Committee—I am sure that the Government will do that—although I have felt at times this afternoon that we might already be in Committee. Discipline in the armed forces must be kept under constant review. We all know that we return every four or five years to the Armed Forces Act, but discipline should not just be examined and then returned to the cupboard; it should be constantly refreshed and changed.
  1158
  The Conservatives argue that the Bill fails to address issues of fundamental human rights, but it seeks to do just that, and does it well. The Bill will ensure that the personnel of the armed forces will be treated like citizens and entitled to the fundamental human rights encompassed in the Human Rights Act 1998.
  The most recent review of discipline that we considered was the Armed Forces Act 1996, which my party supported as a positive step to bring discipline into line with the European convention on human rights. The reforms reinforced the independence of courts martial and extended the right to choose a court martial to establish checks and balances on the chain of command. The reforms in the Bill are a necessary extension of that Act and they are welcome because they create external as well as internal checks, which is a good thing.
  Some reference has been made to the cost of the Bill and the figure of £6.5 million has already been mentioned. There is a cost in getting legal systems and services right, but there is also a cost to getting them wrong. Let us not forget that our armed forces budget has been severely tested in recent years by compensation paid out when successive Governments got things wrong—for example, compensation for women discharged because they were pregnant cost £60 million. I would rather get the system right than pay later if we get it wrong.
  The main effect of clauses 1 to 10 are to make provision for a judicial officer to determine whether a suspect or accused should be held in custody. At present, the main responsibility for deciding whether the accused is kept in custody is in the hands of the commanding officer. Although the commanding officer has to review custody regularly, he cannot be seen as an independent figure when authorising the detention of a suspect. There are already checks on the commanding officer's powers, but the possibility of someone enduring up to eight days in custody without a review by an independent person is unacceptable.
  The European Court of Human Rights concluded in the case of Hood v. the United Kingdom, which has been mentioned already, that both internal and external checks on decisions affect civil liberty. We believe that our armed forces are made up of citizens and that, as a basic human right, they should be able to expect the same rights as everyone else.
  The new procedures will require a commanding officer to review custody every 12, 36 and 48 hours. After that, the commanding officer may apply to a judicial officer for continued detention. Applying that procedure in Britain's garrison towns is different from applying it in operational circumstances, but it will be possible to meet the requirement thanks to modern technology. The Bill also examines the practical difficulties involved, and I hope that the Government will return to that matter in Committee.
  Conservative Members have argued that our forces might be out of touch with command for long periods, and that the Bill will therefore be impractical. My noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire discussed that matter in another place, but he could find only one example—of a submarine under the polar ice cap—in which that might happen. Although there might be other circumstances in which that eventuality might come about, are we really saying that our entire system of armed forces discipline should be based on such exceptions? I do not believe so.

  1159
  I returned late last night from three days in Kosovo, where I spent time with our armed forces. I know that the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) also visited there recently, and made a favourable impression. I found that our commanders in the region see no problem with this Bill. There has been a real revolution in military matters over the past few years. The technology that enables instant, global communication now exists. Even in the jungles of East Timor, our forces will not be out of touch, so we see no problem with the proposals.
  The Select Committee report expresses the concern that the Bill should cover operational eventualities, and it is important that the question be debated both here and in Committee. However, we consider that the Bill establishes a system that will cover the norm and that exceptions can be dealt with.
  As I have pointed out already, the role of our volunteer and professional Army is to protect our democratic values. We expect our services to represent Britain and British values overseas. If we retain our leading role in defence diplomacy, and if we are to send our forces into eastern Europe and Africa to train military forces to accept the principle that the military is the servant of the state and not its master, we must ensure that our services continue to represent those values. We must ensure that we remain proud of our services and that our disciplinary procedures are an example to others.
  The harsh disciplinary regime of 200 years ago, which was necessary to maintain order among troops who were largely illiterate and uneducated, no longer exists. In our highly skilled and professional armed forces, the changes proposed in the Bill will be successful. They represent the basis for a more highly trained and more professional armed forces. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the Bill.
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The Government do not really care about defence, and their Defence Ministers have no experience in the armed forces. The result is this ill-considered, expensive and damaging Bill. I shall justify that accusation. There was a long delay before the Government introduced the strategic defence review, and there was a lack of urgency in its implementation. A number of important items identified in that review, such as the need to introduce heavy-lift capacity, were defined as high priority, but nothing has happened with them.
  There is a shortfall in Army personnel of 5.3 per cent. and there is a crisis in the Defence Medical Services. For the first time, defence expenditure has fallen below 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, and the empty Labour Benches show how much the Government care about defence.
  The Bill is untimely. The correct timing would have been to introduce it next year, in the Select Committee's quinquennial review of the Armed Forces Bills procedure. People outside the House may not know how that procedure works. Many years ago, it was proposed that a Bill that was essentially uncontroversial should go through a Select Committee stage. That meant that, after Second Reading, instead of going into the confrontational arena of a Standing Committee, it would go upstairs to a
  1160
  Select Committee. The members of that Select Committee—usually 11 of them—would consider the Bill and would have powers to take evidence
  That has been the procedure since 1961, during which time there have been eight Armed Forces Bills. I chaired the Select Committee twice, in 1986 and 1996. We took our responsibilities very seriously: the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in 1996, for example, met 11 times. We were anxious that the changes being made to military discipline should be correct and acceptable to the armed forces and to those civilians—such as those serving with the armed forces in Germany—who in some circumstances were affected by military law. We took evidence in this country and in Germany, and we heard from civilian representatives and from people, such as probation officers, who might be affected by the implementation of the Bill.
  Such scrutiny is the best way to deal with Bills relating to armed forces discipline. It is a mistake for the Government to introduce this Bill now, in this manner, rather than waiting for 2001. It would have been so easy to delay its introduction for 11 months, as the Select Committee to consider the next Armed Forces Bill will be appointed in January 2001. That Committee would then have been able to scrutinise this Bill in as much detail as the 1996 Committee scrutinised the Armed Forces Act 1996.
  Mr. Hancock: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the inevitable consequence of the delay that he has recommended to the House would be that more challenges to our military discipline would be mounted in the European courts? That would cause more expense to the Ministry of Defence and greater problems throughout the armed forces.
  Mr. Viggers: That is a fair question. I shall deal with it when I come to the second paragraph of my notes, whose heading uses the phrase "ill-considered" in connection with the Bill.
  Baroness Symons said:
  "The main provisions of the Human Rights Act will come into force in October 2000. The proposals in this Bill are intended to address concerns about compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights before that date."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 668.]
  I have looked into the Human Rights Act 1998 to discover why it was decided to implement its provisions from 2 October 2000. I am convinced that the Ministers who took the 1998 Act through Parliament did not realise that it would have implications for the armed forces. They did not understand that the deadline that they gave the 1998 Act would require the Ministry of Defence to introduce provisions for changes in armed forces discipline before that date.
  That was a major blunder. The Human Rights Act 1998 should not have specified that date; the deadline should have been left open, or delayed. Alternatively, provision should have been made to cover the armed forces. We are here today because the Home Office—I presume that was the Department responsible—failed to realise the implications for the Ministry of Defence of setting the 2 October 2000 deadline.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned the matter of consolidation. The Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Act 1996 made much of that question, and

  1161
  I think it appropriate to cover that point also in connection with this Bill. The 1996 special report stated at paragraph 36 on page xiv:
  "It was undertaken by a senior draftsman from the Parliamentary Counsel Office on secondment to the Law Commission… This draftsman returned to the Parliamentary Counsel Office in summer 1993 when the consolidation was at 'an advanced stage'. Since then, he has not had the time needed to complete the work."
  Clearly that is not a party political point because that was during a Conservative Administration. We concluded, at paragraph 37:
  "This is unacceptable. To allow the two years' work by a highly skilled Parliamentary draftsman to be abandoned is a disturbing indictment of resource management in the Law Commission…We recommend that the Government ensures that the necessary resources and Parliamentary time are made available to allow for the consolidation of Service law before the passage of the next Armed Forces Bill."
  That will be in 2001.
  I will quote one section of the Bill at random, to show the mess without consolidation. Schedule 1(4)(1) states:
  "Section 209(3) of each of the 1955 Acts (application of Act to civilians) is amended as follows.
  (2) After paragraph (c) there is to be inserted—
  `(ca) section 75J(2)(b) above shall have effect with the omission of the words from the beginning to "of this Act";
  (cb) section 75K(6) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (a));'".
  It is a jungle: for those who practise law to have referential law of that kind is extremely difficult. Earlier, it was said that commanding officers have been issued with the law drawn into one booklet, so that they will not have to make cross-references. We cannot allow the Bill to pass without another heartfelt plea or demand by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that armed forces disciplinary legislation be consolidated.
  It has been said that the Bill is necessary because of various cases before the European Court of Human Rights, the leading case being Hood. The House may recall that Mr. Hood went absent without leave for the fourth time and maintained before the European Court that he did not, under article 6.1 of the convention, have
  "a fair public trial before an independent impartial tribunal."
  I am baffled by that claim. The word "impartial" does not appear in article 5—under which Mr. Hood brought his case. That article deals with liberty and security, whereas article 6 deals with the right to a fair trial. How can it conceivably be held that Mr. Hood did not have the right to a fair trial under article 5, when that deals not with trials but with custody and detention and does not contain the word "impartial"? That is beyond my comprehension and I cannot understand why that legal advice was given to Ministers.
  Opening the debate, the Minister said that it was necessary to change the law and he was satisfied that the law would become compatible with the European convention. He did not use the word "compliant". Almost anything can be compatible. Is it fully compliant? We are changing the law to make it compatible when we should be sufficiently confident to say that it is compliant. In that sense, the legislation is ill-considered.
  The measure will also be expensive. We enter a strange world, reminiscent of government accounting—full of smoke and mirrors. We were told that the cost would be £6.5 million a year. The Select Committee thought it
  1162
  curious that cost would remain consistent even though the original estimate of a modest number of appeals had greatly increased. The unconvincing reply from the Ministry of Defence spokesman was that the estimate had not increased because the original figure assumed that 50 additional Royal Military Police investigators would be needed to provide appropriate evidence to appeal courts. The revised view, said the spokesman, was that appeals would be more likely against sentences rather than the findings in summary proceedings, so significant additional investigative work would not be necessary.
  That explanation is wholly and completely unpersuasive. Perhaps the Minister can provide a breakdown of that £6.5 million estimate and say how much is accounted for by salaries. The average industrial wage is £20,000 a year, and the accepted business criterion is that one doubles or trebles the wage to take account of the employee's full cost, including his accommodation and pension. The 80 individuals required to implement the measure would take up £3.2 million, assuming they receive only the average industrial wage. The former Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), is in his place and will know, as we all do, that it is most unusual to find even a modest lawyer such as myself on the average industrial wage. 1 suspect that many of those recruits will be paid several times that average wage. How will that budget be found within the figure of £6.5 million, with £1.75 million start-up costs? The Government may have been on a trip that I have seen before, during the two years when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Treasury—where the Government put forward an estimate that they think will be acceptable rather than one that completely and accurately reflects the costs.
  My fourth charge was that the Bill would be damaging. Reference was made to undermining the morale and standing of commanding officers, who will be able to hold a person in custody for 12 hours—extending to 24 hours—after which a review by a judicial officer will be necessary. Only a judicial officer will allow an individual to be held in custody for longer.
  I am reminded of a true story that illustrates the case. On their way by road between hospitals, two surgeons, a consultant anaesthetist and a senior nurse came across a road accident. They stopped their car and went to see if they could help the driver, who was seriously injured. While they were contemplating what to do, another driver stopped his car, rushed over and shouted, "Stand back! I am a blood donor."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) asked about circumstances that might cause difficulties for the armed forces. Let us take the example of the fight at Mount Tumbledown, just above Port Stanley at the extreme western end of the Falklands—inaccessible except by yomping and, later, helicopter. One might have found it necessary to take a judicial officer to that location to see someone in custody, or to return the individual because it would not have been possible for the commanding officer to keep him in custody any longer.
  British forces are deployed in places where the distance between the front and back lines are great. Travel may be inconvenient, with bad roads. In those circumstances, a commanding officer might find it quite difficult to have to ship a man from the front line, bring up a judicial

  1163
  officer, or implement video conferencing. Imagine the situation—"Stand back, we must bring up the judicial officer. We need space on the next helicopter up to the front for the judicial officer and the video conferencing kit."
  Mr. Keetch: I am curious about the view taken by the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members that British soldiers are so terrible that they will, in the midst of battle—even at Port Stanley or Tumbledown—commit a crime for which they must be detained or sent back. It is total nonsense. Of how many occasions on which that has happened at the height of battle is the hon. Gentleman aware? He and his colleagues seem to be suggesting that it is a regular event. I think not.
  Mr. Viggers: Of course it is not a regular occurrence. I have not yet paid tribute to our armed forces, who are absolutely superb. Having served for seven years in the Royal Air Force and the Army, I pay tribute to the standards of discipline and self-discipline that the forces maintain.
  However, we are legislating to cover every eventuality. That is why the Bill should have been scrutinised by the Select Committee rather than coming before us. We have the Defence Committee's extremely valuable report, but the Committee met for only a day, not having the chance to go into the field to find out what circumstances might arise in which it would be inconvenient for the armed forces to apply the Bill's provisions. I urge further scrutiny.
  Sir Nicholas LyeII: My hon. Friend is making a serious point. These cases are extremely rare, and I agree with all that he has said about the armed forces, but my hon. Friend's point is not a fanciful one.
  Mr. Viggers: Indeed it is not. I do not know how much service experience the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has had, but the armed forces may face periods of intense strain. An out-of-context example is the number of individuals who deserted or committed crimes at the front during the first world war. Even individuals of the very highest quality, such as those in our own armed forces, may, when under extreme pressure of battle, behave as they would not normally behave. A further example is the case of Lance-Sergeant Findlay, a man of exemplary character who ran amok. It was necessary to change the law in 1996 to cover that situation. The example of Mount Tumbledown was not completely fanciful. Such a case could happen.
  Mr. Hancock: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the evidence given to the Defence Committee by a highly decorated soldier, Brigadier Andrew Ritchie, who was wearing more medal ribbons than many senior service personnel whom we have questioned before? The brigadier had first-hand experience of commanding in the field, and, when questioned at length, he made it clear that he could not conceive of a situation in which a commanding officer would be required to act in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The right hon. and learned Member
  1164
  for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11) suggests that the examples given are not fanciful, but the evidence to the Defence Committee made it clear that no senior service men could come up with a scenario to match the case that the hon. Gentleman is making.
  Mr. Viggers: That is reassuring. However, I cannot prove a negative. The procedure that the Government are adopting means that hon. Members will not be able to cross-examine senior personnel in the Select Committee. As a member of the Defence Committee, the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to do so, albeit at only one sitting, but those of us who do not serve on the Select Committee have not had that opportunity. The Government's precipitate introduction of the Bill is what leaves me unreassured.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: It would be a brave brigadier who gainsaid the Minister sitting alongside him in a Select Committee.
  Mr. Viggers: Indeed. One of the great advantages held by Select Committees is their development of expertise over years of talking to individual service men and their families. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who chairs the Defence Committee, is a notable exponent of that. The Committee gains extended knowledge of how matters work on the ground. As a representative of a garrison town, I know that if senior officers—colonels, majors or admirals—go round asking, "Is everything all right?", the men will say yes. They are tasked to do so. The programme "Yes, Minister" was correctly titled because Ministers receive that answer when they ask if all is well. Our duty to probe legislation requires us to go further.
  The new right to appeal is also damaging. An individual may be heard by his commanding officer or go to court martial. If he does not like his CO's decision, he has a right of appeal. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who is not in his place, made the valid point that, in his experience, most service men accept the judgment of their commanding officer. They stand up straight, are told their punishment, say, "Yes, sir," salute, walk out, and that is that. They accept that that is how the system works.
  However, and I do not believe that this serious point is fanciful, my experience in constituency surgeries and from talking to members of the armed forces suggests that a service man may accept summary jurisdiction and justice, but his wife may think it unfair. He will go home and tell her that he was fined f100, and she will ask why that should be, feeling that it is terrible and that he should appeal. There will be marital disharmony, and the man will look strange if he does not appeal. If he does, it will cost more money.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Viggers: The Minister's body language suggests that he does not really agree with me. However, I put it to him seriously that if the right of appeal is available and if the man does not want to appeal, the wife will quite often wish to do so.
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend's point touches on one of the many weaknesses of the Bill. He has mentioned the

  1165
  wives of young soldiers, sailors and airmen, but he should remember that unmarried personnel may live in block accommodation or on a ship. There will be 14 days in which the barrack-room lawyers who live with them may ask whether they intend to accept the commanding officer's decision and lie down and take it when there is a chance to appeal. There will be a vast increase in the number of appeals—far more than Ministers expect—because of the influence of colleagues on soldiers, sailors and airmen during those 14 days.
  Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose service experience enables him to make wise judgments on these matters. I am sure that he is absolutely right.
  One might seek a derogation from the European convention on human rights under article 15, but it is specified that derogation may be sought only
  "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation."
  When those words were written, it was thought that they took all eventualities into account. However, the writers did not realise that, increasingly, nations would not actually declare war. We did not declare war in the Falklands; we did not do so over Kuwait and Iraq; nor in Kosovo and in Bosnia. We are increasingly involved in military exercises in areas that are well away from the United Kingdom, which could not possibly be described as
  "a public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
  As we probably will not declare war in those cases either, we can envisage that our military forces increasingly will be used in circumstances that are not covered by the derogation of article 15; that is not available to us.
  For all those reasons, the Bill is untimely, ill-considered, expensive and damaging. I shall vote against it with relish.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Perhaps it is appropriate that I should follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on the day that the Order Paper includes a motion that discharges me from the Defence Committee and appoints him in my place.
  The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), has already spoken in the debate; we enjoyed a rumbustious relationship. One line of questioning that he cut off ruthlessly when we were under pressure was what would happen, under the measure, when one tried to put soldiers, sailors and airmen in custody. Many lines of questioning on that matter were robustly interrupted by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that a more pleasant fate awaits me on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, whither I am bound.
  I declare an interest—indeed, experience—I was a regular soldier for 12 years. I served as assistant prosecuting officer and assistant defending officer on district and general courts martial. I administered the summary justice process as an officer commanding—squadron leader of A squadron, 13th/18th Hussars. I was also on the receiving end of the procedure as an officer cadet at Sandhurst. I have some experience to contribute to the debate.
  1166
  We need to set the Bill in the context of the debate between individual rights and the rights of state and society. Historically, both the state and the Church have asked, encouraged or forced individuals to subordinate and surrender their individual rights for the greater good of the organisation. An example is offered by Government Members. The Government Benches are hardly packed at the moment; new Labour Members appear to have surrendered their individual interest to the corporate good. We do not hear a squeak of the individual views or beliefs of Labour Members who support the Government, if those views and beliefs dissent from the corporate, new Labour view. Individual rights have been surrendered to the rights of the party in government.
  The armed services offer the ultimate example of individuals who surrender their rights to the organisation. In 1994, Captain Harry Shapland was killed in an American air force helicopter which was shot down by an American fixed-wing aircraft; it was a tragic accident. His commanding officer said:
  "Every soldier signs a blank cheque on his life and he never knows when it will be cashed."
  The most fundamental right of all is laid at the service of the armed forces. That is unique. I agree with the Minister for the Armed Forces, who made that clear when he opened the debate. The point was also made clear by Brigadier Ritchie in his evidence to the Defence Committee about the balance between the rights of the individual in the summary justice system administered in the armed forces and the interests of the armed forces as a whole. He said:
  "the ability of a Commanding Officer to maintain good order and military discipline is fundamental to his ability to command his troops. Maintaining the system of summary discipline is our vital ground."
  That brings us to the problem with the Bill. There is an irreconcilable clash between the rights of the individual and the rights of the state—in this case, expressed through the need to surrender those individual rights in order for the armed forces to be effective. Those rights are largely surrendered through the summary justice system. The administration of that process is what keeps the armed forces coherent.
  The problem was made clear by the Minister. The whole summary justice system is not compliant with the European Court of Human Rights and with the European convention on human rights. Article 6 of the convention makes that clear. It states:
  "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
  The whole point of the summary justice system is that it is not independent. The commanding officer is likely to know extremely well the soldiers who come before him for punishment. The fact that they know him and that they know that the chain of command is administering justice in those circumstances is the "vital ground" of the armed forces to sustain their effectiveness.
  We cannot take out of context the examination of individual rights by the European Court and the development of jurisprudence and the notion of individual rights in the minds of soldiers, sailors and airmen and in the society from which they come. In 1951, no one expected the armed forces to be affected by the UK's accession to the European convention.

  1167
  By 1974, the debate had moved on. When France acceded to the convention, it was clear that its armed forces would be affected, so France put down a reservation when its National Assembly ratified the treaty accession. France is not alone. Several other countries have made a reservation about their armed forces—including some of our NATO allies, such as Spain and the Czech Republic.
  By 1998, with the incorporation of the convention in UK law, there had been developments in jurisprudence—especially through the Findlay and Hood cases. The convention produced a fundamental effect on human rights—developed under case law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport pointed out. Judges with little military experience have wholly undermined the summary justice system. They have made explicit that it does not comply with the convention that is being operated by the European Court.
  If we do not examine what is happening generally before we consider the Bill, we will not be able to understand how damaging it is. The measure must be set into that context as well as in the context of the Armed Forces Act 1996. That was the means by which the armed forces tried to address the judgment in the Findlay case and to make the summary justice system compliant.
  We need now to pay careful attention to what has happened to the court martial system since the 1996 Act came into force in 1997. A fairly limited change was made to the rights of defendants to elect for trial by court martial but, since 1997, the number of cases going to court martial appears to have doubled. However, as the Minister for the Armed Forces pointed out, that number is related to cases in which the findings appear on a individual's regimental conduct sheet. That suggests that commanding officers are becoming less willing to impose serious punishments through the summary justice system. They are more likely to push a case up the line to a court martial. That is a sign that their confidence in using the summary justice system has been undermined.
  Of the main elements of the Bill, the first is the change to the custody rules. As far as I can determine, it is the only element of the Bill that is driven by the latest judgment of the European convention on human rights in the Hood case. The Select Committee had a lengthy discussion about the circumstances in which custody rules would be impossible to enforce, and it must be admitted that trying to identify such circumstances is difficult. It is unlikely that we shall ever find ourselves in them. However, it is not good enough to base the argument on that point. The armed forces should expect this place to be able to introduce legislation that will cover all the eventualities that they face.
  The Ministry of Defence will face extreme difficulty in drafting a satisfactory statutory instrument—it has yet to be published even in draft form—about the use of video links, which will be a key element in the procedure. None the less, the provision for custody forms the strongest part of the Government's case for introducing the Bill. If it were limited only to the rules of custody and procedure, it would be tiresome, expensive and bureaucratic, but it would arguably not make too much difference to the system of custody before and after charge that we have today. If a Conservative Government were reconsidering
  1168
  the matter, they would probably come to the same judgments that they came to when they introduced the 1996 Act to comply with the European convention on human rights.
  The other elements of the Bill are more damaging. I do not understand—I hope that the Minister will explain this when he winds up or at a later stage—what it was in the Hood judgment that has forced the change to trial by court martial. Why do we have to change the point at which a defendant in the Army or the Royal Air Force can elect for court martial, so that he can elect for trial by court martial at a beginning of a case rather than after a commanding officer has deemed that the charge against him is proven? My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) said that there does not seem to be any reason for the change, and I found his arguments convincing.
  The Bill's provisions for the summary appeal court are thoroughly damaging. After a commanding officer has reached his finding, there will be a 14-day period in which a defendant can decide to appeal. In that time, all sorts of forces—his mates, his wife and his wider family—may get to work on him. They may tell him that he has been unfairly treated, should not take his medicine and should explore the appeal process. What would he have to lose, particularly if the commanding officer had decided to hand down the maximum sentence? Any commanding officer who hands down a maximum sentence will find that it is appealed against, because the defendant will have absolutely nothing to lose.
  The burden of the Bill on the internal administration of the armed forces becomes really apparent in those circumstances. One of the justifications for the extra 55 royal military policemen that the Government have proposed is that they will improve the quality of evidence collection for commanding officers' orders, so that their decisions will be less open to appeal.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I think that my hon. Friend has conceded a point that he need not have. Although he is on the Select Committee and I am not, it is my understanding that the Bill would mean that an appeal tribunal could not increase a sentence. To that extent, a defendant would have nothing to lose from appealing.
  Mr. Blunt: That is indeed the case. The point that I failed to make clearly enough was that the appeal process cannot increase the sentence that a commanding officer has given; it can only reduce it.
  One reason for the additional 55 royal military policemen is to make watertight a case on commanding officer's orders against the soldier, sailor or airman who is before him. At present, the justice system, as administered by commanding officers, is reasonably rough and ready, but it is seen as just. In the normal course of events, their decisions are not appealed against. If one adds to it the bureaucratic necessity that the case against individuals must be watertight when it is taken before a judge advocate at a summary appeal court, we shall find that the bureaucratic burden placed on the adjutant, the regimental sergeant major and the chief clerk in organising the paperwork for ordinary commanding officer's orders will have a seriously deleterious effect on the administration of discipline in a unit.
  When the Select Committee tried to obtain information from the Ministry of Defence, we were told that the figures for the number of cases that go to summary court

  1169
  martial related only to those that resulted in a report on a individual's regimental record. Those numbers have dropped to 2,000 in 1999, and, when I heard that figure, I thought, "Good Lord. My regiment must have taken a good proportion of all the summary justice cases in the armed services." However, the wider figure is much greater. There are 24,000 cases a year of the ordinary process of soldiers appearing in front of their squadron leaders, company commanders or, for more serious offences, their commanding officers.
  In the evidence given by Brigadier Ritchie, we were told that 20 per cent. Of those 24,000 cases would be appealed to the summary appeal court. Therefore, the number of cases handled by a summary appeal court is not 1,500, but nearer 5,000. That suggests that the Ministry of Defence has seriously miscalculated the amount of work that will be created for the court and the financial consequences that will flow from that.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will my hon. Friend consider another strange anomaly in the Government's approach? In the Bill, they propose to give those who are subject to service discipline an automatic right to go not to the commanding officer, which would be the equivalent of going to a magistrates court, but to court martial, which would be the equivalent of going to the Crown court. However, they want to take away the right of ordinary civilians to go to the Crown court and insist that they go the magistrates court. Is that not anomalous?
  Mr. Blunt: Of course it seems anomalous, but one would have to wait a long time for consistency from the Government. This is the most important part of the Bill and the most destructive, particularly to the commanding officer's authority. It is not needed under the Hood judgment, and I beg the Minister to examine it.
  We are not going to be in a position to test this thesis. If the Minister's legal advice is that a case will be brought that shows that a summary appeal court is required under the European convention on human rights, we should at least let that case happen. It is not as though the Government are not preparing enough opportunities to change armed forces legislation in the future. We shall be going round the buoy next year with the quinquennial Act. The Government tell us that there is not enough time, in the next 18 months, to put together a tri-service discipline Act, so we shall be going round the buoy again, presumably between 2001 and 2006, when the quinquennial Act will come round again.
  We shall therefore have opportunities to put this right, but the damage that the Bill will do is far too great to be worth the risk of gold-plating the legislation on the legal advice that it might otherwise be liable to a finding against it in the European Court of Human Rights.
  The point that flows from that is that, in his evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister told us—this was also made clear by Baroness Symons in another place—that he cannot guarantee that the Bill is bomb-proof against a future ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
  Suppose the European Court decides that the judicial officers who are now being appointed to look after the custody arrangements are not independent of the chain of command because they are being paid by the chain of command and they owe their duties to the chain of
  1170
  command. The court might then think that the summary appeals court is also staffed by officers who are not independent of the chain of command. That would simply require a definition of the chain of command that is wider than the officer who has direct command of the soldier, sailor or airman in question.
  Mr. Brazier: In reinforcing my hon. Friend's excellent point, I put it to him that part of the problem is the huge influx of judges into the European Court of Human Rights from countries that regard the state in general and the military in particular as oppressors. There is something faintly ridiculous in the idea that the court is now able to affect our armed forces, when many of the judges come from countries from which many of the asylum seekers who are now before our domestic courts have come.
  Mr. Blunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
  The final and most absurd point about this wretched legislation is the cost to the armed forces. The Ministry of Defence estimates that it will cost some £6.5 million. I am not remotely confident that that is anything other than a grotesque underestimate, not least because the Ministry's figure for appeals from summary justice cases is only 20 per cent. What are we getting for that money? We are getting 55 more military policemen; 35 more civilians, most of whom are lawyers; and the benefit of regularly paying highly priced lawyers to deal with the Bill's custodial provisions and to advise the summary appeal courts in commanding officers' jurisdiction.
  I am sure that those people will be a fine body of men and women, but, when one considers that the cost of that little lot—as a company, it would probably not give too clever an account of itself in action—is about the same as the salary bill for an infantry battalion, one wonders where the money is to come from. Will they be paid for out of the Lord Chancellor's budget or further taxation from the Treasury? No, it was made absolutely clear in the other place that the amount is coming out of the defence budget.
  The cost of the measures is equivalent to that of the manpower of an infantry battalion. Will it add to, or subtract from, the effectiveness of our armed forces? It will undermine their operational effectiveness. Not only will a shocking arrangement be forced on the armed forces concerning appeals in the summary justice process and the process of choosing court martial without that being required under case law as it now stands, but the armed forces themselves will have to pick up the bill. Frankly, that is the last obscenity in the Bill.
  I urge Ministers to consider the two particular measures that I have described, if they will not consider the course of action that I shall now recommend.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunt: I shall take the intervention of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).
  Mr. Bruce George: I must say how sad I am that the hon. Gentleman is leaving the Defence Committee, even though his replacement will be a most capable addition to our team of 11. I want to correct a misapprehension. The hon. Gentleman implied that I had behaved in an authoritarian manner in cutting him off in his prime

  1171
  during the questioning session a few days ago. I did extensive research, by counting, and I found that, of the 123 questions asked of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and his colleagues, 54 were asked by the hon. Gentleman. People will not criticise me for being too authoritarian; they will ask why I did not cut off the hon. Gentleman earlier.
  Mr. Blunt: I have no idea why I was so stupid as to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene when he has, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, been so mean as to interrupt me.
  At the beginning of that session, the Chairman was, for the first time, extremely anxious not only that I should be there but that I should take a leading part in the questioning because he did not expect too much interest from his hon. Friends. I fear that he was right to do so. This afternoon, the only speech by a Labour Back Bencher was that of the hon. Gentleman himself. I suspect that, if the Select Committee had not considered the matter, even he might not have graced the debate with his presence. The fact that Labour's contribution to this debate has been so limited is a shocking indictment of its interest in defence.
  I return to what the course of action should be. The Government should at least drop the two parts of the Bill that are not required under ECHR case law. That would be a satisfactory compromise, although it would leave the custodial provisions, which I hope will be sorted out in Committee, ludicrously flawed and difficult to implement. We should be saying that the French have got it right, and that the Bill is irreconcilable in terms of individual rights and the rights of the state, particularly given the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has developed.
  Brigadier Ritchie told us that the summary justice system is the vital ground that has to be defended. The Armed Forces Act 1996 and the Bill both chip away significantly at the effectiveness of the summary justice system that sustains the armed forces discipline, cohesion and morale. Therefore, the time has come to face the fact that we will have to get that reservation to protect our armed forces. This is the vital ground of our armed forces and, by extension, a vital interest of the United Kingdom. I see no other solution but to withdraw from the European convention on human rights and immediately reapply, obtaining the necessary reservation to protect our armed forces, their vital ground and our vital interests.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, deplored the fact that, having tabled a reasoned amendment on the Order Paper, we were treating the Bill in a strictly non-bipartisan way. I argue that when these disciplinary provisions are manifestly damaging to service discipline, we are duty bound to do as we have done. The hon. Gentleman was a lone, siren voice—although, looking at him, I am not sure whether he has the physiognomy of a siren; nor is he, unlike the sirens, among a fair collectivity.
  I have the problem of following three speeches of rare distinction. One was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). How fortunate we are to have the
  1172
  benefit of his recent military experience. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) benefited from his ministerial outlook and fair-mindedness. He has the characteristic typical of Home Office training of trying to judge whether the measure will work in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), my predecessor and successor as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, also spoke. Like him, I deplore the fact, as does Her Majesty's Opposition in general, that we have not had pre-legislative scrutiny of this measure. The pre-legislative Select Committee is an invaluable procedure, especially for service matters.
  The House today has a paucity of expertise on service issues. It was not so when I first came to the House. We tried to remedy the deficiency with the armed forces parliamentary scheme but, in a sense, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The wartime experience of the generation that I met when I first came to the House would have been invaluable. Luckily, the other place has not been reformed root and branch. We still have the contributions of the former chiefs of staff and other people with long military experience.
  In concept, the Bill is wrong. The very idea of human rights for the armed forces is, per se, a delusion. People joining the armed forces forswear their human rights. They do not have human rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate put it, they sign a blank cheque. They are then subject to discipline, and this is the overriding consideration for the rest of their life in uniform.
  Mr. Hancock: Does not the hon. Gentleman have difficulty getting his head round the suggestion that people joining the United Kingdom armed forces forgo their human rights, yet are expected to travel the world defending other people's human rights? Many of our soldiers, men and women, are putting their lives on the line as he speaks, defending human rights. Surely the House has a responsibility to defend theirs.
  Mr. Wilkinson: It is not so much a question of abstractions or what is written in conventions. Human rights are a function of individual example and behaviour. That is what has characterised our armed forces. The commanding officer sets the pattern and the example. He imposes the discipline because earlier in his career, he was subject to discipline. A good commanding officer will not ask his men to do anything that he cannot do himself. That is the groundwork of good discipline. It is not a question of conventions.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am listening most carefully to my hon. Friend, and I think that I know what he is getting at. Would he agree that perhaps it could be put like this? People joining the armed forces do not necessarily forswear all their human rights, but they expect to have a legal framework that takes account of the need for human rights legislation to adapt itself to the requirements of good order and military discipline necessary for the operation of any armed forces.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Exactly so. I now understand why my right hon. and learned Friend is deemed learned in this place.
  We must consider the matter in a contemporary context. That was an important factor in making the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate so telling. We must

  1173
  judge the Bill in the context of the armed forces' lack of resources, the constant diminution of their regular and reserve manpower, and the growing technology gap vis-a-vis the Americans, which was plain to see in the Kosovo war.
  Those deficiencies can be redressed to some degree by the very best discipline and training. The moral quality always transcends the material in warfare. It behoves us to pass measures that enhance our capability through an effective disciplinary system in the armed forces, rather than degrading it.
  We should follow the example of the Spartans or the Prussians in placing discipline and training first. The Prime Minister had a phrase at the general election—"education, education, education". For the armed forces, it must be training, training, training and drill, drill, drill, so that the response is instinctive and the reaction to command is unquestioning.
  Those are not attributes which flow naturally from the litigiousness inherent in the Bill. It encourages litigiousness and, in the armed forces, that can easily become insubordination. If a service man questions the judgment of his commanding officer in a summary case, or believes that his commanding officer is wrong in allocating a particular sentence to him, he demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for his qualities as a leader, an individual and an officer.
  Mr. Keetch: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the commander of British land forces in Kosovo, General Sir Michael Jackson, was right to question the authority of his commanding officer, General Wesley Clark, in connection with the Russian takeover of the airport at Pristina?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am in no position to comment on the operational decisions of general officers commanding in the field. It would be ludicrous for me to do so, but I always have sympathy for senior officers who have Nelsonian flair.
  The idea of summary appeal courts is wrong and I bitterly regret it. I also regret the idea that people can opt for a court martial before they even have a summary hearing. It is utterly wrong, too, that after a 48-hour period of detention, judicial officers should be able to overrule the judgment of a commanding officer.
  My intervention early in the debate was belittled, but in the field, in operational circumstances, it may be absolutely necessary to keep someone in detention for 48 hours or more. There may be no alternative. It is wrong that in such circumstances the commanding officer should have to refer to a judicial officer.
  The Bill is a thoroughly retrograde piece of legislation. I presume that it is intended to last, but thank God we have the opportunity to review it in the usual quinquennial process when the three armed service Acts are reviewed next year.
  We should recognise, first, that the training periods for our personnel are now shorter than they have ever been. The time taken to go through Sandhurst and the training schools is far shorter than it used to be.
  Secondly, more work is being put upon the Territorial Army. For example, formed units are to go out to Kosovo. That is good, but reserve soldiers, sailors and airmen do not have the training background of regulars.
  1174
  Lastly, the Bill may well have to apply to conscripts. We cannot for ever assume that our troops will have only a peacekeeping role and be engaged in humanitarian operations.
  The profession of arms is a wholly unnatural process. It makes wholly exceptional demands upon those who embrace it. Therefore, we must understand that we are legislating for war as well as for all the lower gradations of potential conflict, peacekeeping and so on. In so doing, we are diminishing the capability of our armed forces to operate as effective fighting formations. I regret the legislation and I shall vote against it.
  5 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I had not expected to speak today. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) was due to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and he did so in an exemplary way. He said that the legislation was needed to bring us into line with our allies and that we had to live up to our obligations; but as the debate progressed it became slightly surreal. Some hon. Members were unable to come up with the worst-case scenario for which they were suggesting we had to legislate. It is bizarre that hon. Members should criticise a Bill without being able readily to identify the issue that they are addressing.
  I am proud to be a member of the Defence Committee. I enjoyed the speech of its Chairman, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), and that of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I did not much enjoy his contribution in the Select Committee because his 54 questions turned on virtually the same point and were repetitive. Had the Chairman been a little less generous, he might have shut him up. We were all becoming a little bored because the hon. Gentleman was hammering home the same point. He would have done justice to a Jack Russell terrier or the SAS on a difficult operation. However, today's debate proves conclusively that blood can be squeezed from a stone.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: That is why the hon. Gentleman is speaking.
  Mr. Hancock: If we have to be here until 7 o'clock, we might as well join in.
  I read the Bill with great interest, but I have strong reservations about it. I listened with great interest to at least two of the four debates in the other place on the Bill and the contributions of some of the distinguished former chiefs of staff. So far no one has come up with a reason why they backed off. They were sure that the Bill was wrong but, when push came to shove, they did not pursue the matter to a vote. At the end of the day, they did not clearly support the line being pursued by the current Chief of the Defence Staff who said that to attempt to embody in the Bill a distinction between normal and active service

  1175
  circumstances was unnecessary and would quite probably be counter-productive, and therefore would not be welcomed by the services themselves.
  Mr. Howarth: Who said that?
  Mr. Hancock: That was the current Chief of the Defence Staff.
  Mr. Howarth: Who is that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have questions from hon. Members in a sedentary position.
  Mr. Hancock: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Had I been in his position with nothing much good to say about the Bill, I would have tried to intervene with such a comment. I am sure that General Guthrie will be pleased that his name has been mentioned in the Chamber this afternoon due to the—for me, unwelcome—intervention by the hon. Gentleman.
  It is clear from the comment that I quoted that the former chiefs of staff and many Members from all parties in the other place decided that it was not right to pursue the matter. The other place examined the Bill four times in meticulous detail. They went over the same examples that hon. Members have drawn to the House's attention today.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman rests his case on the first part of the Bill, which covers custodial circumstances. He is right to point out that it is difficult to establish the exact circumstances in which various provisions will be found wanting. However, the comments of the Chief of the Defence Staff that Lady Symons quoted related to his anxiety that, according to advice he had received, the summary justice system would not comply with the European convention on human rights if the Bill was not passed. The current service chiefs therefore wanted the Bill to be passed on those grounds. However, the fact is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Long interventions are almost as bad as sedentary interventions.
  Mr. Hancock: I was grateful for that intervention because the hon. Member for Reigate made a fair point. Again, it establishes clearly that civilians, legal advisers and senior defence chiefs believed that it was important for our disciplinary procedures to comply with the European convention on human rights, that bringing them into line was necessary and that any intervention that forced a delay on that would be unwelcome and would lead to an escalation of cases before the European Court of Human Rights.
  I agree that the Bill tries to achieve three objectives: it covers loss of liberty and custody—many hon. Members have discussed that; it provides that decisions of a judicial nature should not be made by persons who hold appointments that depend on the Executive or, in military terms, the chain of command; and it prevents the same
  1176
  person from acting as prosecutor and judge and provides for the right to choose between summary trial and small-scale judicial procedures.
  It is interesting that many Members of the House of Lords also serve as judges. Many of them have served as appeal judges when cases have been brought against legislation, for or against which they voted. That is hardly fair. Our current Lord Chancellor is nervously considering the latest European Court of Human Rights decision on a case in Guernsey. The Bailiff of Guernsey has been ruled out of order for voting for legislation and subsequently sitting in judgment on an appeal by a Guernsey citizen against part of its enactment. That poses great problems for the Lord Chancellor and any judge who sits in the second Chamber.
  Some hon. Members claim that our armed forces are second to none—I share that view. They say that the men and women who serve in them go about their business in a lawful and proper manner, yet they are worried that many of them will be guilty of some sort of offence—
  Mr. Keetch: In the heat of battle.
  Mr. Hancock: In the heat of battle, as my hon. Friend says. Some hon. Members seem to be worried that service men and women will suddenly disregard their training, esprit de corps and whatever else motivates people to do the right thing, and, in the heat of battle, commit wanton acts that are so serious that the perpetrators will have to be jailed, and other people will have to be taken out of the front line to serve as custody officers night and day. I simply do not believe that that will be the case.
  My neighbour, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), said that all service personnel play the game and stick to the line when they appear before officers, but I have made Defence Committee visits with Ministers and my experience is that the last thing members of our armed forces are is reluctant to speak their minds and tell us the truth—warts and all—about the problems that they face. I represent a huge number of service personnel and their families and come from a family with long service traditions, so I know only too well that the person who is subject to military justice is not always the main instigator of an appeal. That instigation comes from the family. I remember more than one family debate about whether justice had been served and whether the sentence fitted the crime.
  Mr. Fabricant: I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in service matters and of course he is interested in service history. Does he recall the sad but nevertheless true cases of people who were involved in courts martial in the heat of battle? Does he not think that his recommendation would cause injustice because of unnecessary delays?
  Mr. Hancock: I can only think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to situations in the first world war. Many hon. Members have recognised that injustice. There have not been many such situations since, and no one is suggesting that we have such a system today.
  The Defence Committee heard a presentation by three senior officers—Brigadier Andrew Ritchie, Commodore David Humphrey and Air Commodore Rick Charles—two of whom had been in command and one of whom had

  1177
  been in command in the circumstances that have been described today. All three stressed that the Bill is a step in the right direction and all sought one thing—consistency. All wanted the rights of the individual to be protected, the Army's regimental traditions to be kept up and the rights of the individual to be incorporated into the services. None raised serious objections to the Bill.
  However, I had reservations. I asked a number of questions, like the hon. Member for Reigate, and would have run him a close second had the Chairman of the Committee done another count. The officials of the House have me down as tabling a lot of questions, but I am not down as being present when the Committee met. That anomaly is beyond me, but they achieved it. The evidence went more than half way to meeting the objections of those in the other place who had not been satisfied by the Minister for Defence Procurement, who speaks on these matters there, and the rest of the way to satisfy the rigorous and robust questioning of the Defence Committee.
  My first reservation concerned the MOD's ability to recruit personnel of the required standard. The Defence Committee and the House are well aware of the problems of retention—the military's medical services, from which qualified staff are haemorrhaging, are a classic example. Despite our best efforts to retain people, we are losing pilots hand over fist and cannot hold on to technicians of any grade in any of the three services with any degree of surety. I doubted whether we could recruit, but the brigadier—speaking on behalf of the general with responsibility for legal services—once again assured us that more than half the necessary personnel had already been recruited. He believed that the quota would have been filled by the time the Bill came into operation.
  My second reservation has been referred to by many hon. Members, who have mentioned my questions to officers and to the Minister of State in the Select Committee about cost. How on earth could they explain the sudden escalation from 850 persons who would seek to appeal to 1,500, nearly double the original figure? Like the hon. Member for Reigate, I am still worried about whether 1,500 is the right figure; I suspect that it should be higher. In any event, those who have actually had to deal with the matter made it clear that most appeals, as constituted, would concern sentencing rather than a guilty verdict, if such a verdict had been returned. Very few people challenge verdicts, but many challenge the length and severity of sentences. Those whom I consulted did not consider that major financial increases would be involved, over and above £6.5 million.
  Like other hon. Members, I sense that £6.5 million is an optimistic figure. I was sad that, when asked, the Minister of State told the Select Committee that it would not be new money. For once, he attempted no elusion—that is, there was no elusion when the Government were talking about money—although he did suggest that the money was in last year's budget, which was earmarked for this year. He did not attempt to disguise the fact that the £6.5 million would have to be found within the existing resources of the Ministry of Defence. We can therefore only imagine that something or other will not happen—perhaps equipment or training will suffer as a result.
  The answers to the Committee's questions were fairly robust, and I felt that they hit the targets at which they were aimed. I was prepared to give the Government the
  1178
  benefit of the doubt, and I wish the Bill a good passage through the House. Thankfully, I shall not be on the Standing Committee; I sense that those who are will experience some long sittings, arguing about the technicalities of the surreal. That is not easy to come to terms with.
  I think that the Minister of State took on board the Committee's suggestions about how we could consider legislation in the future. He admitted under questioning that he would welcome the opportunity to subject any future legislation to pre-scrutiny. I hope that that constitutes a determined endeavour on the part of Government, not only in the context of this Bill but in the context of future Bills.
  The Bill will not produce a perfect solution, but I cannot agree that men and women who join the United Kingdom armed forces should sign away their rights under European law, however elaborately the existing provision is reworded. That notion—which was dressed up in a slightly different way by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), a former Attorney-General—is one that most reasonable people, inside and outside the services, would consider wrong.
  As I said in an intervention, it is not good enough to suggest that our service personnel should sign away their human rights while spending most of their time trying to win back or defend the human rights of others across the globe. That simply does not wash. Those who serve in our armed forces are entitled to justice.
  The Bill is not perfect, because the system that we have had over the centuries is not perfect, but it gives us an opportunity to move the justice system in our armed forces a step further. I hope that in a year's time, when we have a chance to examine the matter again—in fact, we shall have to do so because the review will be due—we shall again refine the way in which the armed forces can be disciplined from within, and the way in which their members can protect their rights. It is as important to defend those rights as it is to defend any person whom the armed forces are sent to defend.
  I hope that hon. Members will resist the temptation to vote for the amendment, because it would do nothing. We know that what we have now is not acceptable: it is inoperable and will be challenged time and again later in the year if we do nothing now. The Bill makes an attempt to introduce some justice to the discipline of our armed forces, and that should be welcomed.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: We have had an extremely interesting debate, which has been dominated by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. I say that in an entirely non-partisan fashion and merely to point out a fact of life.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is very forward, but, as he is my neighbour, I will on this occasion.
  Mr. Hawkins: On a serious point, does my hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that it is Government business, which they say is important, yet we see acres and acres of empty green leather on the Government side? It is a

  1179
  Government Bill on which, effectively, no Labour Members have been put up to speak. Does it not show again how little interest Labour Members take in defence issues?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes the point forcefully. The debate's other distinguishing feature has been the fact that, despite the fact that many of us lack military experience, the contributions have been extremely well informed and serious. They bear testimony to the fact that the Defence Committee, rightly, commands respect throughout the country and throughout the military, whether it be the forces, or the industrial defence industries.
  In what was an absolute tour de force, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a devastating case against the Bill. It is hardly surprising that so few Labour Members are present, given the vehemence and intellectual rigour with which he advanced his cause. I entirely support what he said.
  I do not want to go over a number of the points that my hon. Friend and other Conservative Members have made, but I will say—I raised the point with my hon. Friend when he was drawing attention to the many significant costs that will be involved in implementing the Bill—that £9 million, or thereabouts, of additional public money will be needed to finance the Bill. That should ring alarm bells not just in the House, but throughout the country.
  I and my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) represent constituencies that have substantial military activity. The hon. Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) are in the same boat, as is one Member on the Labour Benches: the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). We all know the substantial effect that overstretch is having on our forces. We have seen the problems with equipment, the lack of fuel and so on. The fact that the Government will take the money to fund the Bill from the defence budget seriously damages their claim to have their priorities right in defence matters.
  The whole defence budget is under threat. There is a serious situation in our armed forces. The Government are requiring them to do more and more with less and less. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not provide the necessary funding to do that. We are told that we must enact the Bill—with no support on the Labour Benches—and commit more public funds to it.
  It is a question not just of the actual cost, but increased manpower. We must find not 80, but 90 people—55 service personnel, all of whom will have to be, in some respects, legally qualified, or qualified in forensic science, and 35 civilians—together with all the equipment on which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury elaborated in his convincing speech.
  The House should establish disciplinary procedures for our armed forces. The House has long had a role in that matter, which has generally not occupied much of our time. It certainly did not occupy much of our time when I was an hon. Member between 1983 and 1992. Indeed, it was only when I absented myself from the House, from 1992 to 1997, that the House busied itself with the Armed
  1180
  Forces Act 1996, to which I was not party. Nevertheless, the cause of that legislation and the cause of this Bill are the same.
  Military discipline should broadly follow the principles that apply to the civilian community, except that, as we have to recognise, the services not only are different, but need to be different. If we fail to recognise our services' need to be different, we shall be doing a disfavour not only to them, but to our country, as we shall not be providing the means by which this nation has been as effectively defended as everyone reckons it to be.
  Laura Moffatt: Although the hon. Gentleman is unquestionably right to say that the services should be treated slightly differently because of their different complexion, different treatment cannot apply in the matter of justice. Justice must be applied equally.
  Mr. Howarth: Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber for the debate. I say that not to chastise her, but to point out to her that, had she been here, she would have understood the myriad reasons given by my right. hon. and hon. Friends why it is necessary to resist the Bill. It is not a question of whether the Bill will provide greater justice, but an assertion that the Bill will fundamentally damage service discipline. That is the case that Opposition Members are advancing. We believe that, as the Bill will undermine armed forces discipline, ultimately, it is likely to lead to less justice, and certainly to less efficient fighting forces—which, as we all should remember, is what our armed services are about.
  The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) should bear in mind that, unlike any other group in society, our armed forces are required—as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made absolutely clear—to write a blank cheque with their lives. They never know when that cheque will be called in. It is a part of a contract that no other group or profession in society has to sign. Even police officers—who, of course, put themselves at risk in the line of duty—do not make their contract in the same way as members of our armed services do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate made the point that service men and service women accept that different rules apply to them. If one talks to soldiers, male or female, as I do in Aldershot, one is often told that they have joined the services because the services are different from the rest of society. As I have said in the House before, in many ways, service men and service women reject some of the values prevailing in wider society. The values of the services—loyalty, commitment, duty and obligation to country—which are regarded as somewhat old-fashioned in other parts of society, are very much a part the reason why service people joined the services initially. We have to understand that men and women in the service are different people and do not accept the same obligations that apply to those who join Marks and Spencer.
  As many hon. Members have said in the debate, soldiers are increasingly being persuaded by their wives or families that they should appeal against a summary judgment. Moreover, the trend is likely to continue in future as, increasingly, service men's wives are now working in the civilian community, where the idea of giving orders is not only much less fashionable, but distinctly unfashionable. Some wives question why their

  1181
  husbands are accepting a legal arrangement that would never by countenanced by anyone in their own place of work. So if we enact the legislation, we shall be in danger of corroding the cohesion of our service life. That is an extremely damaging prospect.
  I have covered the background but, when the Minister of State announced the Bill on 17 November 1999, he stated in a press release:
  "This is essentially technical legislation. The reforms in the Armed Forces Discipline Bill will preserve the essential structure of the current system, while bringing it into line with the 1998 Human Rights Act."
  That is the essence of the Bill. It is not being introduced because the Government suddenly felt that there was a lack of justice for our service men which had hitherto gone unnoticed or because it had suddenly hit upon the Government that service men were going to see their Members of Parliament and writing anonymous letters saying, "We don't get enough justice. We need to reform the system of discipline in the armed forces." The origin of the Bill, like that of the 1996 Act, was absolutely clear from the outset. It is before the House today not because the Government necessarily believe in it—of course they will say that they do—but because they feel that they have no option but to accept the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
  I am sorry to bore the House again, but the public must understand that day in, day out, the powers of this place are haemorrhaging away, not least because of the way in which the European Court of Human Rights is seeking to exercise ever-greater powers over our lives. It is no good Labour Members shaking their heads; it is a fact of life that every week we find that the European Court of Human Rights has pronounced some other aspects of our law as being incompatible with the convention.
  Our laws have stood the test of time and, as I said to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), we signed up to the European convention on human rights in 1951 only after Ministers were absolutely crystal clear that the provisions of our law were unlikely to conflict with the convention. Our laws were compliant then, as was our military discipline, so what has changed? Our military discipline remains the same; what has changed is the desire of the European Court of Human Rights to interfere in the way in which we compose our armed forces and the way in which we organise our laws. The proper place to decide the balancing issues of the rights of individuals and groups of people vis-a-vis each other and the rights of individuals versus the state is here, in this building—in the House and in the other place. Ultimately, if we have not made the laws clear enough, they should be tested down the road by our courts, so that if we get it wrong we can put it right. People out there do not realise the extent to which this country is becoming powerless. Here we have the Government introducing a measure, not because they necessarily believe in it, but because they have been told to do so by the European Court of Human Rights.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend when he is being so eloquent and making such a good case. I wish only to amplify it. Of course, the threat goes wider because the European Court could arrogate to itself the capability to interfere in British service affairs and the MOD might cave in, fearing that it might be invoked in respect of the equal opportunities directive.
  1182
  Retrospectively, the MOD paid out £60 million in compensation to service women who knew when they joined the armed forces that they would not be able to retain their position in the services if they had children. The European Court, as well as the European convention on human rights could be a threat.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an important point that is another facet of the way in which the power of the House is being diminished and asserted by other authorities. We accept that supinely, and I resent that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who is not in his place at the moment, is a most decent man, but I disagree with him. He was right to say that we have no option but to accept the Bill as things stand at the moment, but I stand with Lord Renton, who said on Second Reading in the other place:
  "I believe that the Government must review the convention"—
  the 1951 convention on human rights—
  "and our acceptance of it in order to ensure that military discipline is maintained."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 691.]
  It has been made clear that we cannot enjoy the advantage that our friends in France enjoy because they delayed signing up to the convention until 1974. They saw which way the wind was blowing even then—they were more perceptive than some of us—and they ensured that they got a derogation. The Minister of State has said that we cannot now go back and get a derogation, but I cannot continue to accept that we must simply follow the rulings of the European Court and change the laws of these islands.
  We are accountable to our constituents, not to the European Court of Human Rights. It is essential that at some time we stand up to it. How far is the Minister prepared to go? How many other cases are in the pipeline? That question was put by the Defence Committee and the Minister confirmed that no one could guarantee that no further amendments to the service discipline legislation would be necessary in the future to ensure compliance with the ECHR. No one can guarantee that the European Court will not come forward with further measures, and then the Minister will come back—having spent vast amounts of public money putting sound and appropriate arguments before the court in Strasbourg, but losing the case—and say that we have to implement them. What is this Parliament for? Will we just roll over and accept that happening for the foreseeable future? I think that the time has come to make a stand.
  Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I know that the hon. Gentleman will not take a stand, because he is a Liberal Democrat and he wants to go along with everything European. I am of a different hue, but I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way with such good humour. Is he saying that his bizarre stance on Europe is appreciated by those service personnel whom he represents, to whom he would deny the same opportunities under law that are available to civilians living next door? Few of those service personnel would understand or accept his argument.
  Mr. Howarth: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because it is clear that he did not hear what I

  1183
  said earlier when I said that people join the services because they are different and they subscribe to concepts that are not generally followed by the rest of society. Who else would accept being bawled at on a parade ground? It is essential for service discipline that people accept orders unquestioningly. The armed forces cannot be operated on any other basis. It is possible to organise Marks and Spencer or BP on an endless round of consultation, but that does not apply to the armed forces.
  I feel that I am in tune with my constituents. Every opinion poll on Europe shows that I am more in tune with my constituents than the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South is with his, that I am getting more so as time goes by, and that he is getting less. The Conservative party has alerted people to what is going on, and people understand that only the Conservative party cares about preserving the integrity and independence of our country.
  We have also asserted the independence of our Parliament, and have insisted that we should not roll over every time the European Court of Human Rights comes up with a fanciful new idea. Its ideas are produced by a bunch of judges whose home countries' record on human rights would not stand up to scrutiny by candlelight, let alone by searchlight. This Parliament has fought for nearly 1,000 years to get right the balance between the rights of individuals and those of the state.
  Much has been made of the Bill's technicalities. I have explained why I believe that the Bill is wrong in principle. It has been introduced for the wrong reasons. Other Conservative Members have shown how it will be deeply damaging to service morale and discipline. I therefore hope that the House will fill up with hon. Members supporting my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in voting against a Bill whose damaging effects will be felt nowhere more deeply than in my constituency of Aldershot—the home of the British Army.
  5.41 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: There is a memorable moment in the film "Casablanca" when Humphrey Bogart, the proprietor of Rick's Café, loses a friend with black market connections and finds that his ex-girlfriend—played by Ingrid Bergman—has replaced him in her affections. He says, "One out, one in." I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), on his appointment in replacement of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). It is easy to see that the Government are determined that a substantial body of evidence will always be present in the discharge of the duties associated with that office.
  At first glance, the case that I want to bring to the House's attention is reminiscent of the case involving the Admiralty and the Archer-Shee family, in which a young cadet at Osborne, George Archer-Shee, was alleged to have stolen a five-shilling postal order. The case was the subject of a memorable book by Rodney Bennett, and was later dramatised by Terence Rattigan as "The Winslow Boy". The young man was eventually cleared of the theft, but the charge almost certainly cost him his life. Having lost his naval career, the young Archer-Shee enlisted in the Army at the outbreak of the first world war and went to the western front, where he died leading his platoon against the enemy. Had he remained in the Navy, the chances are that he would have escaped with his life.
  1184
  In reality, the case that I want to bring to the House's attention is perhaps closer to the plot of "Les Misérables". It arises from a report in The Southern Daily Echo on 29 January, which bore the headline "Army disgrace led to suicide". The report states:
  "A devastated Hampshire soldier gassed himself in his car after he was kicked out of the Army for asking new recruits to pay for swimming lessons.
  Father-of-two Corporal Gavin Henry, 33, of Kingsley Green, Havant"—
  my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has given me his blessing in raising this case of his late constituent—
  "kissed his children goodbye and drove to the remote Quagg Farm, near Stockbridge, where he committed suicide.
  An inquest at Winchester heard he had been court-martialled and discharged after demanding money from new recruits when he took them to a local swimming pool, because the military baths were shut.
  Recording a suicide verdict, coroner Graham Long said: 'Gavin obviously enjoyed life as a soldier a great deal. He must have been devastated when court martialled and discharged. As a result of his discharge from the Army his marriage came under strain and his wife divorced him.
  The divorce was not the cause of his final act but may have been the final straw'."
  As to the relevance of that incident to the Bill, I refer to the previous changes to military discipline law as a consequence of a European Court of Human Rights finding.
  The Select Committee's report states at paragraph 16:
  "At present, disciplinary cases may be heard in two ways: summarily or by court-martial. Cases dealt with summarily are heard by the accused's Commanding Officer. Courts-martial were previously reserved for more serious offences, but substantial changes were made by the Armed Forces Act 1996 to reflect the provisions of the ECHR."
  Later, the report notes—in relation to the Army—possible concern that the 1996 Act appears to have led to the proportion of cases dealt with by court martial rising between 1996 and 1999, from 10 to 20 per cent.
  Although my investigations are too recent to allow the full details, I suspect that Corporal Henry's case would in former times have been dealt with summarily. Superficially, the ECHR's ruling was applied to give greater rights to a person facing discipline in the armed forces, but this ended up as badly as possible for Corporal Henry.
  I wrote to General Sir Roger Wheeler, Chief of the General Staff, expressing my concern. I wrote of my shock at reading the newspaper story about the suicide of Corporal Henry and explained that although he was not one of my constituents, anyone with a close interest in the services must feel deep concern about a person's career being ended because, according to the story, he ordered new recruits to pay for the use of a swimming pool when the military baths were shut—apparently culminating in a chain of events leading to the young man's self-destruction. I put it to the Chief of the General Staff that to be court martialled and discharged in those circumstances was grossly disproportionate to the offence.
  I know from a previous occasion that General Wheeler is an admirably prompt correspondent. He replied by return, saying that the matter would be investigated. Just today, I had faxed to me a response dated 11 February

  1185
  from M.A. Piper, deputy chief executive at Headquarters, Army Training and Recruiting Agency in Pewsey, Wiltshire. He states:
  "As in many such instances the report in the newspaper falls well short of the full facts. Henry was found guilty in 1997 by District Court Martial of 14 counts of theft."
  That sounds bad, but those counts all concern the same offence relating to the swimming baths incident—and, as I strongly suspect that they all relate to the same action taken in respect of 14 people, hon. Members will understand why I continue to be concerned. General Wheeler continued:
  "In brief, he had asked the recruits in his charge to pay for entrance to the local swimming baths, used when the military facilities at the Army Training Regiment (ATR) at Lichfield were closed, and then fraudulently obtained repayment of the sums involved from the Unit. He pleaded guilty to all the charges."
  That is, of course, he pleaded guilty 14 times to the same charge relating to each of the 14 cadets.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving us a detailed individual case, but the debate is on the Second Reading of a Bill. He may wish to come to the point. How does what he is saying relate to the Bill? I am aware that he is discussing the case of a man who was court martialled, but to go into such detail is, to put it no stronger, not usual.
  Dr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My problem is that the Bill seems, on the face of it, to be a lawyer's measure, but its application to the armed forces will translate in reality into cases such as the one to which I have referred. Those who oppose the increasing intrusion of the European convention on human rights must show how something done with the best of intentions—the Bill—may translate into individual cases with fatal results. I shall bear your strictures in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have almost finished the detail. I promise not to overburden the House.
  The letter continues:
  "The Assistant Judge Advocate General, who was asked to review the decision of the Court-Martial stated that although the sum of money involved was small (a total of £16)"—
  less than £1.15 for each offence—
  "there was not only a breach of trust involved, but also an abuse of a position of authority. He considered that the sentence reflected a proper balance between the mitigating and aggravating factors. He therefore declined to uphold Henry's petition against the sentence."
  That is the end of the detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We know what the result was. That man lost his career and his marriage. Ultimately, he took his own life. The House may see that my comparison with the plot of Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables" was by no means fanciful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) talked of the right of the services to be different. I entirely agree with him, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who pointed out the iniquities of the compensation culture that is creeping into society and transferring into the administration of discipline in the armed forces. When Labour Members ask why people in the armed forces should be denied the protection that others have at law in civil society, the answer must be that we must be concerned with how litigious a person is. There is no absolute principle; it is a question of how far litigiousness is allowed in our dealings.
  1186
  We all know that what happens in America tends to be reflected in Britain a few months or years later. We have all heard of the case of the lady in America who drove into a takeaway McDonalds, purchased a mug of boiling coffee, placed it between her thighs as she drove away, scalded herself, and successfully sued the company for having served a beverage that was dangerously hot. Most people would say that that was something she was entitled to do at law, but that the law was an ass in upholding her claim.
  We all know that it is possible to apply the law literally or with common sense; there are no absolutes. The danger of bringing the ECHR directly to bear on individual cases is that it will give perverse results. If I had time to go into the matter more fully, it would be seen that the application of the ECHR in 1996 led to a top-heavy procedure. If the soldier, whose sad circumstances I related, had received summary punishment from his CO—or had he chosen to do so rather than opting for a court martial—his case might have had a happier outcome. Although it seemed that the court martial presented a greater opportunity—an extra right—it turned out to be a fatal disadvantage.
  One of the reasons for my absence from part of the debate was because I was discussing defence developments in the Royal Navy with a recently retired senior officer. I asked him for his views on the case that I have just outlined. He said that in the armed forces one had to allow for different levels of trial and punishment, according to different circumstances—war or peace, deployment on operations or in society back home. He pointed out that a court martial was the last thing that one should have considered in such an offence—or rather 14 offences of £1.14 multiplied.
  I appeal to the Government not to regard the measure as purely technical. It is a mistake to discount tried and tested methods of discipline. They may seem to be less just than the whole panoply of law—national law and international law—but they can do more good, be more merciful and, in the long run, be more just for service men. They can be better than encouraging service men to go down the route of litigation and appeals—an endless process that can sometimes result in a fatal and unnecessary outcome.
  5.57 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Government introduced the Bill to satisfy their obligation to comply with the European convention on human rights. The debate has been interesting; I apologise for not having been able to attend for the opening speeches.
  Among the points that struck me when I considered the Bill were the operational effects. They have caused real concern to senior officers, who have expressed their concern in another place. I have read the speeches of Lord Bramall, Lord Craig and Lord Carver. To some extent, their concerns have been satisfied, but not fully. They are right to point that out, as we are right to express our strong concern about the measure.
  I want to analyse the causes of that concern. There are flaws in the 1951 ECHR. Britain played an enormous part in the introduction of that convention. It was drawn up to try to prevent the recurrence of the atrocities of the second world war. If we consider it as a broad-brushed document, produced with that objective, it is a fine piece of drafting. However, since countries have given right of individual petition—we gave that right as long ago as 1966—and as the court has been given increasingly wide powers, it has exercised those powers in an ever more detailed way, like any public body to which powers are given.

  1187
  The Government's duty is to comply with the convention. When we were in government, we had a treaty obligation to comply with it and we always fulfilled that obligation. This Government have decided to incorporate the convention into our own law and that makes the obligation no greater, but it makes it more immediate. It makes the opportunity to take advantage of the convention's provisions in our domestic courts much more available.
  I declare an interest as a barrister who, among other things, advises on human rights matters. We know that chambers have been set up simply to concentrate on such matters. One of them is headed by no less a person than the Prime Minister's wife—I congratulate her on that. That is not wrong. They are matters for our law, and it is right that people should be able to obtain advice.
  The Bill focuses our attention on the flaws in the convention and on this country's failure to adopt ourselves to its requirements. I wish to focus on two points. The first is the derogation and the other is the reservation, such as that expressed by France and Spain when they adopted the convention.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I also declare an interest along the same lines as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Does he not agree that the interesting thing about European Court decisions is that they do not set precedent and that they involve the passage of time? We see that particularly in article 6, which is on the right to a fair trial. Therefore, there is not the danger that he and other Conservatives Members have suggested.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me but, if he listens for a moment, he will spot the genuine dangers that need to be addressed.
  The primary reason for the Bill is to deal with the case of Hood v. UK. Hood was a young soldier who regrettably went repeatedly absent without leave. Eventually, he was arrested and, because it was the commanding officer's duty at that time to remand him in custody, he was remanded in custody. That fact was not a problem. When the matter came before the High Court under a habeas corpus application, it properly confirmed that point. The man had repeatedly absconded and the only way to bring him to trial was to lock him up. Otherwise, he would have absconded again. He was locked up and the European Court on Human Rights did not object to that aspect of the proceedings. It objected to the fact that he was originally locked up by the colonel and not an impartial tribunal and that he did not have a right of appeal.
  The Bill will introduce not only a right of appeal against the order of a commanding officer, but, by way of belts and braces, a right for a member of the armed forces to go straight to court martial—bypassing the colonel—if he chooses to do so. We are doing that because a court martial, which has a legally qualified president, is regarded as more likely to be accepted as an independent judicial authority within the meaning of article 6 of the convention.
  We need to worry about the proposal at two levels. The first is the non-operational level, and I note that the senior officers who have debated the point said that, in this
  1188
  respect, the provision might be all right, subject to questions of cost in places such as Colchester and Aldershot.
  It is at the operational level that the flaws in the European convention become starkly evident. It does not provide adequately for the operational requirements of the armed forces among the convention's members. That matter relates not only to the United Kingdom, but to all 40 or so members. It does not cover what in modern terms are described as dangerous armed operations. I was going to use the word "war" but of course one does not declare war nowadays. I do not think that war was declared in the cases of the Falklands, Iraq, Bosnia or Kosovo. There are perfectly good technical legal reasons for not declaring war.
  Article 15 of the convention, however, allows derogation only in circumstances of war or a public emergency affecting the safety of the nation. One could not say that Kosovo was a public emergency affecting the safety of the United Kingdom. We were sending armed forces, as were the United States and other countries who took part, to try to uphold the human rights of citizens in a sphere of influence where we thought it practical and possible to do so. We now find that the European convention on human rights causes a significant muddle for military discipline in those circumstances, and that is the point that I want to address.
  Where does the Minister regard derogation possible? It is my understanding—I am pretty certain that I am correct—that we still have a derogation in relation to Northern Ireland. I personally argued before the European Court of Human Rights the Brogan case, which raised the question of how long somebody could be held in custody other than at the behest of a court. In that case, it was decided that the maximum was 96 hours.
  On receiving that judgment, my noble Friend Lord Hurd of Westwell immediately decided to advise this country to derogate; we did so and our derogation was upheld in the Brannigan case. That is right because, as everybody would agree, the situation in Northern Ireland provides a public emergency that affects the safety of the nation. There is no doubt about that, but the derogation does not apply to other areas where we send our armed forces.
  It has been suggested by some hon. Members that it is fanciful to think that one would ever have to arrest and lock up anybody in a military situation, but unfortunately it is not. I am happy to think that it is rare and to join with all hon. Members who express the highest regard for our armed forces, their courage and their exemplary discipline. None the less, that discipline sometimes breaks down and, as Ministers will certainly acknowledge, members of the armed forces sometimes behave in ways that require them to be arrested and put into custody.
  We are tending to assume that it is terribly easy to do that and to find a military or naval lawyer who will confirm those practices in a way that will justify the convention. However, in many circumstances, it may be deeply impractical to justify the convention. How far does the Minister think that operational exigencies modify our obligations under the convention? I have read the debates in the other place and I have not yet found—I may have missed it—a satisfactory answer. The Government simply must tackle that question.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend's speech is very helpful in throwing light on the subject. I do

  1189
  not know whether he is aware that, in the other place, the Government were asked time and time again, even by the tabling of an amendment, about active service. They failed point blank to answer the question that my right hon. and learned Friend is asking, but I agree that the point is extremely important because the Government assume too much from peacetime circumstances.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Certainly my reading of the debate was that a proper answer had not been given, and I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation. I specifically ask the Minister to deal with the matter one way or the other. If the Government have no answer, let him say so. We will not say, "Yah-boo." We will say that this is a problem that points out genuine difficulties with the convention that we, along with our allies and other partners in convention states, must settle down to tackle. It would be possible, in theory, for us to renounce the convention and apply to rejoin, but it would be an enormous political step to take. It would cause huge upheaval and concern, and there should be better ways of dealing with the problem.
  I have said before, when referring to the convention that, in so far as one seeks to use it as a constitution, it suffers huge flaws compared with the American constitution, for example. At least the American constitution can be amended by the American nation. The European convention can be amended only by common agreement of all its rising 40 different members, and that is extraordinarily difficult to obtain. In the context of the Bill, it is necessary for the Government to find a way whereby operational efficiency will not be seriously damaged by the legalisms—I use that expression advisedly—and the legal stratagems that this kind of amendment is, to some extent, making necessary.
  As for the £9 million, or £6.5 million, or whatever it is, it is unfortunate that we should have to get rid of a battalion, or at least not to have an extra one, if that is what an extra battalion costs in pay. However, the problem goes much deeper than that, although I do not shrug off the extra cost. The problem focuses on how in practice commanding officers are to be expected to deal with the matter and how the armed forces will accept the discipline of a commanding officer.
  I listened with great interest to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about the disadvantages of rushing off to court martial. My military service was very brief; I am just old enough to have been a national service man. I will not say that it is a dying breed, but it is an ageing one. I remember doing commanding officer's orders—I was assistant adjutant. The system was understood and respected, and it worked very well within those communities. However, it does not fulfil the requirements of the technicalities of the European convention. We can live with that in Aldershot or Colchester, at a certain cost. We must bend our mind to find practical solutions to the very real problems that will arise in times of active service. The Bill as drafted does not do that, and we should demonstrate our concern in the Lobby.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is quite intimidating to speak in this debate on defence when so many eloquent people have spoken before me. I am following a former Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire
  1190
  (Sir N. Lyell) and the quality of his speech indicated just that. The only speech from the Labour Back Benches came from the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. A number of members of that Committee have already spoken. I shall therefore confine myself to just one aspect of the Bill, about which I am greatly concerned.
  Clause 8(2)(h) permits
  "the proceedings of live television links or similar arrangements, including the use of such a link or other arrangement as a means of satisfying the requirement"
  of various sections. When I intervened on the Minister in his opening speech, he said that he was a little surprised that I should be concerned. He kindly said that he had heard me speak in other debates or in other interventions in the House and thought that I supported the use of high technology. I do, but only when it is appropriate.
  In the other place, the Minister, Baroness Symons said:
  "It is important to remember that time moves on. The services are fully capable of exploiting successive advances in technology, which they already deploy with great success."
  Of course I support the use of high technology in, for example, head-up displays in Royal Air Force aircraft or Milan wire-guided anti-tank missiles.
  In what she went on to say, Baroness Symons displayed a certain naivety, as the Government often do. They think of a good marketing idea, but never quite think through the consequences. She said:
  "Video technology is in day-to-day use. It was in constant use throughout the recent crisis in Kosovo"—
  I shall say more of that in a moment.
  Baroness Symons continued:
  "The armed services see no reason why that technology should not be deployed equally successfully in other operational environments and for purposes such as those envisaged in the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1999; Vol. 608, c. 351.]
  I suspect that the armed forces could think of plenty of reasons, but chose, as they so often do, not to make their views public.
  Let us consider some of the practical difficulties, which I believe will hinder the workings of justice. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to the importance of the "circumstances and demeanour" of the case being transmitted to those in courts martial. I agree.
  No matter how broad band a transmission may be, it is impossible to convey the body language that is so necessary when someone is giving evidence. It was suggested earlier in the debate that wide-angle lenses could be used, to ensure that there was no sergeant major gently prodding the witness not to say certain things, or perhaps to say certain things.
  However, the use of a wide-angle lens, even with a broad band transmission on 625 lines, possibly with a 4.5 MHz band width—I throw that in merely to demonstrate that at least on this narrow topic, I know what I am talking about—will not allow the person's facial expressions to be seen, let alone body movements and all the other elements that are important when evidence is given.
  Mr. Bermingham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we use video links every day in the criminal courts, in

  1191
  children's cases and others? There is increasing use of visual evidence by television and visual links in civil cases. That is to be encouraged. Why should the armed services be any different?
  Mr. Fabricant: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is within the United Kingdom. It does not involve distance.
  Mr. Bermingham indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman wonders about the relevance of that. I shall shortly explain. Even if he does not understand the difficulty of distance and satellites, I should have thought that the Government would. If they do not, they need not worry, as I shall elucidate.
  Mr. Blunt: In his remarks, will my hon. Friend explain how video-conferencing will work under conditions of radio silence?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend tempts me to jump ahead in what I had planned to say. Of course, it would be impossible to have a satellite link, and impractical to have a fibre optic link, because even in conditions of radio silence, we all know that there are ways of tapping into fibre links. My hon. Friend, who is closely involved with the armed forces, raises a valuable point.
  Where there is no radio silence order, will the person giving evidence be concerned about interception? When a broad band link is used, it is not easy to encrypt it in such a way that it cannot be decoded by others. We know that in Kosovo, to which Baroness Symons referred, the signals were intercepted. Those were not court cases, as the Bill had not been enacted at that stage, but have the Government, and more importantly, have the armed forces considered the consequences of broadcasting in an environment where the interview may be intercepted? I think possibly not. That would be particularly dangerous.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) asked why distance was relevant, but it is highly relevant. A court martial in Belize would require up to two satellite links. No matter how advanced we become, there is one absolute, which no scientist has yet been able to break, and that is the speed of light. With two satellite jumps, a signal from Belize would take in the order of 1.25 seconds to reach the United Kingdom, and the return signal a further 1.25 seconds—a 2.5 second delay.
  The hon. Gentleman and Ministers are old enough to remember satellite telephone conversations. They were impossible. Nowadays, when one telephones the United States or even Australia, more often than not the connection is made by fibre optic narrow band cable. That travels at the speed of light. Light travels at about 186,000 miles a second, and the circumference of the earth is about 23,000 miles, so that takes a tiny fraction of a second. But when one uses satellite, which one has to do when using broad band television links, the distances are far greater.
  Mr. Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as others wish to speak.
  1192
  Body language and face-to-face contact are important. They would be lost in a trial by satellite link with a 2.5 second delay. Would anyone suggest that we need not turn up in the Chamber? Perhaps we could all sit in our offices or go on fancy fact-finding visits around the world.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: So that is where all the Labour Members are.
  Mr. Fabricant: Perhaps Labour Members are doing just that. They may be sitting in their offices or on fact-finding visits to the United States and Australia.
  Dr. Godman: They may be watching the debate.
  Mr. Fabricant: They may be watching it, but could we have an effective debate—the stakes here are not so high as in a trial which might result in imprisonment—by satellite or by television? Of course we could not. After the Chamber was bombed in 1941, there was a discussion in 1945 or 1946 about how large the new Chamber should be, and whether it should be big enough for 650 hon. Members. It was decided to make it small—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going wide of the debate.
  Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is simply that we chose a small Chamber because face-to-face contact and body language are important. As I say, wide-angle lenses prevent the interpretation of body language. In addition, with a 2.5 second satellite delay it would be impossible to operate the camera remotely and to zoom in. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is making a lot of noise. I will give way if he wishes to intervene.
  There has been a debate on whether broad or narrow band communications should be used. The Minister said that broad band communications would be easy. The Government and the Ministry of Defence mainly use Inmarsat for their satellite communications. But that is not broad band; it is a narrow band communication medium. I hate to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, who made that point, but when he talked about megabytes he meant megabits. However, he made the point eloquently. The practicality is that at certain times and from certain locations broad-band transmission would not be possible. Even broad-band transmission would not enable one to pick up the nuances, the circumstances and the demeanour of people giving evidence.
  Mr. Key: It was a good soundbite.
  Mr. Fabricant: It was a marvellous soundbite—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Sound bit.
  Mr. Fabricant: Yes, a sound bit.
  I shall not go on any longer because I know that at least one other Conservative Member wants to contribute.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: There is no one on the other side.
  Mr. Fabricant: Indeed, no Labour Members want to contribute to the debate.

  1193
  Like so much other legislation, the Bill has not been thought through carefully. I suspect that reams of Government amendments will be tabled to it, as has happened to so many other Bills. The measure is not practical. More important, because the practicalities have not been thought through, the Bill is not just.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. Following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I am tempted to say that, for the Government, the debate is a case of the biter bit.
  My interest in the Bill stems at least in part from the fact that I come from a services family. My grandfather was a career soldier, my father was a naval officer in submarines during and after the second world war and I was a Royal Navy cadet. I have a specific interest in armed forces discipline because when the previous quinquennial Armed Forces Act was passed, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Ministers of State at the Ministry of Defence. All the service disciplinary issues that are tackled only in the quinquennial Act came before a special Select Committee. Some newer hon. Members may not realise that, uniquely, the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill is considered by such a Committee, not a Standing Committee. Some hon. Members, at least one of whom is on the Opposition Benches, were involved in that Committee.
  It was apparent during the passage of the Bill when we were in government that the then Opposition did not dare trust the average group of Labour Members. They consulted only very senior people—the few with services experience. Many of them had been national service men. Only those Labour Members understood services discipline. Sadly, the Labour party has forgotten some of those lessons since being in government.
  As many of my hon. Friends made clear, the Bill is unnecessary. Debates in another place made it clear that our current service discipline policies could happily co-exist with the European convention on human rights. Perhaps Labour Members realise that the Bill is unnecessary; few of them have bothered to turn up to support a Government measure.
  I represent a military constituency, whose main town in Camberley, and many of my constituents are serving and retired officers and service men. My main anxiety about the Bill is the dangers that it poses for the chain of command. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said in an effective speech, and as other hon. Friends emphasised, the measure will undermine the chain of command. It is an invitation to the barrack-room lawyer.
  I declare an interest. I am a barrister, and I have done some court martial work, although not for several years. Many of my friends in my former chambers still do court martial work, and one of my closest friends appears regularly in international war crimes cases. If I had longer to speak, I would refer to some of the experiences of my friends in chambers. They would share the anxieties that my hon. Friends, especially my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), expressed. Perhaps I shall have an opportunity to revert to some of those
  1194
  matters in a future debate. I shall not be able to serve on the Standing Committee that considers the Bill because of commitments to other Committees.
  Important questions have been asked in another place and in our debate today about the practicality of implementing the Bill in the field. The judicial officers for which the Bill provides will be gold plated. Duty officers could happily undertake their role. Who will pay for those judicial officers? What will be the extra cost for the taxpayer? Where will they be located? My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred to the practicality of video links. I have been interested in their use in normal court proceedings, particularly those involving children, but they will not work for the reasons that he set out.
  There is so much that one could say, but unfortunately time is against us and I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has the chance to press the Minister. Although I know that he will not have an effective answer to our concerns I hope that they will be taken seriously—not only in the House, but well beyond.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: On behalf of my colleagues on the Front and Back Benches, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on his elevation to the Government. I hope that his luck improves because it is absolutely clear that he has lost the argument before saying even his first word in the Government's defence from the Front Bench. [Interruption.] It is no use the Minister for the Armed Forces laughing—that is not my judgment, but that of the House.
  We have debated the Second Reading of the only Bill relating to defence matters that the Government are introducing this Session. Precisely one supportive contribution was made from those on the Labour Benches, even though there are about 400 Labour Members of the House. We can draw one of two logical conclusions from that: they are totally uninterested in defence and anything to do with the defence of the nation, or they have so little stomach for the Bill that they are not even prepared to sit mutely on their Benches to provide Ministers with some encouragement and support. Not even two of the governing party's MPs came to the House to defend the measure. The House of Commons can be as eloquent in silence as when it speaks explicitly. If that silence is not damning, I do not know what is.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was the only Back-Bench Labour Member to contribute. Although he spoke in his usual good-humoured and charming fashion and we all enjoyed listening to him, he did not have much enthusiasm for the Bill. I noted his remarks—he said that there was "no option", which was pretty grudging. Perhaps he meant that his Whips had given him no option. He agreed explicitly with Conservative Members that it was necessary to explore the possibility of a derogation from the European convention on human rights for armed forces discipline. That represents strong criticism of the Government's negligence in not pursuing that option.

  1195
  Labour Members were not prepared to come to the House to defend their own Bill, so the Liberal auxiliaries were drafted in—two contributed, including the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). A fine military unit is associated with his constituency, but I imagine that it has few disciplinary problems. His argument was extraordinary. He accepted our view that there would be serious difficulties in enforcing the 48-hour rule under which detention could be continued only with the agreement of a military lawyer of some kind—for example, a Trident submarine might be at sea and under the surface for months on end and the rule could not apply in those military circumstances—but argued that such exceptions did not invalidate the Bill. However, we cannot legislate knowing that there are certain situations in which the law cannot be applied. The Liberal party's approach strikes me as extraordinary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made a fluent and interesting speech. He said that he thought the Bill was untimely, ill-considered, expensive and damaging. Dealing with those four points lucidly and persuasively, he demonstrated that those adjectives were, in fact, an understatement in the context of the judgment that the House should make.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who has considerable military experience, suggested that the human rights of service men might be served better by the existing system, under which the accused can opt for court martial only after the commanding officer has made his judgment. I hope that the Committee will pursue that interesting point, if the Bill is given a Committee Stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who was a serving officer for 12 years, spoke frankly. He told us that he had not only delivered military justice but, on one occasion, been in receipt of it, so he must be considered an expert. He made a number of important points. He clearly felt that the Bill's main weakness lay in the proposal for an appeal court after the making of a summary judgment by a commanding officer. He said that every service man would appeal if the rules of the game were those in the Bill, which prevent the appeal court from imposing a harsher sentence than that originally imposed. Someone who had been accused and dealt with by his commanding officer would have nothing to lose—only something to gain—by lodging an appeal.
  It is logical to assume that, in such circumstances, everyone will proceed to the appeal stage. As my hon. Friend pointed out, if only 20 per cent. of cases were subject to appeal, there would be 5,000 appeals per year. It occurs to me that if the number of cases were 100 per cent., although I do not think that anything will ever amount to 100 per cent. in this world, there would be 25,000 appeals per year. The Government's budgeting, however, has been based on the assumption that 800 cases a year would go to the appeal court, and they have managed to run up a prospective expenditure of £6 million on that alone.
  Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: I am afraid that I cannot. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me; there are time constraints.
  1196
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has had a distinguished military career as an airman, an RAF officer and, I believe, an RAF flying instructor. He deplored the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, as did several hon. Members of other parties. I hope that the Government will take that, at least, on board.
  My hon. Friend explained that the habit of questioning a commanding officer's decisions, and the culture in which it is taken for granted that those decisions will be questioned, can easily lead to insubordination, and undermine discipline.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) tried to dismiss reservations about the 48-hour rule. He suggested that it might be difficult to bring in a military lawyer within 48 hours in serious operational circumstances but that indiscipline would be extremely rare in practice, and would probably never happen. That shows an extraordinary degree of unreality in the Liberals' approach.
  As has been made clear today, this country has the finest traditions of military discipline, but under the appalling strain of military action people may break, and behave irrationally. In extreme circumstances, as we have seen recently, people may run amok, causing danger to themselves or their comrades, and it may be necessary to lock them up rapidly. In such circumstances, the commanding officer must take immediate action. He cannot release a person after 48 hours simply because he has not been able to set up a video link when, at the same time, bombs are falling and his men are exposed to danger. To suggest that would be to adopt a ridiculous approach to the management of our armed forces.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) rightly stressed the problem of overstretch and asked, very reasonably, whether, if the French had been able to obtain a derogation from the relevant provisions of the convention, we could not do the same.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) rightly and movingly raised the matter of Corporal Henry. I had not heard about the case. His lucid advocacy persuaded me strongly that an act of considerable injustice had been perpetrated. The whole tragedy should make us all think carefully about the provisions that are being introduced in the framework for military discipline.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) gave a characteristically brilliant and lucid legal exegesis of the problem that confronts us with the European convention on human rights. He made it clear that there is a major anomaly: article 15 provides for derogation for war or public emergency affecting the safety of the nation, but the armed conflict in which we find ourselves these days cannot legally be regarded as a war because no war has formally been declared. As the conflict takes place away from our shores, it does not qualify as affecting the safety of the nation. Clearly, that anomaly must be rectified. I hope that his argument, which was overwhelming, will be taken on board by the Government and that they will finally do something about that matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) displayed considerable erudition, which I cannot pretend to match, about video technology. I have a terrible confession to make, which may cause my summary dismissal from the spokesman role that I

  1197
  occupy: I do not know the difference between a megabyte and a megabit. Perhaps I shall have to join some private seminar where he will give a teach-in on the subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will lead to the promotion of the barrack-room lawyer. That was a reasonable point. It was made credibly by my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer—not a barrack-room lawyer, but a professional lawyer.
  Two points emerge clearly from our proceedings. One is that the Bill represents the increasing "legalisation" of our society—the extension of legalism to our armed services. There is no doubt that, throughout society, social ties that depended on tradition, loyalty, a sense of allegiance, personal understanding, or even those old-fashioned concepts of duty, and discipline in a common cause, are increasingly being replaced by a more atomised approach—contractual, legal, codified relationships. The Government want to introduce that culture to the armed forces where it is fundamentally inappropriate.
  The second and blatant characteristic of the Government's approach to the Bill, which has been revealed in all its worrying horror, is that, when they look at military matters, they do not consider first what is in the interests of national defence. There has not been the slightest attempt to argue that the Bill is required in the interests of national defence. Even more amazing, there has not been the slightest attempt to argue that it is in the interests of justice for members of our armed services. No one on the Government Benches, including the Minister of State, has said that there was injustice at present because of the right of a commanding officer to arrest someone who had misbehaved, or to make a summary judgment.
  We have an extraordinary situation. This country's armed services are in crisis. The Army is under strength, and training exercises are being abandoned. We hear from an admiral who writes in The Times that the Navy cannot carry out planned exercises because it cannot afford the fuel. The Army is running out of spares in Kosovo and perhaps elsewhere. Military procurement is in a mess. I understand—I have tabled a parliamentary question about the matter and am looking forward to an answer—that military suppliers are being asked not to invoice the Government until the new financial year because they are running out of money.
  All that the Government can do against all that is to come forward with this particular form of bureaucratic, politically correct gibberish. That is the best response that we can get from them to the crisis that affects the armed services. That gibberish is the best that Ministers could come up with to deal with the deep concerns of the men and women in our armed services.
  The shame of the Government's behaviour has been demonstrated graphically today by the fact that the great bulk of the parliamentary Labour party stayed away throughout this debate, and that only one of them could be borne upon to speak in favour of the Government's proposals.
  6.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate my hon. Friends on their good sense in not attending the debate, as they have not had to listen to the drivel to which I have been subjected for the past five and a half hours. However, I reciprocate the congratulations of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), and congratulate him on his first appearance as part of the Opposition defence team. I congratulate him also on the style—of which I have had some previous experience—if, alas, not on the content of his speech.
  The Ministry of Defence does not introduce much primary legislation, other than the five-yearly Armed Forces Bills, which are needed to continue the life of the single services discipline Acts. The discipline Acts provide the statutory authority, subject to annual continuance orders, for the system of discipline in the armed forces, and, by extension, for the existence of the armed forces themselves. The quinquennial Bills are used not only to achieve most of what the services require in primary legislation, but, primarily, to update the service discipline Acts—for example, to reflect changes in the civilian criminal justice system. The next review is due in the 2000–01 Session.
  The Armed Forces Discipline Bill covers precisely the type of territory that might be included in a quinquennial Bill, and hon. Members are right to ask why we are considering such a Bill in the current Session. The answer, of course, springs wholly from the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates in United Kingdom law the majority of the articles of the European convention on human rights. The main provisions of the 1998 Act are due to be commenced in October 2000. A principle is that all legislation should, as far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with the convention—[Interruption.]
  I apologise to the House for having to go into the issues in some detail, but—having listened to the speeches by Opposition Members—it is clear that they really do not understand very much of what the Armed Forces Discipline Bill is about. It might have helped if they had read it a little more carefully, although I have much sympathy for the hon. Member—I apologise; I do not remember who it was—who described the great difficulty that he had in going through the Bill. I myself had the same problem when I first received the Bill. As I said, the Ministry of Defence does not introduce much legislation, and, therefore, I had a rude shock.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Moonie: I shall not give way; alas there is not enough time to do so. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  The Department does not deal with much legislation, and I sympathise with those who have described the sheer complexity of reading three discipline Acts simultaneously. I assure them that they have in me a wholehearted supporter for reform and consolidation of the Acts as soon as is practicable.
  Mr. Colvin: When?
  Dr. Moonie: It will not be in the next quinquennial review—it is just not possible to do it in time for

  1199
  that—but I certainly hope that it will be done in time for the subsequent review. I think that that is the best offer that right. hon. and hon. Members have had on that subject for the past 20 years, since we first started considering the issue. We shall certainly do our best to do that.
  Opposition Members have suggested that the Bill is merely a matter for the Government. However, when we introduce this type of Bill, we act on advice. The current chiefs of staff, of all three services, and General Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, have agreed that aspects of the current disciplinary system are untenable. They are also clear that abandoning summary justice is equally untenable.
  The proposals in the Bill are, therefore, necessary to ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights. That is the opinion of the services, of the Department and of our council.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Moonie: I shall not.
  The chiefs have agreed that the alternatives to the Bill's provisions—to restrict commanding officers to dealing only with minor disciplinary offences, or to maintain the current system, in the widespread knowledge that it is incompatible with the European convention on human rights—would both destabilise the operation of summary jurisdiction and seriously undermine the authority of the chain of command.
  The services, at all levels, wish to introduce compliant disciplinary procedures as soon as possible. Ideally, they would like revised procedures to be introduced during the current legislative session. That is the firm recommendation of the chiefs of staff.
  The new procedures have been developed with considerable care over the past 12 months or so, with the close involvement of the services. We have sought to preserve the integrity of the system and the powers of the commanding officers to the greatest extent possible. The chiefs of staff are satisfied that those objectives have been achieved in a way that matches the needs of the services and the rights of the individual.
  Due to the number of right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in the debate, I do not have long to reply, so I shall respond to as many points as I can in the time available. Alas, I shall not be able to take further interventions. If right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute further they will have to join us in Committee or when we consider the Bill on Report. I am sure that they will do so at considerable length.
  I shall start with the Hood case. One of the applicant's complaints was that his commanding officer could not be considered impartial in relation to authorising his pre-trial detention and that this was in violation of article 5 of the European convention on human rights—the right to liberty. The court concluded that the applicant's misgivings were objectively justified. That led us to introduce the changes in the Bill dealing with pre-trial custody. It also led us to review the implications for other measures where the independence of the commanding
  1200
  officer might be challenged. On the basis of legal advice, that resulted in the provisions in the Bill dealing with appeals.
  Much has been made of the possibility of operational difficulties brought about by the provisions for pre-trial custody which relate to the situation before someone is charged. It is our general opinion that 96 hours should be the absolute maximum allowed. Of course, there might be circumstances in which pre-trial custody would not be practical, such as on a submarine. In those circumstances the provisions could not be applied. I should say that so far no service men have been subjected to custody in one of our submarines. I sincerely hope that that situation will not arise in future, but I cannot guarantee it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke about civilians. Civilians are subject to service law if they are attached to our forces overseas. Those affected could include teachers, dependants, NAAFI managers and others. If they are accused of an offence under service law, they may be tried either by a standing civilian court similar to a magistrates court or by court martial, depending on the gravity of the offence. If necessary, on serious charges, they will be held in pre-trial custody. In future that will be in accordance with the procedures in the Bill. If they receive a custodial sentence, it would be served in a Home Office prison in the United Kingdom.
  A point was raised on flexibility, which is clearly a matter that we could debate at great length. I shall make just three points which are related, but not closely linked. First, a wide range of legally qualified individuals will be eligible to be appointed as judicial officers. The main criteria, which are outlined in clause 7, include five years qualified experience as a solicitor or barrister. Qualifications do not have to be British: Commonwealth qualifications count. Lawyers other than those of the accused's service will be eligible to act as judicial officers in joint operations and that will provide further options.
  The Bill provides for the use of live television links. I do not intend to get into a nerds' debate with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), because we can do that in the comfort and quiet of somewhere where other people do not have to listen to us. I shall say a few words on the technical aspect later, if I have time, but they are on another page of my notes and I am trying to give as accurate a response as I can.
  On flexibility and timing—the main points at issue—the Bill provides that after charge anyone whom the commanding officer believes should be held in custody should be brought before the judicial officer as soon as practicable. That would mean that it would be reasonable in appropriate circumstances to postpone the hearing until operational imperatives permit.
  The point about derogation was largely answered by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The French have a reservation rather than a derogation, and they did not ratify the convention until the 1970s whereas we ratified in 1951. When a state accedes—and at no other time—it is entitled to make a reservation. The French chose to use theirs in relation to articles 5 and 6—the rights to liberty and fair trial, which are the very ones we are addressing in the Bill—for their system of discipline in the armed forces. The only way for an existing member state to secure a new reservation is to denounce—which means

  1201
  leave—the convention and then to re-accede. There are legal doubts about that, but the political implications would be even more significant, except to those such as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
  Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Moonie: No, I shall not. I fear that there is not only an absence of sense on the Conservative Benches but an absence of hearing.
  A state may invoke a derogation from the convention in circumstances of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation. The threatening of the life of the nation phrase is understood to apply to war as well as to other public emergencies.
  On video links—I have come to the right piece of paper—we are currently trialling video equipment to ensure that the quality of the equipment is suitable for the purpose for which it will be used. The equipment currently used operates at 28 kilobytes. The equipment is capable of showing a wide-angle picture of an entire room or of zooming in on an accused in fine detail, just as it is used in court hearings, especially those involving children. Although we can use Inmarsat—the international maritime satellite—commercial links, there is no question that commercial television satellites would be used, because we have access to other means of communication. If the hon. Member for Lichfield looks over his notes, he will find that he is out by a factor of 10. It is an easy mistake to make and I have often made it myself.
  Points were made about the change in the time at which the election may be made. The main reason for that change is because the procedure might appear to have some of the characteristics of an appeal. We wish to avoid any possible confusion in that respect now that we are introducing a right of appeal.
  The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the issue of the sentence level. Contrary to the civil procedure, we think that it should be guaranteed to a serving individual that the sentence would be no worse than he or she would be subjected to under the summary proceeding so as not to influence their decision on whether to choose a court martial. That may well be different to the civil proceeding but we start from a different premise and that is to guarantee that people are not deflected from making the proper choice.
  The legal aid system is available to those subject to service law and broadly mirrors the criteria applied by the civilian court. I regret that I cannot cover in the time available any more of the points that were made, much as I would like to. Existing procedures have served the armed forces well, but we cannot safely persist with all aspects of them—hence the Bill, which I commend to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 298.

  Division No. 82]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beggs, Roy

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Baldry, Tony

  Body, Sir Richard

  1202

  Boswell, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Lidington, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Luff, Peter

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Burns, Simon

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cash, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Malins, Humfrey

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Maples, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clappison, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Norman, Archie

  (Rushcliffe)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Collins, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paice, James

  Cran, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Pickles, Eric

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Prior, David

  Day, Stephen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Robertson, Laurence

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Faber, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fallon, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Flight, Howard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gale, Roger

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gray, James

  Syms, Robert

  Green, Damian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Townend, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Hayes, John

  Trend, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Viggers, Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Walter, Robert

  Horam, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hunter, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilkinson, John

  Johnson Smith,

  Willetts, David

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wilshire, David

  Key, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. John Randall and

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-

  Leigh, Edward

  Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Austin, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Banks, Tony

  Allan, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Beard, Nigel

  Ashton, Joe

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  1203

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Best, Harold

  Flint, Caroline

  Betts, Clive

  Flynn, Paul

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Follett, Barbara

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foulkes, George

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Gerrard, Neil

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burstow, Paul

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hancock, Mike

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hope, Phil

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Denham, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Efford, Clive

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Love, Andrew

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fisher, Mark

  McCabe, Steve

  1204

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rogers, Allan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McDonnell, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Roy, Frank

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sawford, Phil

  McWalter, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morley, Elliot

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

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

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mountford, Kali

  Timms, Stephen

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Truswell, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Olner, Bill

  Tynan, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pearson, Ian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pendry, Tom

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pike, Peter L

  White, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Pope, Greg

  (Swansea W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Willis, Phil

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wills, Michael

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Winnick, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Woodward, Shaun

  Purchase, Ken

  Woolas, Phil

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rapson, Syd

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wyatt, Derek

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 131.

  The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 131.

  Division No. 83]

  [7.11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dobbin, Jim

  Alexander, Douglas

  Dowd, Jim

  Allan, Richard

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Edwards, Huw

  Austin, John

  Efford, Clive

  Banks, Tony

  Ennis, Jeff

  Barnes, Harry

  Etherington, Bill

  Barron, Kevin

  Feam, Ronnie

  Bayley, Hugh

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Beard Nigel

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Fitzpatrick, jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Rjnt Caro|lne

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Follett, Barbara

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Rt, Hon Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Borrow, David

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brand, Dr Peter

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Browne, Desmond

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Grogan,John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, Peter

  Cann Jamie

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Hancock, Mike

  Caton, Martin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cawsey, Ian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoey, Kate

  Colman, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hope, Phil

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnoson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones Mre Fiona (Newark)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Denham, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  1206

  Kemp, Fraser

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rapson, Syd

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rendel, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooney, Terry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Linton, Martin

  Roy, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Love, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonnell, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Singh, Marsha

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall, David (Shettteston)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Maxton, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meate, Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Timms, Stephen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Todd, Mark

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Trickett, Jon

  Moriey, Elliot

  Truswell, Paul

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

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mountford, Kali

  Tynan, Bill

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  vis, Dr Rudi

  Mullin, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  White, Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Olner, Bill

  Pearson, Ian

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Willis, Phil

  Pickthall, Colin

  wills, Michael

  Pike, Peter L

  Winnick, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Pond, Chris

  Woolas, Phil

  Pound, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Purchase, Ken

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  1207

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Amess, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Baldry, Tony

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Beggs, Roy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lidington, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Brady, Graham

  Luff, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Maples, John

  Butterfill, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Nicholls, Patrick

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Norman, Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Clappison, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Page, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Paice, James

  (Rushcliffe)

  Paterson, Owen

  Collins, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Colvin, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Prior, David

  Cran, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Robertson, Laurence

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ruffley, David

  Day, Stephen

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Duncan, Alan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Evans, Nigel

  Shepherd, Richard

  Faber, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Flight, Howard

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spring, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Steen, Anthony

  Fraser, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gale, Roger

  Swayne, Desmond

  Garnier, Edward

  Syms, Robert

  Gibb, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Green, Damian

  Tredinnick, David

  Greenway, John

  Trend, Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Viggers, Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Walter, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Wardle, Charles

  Hayes, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Heald, Oliver

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Whittingdale, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Horam, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Willetts, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith,

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mr. John Randall and

  Key, Robert

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

ARMED FORCES DISCIPLINE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred in consequence of the establishment by the Act of summary appeal courts; and

(b) any additional expenditure on the armed forces which is attributable to the Act.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question agreed to.

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

LONDON GOVERNMENT
That the draft Greater London Authority (Disqualification) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

THE 1999 REVIEW OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AND RADIO SPECTRUM POLICY
That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 12838/99, the Commission's Fifth Report on the implementation of the telecommunications regulatory package, 12839/99, Commission Communication: Towards a new framework for electronic communications infrastructure and associated services: the 1999 Communications Review, 14320/98, Commission Green Paper on radio spectrum policy in the context of European Community policies such as telecommunications, broadcasting, transport and research and development, and 12840/99, Commission Communication, The next steps in radio spectrum policy—Results of the public consultation on the Green Paper; welcomes these Communications; and supports the Government's proposed response to them.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Sessional Orders [25th October 1999] relating to Thursday sittings and Meetings of standing committees and the Sessional Order [24th May 1999] relating to sittings in Westminster Hall shall apply to times of sitting on Tuesday 22nd February as if that day were a Thursday.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Primary Care (Cancer)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
7.22 pm
Mr. David Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister and other hon. Members the role of primary care in the treatment of cancer. I shall discuss present practice, current shortfalls and some potential improvements.
Cancer places a heavy burden of disease on the community. One in three people in the United Kingdom will contract cancer in his or her lifetime and one in four will die from it—compared with 5 per cent. of all deaths at the beginning of the last century. The factors driving the increase in cancer-related deaths include both better control of infectious illnesses and ageing of the population, because two thirds of all cancers occur in the over-60s.
The good news is that, as medical techniques and health services continue to improve, age-specific cancer mortality rates will fall. Even now, about a million British people diagnosed in previous years with cancer have effectively been cured of the condition or are living with it. Those numbers will rise, and that brings into sharp focus the role of primary care in the treatment of cancer, which I shall argue needs to be given a higher profile and greater resources.
As noted by Dr. Nick Summerton in his recent book on primary cancer care, the general practitioner's most fundamental role for many patients is being able to act appropriately when they attend with a symptom that concerns them. In a recent review of complaints about general practitioners received by the Medical Defence Union, failure or delay in diagnosis accounted for 28 per cent. of the notifications in 1998. The most frequent clinical condition associated with diagnostic failure or delay was missed malignancy.
Primary care clinicians are often in a very difficult position in relation to diagnosis of cancer, which frequently presents with common symptoms such as non-specific abdominal pain or a persistent cough. Of course, only a tiny number of people displaying such symptoms who are seen by a GP will prove to have cancer.
Dr. Summerton noted an acute dilemma for general practitioners. While on the one hand they are always aware of the importance of avoiding over-referral or over-investigation of their patients, on the other they continually strive not to miss important conditions in patients. That invidious position is complicated by the human trait of patients of delaying initial consultation with their doctor about potentially significant symptoms. Thus, GPs have to be trained and skilled in identifying, within a largely unselected population, which symptomatic patients are more likely to have malignant disease. A different approach to diagnosis may be needed in dealing with community-based patients, who are often less familiar with medical terminology than those who attend clinics.
The Government's initiative of a maximum two-week wait for cancer patients is a most welcome move to relieve patients' anxieties. It is both an opportunity and a challenge for general practitioners. It is an opportunity, in
1210
that family doctors can assume important new and overdue responsibilities for developing higher quality oncology services. Oncological research and development is driven by agencies, organisations and interests that are not always fully aware of the primary care and community dimension.
The capped waiting time is a challenge as the average GP sees just two patients a day with symptoms of cancer—fortunately, most do not have it—and might only diagnose lung cancer, the most common form of the disease, just once a year.
I said that a central task for GPs has traditionally been to avoid overreaction to low-risk situations, but we must treat GPs fairly. If, in future, we expect them to refer more low-risk patients to specialists in the hope of detecting a limited number of additional early cancers, the taxpayer must foot the bill. If, conversely, GPs are urged not to overload limited or expensive hospital facilities, we must not blame them too readily for the missed cancers that could be a consequence of more restricted diagnostic strategies.
To prevent hospitals being over-burdened with referrals and to reduce patient anxiety, two areas must be addressed. First, research is needed to find the evidence about which symptom clusters and findings put the patient at higher risk of having cancer and to define those cancer patients who can be safely and conveniently followed up in primary care, thereby relieving the burden on secondary care.
Mr. Andrew Reed: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only GPs who are important in that primary care group, but the whole spectrum of those who are involved in such care, particularly nurses in the community, and it is necessary to take a holistic approach and ensure that they are included in the strategies that he has mentioned?
Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I am coming to the importance of the whole team being involved in the support of cancer patients.
The second area that needs to be addressed is effective, evidence-based education for GPs and nurses, which is a prerequisite to allow them to implement existing knowledge in all practices. Dr. Arthur Hibble, who leads for the Royal College of General Practitioners on cancer, describes the role of primary care in the patient's cancer journey as aiming to highlight risk prevention, including issues such as diet, tobacco and occupation, and to diagnose cancer early, either in screening programmes or by recognition of disease. There must be prompt appropriate referral to recognised centres. Primary care must include continuing care of the person and their families and carers in all areas of their health. There must be recognition of recurrence, and finally palliative and terminal care at home.
Dr. Hibble flags up the issues for primary care cancer services. They must incorporate effective interpersonal communication skills, in order to diagnose and explain better to patient and carers; professional knowledge and information about cancer; high-quality interprofessional communications in every aspect of referral to specialist service and patient management; multi-professional team working; and, most important of all, a service provision of consistently high quality.

1211
I shall take a more detailed look at that last issue because there is an immense variability of service provision in our country. As a Back Bencher, I am proud of the various cancer initiatives that the Government health team have introduced. Indeed, just weeks ago, I congratulated the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), on the launch of the cancer services collaboratives with their nine pilot national networks, including one part based in north-west Leicestershire, which involves the local primary care group, the Measham medical unit and Glenfield hospital near Leicester.
I know, from talking to Dr. Orest Mulka and Dr. Pawan Randev at the Measham practice and from listening to patient and carer stories, that the way in which cancer sufferers throughout the country are cared for in the community is very variable, with excellent care in one area accompanying the unacceptable in another. The proportion of cancer patients being looked after at home nationwide varies from 13 per cent. to over 50 per cent.
Now, the diagnosis of cancer is, in most cases, suspected or confirmed in primary care. Most of a patient's cancer journey is spent in primary care. Yet, with recent changes in out-of-hours provision by general practitioners, most patients are looked after by doctors other than their own for most of the 24-hour period. That can lead to variable quality care, but need not if the issue of communication is adequately addressed. I shall return to this point shortly.
The primary health care team offers continuity for the patient. The average patient encounters around 25 doctors during hospital care, but usually has one GP and a named nurse in the practice. The all-important patient-doctor relationship is usually well established prior to a diagnosis of cancer.
The family is a vital part of the care team for most patients. The family can care for most patients at home, but doing so needs a high level of appropriate support from GPs, nurses and other members of the primary health care team who are only too willing to do so if they are properly resourced.
Primary care is responsible for the round-the-clock, everyday response to cancer patients' physical and psychological problems. Out-of-hours arrangements are implemented almost universally, but, with appropriate measures, they can be seamless for cancer patients dying at home. Quality improvement in primary care cancer is needed. Service improvements in primary care can, I believe, be achieved via a system of accreditation. Such a system for hospitals is a major outcome of the Calman-Hine report, and it has improved quality of care in the hospital sector.
Primary care has a greater quality variability than the hospitals had, but there has still been no significant move towards a national system of accreditation for primary care. Without such a quality system, patients can feel vulnerable and powerless. They feel that they are not being heard by professionals, and have inadequate information to make decisions on their treatment. They are worried about continuity of care—especially at nights and at weekends, when access to their notes is often difficult. Patients do not always have information about
1212
specific treatments and complications, and in the terminal stages of some cancers, their wish to die at home is not granted.
The whole medical profession supports the principles of the Calman-Hine report, whereby diagnosis and treatment of cancer takes place in specialised centres. However, there is at present no specific role for primary care in the clinical management of cancer patients. One should be developed, having at its heart cancer: accredited general practices whose approach is centred on patients, listening to their experiences and respecting their wishes for care at home. It should involve the whole primary health care team—as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) pointed out—including nursing staff and others, use patient-held records to improve communication and collaboration, and incorporate a practice-based cancer registry of patient information with appropriate data collection systems. Finally, the approach should have access to appropriate equipment, reference material and support groups for patients and carers.
Two practices in Leicestershire—I have already referred to one—have been performing a pilot year of accreditation for cancer management in primary care. The practices were supported by the health authority up to this year, when the obligation fell to the primary care groups. The PCGs have, however, been unable to support the practices financially. Fourteen out of the 15 practices in the North-West Leicestershire PCG wish to be involved, but the project marks time while it awaits secure funding. Protecting resources for primary care development is thus necessary.
North-West Leicestershire PCG had earmarked a small sum—£120,000—out of a budget of £90 million for all primary care development, but that was deleted as a result of the unexpectedly steep rise in the cost of generic drugs. A slightly larger sum is earmarked for next year, but it is vulnerable to any crisis in the secondary care sector, such as bed pressures or flu outbreaks. A ring-fenced budget for primary care development would address the problem, which is unique neither to cancer care nor to Leicestershire.
Primary care is evolving from a history of isolated small practices. Each primary health care team should not have to reinvent the wheel of high-quality cancer management in the community. There is a need for a national framework that teams can pick off the shelf, with the appropriate financial back-up available. The framework would encompass a system of cancer accreditation, which I have outlined, audit modules to allow quality to be improved and educational modules for all members of the team.
Such a framework would clearly also use the expertise and experience of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Nursing, cancer charities and the national health service. It would respond to groups campaigning on these matters such as BACUP—the British Association of Cancer United Patients—CERT and the NHS confederation. It would look to Macmillan, which has much relevant training experience.

1213
Patients want better-quality cancer treatment, as near to home as possible when that can be provided safely. This fits with current policy on the importance of primary care and it can be delivered, but it needs protected investment in primary care, as well as the current investments in secondary care.
I pose four questions to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the profession. How can patient wishes about place of care be best fulfilled? What proportion of cancer development funding should be earmarked for primary care? How can primary care development budgets be protected from unexpected overspends in other parts of a PCG's budget? Finally, are the Government prepared to offer a firm commitment to pump-prime key aspects of primary care oncological research and development, and to support and resource general primary care oncology? I would appreciate an early response to those key questions.
High-quality, generalisable primary care oncological diagnostic research is difficult. The types of large, prospective and methodologically rigorous cohort studies needed will require significant amounts of time, funding, collaboration and organisation, which are not in any plan of which I am aware. Furthermore, such research needs to be built on a robust foundation involving broad-ranging, systematic reviews combined with qualitative and quantitative re-examinations of patients' paths to diagnosis. Unfortunately, it is proving to be a Herculean effort to convince the major cancer charities and the Department of Health of the enormous practical value of such work and the need to alter their funding strategies to accommodate it.
I am delighted that, two weeks ago, the Department announced £23 million of funding for the Living with Cancer programme, which will enable more cancer patients to be treated at home, and will provide more support for those who are caring for them. Many thousands of cancer patients and their families will benefit from the programme. I hope that it will be extended into other areas, both geographical and professional.
The missing element in high-quality cancer care is a case manager, who would ensure proper co-ordination of care, appropriate support services, including counselling, and the existence of an advocate for the patient in the event of problems. I contend that the primary health care team is well placed to undertake that role under existing commissioning arrangements, but with the new accreditation system that I have outlined.
For too long, the role of primary care in the treatment of cancer patients has been undervalued and under-resourced. Active and aggressive treatments have obtained great investment and have been successful in many ways, but primary care, given certainty of research funds, a flexible education programme and imaginative development, can do much more, especially when allied to the magnificent services offered by Macmillan.
I hope that the Minister will agree that early diagnosis and quality continuing patient care deserve a higher priority in the exciting national cancer care programme on which our Labour Government have embarked. I urge her to persuade our right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to invest in developing the role of primary care in the treatment of cancer.
7.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on choosing to debate the role of primary care in the treatment of cancer. It is a timely choice of topic, as the Government are developing cancer services across the spectrum. I know that Leicestershire is a national site for the cancer services collaborative programme, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and that the development of primary care services for patients with cancer and of palliative care services have been key issues for the Leicestershire cancer centre.
As my hon. Friend knows, at the heart of our health modernisation programme is a determination to reduce the impact of cancer on people's lives and to create the best cancer service in the world. We have set a challenging target to reduce the death rate from cancer by 20 per cent. by 2010, preventing 100,000 deaths. To succeed, we will need to deliver a tough programme of action spanning prevention, screening, early diagnosis and high-quality treatment and care. Primary care has a role to play at every stage in the treatment of cancer.
I shall cover some of the general issues raised by my hon. Friend, and then deal with some of the detailed questions that he raised. The advent of primary care groups last year, and the first primary care trusts this April, means that local clinicians are firmly in the driving seat in delivering the new NHS. Local general practitioners and primary care teams ensure continuity of care, informed advice, treatment and, when required, referral to secondary care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) said, that means the entire primary care team, not simply the general practitioners who work in primary care. The primary care teams care for patients on their discharge and, in the case of terminally ill patients, until their death.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire is right to say that we need to be confident that appropriate models of cancer care are in place to meet the significant changes expected in our society over the next few years—changes in the population's age structure, in inequalities, in the availability of informal care and in expectations.
Primary care has an important role to play in terms of prevention, particularly in regard to cancer. With an ageing population, the incidence of cancer is likely to rise, but preventive measures, including action on smoking, diet, alcohol, exercise, exposure to the sun, will affect the risk of developing cancer. There is good evidence of the effectiveness of brief interventions by primary care teams in reducing alcohol intake and in encouraging people who want to give up smoking.
Primary care also works with local authorities, in settings such as schools, workplaces and the community, to promote healthy life styles. Nor should we overlook the role of community pharmacists, dentists and optometrists, each of whom provides health services to a substantial proportion of the population each year, and often offers advice on prevention or identifies symptoms of disease.

1215
We continually look for innovative ways to improve health promotion and prevent ill health and cancer, putting additional resources into services for ethnic minorities and for people in low income areas, and, in particular, working with the public health development fund on matters such as smoking cessation.
The role of primary care is important in tackling health inequalities, particularly with regard to cancer. There is some evidence that patients from low-income areas are diagnosed with more advanced tumours than those from higher-income backgrounds. That may be one reason why people from low-income areas have worse survival rates. Health authorities and primary care groups have a key role in addressing such health inequalities. Their role is vital, especially through local health improvement programmes.
Primary care groups have an important role to play in tackling health inequalities through health action zones. The 26 zones are trailblazers, leading the way in tackling health inequalities, acting as test beds for innovation and recognising that the health service cannot do everything in terms of improving people's health.
Primary care also has a role to play in terms of screening for cervical and breast cancer by providing information and education, directly undertaking cervical smears, and by assisting with call and recall programmes for breast screening. We also know that uptake of screening programmes varies across the country from one group to another. Primary care, working with other agencies, can play a vital role in increasing uptake and encouraging health awareness.
My hon. Friend talked in particular about diagnosis and treatment referral. He is right to say that people need to have confidence in their health service, so that, if they have symptoms that could be caused by cancer, they can discuss them with their GP and be referred quickly and appropriately if necessary.
Although cancer is a common problem, with 220,000 new cases diagnosed each year in England and Wales, an individual GP is unlikely to see more than eight or nine cases a year. The task for GPs is to differentiate between patients whose symptoms may be cancer and the much larger group of patients with similar symptoms arising from other causes. My hon. Friend is right to say that that creates important challenges for primary care teams.
That is why we are working with primary and secondary care groups, the voluntary sector and patient groups to develop cancer guidelines for primary health care teams to help them identify those patients most likely to have cancer and to require urgent specialist investigation. Equally, the guidelines will help GPs identify those patients who are unlikely to have cancer or who may require alternative treatment or diagnosis. The guidelines have been issued for consultation. We received many comments on them and we are revising them in the light of those comments.
General practitioners are naturally concerned to ensure that we continue to undertake research to determine the symptoms or signs that indicate someone who has a higher risk of developing cancer and the patients who can be safely followed up through primary care.
1216
Cancer and primary care constituted two of five topic working groups in the recent strategic review of the NHS research and development levy. That reflects their high priority in the Department's research and development activities. The sub-groups on cancer and primary care acted together closely and thus provided an integrated approach. That is important. They recommended a series of priorities for NHS research and development, which reflected gaps in the current evidence base for services and planned service developments. The Department is considering the best way of taking those recommendations forward.
We have also set up a cancer research funders forum to help improve the strategic co-ordination of research and to examine all categories of research including life style, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment.
My hon. Friend mentioned the two-week wait. He is right to say that, for patients who have suspected cancer, seeing a specialist quickly is extremely important. That is why, since April 1999, all patients with suspected breast cancer who are referred urgently by their GPs have been offered an appointment within two weeks. During the next year, we will roll out that high standard of care for all cases of suspected cancer that require an urgent specialist investigation.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the way in which primary care provides physical, psychological and emotional support, acts as link and advocate with the secondary and tertiary sectors, and deals with parallel non-cancer illnesses. It also gives the crucial continuity of care and support that nothing else can provide.
Primary care is vital to providing palliative care, which is a core responsibility for GPs and community nursing. The primary care team has, and will continue to have, a central role in providing and accessing palliative and terminal care for patients.
By introducing pooled budget arrangements with social care agencies, the funding for primary care allows primary care groups and primary care teams to develop innovative and flexible services to tackle their local communities' needs, thus making the best use of the resources that we can make available to them.
My hon. Friend raised several specific anxieties about resources. As he knows, we have already put significant additional investment into cancer services. In addition to the £23 million that he mentioned to support the living with cancer programme, another £93 million from the new opportunities fund is being used to buy new equipment for cancer screening, early diagnosis and treatment.
From April this year, £80 million over the next two years will support improved access to cancer care, and we are encouraging health authorities to engage with primary care to support educational arrangements to help implement national cancer referral guidelines and ensure that patients are speedily referred.
However, as my hon. Friend said, we also need to consider how we can minimise variation in cancer care delivery within primary care. Professor Mike Richards, the national cancer director, is already leading work to

1217
develop a national quality improvement framework. That will concentrate initially on developing standards of care for secondary and tertiary cancer care.
I know of the excellent work in Leicester, and that the development of a GP practice cancer accreditation programme has recently been awarded primary care NHS beacon status. I have asked Professor Richards to explore with leading GPs and other interested groups whether we should consider rolling out the quality improvement framework to encompass primary care, and to develop a framework for ensuring consistency across the country through investment in cancer education and audit in primary care so that we can deliver a consistent, high-quality service.
1218
We believe that there is considerable scope for developing the work of primary care in prevention, diagnosis, treatment, support and palliative care as well as in line with many of the points that my Friend made. I look forward to following developments in his area. I shall make sure that the experience in Leicestershire is fed into our developing national work.
The Government are determined to improve cancer services. The role of primary care in the prevention, early detection, treatment and care of cancer is vital to delivering the modern, seamless, comprehensive and high-quality service that we all want.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.

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

Africa
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.30 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Too many of the world's leaders, foreign-policy makers and media commentators have downgraded Africa, using the excuse that it is a failed continent of little strategic importance. The Labour Government entirely reject that stance. Our policy is one of constructive engagement by Britain in Africa. We have real interests in Africa, which represents one eighth of the world population. Last year, it registered the fastest rate of growth of any continent in the world. We do more than £10 billion of business with Africa every year. About 1 million citizens of British nationality live on the continent of Africa.
We also care for wider reasons. Africa can be a powerful force for good in an increasingly interdependent globe. The Government are committed to helping to sustain and spread democracy and prosperity throughout the world. We have a moral duty to help ordinary women and men of Africa to build better lives for themselves and their children. Failure in Africa will hurt not only Africans but us, too; it will require more aid and result in refugee flows and lost business opportunities. In Africa, ecological damage, disease, crime and terrorism know no frontiers.
Another reason for critical engagement is that in the past few years a new wind of change has started to blow through Africa. The land of my childhood, South Africa, has turned from international pariah to global role model and regional leader. The other pariah of Africa was Nigeria, which was bled dry by dictatorship. It was repressed and brutalised by a regime that kept one fifth of Africa's population in misery while it squandered massive natural wealth on itself. Now Nigeria is restoring democracy, rebuilding its economy and laying the foundations for a vibrant future. The two giants of Africa—South Africa and Nigeria—are getting back on track and sending the clearest signal to the world that, with human rights respected and good governance, Africa's future can be bright.
They are not the only points of light on the dark continent. Kenya could become a third giant. With our encouragement, President Moi has launched a radical programme of much-needed reform. Its success will make Kenya a regional beacon—stronger, richer and more democratic. We are supporting that reform programme to the hilt, and I shall discuss the subsequent stages with President Moi in Nairobi next week.
Without fuss, Botswana has been on an upward path to prosperity. Mali is quietly building a better future for its citizens and is the author of the far-sighted west
270WH
African small arms moratorium. After decades of chaos, which almost destroyed the country, Mozambique is now at peace and rebuilding itself. Ghana is moving successfully towards a peaceful democratic transition to a new generation of leaders. Sierra Leone is emerging from a decade of horror, with the chance to build lasting peace and prosperity.
There are success stories in Africa, but there are still some horrors. Angola is ravaged by civil war, land mines and devastating destruction, the main culprit being Jonas Savimbi's murderous UNITA gangsters. Yet it has enough riches and natural resources to feed the whole of southern Africa and be massively prosperous. We must end the war by enforcing United Nations sanctions against UNITA. Angola's vast oil wealth must be spent to improve the lot of the people. It should not be put into the pockets of corrupt politicians and officials.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend touched on a point of profound importance when he said that sanctions against Angola need to be effective. He will know, as I do, that the war is fuelled not only by internal rivalry but by those who are prepared to abuse the sanctions regime for personal or collective gain—sometimes people in high places—and to ensure that the diamonds find a market in the west so that Mr. Savimbi's war machine continues to be well provided for. How can we crack down on that evil, which continues to blight the lives of the people of Angola?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. He did much good work as the previous Minister of State, on that and other matters. I pay tribute to him. I agree that in some countries, including Zambia, Uganda and Rwanda, people in high positions are busting sanctions. It is imperative that those countries' Governments crack down on them immediately.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: It is estimated that well over $3 billion-worth of diamonds from Angola have been used by UNITA since 1991. With such a value, surely a record is being kept of who is trading in them. We should be able to take action to stop it.
Mr. Hain: Again, that is an important point. I am glad that those matters are being raised, because sanctions busting is going on all over the world. That is why we are working with De Beers and other international diamond companies to achieve a self-certification scheme that will allow us to distinguish between clean diamonds, such as those mined in South Africa, Botswana and Namibia, and blood diamonds from Angola and Sierra Leone.
Britain's policy in Africa is clear and unequivocal. We will back success. We will support those who stand up for democracy and human rights. We will help Governments who want to reform their economies. We will support just solutions—African solutions—to African problems. We will work with those African leaders who commit themselves to freeing their people from poverty. We will help empower ordinary African women and men to build a better future for themselves.
The reverse is also true. We will not support corrupt Governments. We will not subsidise economic mismanagement. We will not fund repression or

271WH
bankroll dictatorship. Those evils have failed Africa and we will not back failure. We will speak out against failure, and do all that we can to help ordinary African people to establish their rights and the future to which they are entitled.
The people of Zimbabwe voted against the introduction of a new constitution that did not adequately reflect their wishes. I welcome President Mugabe's clear acceptance of the referendum result. I encourage his Government to seize the opportunity, listen to the people's voice and put in place proper machinery to ensure that the forthcoming parliamentary elections are free and fair. I publicly urge him, as I have consistently done in private, to abandon his disastrous economic policies and work with Zimbabwe's friends in the international community, such as Britain, to restore stability, growth and dignity. We want Zimbabwe to be a leader in Africa, not a loser.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister said that he welcomed President Mugabe's clear acceptance of the referendum result. Yet, from one of this morning's broadsheets, we learn that Zimbabwe is far from abandoning land seizure. Chen Chimutengwende, the information Minister, said that the land clause would be rushed through Parliament. Surely, that shows that Mugabe has not learned anything from the referendum result.
Mr. Hain: There is a difference between accepting a referendum result containing a question about the adoption of a new constitution that includes a clause about land reclamation, and dealing with that matter separately and in another fashion. I would urge caution over the question of land reclamation or rather, land seizure.
Mr. Paterson: Theft.
Mr. Hain: It is land seizure. However, that is not Zimbabwe's priority. The country has serious economic problems. It is almost toppling into a deep hole. It ought to be adopting modern economic policies, and Britain will work with the Zimbabwe Government if President Mugabe adopts that course.
The lives of too many African people are ruined by conflict, blighted by poverty and crushed by dictatorship. Africa has suffered more than half of the world's war-related deaths, and has more than 8 million refugees, returnees and displaced people. Wars kill more than just people; they kill prosperity and hope too.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister dealt with the economic situation in Zimbabwe. Given the parlous state of Zimbabwe's economy, is not Britain's bilateral aid now a powerful lever which the Government could use to ensure that there is proper respect for democracy in that country, that elections are conducted fairly and that the land seizure programme is stopped?
Mr. Hain: I do not think that we can use aid and development assistance in the crude way that the hon.
272WH
Gentleman suggests. It is important that Governments, such as that of Zimbabwe, understand that the reason that our aid and development programme is relatively low in Zimbabwe is that we have not been confident that the Government would deliver any development assistance to genuinely empower and help the people, as is done in other African countries, which we are assisting to far greater effect. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development would want to provide extra aid and development assistance to Zimbabwe if it were to adopt modern progressive policies and if we could be sure that the assistance would reach the people whom it is designed to help.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Can the Minister tell me what representations he has made to the Department for International Development about both the European Union aid programme for Zimbabwe and the bilateral aid programme? Can he tell the House how much the bilateral aid programme between Britain and Zimbabwe is worth, and whether he has asked for the programme to be halted or audited in any way?
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken a close interest in Zimbabwe. The aid that she is responsible for providing is delivered through non-governmental organisations to ensure that the issue of poverty elimination is addressed. We do not want to cut aid as the Opposition seem to be advocating if that would damage poor people's prospects, but we are determined to ensure that aid is not siphoned off in any way, and that is why it is not delivered through the Government.
We must prevent wars from starting. That means tackling the root causes of conflict—oppression, injustice and poverty. We have substantially increased our development assistance budget as a key part of that strategy and we have led the world in debt relief. Improving governance in African countries is a critical element. Good governments rarely go to war. They work with others, such as in the Organisation for African Unity, to resolve issues before they ignite into conflict.
There is also a key role for security sector reform. Improving the quality, supervision, training and democratic accountability of more African armies and police forces would make a major contribution to human rights and the quality of life in Africa, where arbitrary and brutal exercise of force by the state is commonplace. We are working with Governments on that in Sierra Leone, Nigeria and elsewhere.
We must also prevent wars from being stoked. Guns are one of Africa's curses. That is why we have introduced strict criteria for arms sales, to which we are sticking rigorously. We recognise the right of self-defence; African Governments have legitimate security requirements, but we will not export arms that would be used for internal oppression or external aggression. That is why the Prime Minister announced last week a tightening of the policy towards African countries engaged in the Democratic Republic of Congo, including Zimbabwe. However, there is a key role for African Governments themselves in preventing the proliferation of weapons on the continent. That is why

273WH
we strongly support the west African small arms moratorium and a similar initiative that is being launched by Kenya for East Africa.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister has said a lot about arms control and I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that he will review the conditions on which arms are sent to African countries engaged in conflict. But after all he said about Zimbabwe—the parlous state of its economy and the fact that it is spending £1 million a day on waging war—does he not have any regrets about the decision to send Hawk jet parts to that country?
Mr. Hain: I applaud the hon. Lady for continuing energetically to flog this old horse. The fact is, however, that we have agreed to honour an existing contract to provide spares, which was entered into by the previous Conservative Government, who sold Hawk jets to Zimbabwe. In respect of new export licence applications made by African Governments for arms that could be used to fuel or encourage conflicts in the Congo, I should restate that we shall not supply arms for such external aggression. That is the important point and it is a considerable advance on anything that the Conservative party got near to when it was in government.
Where war has broken out, we need to find more effective ways to stop it. That means renewed efforts on effective sanctions. We are pushing for smarter sanctions that target the guilty and not the innocent, and we are looking for better ways of shutting down outlets for those profiting from African wars. We are ready to name, shame and take action where we can on those who break sanctions. For example, we would take action in respect of the illegal provision of UNITA with supplies, without which it could not keep fighting in Angola.
I have named in the House several people included in breaking UN sanctions by supplying UNITA and I shall now name more. David Zollman is involved in exporting diamonds to Antwerp for UNITA. Based in Rundu, Namibia, Zollman paid a monthly fee to Namibian officials to enable him to operate without interference. We estimate that in 1999, Zollman was moving $4 million-worth of diamonds per month. His brother, Maurice Zollman, is carrying out similar activity for UNITA in South Africa. Hennie Steyn, a South African pilot, flies diamonds for Maurice Zollman from Angola, via Congo Brazzaville. He also acts as a middleman for UNITA in selling diamonds to European dealers and part owns a UNITA diamond concession. Jan Joubert organises the supply of fuel to UNITA. Until recently, aircraft carrying the fuel flew from Gaberone to Andulo while pretending to fly to Francistown in eastern Botswana. Dennis Coghlan, an Irishman resident in Botswana, owns a warehouse in Gaberone that is used to store fuel and other supplies for UNITA until they can be flown into UNITA-held territory.
Those individuals are making money out of misery. It is vital that all the Governments, agencies and companies where they operate take urgent action to stop their illegal activities. Britain will continue to play an active role as a friend of Africa in the Security Council
274WH
of the United Nations, and where the UN can stop war or build peace we will back it to the hilt. We have passed the names to the UN and, in particular, to ambassador Robert Fowler, for his work on the sanctions committee responsible for tackling UNITA and Angola generally.
Mr. Jim Murphy: I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's comments and I am pleased that he has passed those names on to the UN. Are any UK citizens currently suspected of involvement in sanctions busting in support of UNITA?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are looking to see whether any UK citizens are involved in such activities. UNITA's global network is widespread and reaches into Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe as well as into Africa. Indeed, it reaches into eastern Europe. UNITA has, for example, been supplied with Ukrainian arms. I would not stand here and say that no UK citizens are involved, but I give a warning: if any are involved, they will be tracked down and tackled as they are acting illegally, because UN sanctions are a matter of international law.
We are also backing African solutions to African conflicts. We support and fund the Organisation for African Unity, ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—and other regional organisations in their own roles as peacekeepers and peacemakers. We also support individual African peacemakers. Next week, I shall join Nelson Mandela, at his request, at the Burundi peace talks in Arusha to help in his efforts to bring lasting peace to Burundi. The threat of renewed genocide still hangs over the beautiful and tragic region of the great lakes. We must lift that shadow for ever.
HIV/AIDS is killing more Africans than war. The scale of the epidemic is truly appalling. Every day, 5,500 Africans die of AIDS and some 24 million Africans south of the Sahara are HIV positive. The highest infection rates are among people aged between 15 and 24, taking them in the prime of their life. Half of all pregnant women in some of the worst-affected regions are HIV positive. The epidemic affects skilled professionals, which impacts on the education, health and private sectors. How does one plan for a school system in which a third of its trained staff will be dead within five years?
AIDS is a threat not only to health, but to economic development. It is undermining the progress that Africa has made in the past 30 years, slashing life expectancy, orphaning millions of children and destroying the capacity of skilled work forces. It is crippling Africa's rightful place in the world.
Dr. Tonge: The Secretary of State for International Development recently announced a £14 million contribution to AIDS vaccine research. We were pleased with that; everyone was excited. Have the Government made progress in persuading others, especially the United States Government, to contribute equal or greater sums to the research?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the subject. At last month's debate at the Security Council of the United Nations, Vice-President Gore pledged an extra $60 million of funding to tackle the AIDS problem in Africa.

275WH
We must not lose sight of the 650 million people in Africa who are HIV negative—we must keep hope for them. We know what works: reaching young people with the right information and training, providing condoms and ensuring that safe blood is available. Of course, we need care systems for those already infected with the virus. The Government are working hard to help to forge a co-ordinated response to the epidemic. More money must be found, and Africa's leaders must demonstrate more commitment. Where money and commitment go hand in hand, we have seen success—Uganda, for example, has made progress towards culling the epidemic.
A third challenge is to lift the debt burden that is crushing Africa. In 1998, sub-Saharan Africa's total debt was $226 billion, its new grants from the international community amounted to $15 billion and total debt service payments by Africa amounted to $15 billion. The net inflow to Africa was zero. Debt relief can free resources for priority spending and promote investment, and thus help poor countries to support poverty reduction, health and education. That is why the Government have led the international community in pushing for faster, deeper and wider debt relief.
Our support is not unconditional. Debt relief will work only when African Governments are committed to tackling poverty and to economic policies necessary to encourage growth. When they are, we shall back them to the hilt and support them in the international financial institutions.
Boosting trade and investment is Africa's fourth challenge. Some African Governments have acted to increase their competitiveness on world markets and to attract inward investment. We are encouraging others to follow their example. International finance is always looking for new opportunities. I met about 100 business people interested in Africa in the House of Lords over lunch yesterday. The challenge for Africa is not only to be attractive to traders and investors, but to offer opportunities that are more attractive than those elsewhere.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister agree that we must have an even harder and better policy on debt relief, and that it is important that we trace the millions, if not billions, of pounds that have been salted away in Swiss bank accounts? Our policy should guarantee—as far as it can—to get the money back by tracing it, in the same way that moneys associated with the Jewish holocaust have been traced.
Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution. We are working with the Nigerian Government to trace the hundreds of millions—possibly the billions—that were salted away by the previous regime of Abacha, and by his family. Some of it might be in Britain. The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue that we are seeking to address.
Globalisation is not a policy but a fact and an opportunity. If it is well managed, it will help to drive forward African efforts to build prosperity and to eliminate poverty. Badly managed, it will increase the divide between rich and poor. We are encouraging
276WH
African countries to engage actively with the World Trade Organisation and the key international players, and to help set the terms of the debate.
A fifth challenge for Africa is to build good Governments that act consistently in their people's interest. We are working in Africa to help build democracy—to ensure that people can choose and change their Governments freely and fairly. Human rights are at the core of that. We are working to protect and promote them across the continent. That is not just a moral imperative. Where they are respected, economies flourish. Human rights make humans rich.
We are working to promote more accountability in the way African countries are governed. We want to ensure that all those in authority are properly accountable for their actions. Free media, independent courts and a vibrant civil society are vital to Africa's future success. We are working, too, for more transparency, to ensure that ordinary Africans know what those in authority are doing. Secrecy breeds bad decision making and corruption. Open government is better government.
Corruption is not unique to Africa, but its effects are arguably uniquely bad there. Corruption is a tax on the poor by the rich. The world's poorest continent can least afford that tax. Corruption contributes to debt. It undermines the rule of law and Africa cannot afford it. Clean government, by contrast, attracts investment and business confidence. Corrupt Governments repel it and cheat their own people of the benefits. We are targeting corruption wherever we find it.
Britain's engagement in Africa is not just about what the British Government do. Business matters. Companies that do good do well. Non-governmental organisations make a real difference in working on development from the ground up. We work closely with them too. Human rights activists such as Amnesty International and Article 19 inform the Government and keep us on our toes. They play an even more important role in doing that for African Governments.
The Government work with, not against, our international partners in taking forward our African agenda. We have ended 130 years of historic rivalry with France in Africa. With the United States Administration in Washington and the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Dick Holbrooke, we have helped to harmonise our approach to African hot spots. We are working closely with our European Union partners. The European Union common position on democracy and human rights in Africa was written under our presidency.
The Government's vision is of an Africa at peace with itself and the world; a prosperous, democratic Africa in which the scourges of war, famine, disease and poverty are banished for ever; an Africa where ordinary people decide their own futures, freely and democratically; and an Africa as a good friend of Britain which recognises Britain as a good friend.
2.57 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is good to be back in Westminster Hall. This is the fullest I have ever seen it for a debate, and it is the first time that I have taken part in a three-hour debate. It is good to see the Minister here for the debate that he has initiated

277WH
looking so relaxed and suntanned. Several colleagues and I were also at yesterday's lunch, with more than 100 British business men and women who do business in Africa. We all appreciate the Minister's genuine concern and interest in Africa and his personal perspective on that country as a son of Africa, as he has dubbed himself. I wish him well with his brief.
I am, nevertheless, rather sad that the Minister's first outing with respect to this vast continent should be a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall on a subject so broad. It is impossible to cover all the issues and all the countries from Morocco to Mozambique, or Algeria to Angola. I recall one of the purposes of setting up Westminster Hall—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must address her comments to the subject of the debate, which has been determined by the authorities of the House of Commons. She can take up the question of why it is being held in Westminster Hall elsewhere.
Mrs. Gillan: I was going to say that, as the debate concerns the whole of Africa, I hope that the Minister will in future feel able to initiate regular debates on its regions. I hope that he will consider tabling a Government motion for a debate on each and every country in Africa to be held this Session. Africa could be debated much more fully in this Chamber if a Minister were present on a weekly basis.
Two or three matters illustrate the tale of two Africas, to which the Minister referred earlier. United Kingdom investment in Africa between 1983 and 1997 was about $5.7 billion—even more than investment from the United States, the second largest investor. The predicted growth for sub-Saharan Africa in 2000 is 3.9 per cent. Our commercial involvement in 1998, the last year for which figures are available, shows that 5 per cent. of all European Union exports to that region came from the United Kingdom and that UK exports account for 7 per cent. of all exports into sub-Saharan Africa.
We must take note of the reforms made and steps taken by African Governments to improve the foreign, direct investment climate: with tremendous private sector encouragement, the improved environment has resulted in more than 40 countries becoming members of the World Trade Organisation. There are about 17 broad-based privatisation programmes in place, and it is no secret that Africa looked to the United Kingdom, and the fine example set by Conservative Governments with regard to privatisation, to base their hope for a rosy economic future. Indeed, 25 countries in sub-Saharan Africa are at present transferring all or part of their telecommunications ownership from the state to the private sector, and there are plenty of opportunities there for UK businesses.
Many African countries have improved their regulatory framework for foreign direct investment, with investment promotion agencies to assist investors. Indeed, everything points to Africa being a good market and target for British companies; it is a good place to do business. As the fifth largest trading nation in the world, the UK is in most markets, and Africa should be featured in a major way.
278WH
As Africa grows, our businesses cannot afford to ignore its potential. Members may be interested to know that yesterday, African Lakes became the first fully listed UK plc to obtain a listing on the Nairobi stock exchange. The company's press release announced:
"The positive attitudes of the Capital Markets Authority and the NSE have been evidence throughout the process. The listing will increase awareness of African Lakes in a region which is important for the Company's future. It will enable Kenyan institutional and private capital to invest and participate in one of the region's most active and focused groups. We are committed to growing African Lakes in our domain of sub-Saharan Africa, an area for which the Economist Intelligence Unit recently projected economic growth at 39.9 per cent. pa—one of the fastest growing in the world."
I do not know whether the Minister saw the press release, or had the opportunity to talk to the African Lakes' representative, but yesterday was a red-letter day for United Kingdom business.
Africa has the great advantage of having a wonderful climate. I jokingly referred earlier to the Minister's suntan. Tourism is a great opportunity for businesses and it will help Africa's economic recovery. I hope that the Minister will tell us later how he is promoting the tourism sector, and British business and tourism interests abroad, particularly in South Africa, which he visited recently.
My second point relates to Zimbabwe, and I am sure that many of my colleagues will speak about it too, if they manage to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Zimbabwe is, potentially, one of Africa's most prosperous nations. It achieved independence in 1980 under the leadership of Robert Mugabe, but the regime is undermining Zimbabwe's economy and damaging human rights. In fact, the economy is in free fall: inflation is 60 per cent., interest rates are at a similar level and the currency has plummeted. Mugabe's cronies stay rich, while the poor suffer. We are all familiar with the plan to seize lands illegally, to which my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) have alluded. Journalists have been arrested and the free press is under attack. Still, the Government continue the programme of bilateral aid.
I was sad that, in response to my intervention, the Minister gave the impression that he was familiar neither with the amount of aid that was going in nor with the auditing procedure for ensuring that that aid does not find its way into the wrong hands. Perhaps, with a little inspiration and a little more briefing, he will be able to tell us in his reply exactly what is happening about aid.
I hope that the Minister shares our concern about the forthcoming general election in Zimbabwe. Although the referendum was a triumph for the opposition in Zimbabwe, it did not take place without flagrant abuses by the Government, both in the media and at the polling stations. The scale of the defeat was such that even Robert Mugabe felt that he could not stuff any more ballot boxes than he did. How do the Government intend to send the Government of Zimbabwe the message that their behaviour during the referendum was wrong, that the untrammelled ambitions of the kleptocrats and cronies must be curbed and that Robert Mugabe's system of government is fundamentally corrupt? Will the Minister insist on sending

279WH
Commonwealth monitors to Zimbabwe? Is he prepared to suspend help to that Government, if they resist calls for impartial international supervision of their elections? He must tell us in his reply.
I know that the Minister shares our concern that Mugabe is treating the referendum defeat as something to which he can return later. Does the Minister understand, however, that should the ZANU-PF Government win the election, they could press for the nationalisation of farmland, claiming a democratic mandate denied them by the referendum? Does he accept that that argument could also be used to promote another constitution, containing threats to individual liberty and allowing Mugabe to reign for life, as a monarch of a bankrupt socialist republic? I urge the Minister to answer those questions at the end of the debate.
Dr. Tonge: I refer the hon. Lady back to what she said about bilateral aid. All of us understand and share her concern about the Government of Zimbabwe. Is she really suggesting that we should not give aid to that country, to people who are desperate for education and desperate for relief from the AIDS epidemic and for measures to stem its spread?
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady and I have participated together in far too many debates for me to fall for that line, and I am surprised that she is pursuing it. She was present at a sitting of a Committee that examined the efficacy of EU aid to Zimbabwe, when it became apparent from a Court of Auditors report that the aid was being misdirected.
Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gillan: No, hold on for a second.
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Lady said bilateral aid.
Mrs. Gillan: Hold on. The aid was not reaching those most in need, and it is right that I should ask how bilateral aid is audited. If, as the European Union's Court of Auditors tells us, aid is being misdirected and is not reaching the poorest, the House also needs assurances that United Kingdom taxpayers' money going to Zimbabwe as aid to the poorest is not also being diverted to people who have no right to have their hands on it and who are creating more poverty, more ignorance and more death and despair.
Dr. Tonge: That point needs to be clarified. It is my understanding that most bilateral aid would be channelled through non-governmental organisations. Marie Stopes International, for instance, is doing great work on the AIDS front. We must have clarity, but the argument about bilaterial aid from this country is totally different from the one that we had on European Union aid.
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is dancing on the head of a pin, because we are not going to disagree on the need for aid and the excellence of NGOs giving aid. I seek assurances from the Minister that a sufficiently good
280WH
audit process exists in Zimbabwe, because NGOs also work perforce with local people in the hinterland and rural areas. I want to know that the Government have a sufficient grip on taxpayers' money to make sure that it is not wasted. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees with me.
Mr. Brady: When replying to my earlier intervention, the Minister conceded the principle by saying that the Government are already withholding aid. He clearly said that the Government would give more aid if they were happy with the behaviour of the Mugabe regime. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no difference in principle between what the hon. Gentleman says and what some of us are saying, which is that the Government should take a tougher line?
Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I want to know exactly what audit controls the Government are planning. Otherwise it is all warm words and no action.
Finally on this subject, we know the direction in which Robert Mugabe has taken his country, and it is the wrong one for the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will understand how ludicrous it is to have Robert Mugabe in the high-level group established to review the future of the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth is to stand for the values set out in the Harare declaration, is it not about time that it set an example and suspended the Zimbabwean Government as they do not deserve to be one of the eight Governments in whose hands the debate on the future shape of the Commonwealth rests? I hope that the Minister will answer my question.
Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that another good ground for suspending Mr. Mugabe's membership of the high-level group is that he is stalling on the publication of two reports about the Matabeleland massacres in the early 1980s, when about 3,000 people were killed? Until his attempts to obstruct the judicial process—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Interventions must be brief, even if they are on Matabeleland.
Mr. Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that stalling on those reports is a good enough reason for preventing Mr. Mugabe from being in the high-level group?
Mrs. Gillan: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that he will catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and be able to make a full contribution on that matter.
Before I finish, I want to raise a couple of specific issues with the Minister. One is from a news brief that arrived on my desk. There is a report that the Minister told the UNITA rebel leader, Jonas Savimbi, that he would be accorded a safe and comfortable retirement if he abandoned his activities. Of course, we know that the international community has declared Savimbi a war criminal. Will the Minister clarify what he is reported to have said? If he did not give such an assurance to Jonas Savimbi, we would like to know. If he did give that assurance, what plans does the Minister have for Mr. Savimbi's safe and comfortable retirement? I think that hon. Members would like to know during the debate.

281WH
My last point relates to the British Council, which does tremendous work throughout the world, particularly in Africa. It has worked with the Foreign Office for 20 years on the delivery of Britain's aid programme, as a partner and as a major commercial supplier. The council invested heavily in African infrastructure and appropriate staff skills. However, recent major changes in international development policy are especially worrying. Specifically, there are the changes to the mechanisms for aid delivery. The changes will significantly reduce the need for a supplier such as the British Council. The speed of that change in policy and the limited warning that was given to the British Council has left it with severe problems in resourcing its current network in Africa and will necessitate some major restructuring programmes. I hope that the Minister will comment on what appears to be the undermining of a tremendous British institution.
I have gone on for far too long and I apologise to hon. Members. As I said, however, with a debate that ranges across a whole continent it is impossible to bring all the key issues to the attention of the House and to discuss them properly. I have laid out a few of them for the Minister, and I hope that he can give straight answers to the questions that I have posed about his actions, rather than saying one thing but doing another.
3.15 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome both the debate and my hon. Friend the Minister's positive and informative introduction to it. I was interested in the comments on Zimbabwe, but I know that you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the debate extends rather more widely than that, important though Zimbabwe is. My hon. Friend's encouraging remarks invite us to consider the comprehensive nature of Africa, particularly in the context of those countries that he visited and in the light of the changes that have taken place and the challenges that are still to be met.
Those of us of a particular vintage will recall the days of Alan Paton's "Cry the Beloved Country" and, more recently, Richard Attenborough's "Cry Freedom". We know what impact they had on public opinion in this country and elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Minister was speaking and adding to Harold Macmillan's wise speech on the wind of change and the implications of Africa's history, I reflected on some of my own visits there, especially when I was the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. Indeed, I was part of a delegation led by your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Botswana, where we had the opportunity of seeing relative prosperity and progress, not least at Chobe game park. Some of us also visited South Africa before the major changes there and Swaziland. Even then, Africa was a continent of contrasts; that has not changed, despite everything else that has.
My hon. Friend touched on many of my worries about Rwanda, Burundi, which is in a very serious situation, and Angola. Before I say a few words on that, perhaps I could develop the Minister's invitation for us to debate Africa's standing in the world, its economic influence, economic problems and the economic challenge facing many African countries, particularly the poorest people of the poorest countries in the poorest regions. I welcome what my hon. Friend said
282WH
about the Government's policies on international development. Under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, our policies—including the policies on debt which are supported by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—have been inspiring and progressive. I welcome the changes that even the World bank and the International Monetary Fund have made. I trust that we will not hear an argument against that progress; we want to see more of it, but we welcome that start.
We have been brought up to date on Africa by not only my hon. Friend, but by what the World bank and other important organisations have said. In an overview, the World bank group in Africa made some important points. It said:
"Forty per cent. of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1 a day."
While we rightly deal with abuse of public money, we need to view it in its proper context and assess priorities. The overview continued:
"In aggregate, this combination of low economic growth, the highest rate of population increase in the world (at 2.8 per cent.) and a high burden of dependants to workers, puts Africa low on the rankings for those most critical indicators of social progress: how long people live, how much knowledge they acquire and how much access they have to resources necessary for a better standard of living."
It also stated:
"To put it another way, each additional dollar in aid is five times more effective in countries with good policies"—
and I was delighted that my hon. Friend did not dodge that issue.
We have debated structural adjustment—or conditionality, as it used to be called—for many years. We have done so knowing that we should not penalise individual citizens in any country because of their Government's—often unelected Government's—policies, particularly against the backdrop of the lifestyle that millions of people, especially in Africa, are forced to live.
My hon. Friend drew attention to educational problems in African countries. He said elsewhere, at an excellent meeting that I attended, that he was disappointed by an unimpressive decade for Africa. Instead of improving, educational policy has deteriorated. Sixteen of 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa still enrol fewer than half their children in primary schools—and enrolment rates are dropping. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned adult literacy which, as stated in the Minister's report, is particularly low among women. Fewer than 50 per cent. of women in these countries are literate, and enrolment rates are dropping. That poses tremendous social challenges, even without the other problems that I mentioned earlier.
I wish to refer briefly to a speech made by the vice-president of the World bank in which he dealt with important social issues. He said:
"Social development in Africa still trails badly. Birth rates, childhood and maternal deaths are the highest in the world, and more than a quarter of African children are malnourished. Two hundred million Africans have no access to proper health services … Diseases both old and new are undoing many of the gains made since independence. More than nine out of 10 Africans are still at risk of contracting malaria, an ancient killer. And nearly 23 million Africans are now living with HIV/AIDS".

283WH
That remains an important issue when such limited resources are available for health care in individual African countries.
In the light of the Minister's refreshing report, and because they are so important, I wish to move on to three countries. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Angola. I recall meeting President dos Santos of Angola six years ago, as my hon. Friend has done. At the time, the president was optimistic about the agreements reached with Savimbi of UNITA. Today we find broken dreams, dashed hopes, a much worse war raging there, with land mines multiplying daily, more people than ever being killed and injured and the great hopes that we had for peace being shattered. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about Savimbi.
If the international community is determined to apply itself positively to getting a settlement in Angola it will have to accept that the country is a mass of contradictions. It is potentially one of the world's richest countries in terms of oil, diamonds and natural resources which, if they are being used at all, are put to improper use. My hon. Friend needs no reminding that even with that background, Angola is number one on the list of heavily indebted, poor countries. I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to progress.
I shall deal briefly with the extremely serious situation in Burundi. In many ways, Burundi was overshadowed by the tragic events in Rwanda and the implications for the neighbouring African states. I will read a letter that I received from Ben Crampton, the co-ordinator of the all-party parliamentary group, on Rwanda, the great lakes region and the prevention of genocide:
"Burundi is the main issue of concern at the moment since it is the country where a little pressure might make a big difference. I can't stress enough how desperate the situation is there. If the economy collapses there is a real danger of a military coup which could bring to power a hardline Tutsi faction within the army and put an end to the Arusha peace talks once and for all. The assassination of the president in 1993 resulted in unspeakable bloodshed, which was eclipsed by the slaughter in Rwanda a few months later."
In reply, I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to the serious concerns about Burundi and comment on the implications for its neighbours.
As an example, I turn to one of my visits to Uganda some years ago with David Steel, now Lord Steel of Aikwood, to study the problem of AIDS, and the country's debt—which alone would be bad enough for any country to deal with. We saw some of the most grotesque examples of what Burns called "Man's inhumanity to man"—the consequences of what was happening in Rwanda. I will not go into detail because it is not particularly pleasant. I saw the refugee camps at the borders of Uganda, Zaire and Rwanda and the multilated bodies of men, women and children floating down Lake Victoria. I saw the problems that the Ugandan people had to get their food. Fishing was virtually destroyed because of the environmental consequences of that terrible genocide. If that was true of Uganda, Rwanda and Zaire, it remains true of countries suffering civil war. Where there is strife, we should apply ourselves as an international community to the solution of problems—and perhaps apply ourselves more forcefully to such problem solving in Africa. I trust that we will do that.
284WH
I welcome debates on issues such as this. Indeed, we are having more such debates than we did previously. However, we should have democratic, open debate reflecting the transparency which the Government wish to see in every field, including the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. That transparency should also be apparent in the responsibilities of elected leaders in Zimbabwe and other African states. Progress has been made, but we should not be complacent. People are still crying for freedom. As a Parliament dedicated to such objectives, we should seek to assist them in their journey.
3.30 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate Africa. Incidentally, I regret that we never had an opportunity to debate the White Paper on development, the first such paper for 20 years. Perhaps our debate will go some way toward stemming our irritation at not having had a chance to debate such issues.
Africa used to be quite a big part of the British empire. Some say—indeed, I have heard it said in the Chamber—that it was much better in those days and it is a pity that we cannot return to the days of empire. Whatever Britain did to rule or—as some say—exploit Africa, it was certainly not sustainable. Many African countries broke up in corruption and confusion in the 1940s and '50s, when we had to get rid of the colonies at the end of the second world war.
Colonial divisions did not help. Ever since I was at school, I have said that colonialists divided Africa with a pencil and ruler, because the map is all straight lines. Indeed, last week, a Namibian sitting next to me in an airplane flying over the border between Namibia and South Africa said, "Look. There's your straight line." He pointed out a dead straight fence. In colonial days, there was no recognition of natural groupings, tribal boundaries and so on. The land was simply divided up and people had to get on with things.
We have heard about British business wanting to invest in Africa. I was at yesterday's lunch and it is a pity that some of our food could not be shipped to some of the African countries I have visited. Government policies should encourage investment. The only way that that can be done is to ensure that no departmental policies cause instability and conflict in Africa. That is a case for joined-up government if ever there was one.
As international development spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I have visited several African countries in the past three years. As a Member of Parliament, it is a great privilege to have such an opportunity. Many of the places that I visited were involved in the programme of the Select Committee on International Development, so I have had a good opportunity to see in depth what is happening.
Four things stand out in my mind, one of which is conflict. Three quarters of countries in sub-Saharan Africa are engaged in, or under threat of, armed conflict. The HIV/AIDS epidemic rages throughout sub-Saharan Africa, affecting 25 to 30 per cent. of the population in most of the countries. Unlike previous epidemics, which would wipe out the very young, the elderly, the weak and the frail, the AIDS epidemic is wiping out economically active young people. That is a

285WH
tragedy with desperate consequences for the economies of such countries. Poverty leads to a lack of education, and education, as we all know, is essential for a good and growing economy. A lack of education leads to poor governance and corruption. We heard a great deal about that from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
All those factors affect African countries. Yes, there are tremendous signs of recovery and development. When I was in Uganda I was constantly amazed and delighted at how that country was coping and growing, and how positive the people were. Likewise, in South Africa—I have not been there, but I was recently in Namibia—there is extraordinary optimism, organisation, and good governance. It has everything going for it. Mozambique, the despair of all of us as it bumped along the bottom a few years ago, now has one of the fastest growing economies. Nigeria and Ghana are showing good signs, and Botswana is the champion with the highest growth of the African countries. It is impossible to cover all aspects of Africa and the UK engagement in that continent, so I shall confine myself to a few aspects that concern me most, and then I shall talk about one country in particular.
Conflict is one of the crucial issues in Africa. Three quarters of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa are in armed conflict or at threat from armed conflict. Excluding South Africa, the arms spending in sub-Saharan Africa rose by 14 per cent. last year. The economic growth average was 1 per cent. Ninety per cent. of the casualties in these wars are civilians. Many of these countries are subject to arms embargoes, but that can be irrelevant to the combatants in a civil war. We have all heard of Mil Tec, the scandal in Rwanda, Sandline and Sierra Leone. A good "Dispatches" programme just before Christmas showed how easily arms brokers can transfer arms to any country whether there is an embargo or not.
When I was staying in a village in southern Sudan for a few days last year I talked to some of the rebel leaders. When I suggested that the embargo on arms trade with northern and southern Sudan might make it difficult for them to get arms to pursue the war, they looked at me as if I was completely mad. They told me that it was easy, and that they could get arms from anywhere. They are flown in from across the borders. They need them and they get them. That is a terrible reflection on what is going on in the west. The Government dodge the issue of arms brokers time after time. The people who break these embargoes are dealers in death worldwide. Do they ever see the consequences of their business, as many hon. Members have?
The report of the Select Committee on International Development on conflict prevention recommended a register of arms brokers. Until recently I was a member of the Committee's inquiry into the annual reports for 1997 and 1998 on strategic export controls. The first report has just been published and states:
"We support a more stringent national policy on brokering and trafficking, which could act as a spur to international action."
In other words, Britain should be leading the way on this problem. It continues:
"We look to the 1999 Annual Report to make some specific reference to the Government's view on the way forward".
We must do something about arms brokering.
286WH
The report also emphasises the need for proper scrutiny of legitimate arms exports requiring licences and the involvement of the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. These Departments are responsible for our engagement in Africa and encourage investment. Yet I have evidence from many parliamentary questions that they are not involved as much as they should be, and that they are constantly overruled. The Secretary of State for International Development did not even see the annual report on arms exports until it was published.
I could not leave the subject of arms control without mentioning Zimbabwe, but the Minister said that I was flogging the same old horse. I remind him that that horse is not yet dead. People in Zimbabwe have overwhelmingly rejected their Government, yet we have been prepared to repair their Hawk jets and so continue the fight in the Congo. Will the Minister comment on criterion 8 of the European code of conduct, which we have signed up to and think important to obey? Criterion 8 states:
"Member States will take into account, in the light of information from relevant sources such as UNDP, World Bank, IMF and OECD reports, whether the proposed export would seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country. They will consider in this context the recipient country's relative levels of military and social expenditure taking into account any EU or bi-lateral aid."
That is a most interesting little clause.
The war in the Congo is costing Zimbabwe £1 million a day. There is unemployment all over that country. Its Government are in disarray. They are corrupt and in debt. HIV/AIDS is raging, with 25 per cent. of the population affected. What is the rationale of our exporting Hawk jet parts to Zimbabwe when it is in that state, irrespective of whether we are fulfilling a contract? Surely, although we would have had to pay if we had breached the contract, doing so would have been worth while and a darn sight cheaper in the long run than clearing up the mess that is sure to follow. Before leaving that subject, I must pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Government for revising their policy on selling arms to African countries.
Mrs. Gillan: While the hon. Lady is praising the Prime Minister so fulsomely, does she agree that it was the Prime Minister who overruled the Foreign Office to enable the spare parts to be sent to Zimbabwe? Will she then revise her remarks?
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for her typical intervention, but I believe that the carrot is more effective than the stick. The Prime Minister made the announcement in response to a parliamentary question that I tabled, which is why I keep mentioning it. As he has gone that far, and we welcome what the Government have done, he should extend his thinking a little further and realise that the parts for the Hawk jets should be involved in the equation. It is terribly important that he understand that.
I would have mentioned HIV/AIDS further, but the Minister has dealt with it fully, so I shall simply refer to my first sight of Africa. After arriving at Entebbe airport in Uganda, I passed through a few villages on the way to Kampala. I could not understand why there were piles of coffins in every village. One hut in each village

287WH
housed a coffin maker and coffins were piled up outside. Naive western woman says, "Coffins are good business here." Indeed, they are because of the AIDS epidemic. The coffin maker has the best business in each village and can sell a coffin a day because of AIDS. That fact, not just the sight of sick people obviously suffering from AIDS and its complications, brought the problem home to me. Those piles of coffins have stuck in my mind.
Whatever the situation in a particular country in sub-Saharan Africa and whatever the Government involved are like—I refer to my intervention on the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham—I urge the Government not to stop our investment in education and the use of condoms or the striving and work being done to find an AIDS vaccine. That is the most essential and valuable thing that we can do for Africa.
I cannot sit down without mentioning the Sudan. This time last year, I spent several days living in a village compound in Baht el Ghaza, which is situated in the war zone. My stay left a mark on me. I cannot forget the Dinka and the Nuer people of southern Sudan, who are hardworking, intelligent and lovers of Great Britain. Why are we not helping them more? They speak English and listen to the World Service. I well remember the first morning that I woke up in a straw stockaded compound. As dawn broke, I suddenly realised that the only sound was that of Lilliburlero, drifting across the compound. One Dinka tribesman was sleeping in the compound with us and he had managed to keep his little tranny radio away from the raiders who threaten the people at all times and which wreck their villages. He switched on his transistor radio for five minutes every morning to listen to the BBC World Service. That is a plug for the World Service, which is still listened to throughout Africa, where it is so greatly valued. It has been a huge influence for good in that continent, and I should hate to believe that the Government would even dare think about cutting the funding for that wonderful service.
The people in the area are reduced to living in the stone age. I would challenge anyone to find people who are so deprived as those in Baht el Ghaza. There is total poverty; nothing is left. Everything has been taken, wrecked or ruined. The people plant crops, but the war ensures that they are destroyed before they can be harvested. Women and children are taken away up to the north. There is terror and starvation. These are the results of decades of war between north and south Sudan, a war that is now exacerbated by the extraction of oil in southern Sudan.
I commend to hon. Members the Harker report, for which some of us have been waiting and which was published in the past few days. This independent report was commissioned by the Government of Canada to investigate the conditions in southern Sudan and to track down some of the myths and truths in that area. Talisman, a big oil company based in Canada, is working in the southern Sudan oil fields, as are British companies. Last year, the Department of Trade and Industry produced a flowery document telling British business men how they could invest in the oil fields in southern Sudan. The document was scurrilous, and, thank goodness, the Foreign Office—I hope that it was the Foreign Office—had it withdrawn. British
288WH
companies are operating in the region, and around the oil fields there is more rape, pillage, fire, destruction and indiscriminate bombing than in other areas. The Harker report which, as I said, is an independent report from another Government—I commend the Canadian Government for having commissioned it—shows exactly what is going on. The case is urgent: we must read the report, do something about the Sudan and reengage in the region.
The Minister will tell us that the Intergovernmental Authority on Development talks are in place to broker peace. I feel that they are getting nowhere and that a much more concentrated international effort is needed. In the meantime, British companies should not be involved in the area. An article in one of this morning's broadsheets stated that the United States had banned trade with a Sudanese oil joint venture in an effort to stop the war. There should be no more involvement in the oil fields until the war is settled and peace is restored to the people after 30 years, or whatever the period is.
Lastly, I appreciate the Minister's comments and feel uplifted following yesterday's lunch. We must ignore the gloom and think about encouraging investment in Africa. As I have already mentioned, there are many success stories, but to ensure regeneration in the continent, we must re-engage in Africa. The Government must ensure that the policies of all Departments promote the stability of the continent, stamp out corruption, invest in education and health care and, above all, do nothing to increase conflict. Africa is a beautiful continent full of people who long to be part of our world, and we owe it to them to help them become peaceful and prosperous.
3.50 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: This is an important, interesting and wide-ranging debate. I wish to concentrate my remarks on Kenya. I chair the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Kenya group and I have been privileged to visit Kenya many times. I last visited that country last summer, on a CPA visit led by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwick (Mrs. Dunwoody).
Kenya is an African Commonwealth country, which has historic and close links with the United Kingdom. We have built up a relationship of understanding based on frankness between the two countries. As I am sure hon. Members know, Kenya, like many African countries, is very beautiful. It is popular with tourists and has much to offer. Since independence, it has been stable. Over the years, the political system has changed. It used to be dominated by one political party, KANU. The present make-up of the Kenya Parliament is that, although KANU remains a major political party, there are now also opposition parties, which play an ever-increasing role in the political affairs of the country. That is undoubtedly welcome.
The President, Daniel arap Moi, who has led the country for many years, has stated that he will not seek re-election at the next presidential elections, so we will start to see major political changes in Kenya. That is vital for democracy. I hope that we will encourage those changes and support the development of human rights at every level of society.
We also know that, like many other African countries, Kenya is poor and, for many people, life is hard. I have seen many aspects of life in Kenya. I have

289WH
seen a life where progress, opportunity and life style are so very different from that which we and people in other parts of the world experience. That is why I am delighted to pay the warmest tribute to the Government, and in particular to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, for her interest in Kenya, where she is known and widely respected. Our aid to Kenya is about £43 million, which marks a significant increase in recent years. When, in December last year, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a question about our involvement with aid projects in Kenya, she replied that we financially support 25 projects. Those projects cover many day-to-day issues of importance to the people of Kenya: women's projects, education projects, family planning and family health, HIV/AIDS preventive measures and agricultural projects. We have a proud record of help and assistance in Kenya, which I fully support.
We all have issues to highlight that are relevant to countries such as Kenya. High on the agenda must be what we and other important donor countries give to Kenya to improve its economy and social structure and to create employment. Some aspects of the Kenyan economy are successful, but others, such as the tourism industry, are not. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that that industry is enormously important. It creates employment and a demand for services, and brings in hard currency. However, the country and the people are suffering because it is not doing well. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us how the United Kingdom, which has an excellent tourism industry, will help Kenya to redevelop what could and should be a major income earner. I also hope that he will say how we are helping other African countries to develop their trading opportunities in the world, especially with the European Union.
I mentioned some of the projects that we are funding in Kenya, many of which involve women. They work far harder than the men, which may be true of other African countries, while coping with the family responsibilities. Women suffer most throughout the country and have the hardest time in what is a difficult life for many people. That is why I hope that donor countries will give a greater commitment to improving the life of women, so that they receive greater respect and better opportunities.
There are many ways to do that. Millions of people in Kenya have no access to adequate water supplies. Many hon. Members will be aware that women walk miles every day to get water for their families. Surely modern technology can help us to bring that essential resource nearer to where people live. That would save hours of walking. Men are never seen walking to water supplies; young children sometimes go, but it is invariably women, who will have done many other jobs earlier in the day. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the issue the consideration that it deserves. I want to see a greater commitment to the development of women's projects in Kenya. Many women of great ability do not have the resources or the know-how to develop the opportunities that would help their families and country. Britain, with its long links with Commonwealth countries, should be committed to that.
Health care is a major issue. When someone becomes ill, it causes problems for their family. In Kenya, people must travel a long way to get medical attention from a
290WH
doctor or hospital. We know of the huge cost of buying medicine. Kenya's health service is not like ours. We are told repeatedly that many people who need urgent medical care get none because of the cost of medicines. The Minister will be aware of that. We have skills in the United Kingdom, and in the other important donor countries that help Kenya in many ways, and we must consider the situation.
Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I always visit schools when I go to Kenya and I have visited many. Schools should be happy places where youngsters have the opportunity to get a good education that will offer them opportunities as they grow older and embark on life in their country. Sadly, in Kenya, rates for school enrolment and for the completion of youngsters' education have been falling, especially for young girls. Successive reports say that the reason for that is the cost to families of getting their children educated. Figures were mentioned in earlier speeches. It is unsurprising that that is the case because about 50 per cent. of the Kenyan population earn but a few shillings a day. The lack of education facilities is surely unacceptable to all hon. Members. I hope that we shall give great consideration to the matter.
We have a special role regarding Kenya, because of its Commonwealth links. I have touched on some of the important issues faced by Kenya and I could mention others. HIV and AIDS have already been considered. Countries such as ours must help not only financially but with our skills and knowledge to protect Kenya's natural resources. We must help economic development. Kenya has suffered from an enormous influx of refugees from its neighbours because of the problems that those countries face. Above all, we must work for the elimination of poverty. That opinion is supported throughout the House.
Like other hon. Members, I pay the warmest tribute to the work of the British Council. It does magnificent work in Kenya and other countries, not only in Africa. Sadly, the Government to whom I am proud to belong do not always give the total commitment that they should to its work. I should also pay a warm tribute to the British high commissioner for Kenya and his staff—he does an excellent job. You know him, Madam Deputy Speaker, as do I. We should be proud that he represents us in that important Commonwealth country.
I have talked about what we should be committed to doing. I was delighted to hear the opening remarks of the Minister of State about his Department's work with Kenya. There have been differences. Sadly, constructive, or sometimes critical, dialogue is not always welcomed because of attitudes in Kenya. I hope that the Kenyan Government will accept that, through our discussion and the issues that we seek to raise, we extend the hand of friendship. Our priority is to improve the daily life of the people, wherever they live in that beautiful country—a country that has enormous potential.
I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the essential reforms on which he is working with the Kenyan Government. The members of the all-party Kenya group, and all hon. Members here today who have an interest in African affairs, will wish to see those reforms being achieved.
4.5 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to make my first contribution while you are in the Chair, especially as you are the Member of Parliament for my neighbouring constituency of Crewe and Nantwich. This is my first appearance in the Chamber. It reminds me of a rather upmarket Blackpool winter-gardens version of a mock mediaeval dining room, but I am sure that I will get used to it.
The Minister and I have one thing in common. We are both sons of Africa: we were both born there. I am sure that the Minister is as proud of having lived in South Africa, despite his and his family's forced departure at such an early age, as I am of having lived in Mtwara, in what was then Tanganyika—it is now Tanzania—before moving to Mombasa in Kenya, which used to be pronounced "Keeyna". I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for his forensic and experienced analysis of that country and its current problems.
Over the years, in a combined business and charitable guise, I have had the opportunity to get to know the Sarahan and Sahel states in west and north-west Africa. I have no doubt that the Minister's knowledge, experience and care for Africa are genuine. Sadly, despite sharing our continent of birth, the Minister and I are forced to part company because of a higher authority. Having followed African matters closely, particularly this country's engagement with that great continent, I am greatly disappointed that the United Kingdom is losing a real and crucial opportunity in its relations with Africa.
Our historical connection with Africa has been fine and genuinely outstanding. At one time we had administrative responsibility for that continent. Of course, serious and even disgraceful incidents took place, but many of them were a function of their time in history rather than, as they are now, a source of shame or guilt. Compared with other former colonial powers in Africa, we can hold our head up high. That, however, is the past. Here, today, we must focus on the present, and on the United Kingdom's future engagement in Africa.
The problem is not the Minister's; it is a problem for that higher authority—the Foreign Secretary. For many years, I have lived and worked abroad, not only in Africa but in the far east, Australasia, continental Europe, north America, central America and south America. I am acutely aware of those countries' perceptions of this country's political, economic and commercial standing in their corridors of power and boardrooms. I once joined a Conservative Trade and Industry Minister on a mission to Latin America, and I was aware of the interrelationship between the Government and the commercial world, and how important in this day and age it is to have mutual understanding.
I was elected to the House of Commons only seven months ago, so I have recent experience of the effect of our foreign policy in those corridors and boardrooms since Labour came to office and since the Foreign Secretary took up his post. Given the ridicule and confusion that his foreign policy has created in Africa and, although perhaps a little less so, in other countries, like so many of our fellow citizens, be they politicians,
292WH
diplomats, business men and women, civil servants or tourists, I am ashamed that I and my country are represented abroad by the current Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Paterson: Would my hon. Friend comment on what was said in The Jersusalem Post after the Foreign Secretary's disastrous trip to the middle east, about the effect for the Prime Minister of having
"a diplomat like Cook by his side"?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about Africa.
Mr. O'Brien: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Perhaps I may give another example of what I am talking about, bearing in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, your stricture that we are talking about Africa.
When a dozen wars are simmering on that continent, affecting 200 million people, is it not a disgrace that Britain offers troops on standby for peacekeeping operations and reneges on the promise as soon as it is unveiled? I refer to a pledge made last year. In June 1999, in one of the more remarkable instances of posturing by a Foreign Secretary who is renowned just for that, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) told Kofi Annan that Britain would have 8,000 troops on standby to be used by the UN for rapid response emergencies. Before the Minister tells us that the Foreign Secretary was quoted out of context, I shall quote exactly what he said on 25 June:
"The problem for the UN is that every time there is a fire they have had to get down the blueprint and start to build a fire engine. At least now they will have the components for the fire engine.
We will be giving the UN an undertaking that when called upon we are prepared to commit [troops] for an operation. We will earmark some so that they are ready to be used when the time comes. It will always remain our decision to respond to the decision [of the UN] but I do not think we have let you down yet, Kofi."
On 15 December in New York, in a speech entitled "The UN's partnership with Africa", the Minister declared "we need better peacekeeping" in Africa. He is right. We need better peacekeeping, but not posturing by his left-wing boss, whose ambitions are bigger than his budget. Will the Minister promise the House of Commons that in future the Government will not promise more in peacekeeping than they can deliver? That is one of the most serious let-downs for our potential and current relationships across Africa.
The Minister has talked in the House of Commons and elsewhere about a renaissance in Africa and about backing winners there, as if that is a new policy or passes for a new ethical foreign policy. However, as was, I understand, pointed out to him by a civil servant from the Department for International Development at the all-party Africa group this week, is not backing winners and promoting a renaissance merely a continuation of Britain's policy? In his conceit, the Foreign Secretary forgot to say that for the best part of 400 years British foreign policy has had a significant ethical element and has always been a mixture of patriotism, principle and pragmatism.
When the Foreign Secretary took office he ignored the achievements of his predecessors and loftily announced that foreign policy must have an ethical dimension. I

293WH
could not help noticing during the Minister's opening remarks that he defined the word "ethical" in terms of a concept better known in the world of conveyancing. He said that it was subject to contract, in justification of the Government's defiance of its ethical foreign policy by selling spare parts for Hawk jets to Zimbabwe, despite that country's involvement in a military adventure in the Congo. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said—and I support all that she so cogently argued—that is hardly evidence of a new policy from the Prime Minister with respect to selling arms to Africa.
A report in the "World Today" this month commented on the United States taking over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council. The United States declared January the month of Africa. It is not the first time that new initiatives have been announced for a continent that some describe as forgotten. The report said:
"During the Cold War, the countries in the Horn of Africa received substantial aid because they were strategically significant to the United States and Soviet political and military engagement in the Middle East. However, with a change in the military situation and the gradual development of the Middle East peace process, the Horn has lost its importance … there have been humanitarian enterprises and regional diplomacy, mainly led by the US."
Ethiopia and Eritrea have indeed lost importance. The report continued:
"The division of Africa into what is described as utile and inutile"—
that is French diplomacy, I am told—
"sits uncomfortably with claims of an ethical dimension in foreign policy and the high moral crusade proclaimed both by Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton in the international arena."
That was an important and objective comment.
The future of Africa is first and last dependent on the creation and maintenance of confidence, as the Minister said, because that is what draws in business, of which I have some experience. Prosperity is the best guarantor of reducing the negative pull of tribalism and factionalism.
The security risk increasingly associated with hosting refugees from intractable regional conflicts and the resulting unwillingness by host Governments to provide asylum protection creates a dilemma: one may want to do the decent thing, but conflicts mean that difficult decisions must be taken.
Tanzania remains a beacon, to use a current term—
Mr. Jim Murphy: Fashionable.
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, a fashionable term. Tanzania is exemplary in hosting some of the largest refugee populations. I salute Tanzania's progress and, to the extent that it may have anything to do with the United Kingdom, I accept that it is probably also to the Minister's credit; but as sure as the cloud will cover the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro whenever one wants to see it or to photograph its glorious splendour, it is despite, not because of, the Foreign Secretary that we have made progress in our engagement in Africa. Like so many of those with whom I have shared business ventures in Africa, I am ashamed of our Foreign Secretary's approach to foreign policy.
4.17 pm
Charlotte Atkins: I was privileged to visit Zambia during the summer, under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I was impressed by its people, its land, its abundance of water, its fertility and its huge potential for tourism. It is a country, like many in Africa, blighted by poverty, by its debt burden and by the scourge of AIDS. Infection rates are running at an incredible 25 per cent. among adults. Swathes of its population—its most productive people, those in their 30s and 40s, and whole families—have been wiped out by AIDS.
I visited the country just before the AIDS conference in Lusaka. AIDS was discussed at an official level, but even so complacency prevailed there. Zambia does not have the political leadership that has stemmed the spread of AIDS and HIV in Uganda and Thailand. Cultural practices mean that widowed women sleep with their dead husband's male relatives, which encourages the spread of AIDS. Condoms, although talked about, are not widely used. Widows are also thrown out of their homes when relatives decide to repossess the house. It is illegal, of course, but women and their children, already deprived of their main breadwinner, are put out on the streets.
There are projects that try to cater for the hundreds of homeless street orphans. They attempt to give a meal a day and some education, but they have virtually no resources and no outside assistance. Without education and nutrition, those street children are unlikely to live to a productive age, especially given the AIDS epidemic. I recognise that the UK is playing a significant role in trying to support health programmes and clinics, but more needs to be done.
Zambia has not been torn apart by conflict, so it seems to be a forgotten corner of Africa, yet it has the legacy of other conflicts. Land mines along its borders continue to pose real problems. President Chiluba has a proud record of promoting peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where he led the Lusaka peace accord while we were there, but Zambia has become a principal conduit—people very high up in the Government are implicated—for busting UN sanctions against UNITA. President Chiluba must act and we must back him in stamping that out. Having met him, I do not believe that he wants his Government involved in sustaining such a devastating war, which is now spilling over the Zambian border.
Zambia is a wonderful country with huge potential. The tourist board's slogan proclaimed "Zambia: the real Africa" and it was right. The country feels real: unsanitised, unpackaged and largely unvisited. It offers the best of wild Africa—abundant game and top guides—yet although it is twice the size of Zimbabwe, it receives only about 10 per cent. of the number of tourists.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation visited Victoria Falls and the South Luangwa nature reserve. We were impressed by the totally unspoilt environment. While the spectacle of Niagara Falls is spoilt by over-commercialisation, at Victoria Falls—at least on the Zambian side—there was just a curio stand, a place to buy postcards and drinks, and lavatories. Minimal provision meant maximum enjoyment.

295WH
The Zambian Government are under tremendous pressure to allow a major hotel chain to build a luxury hotel overlooking the falls. I am pleased to say that they are resisting that; they recognise that their future lies in eco-tourism and sustainable, long-term development. I fear, however, that the country's lack of infrastructure and inward investment makes it difficult for the Government to reject all commercialisation. At present, most tourists fly into Victoria Falls airport in Zimbabwe to visit the area, rather than using the closer Livingstone airport because the facilities of the latter are poor and the runway is a little too bumpy for many airlines. When the delegation enjoyed an evening boat cruise on the Zambezi, we experienced a similar problem. Only two of the many boats operating on the river were registered in Zambia. All the others were from Zimbabwe, although they all used the Zambian side of the river because there was more wildlife to be seen there.
What the country needs is appropriate and ethical investment. There must be two interlinked goals: the development of local people and the conservation of the environment and wildlife. Local communities must see that visitors pay because they want to see the wildlife, and local people should understand that they will benefit from conservation. It is important that Zambia learns from the mistakes of its neighbours. I have heard countless stories of people going on long game drives in Kenya and seeing hardly any animals. If one appears, a dozen or more vehicles arrive within minutes.
Nothing could be more different from the experience of the South Luangwa nature reserve where we had many close encounters—indeed, some were extremely close. Unlike in Kenya, the guides are not allowed to radio other guides to attract them. They do not need to: the game is abundant. At present, few local people are involved in tourism, beyond employment as camp workers and scouts. The way forward must be for game lodges and safari operators to plough money back into local communities. Tourists, though few, should ask their local tour operators how much revenue goes back directly to local people.
On a six-hour road journey from Lusaka to Livingstone, the CPA delegation saw what benefits investment can bring. Where there is irrigation—there is an abundance of water in Zambia—the land is fertile; but where there is no irrigation, little is grown and poverty prevails. I hope that the Government will play their part in helping Zambia to achieve the increased inward investment that it so desperately needs.
Mrs. Gillan: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady's account of a trip that obviously left its mark on her. Did she have the opportunity to discuss refugees in Zambia? Is she aware that the UN singled out Zambia for praise for hosting more than 200,000 refugees? What extra support could be given to Zambia for taking on that role when other countries are so busy rejecting it?
Charlotte Atkins: We were indeed able to discuss that issue. Zambia certainly takes more than its fair share of the burden, especially in view of the country's poverty. Its Government set budgets, but are seldom able to meet them because of a lack of resources. Zambia certainly should be praised and supported for its valuable work.
296WH
I hope that the Government will help Zambia to achieve increased inward investment—sustainable commercial investment. That might help it to avoid grasping a dangerous short-term strategy and to achieve long-term sustainable development.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members wish to speak. If they exercise a little self-restraint, they will be able to contribute to the debate.
4.28 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: I shall do my best to follow your instructions, Mrs. Dunwoody.
I wish to draw attention to double standards over Zimbabwe. When I was at university in Cambridge, the great issue was the civil war in Rhodesia, as it was then called. A great campaign was fought in the press and protests were made with the overwhelming support of left-wing agitators. The Minister would be proud to include himself among them.
The reality of the profoundly horrible civil war was brought home to me when a Viscount was shot down and a friend of mine lost both her parents who were travelling on it. It is striking that we hear nothing about the country now, despite what Mugabe has done to it since he came to power. Where the Royal Navy failed, he succeeded. The BEIRA patrol attempted to stop petrol imports reaching Rhodesia. Now, thanks to the incompetence and corruption of the Mugabe regime, petrol and diesel are hard to come by. According to one of the Harare newspapers, trucks recently had to wait three hours to buy 20 litres—only four gallons—of fuel. Diesel is in short supply and farmers have been hit, so they cannot harvest tabacco. That is the result, I repeat, of sheer incompetence.
Between August 1997 and December 1998, the Zimbabwean dollar changed, in relation to the American dollar, from seven to 38, which pushed up the price of imports. Like most communists, the Government were so incompetent that they did not change the price of fuel in Zimbabwe. Noczim, the national oil company of Zimbabwe, was not allowed to increase its prices and it ran up a deficit of $9 billion. We do not have time to go into the expense of the war in the Congo, which is probably being fought for Mugabe's personal gain.
The impact on the country is devastating. The hon. Member for Tooting. (Mr. Cox) mentioned the value of education. According to a report in the Zimbabwe Standard on 30 January, the Cambridge examination board is refusing to clear examination results because it is owed £2.6 million by the Zimbabwean Government. An official said:
"Forex reserves at the central bank have dwindled to alarming levels. Well, government can make a directive, but if there is no forex nothing will be done."
That affects every level of Zimbabwe, yet no one appears to be protesting.
Mr. Tony Colman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at yesterday's Financial Times, in which the Minister delivered a stinging denunciation of the Zimbabwean regime.
Mr. Paterson: I should be delighted to read that report. However, the Minister gave a different

297WH
impression when he spoke earlier. The hon. Gentleman might have turned up late and missed the Minister's speech.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke movingly of her direct experiences. AIDS is a grotesque problem in Zimbabwe. According to the UN, one in four adults between the ages of 15 and 49 have AIDS, 2,500 people die of the disease every week and, incredibly, the average life expectancy will have fallen from 61 to 39 by 2010. There is astonishing corruption and theft.
Dr. Tonge: I must take the hon. Gentleman to task, as I feel strongly about AIDS.
AIDS did not occur in the past couple of years. Ten or more years ago, the medical profession was sounding clear warnings about it. The previous Government did nothing apart from mount a brief television campaign, and then the issue disappeared.
Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that. However, I am discussing the Mugabe regime, which has been in power since the 1980s—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will allow me to get a word in edgeways, I shall make the point that Mugabe and his regime have stolen wantonly from the Zimbabwean people.
I shall give a little vignette. In the past decade, Mugabe has been to 150 countries and his travel costs are $260 million. Those audited costs are for fuel bills alone: they do not take account of Mugabe's charges and expenses. He takes an allowance of $50,000 and an extra $10,000 per trip, which is what the first lady also receives. None of that is audited, although that is where the money is going. Of course, Mugabe takes his entourage with him. Senior Government officials receive $12,500 a day. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) described that as a kleptocracy. Mugabe's regime is totally corrupt and raids the wealth of Zimbabwe. As a result, the Zimbabwean people are suffering.
Dr. Tonge: I must take the hon. Gentleman to task yet again. The Conservative Government were in power for 17 years, during which time the Mugabe regime became worse and worse. Indeed, the previous Government even sold that regime Hawk jets. How does he explain that inaction?
Mr. Paterson: I am discussing the damage that Mugabe and his entourage have inflicted on Zimbabwe. It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady is trying to score cheap points against the Conservative party, when we should concentrate on the welfare of people living in that benighted country.
Mugabe's regime is backed by deeply unpleasant repression of the media. News is suppressed, the classic case being that of Mark Charandula, editor of the independent Zimbabwe Standard, who was arrested because he reported an alleged military coup in which 23 members of the Zimbabwean national army were detained for plotting to overthrow President Mugabe's Government. Several high court orders were made calling for Mr. Chavanduka's release, but the authorities failed to comply. The military said that the judge could not direct them and that anyone meddling with military matters would be subject to such matters.
298WH
Mr. Chavanduka was severely beaten in custody and emerged with signs of torture: he had cigarette burns, electric shocks and had been immersed in drums of water. Dr. Johnson said that one can tell a man by the company he keeps. It is interesting that Mugabe has been harbouring the other communist dictator who brought Ethiopia to its knees, Mengistu Haile Miriam. He is doing so in return for the guns that Mengistu gave him during the civil war.
I turn now to the referendum and the general election that might be held in March. Replying to my intervention about the possible seizure or theft of land, with no compensation, from 4,500 white farmers, the Minister said that it was not a priority. They farm half the country's prime agricultural land. If such burglary is allowed, the impact on those who want to invest in Zimbabwe will be catastrophic. We should not underestimate the devastating impact, not just on the white people who are our flesh and blood relatives but on those who lived there for centuries before. It will have an appalling effect on all sectors of the Zimbabwean population.
What is the Minister doing to support those brave people who have stood up against Mugabe? There is the Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai and the Zimbabwe Union of Democrats led by Margaret Dongo. If they link up, they could win 75 seats. What encouragement is the Minister giving them? What messages is he giving the Mugabe regime that their freedom to campaign should not in any way be infringed? It is worth noting that one non-governmental group calculated that a quarter of the people on the electoral roll for the next stage of the general election planned for March were dead, fictitious or had multiple listings.
The Justice Minister, Emmerson Mnangagwa, announced that the election should be postponed until June, but he has been overruled by Robert Mugabe. I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said about the fundamental importance of the Commonwealth getting involved in the election to monitor it extremely carefully. The Commonwealth should threaten to expel Zimbabwe if it is not allowed rigorously to check how the election is conducted.
Mugabe is trying to stall two reports on the Matebeleland massacres in the early 1980s, in which about 3,000 people were killed. Again, we come back to double standards. We do not hear great left-wing protests about that. We hear about General Pinochet often enough; he is accused of doing 3,000 people to death in a non-judicial manner, exactly as Mugabe and his cronies have done.
Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for his support for the line that I have taken and for the line of questioning that I hope the Minister will address directly. Does he share my concern that Zimbabwe is rapidly going downhill? That is evidenced by the withdrawal of some of its lines of credit, notably by one of its leading trading partners, the South African Customs Union. Will he comment on reports that Mugabe has secured a loan of millions of dollars from Colonel Gaddafi to alleviate the current

299WH
fuel shortage and to pay soldiers, who have not been paid since last November? Does he agree that that is a very disturbing development?
Mr. Paterson: It is grotesque that he should receive such help from another equally unpleasant and dangerous source—Gaddafi in Libya. We do not have enough time to go into the details of the war in the Congo. It seems that it is being fought very much for Mugabe's personal gain and at devasting cost to the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe. I am worried that the Minister is compromised by his past. There are two standards. In the case of Burma, Cuba and Zimbabwe, the Government do not take the strong line on civil rights, abuses of state power and kleptocracy—we heard about this in Zimbabwe—that they do in other areas.
Mr. Hain: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was on Tuesday afternoon during Foreign Office questions, but if he had been listening he would have heard the clearest ministerial condemnation of what is happening in Zimbabwe. There was certainly nothing like it during the 18 years that his party was in power, when things went seriously wrong in that country and his Government did nothing about it.
Mr. Paterson: I was present at Foreign Office questions, and the Minister failed to answer my supplementary question. This referendum result is a possible breach in the dam if the forces of good push through it.
Mr. Roger Casale: Given the hon. Gentleman's comments about double standards, is he prepared to condemn the handiwork of General Pinochet?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If we could have a little discipline and brief interventions, preferably on the subject of the debate, we might proceed.
Mr. Paterson: I will observe your first injunction and be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The remarkable result in the referendum gives the forces of good in Zimbabwe a chance. I thought that the Minister's initial comments about what Britian can do were limp wristed. There must have been a way of stopping the jet parts about which I asked a question. If the Foreign Office had used its lawyers, they would have found a way round that. There must be some way of insisting that the Commmonwealth becomes actively involved in the preparations for the general election and ensures that the two reports on the Matabeleland massacres are published. The Government must find a way of putting pressure on Mugabe to stop him silencing the press in the build-up to the general election, and to give advice to the democratic groups that need to unite and work against Mugabe. I want the Minister to say that he will take a strong line on Zimbabwe. Failing that, I strongly suggest that he find someone else who will.
4.42 pm
Valerie Davey: A significant number of hon. Members must have either lived and/or worked in Africa, and they must realise how much it has to give as well as how much it needs to receive. In the mid 1960s I spent some years teaching in Tanzania and I came back having learnt far more than I taught. I want to use the experience of that country then and since to emphasise the importance of looking at the quality and nature, as well as the quantity, of our aid.
Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world. There is a life expectancy of about 48. Illiteracy among men is 18 per cent. and among women it is significantly higher, at 38 per cent. By comparison with many other countries, that is not so high, but it is still significant in a severely indebted, low-income country. As debt is relieved and bilateral aid is given, it goes to programme aid, technical co-operation and humanitarian aid. I am proud that in 1999–99 this country gave £79 million in bilateral aid to Tanzania.
Tanzania has made progress, as an earlier speaker said. Economic, structural and political reforms are under way. However, education and health indicators are getting worse. I have learned that of the programmed aid, first we fund a range of general imports. I question the word "imports". Will the Minister tell us whether we are funding imports into the country, or out of it? It is essential that we understand the importance of Tanzania's exports. What matters is what is coming out. Trade with the rest of the world is vital for that country.
We have heard a great deal about investment in countries. I want to emphasise both the necessity of fair trade with them and the importance of what those countries export, especially Tanzania at the moment. Coffee is my example, and I have brought my example with me. I am delighted that the House of Commons takes part in fair trade and that Cafedirect and its equivalent in tea are used in the House. Would that more business and industry did the same. Yet Tanzania's export earnings fell by 8.1 per cent. during the past year. Low production of coffee, cotton, sisal, tea and tobacco is given as the cause. One realises how dependent it is on climate and the availability of water when one hears the list of exports, and therein lies part of the problem. Rich countries, such as the United States, stockpile coffee, so the price is stable from year to year, whatever amount is produced.
Mrs. Gillan: Does the hon. Lady think that the figures might also have been affected by the European Union ban on imports of fresh fish from east Africa, which was lifted recently? How will the resumption of the trade help Tanzania's economy?
Valerie Davey: I was going to mention the restoration of the trade in 50 tonnes of fresh fish from Lake Victoria. It was stopped nine months ago because of the fishermen's excessive use of chemicals. Who sold them the chemicals? I am sure that the fishermen of Lake Victoria would not normally have used chemicals in the trade. We must examine what we are exporting that is of value, and what we are using.
I can tell the hon. Lady, from many years of

301WH
experience, that we have sold as part of our aid what we wanted to sell, when we have not been careful. Contracts have often not included parts. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends have seen high-tech agricultural equipment lying by the side of the road because spares were not available. African ingenuity in the use of equipment has been brought to my attention recently. Many of my hon Friends will know of Tools for Self-Reliance. In the past, it has sent Singer sewing machines for good use in parts of Africa, for example. It is now bringing back from Africa renewable parts of used machines for making tools that we need for forestry. That seems an excellent quid pro quo. Tanzania, especially, has the most incredibly self-reliant and able people. However, the provision of education is declining.
I want to praise Tanzania for the number of refugees that it is taking in. The last figure I saw was that it had taken up to 800,000 refugees from eight countries, including 300,000 people from Burundi and many from the Congo. The populaton is 31 million people. Think of the debates in the House about the number of asylum seekers that we might be willing to take in. Tanzania's generosity might be with United Nations financial help, but its support and reception for those refugees leave this country, yet again, with much to learn.
It is important to help with literacy. In the five years to 1996, the assistance that we gave was largely limited to English language support at secondary level. I again endorse the important work of the British Council, but I ask it to think again about its provision. A review has shown no positive impact on poverty from that support. Our aims for educational support—to give a widespread service—have not been achieved by the teaching of English in secondary schools. I am glad to say that we are now working to improve education services nationally, especially at a basic level.
We must revitalise primary education. Indeed, while the wider programme is being developed, we are considering giving interim support in the form of textbooks and school buildings. I want to put a big question mark over that and say how much more imaginative our approach should be.
I support what has been said about the World Service. How many more people might we reach via radio, with the agreement of educators in Tanzania? How much more we might do via e-mail. Before hon. Members say, "Where is the equipment at the other end?" I must emphasise the cost and energy of sending books. I was concerned by the reference to Cambridge university. Why are we setting Cambridge university exams in Africa? We need to support African countries to develop their own education in their own way. That might not be with textbooks in school buildings but through radio and women's groups, which are essential to the further development of African countries. We might need to learn from them.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall cut my speech, but I want to emphasise one final point. Coming soon, in Dakar, Senegal, is the United Nations tenth anniversary conference on the importance of primary education throughout the world. I want to ask the Minister what contribution Britain will make? The United Nations has learned a lesson. I could tell the House of many ways in which UNESCO and other organisations have betrayed western countries by
302WH
not listening and learning, but I shall not pursue that now. I shall simply ask the Minister what contribution we will make to the conference in Dakar—at least the conference is being held in Africa—and what support we will give over the next 10 or 15 years to ensure that the young people of Africa receive the level of education that they deserve, so that those desperately poor countries can develop and take their full role in the world community with dignity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Brady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
4.51 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for such vocal support. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) who made a sensible contribution that centred on the vital importance of education to improve the situation in Africa. Like myself, the hon. Lady is a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, so I know that she takes as great an interest in educational matters in this country as she evidently takes in such matters elsewhere. In speaking about whether it is appropriate for British aid to focus on secondary education and the teaching of English, I should like to ask the hon. Lady what she knows about other national or European Union and aid programmes and how all the programmes dovetail because, clearly, it is important that we do not take unco-ordinated decisions. If other countries are also contributing support for infant and primary education, it may be more sensible for us to concentrate our assistance on more advanced education.
In a somewhat partisan intervention earlier in the debate, which was not necessarily in the spirit of Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) called into question the previous Government's record on aid to Zimbabwe. I draw to her attention the fact that even with an increase in aid by the Government this year—the figure now stands at £29 million—that sum is still £6 million less than the total provided in 1994–95.
Dr. Tonge: I was referring not to aid, but to the Conservative Government's inactivity and encouragement of the regime in Zimbabwe.
Mr. Brady: It is very easy to criticise people for what has not been done without giving credit for the good efforts that have been made. It does the hon. Lady no credit to make cheap partisan points and to attack the previous Government's record in one area when so much good work was done elsewhere. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) if he wishes to intervene.
Mr. Jim Murphy: No.
Mr. Brady: I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to intervene. It is important to set the record straight.
We have heard some good contributions. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke with considerable knowledge of Kenya, which some hon. Members

303WH
pronounced "Keenya". I have less experience of Kenya and was encouraged to hear what he said about the opposition parties getting established. That was not the case when I was there nearly 10 years ago. It gives great cause for hope.
Much was said about the enormous problem of HIV and AIDS across sub-Saharan Africa. That should be taken seriously and tackled, but we must be cautious that we do not focus all our attention on that one concern. We cannot ignore other problems, especially health problems. Many hon. Members know that in parts of Africa—indeed, across much of the world—there is a resurgence of malaria. It remains an enormous killer, but it is virtually unreported and unnoticed. We must pay that some attention instead of focusing on a subject that catches headlines.
In my intervention, I mentioned the situation in Zimbabwe and I support the calls to take that seriously. The referendum result has opened a window of hope in the past few days. Not many of us expected the people of Zimbabwe to be permitted to express that view in a referendum. Now that the disgraceful proposed constitution has been rejected, we have reached the critical moment when Britain can exert influence and, hopefully, make a difference. We must use whatever methods are at our disposal to achieve that.
I am not saying that we must withdraw all bilateral aid tomorrow—a considerable amount of bilateral aid should continue to be given. The Minister said that we would give more if the regime in Zimbabwe were more acceptable to the British Government. The Government have accepted, then, that aid can be used as a lever. This is the time to make it clear to Mugabe's Government that we are prepared to use the levers that are at our disposal.
We must take a firm and tough line and back the people in Zimbabwe who are bravely making the opposition voice heard. We do not need to pull the rug on valuable programmes, but the aid that is given to Zimbabwe is wider reaching than the hon. Member for Richmond Park would have us believe. She mentioned aid, which I accept might be essential, for birth control and sexual health projects. Nearly £30 million a year—a large sum of money—is provided. Much of that is technical aid, aid and trade, grants and other aids in kind. A relatively small sum goes towards humanitarian assistance.
There are many different headings under which we are assisting the regime in Zimbabwe. The hon. Lady mentioned the £1 million a day, which the people of Zimbabwe can ill afford, spent on pursuing the war in the Congo. The British Government are providing £600,000 a day to Zimbabwe in one way, shape or form. Although that may not be going directly to support the war effort, there is a great danger that it is indirectly funding undesirable activities. The Government must focus on that if we are to achieve an acceptable outcome in Zimbabwe over the next few months and years.
4.59 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy: I am delighted to participate in this important debate, especially as I believe that it is the first debate on the subject in
304WH
Westminster Hall. It comes 10 years after Nelson Mandela's release from prison in South Africa and shortly before Namibia celebrates its tenth year of independence from the control of apartheid in South Africa.
I have listened with great interest to all the comments made, especially those of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. I thought that at least two out of the three Conservative contributions were at best imbalanced and unfortunate. If the Conservative party had shown a small proportion of the anger and rage that they spend on the Zimbabwe Government—who are, of course, acting reprehensibly—to the apartheid regime in South Africa, perhaps the millions of black South Africans who suffered under that regime would not have had to do so.
Mr. Brady: Would the hon. Gentleman like the present Government to take as tough a line against the appalling regime in Zimbabwe as they are taking against the current regime in Austria?
Mr. Murphy: I shall not be tempted into discussing Austria.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Very wise.
Mr. Murphy: When I am faced with a choice between the performance of the current Foreign Secretary and the previous Conservative Government's attitudes to apartheid in South Africa, there is only one thing that fills me with shame. I refer not to the actions of our current Foreign Secretary, but to the previous Conservative Government's support for the apartheid regime.
There is much to say about the continent of Africa, which has 53 countries, although I do not intend to spend even five seconds on each of them. It has more than 750 million inhabitants from the northern point of Bizerte in Tunisia to Cape Agulhas in South Africa. If one believes the tabloid press, the continent has unlimited problems and no cause for optimism. I do not hold that view, and neither do most hon. Members. Let us remember that the continent's GDP has grown faster than its population. It did so in 1998 for the fourth successive year. Although there are many difficulties and problems, there are also an awful lot of good and positive things.
Africa has grave economic problems and other dire difficulties. The per capita income in Africa is $688 per annum, by contrast with that of the UK, which is more than $20,000 per annum. Even within Africa, there are enormous inequalities within and between the various nations. In the countries to the north of the Sahara, the average annual income is more than $1,200; in sub-Saharan Africa, the average is $526. In the least developed nations in Africa, which account for two thirds of the 53 countries, the average income per day is just 61 cents. We should remember that that level of poverty applies to two thirds of the countries. The five most prosperous nations in Africa have 60 per cent. of the entire continent's GDP, and the country of South Africa contributes more than a quarter of the entire continent's GDP. We must be aware of the differences within the continent and the difficulties experienced by different nations within it.

305WH
I mentioned South Africa, for which I have a great affection. Unlike the Minister, I am not a son of South Africa, but I have lived there. For better or worse, it made me what I am today and has made my life as it is today. I met and married my wife there. I do not have time to dwell on my experiences in South Africa, because other hon. Members want to speak. I must say, however, that I find it remarkable that Nelson Mandela, the world's premier leader of the 20th century—or perhaps of any century—could grow in a country that was so scarred by the degree of racist discrimination that was prevalent there for decades. He is a living symbol and a force for change and reconciliation in that nation. It is a matter of historical regret that some people in the Conservative party would have had him treated otherwise.
South Africa has a long way to go. Everyone acknowledges that it has a problem with crime, but I do not enjoy reading the comments made in this and other countries about the stereotypes of Africa and South Africa: that it is a war-ravaged continent, that it is a continent of corruption and that we should have an affinity with the white people of Africa because they are our flesh and blood. I do not share that outlook on life.
A high-profile example is the bid for the world cup. I do not want to trivialise the issue, but England is rightly bidding for the 2006 world cup. I hope that England's bid to hold the tournament is successful—it is a strong bid—but I do not hope that they are successful in winning the cup. I hope that Scotland wins it. Of course, England's bid is strong, but South Africa also has a strong bid, yet some people have used the excuse that South Africa's bid should not be successful because it is part of a war-torn continent. They use the terrible experiences and occurrences in Angola as a reason why South Africa should not be allowed to host the world cup. We all know that Angola is further away from Cape Town than Kosovo is from London, so let us not allow any of those unfortunate stereotypes to be dressed up as logical explanations why South Africa or the African continent should not get a fair share of international events and the international economy.
Mr. Colman: A bid has been produced for the Rio plus 10 conference to be held in South Africa in 2002, rather than at the United Nations in New York. Does my hon. Friend support that bid from South Africa?
Mr. Murphy: Based on what my hon. Friend says, I think that would be an important step forward for South Africa.
I should like to comment on many other matters, such as diamond mining in Namibia and Angola, but I shall conclude my speech by referring to United Kingdom investment. Only 2.6 per cent. of all United Kingdom outward investment goes to Africa, half of which goes to South Africa. Therefore, slightly more than 1 per cent. of all United Kingdom external investment goes to the other 52 countries. We should work with British companies to develop that economic opportunity in future.
Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Murphy: I am sorry, but time does not allow me to do so.
306WH
Business cannot take that opportunity simply by giving philanthropic support to develop the continent. That would be desirable, but naive. We must develop opportunities for business to prosper. We should bring down barriers and open opportunities in those nations, and the Department for International Development White Paper on globalisation, which will be published later this year, represents an important step forward for the United Kingdom in doing so.
Through debt relief and economic development, we must help to create populations in those countries that are educated, live in peace and are highly motivated, so that there is a skilled work force. We must ensure that British companies understand the opportunity of investing in that continent. I strongly urge that we continue with our crusade on international debt relief which, although it has to be conditional, is not just a moral imperative but an economic necessity.
5.10 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I want to cover very briefly one country-specific issue—the referendum in the western Sahara—and two general issues: the arms trade and debt cancellation. I congratulate the Minister on calling for this debate and recognise that he has a huge responsibility on his shoulders because of the impact that his interventions can have on people's lives. The people of the western Sahara have been waiting for years for a referendum on the right to self-determination. I note that 116 hon. Members signed an early-day motion expressing their concern that the referendum might face further delays because of the questionable 70,000 or more appeals from Morocco. The new millennium should mark a new start for the Saharawi people. The Minister's interventions could have a real impact, so I hope that he will tell us what actions he, together with the United Nations, can take to ensure that parties in the conflict strictly abide by the terms of the signed appeals agreements.
Other hon. Members have spoken of the human damage caused in Africa by the arms trade. The Government have done more than any other to try to combat the real problems that it causes. They have said that arms will not be supplied where they are likely to be used for external aggression or internal repression; and that code of conduct will be strictly enforced. However, we are big producers and exporters of arms and are likely to find the arms industry snuggling up to Members of Parliament and Ministers, asking them to support particular defence contracts. That can and probably will fuel this wicked trade. I remind hon. Members that so often it is the poorest people in Africa and other countries that suffer most from it. Of course countries have a right to defend themselves, but the availability of weapons in Africa is doing so much damage that we need to tackle the problem head on. We should use our talented engineers and workers for a positive agenda in Africa, not for a destructive one.
Debt relief is another important issue, on which the Labour Government have a fantastic record. Two years ago, many people would not have believed that we could come so far. The Government have offered 100 per cent. debt cancellation to countries that are committed to tackling poverty. The problem is, however, far from solved. Only three countries—two in Africa—have had their debts cancelled under the Cologne initiative. One

307WH
is Mauritania, which received help through the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, but will still have to spend more on its annual debt service repayments than on health or education.
In Mauritania, 62 per cent of adults cannot read. What does that say about people who have to live in this increasingly globalised and technology-driven world? One in three children receive no education, yet the country has to make $80 million repayments every year, even after HIPC, which could more than double the health and education budgets. There is still such a long way to go.
Mozambique is one of the poorest countries on many indicators. It received help under HIPC I, having met all the IMF's strict requisite conditions. Yet the country will not benefit from HIPC II until June this year at the earliest. That may seem soon, but every day that passes destroys opportunities and takes away lives. One reason for the delay is the need for these countries to produce poverty reduction strategies before they may be helped. The lack of such a strategy causes the delay. We must pile in help so the country can devise its strategy and overcome the obstacle as soon as possible.
Even when June 2000 arrives, this poor country will still have to spend $62 million—more than it currently spends on health—on debt repayment. That is in a country where three quarters of the population have no access to safe water or sanitation. Those are countries that are in the HIPC initiative. There are others which, although very poor, are outside HIPC.
Nigeria was dropped last year for technical reasons. It is Britain's biggest debtor amongst the poorest countries, but it is not expected to benefit from the Chancellor's 100 per cent. promise. It is a new democracy with a new Government who are struggling to establish economic and social stability. They are under an impossible burden of debt. Creditor countries, including the UK, lent freely to previous military regimes, and we must share responsibility for freeing Nigeria from that debt crisis, which is constraining development.
I urge the Government to take still further action on debt relief. I congratulate them on everything that they have done, but we need to put more pressure on G8 countries to take forward the agenda for faster, deeper debt relief. We must urge the other G8 members who have not made the 100 per cent. commitment on bilateral debts to do so. Italy, Germany, Japan and France must follow the lead that this country has taken. We can be rightly proud of it. We must also urge the United States—the richest country in the world—to put money into an HIPC trust fund to cover some of the multilateral relief costs. There has been a proposal to Congress this week about that. We must ensure that that money is delivered.
Some of the subject matter of the debate can sound dry and technical, but it has inspired children and adults alike in this nation. We hardly remember the pain of hunger, but we sometimes have pangs after just a few hours of not eating. People in Africa go through that pain day after day. Perhaps all of us know someone with HIV or, worse, someone who has died of AIDS; perhaps we know someone who has lost an arm or even their life
308WH
because of the arms trade. We know the pain that that causes when it happens to one person, but in Africa that pain is writ large in millions and millions of lives. The Government are doing a lot, but we cannot rest. There is so much to do before we can deliver opportunities for people in Africa.
5.16 pm
Mr. Hain: I am delighted to respond to the debate, which has been an outstanding example of how Westminster Hall can be used. I was especially delighted to discover another son of Africa in the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Speaking of sons, I welcome back to the House my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), who has just returned after having a son. It is good to see her here and to hear the authoratative way in which she spoke about debt relief and Africa's problems.
I commend other hon. Members for the authoritative way in which they spoke. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) showed his deep knowledge of Kenya, while, in recounting her experience in Zambia, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) was, if I may say so, a good advertisement for CPA visits. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) obviously knows a lot about Tanzania; the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) showed her deep knowledge of Uganda and Sudan and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) showed his knowledge of South Africa.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was at yesterday's business lunch on African issues, along with the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and her point about opportunities for business in Africa was well made. I was talking to a senior executive of Unilever, who said that his company gets its best returns in Africa. That should be a green light for invesment there by British-based companies.
The hon. Lady spent time attacking the Zimbabwean Government, as did her colleagues the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I share their criticisms of the policies that are being pursued by the Zimbabwean Government. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) kindly reminded hon. Members, I spelt them out in yesterday's Financial Times. The hon. Lady might like to know, however, that President Mugabe plaintively refers to the nostalgic delights of doing business with Conservative Members, particularly the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, whom he described as a great friend. He finds it difficult to deal with this Labour Government because we are critical of human rights abuses, bad governance and Zimbabwe's dreadful economic policy. So there is a large dose of rewriting history.
Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No, I do not have time.
In conjunction with international financial institutions, the Government are tackling—or at least, seeking to tackle—Zimbabwe's many deep problems.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No, I am sorry, but I do not have time.

309WH
In relation to electoral education, we provided a £20,000 grant which was used to fund what became the civil society opposition in the referendum campaign. Indeed, that was attacked by President Mugabe.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about aid levels. British aid to Zimbabwe is currently £10 million, which is a small amount, much less, indeed, than we would be prepared to give if the Government and their economic policies changed. That £10 million is overwhelmingly concentrated on policies to eliminate poverty, and almost entirely dispersed through non-governmental organisations, although there are some joint Government projects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development assured the House that, to her knowledge, there was no evidence of British aid funds to Zimbabwe being used inappropriately.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No, I do not have time.
The hon. Lady asked for an explanation of my statement about Jonas Savimbi being taken out of the Angolan conflict. I said that if Mr. Savimbi decided to retire to one of his many homes elsewhere in Africa, that would greatly aid the end of the conflict and the peace process—if there were to be one. He is a wealthy individual and his safe passage could be guaranteed under UN arrangements.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No, I do not have time.
Mrs. Gillan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are supposed to be engaged in debate. Would you therefore advise me whether, in this Chamber, it is right for the Government spokesman to avoid taking questions about points that are directly relevant to the Opposition parties? Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Westminster Hall was set up to enable us to debate? However, the Government obviously want not a debate but a showcase.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair's life is complicated. However, I am not responsible for what Ministers do.
Mr. Hain: I am spending the first few minutes of my speech answering the hon. Lady's questions. I generously accepted many of her hon. Friends' interventions during my introductory remarks. I simply do not have time to accept interventions now, as I am trying to answer questions.
The hon. Lady asked about the work of the British Council. I endorse her comments as I strongly support the council's work. I also endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, who asked about education, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. The position in Africa is devastating. There are more children out of school in sub-Saharan Africa than there were a decade ago. In five years' time, 50 million children will be out of school; by 2015, the number will have reached 57 million, three quarters of the world total.
310WH
Reversing the decline in school enrolment is probably the single most important investment that foreign nations, including Britain, can make in Africa. The Labour Government's aid and assistance programme has therefore been targeted to a great degree on funding education provision throughout Africa. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) made that point. Having worked on aid and development over the years, he speaks with great authority on Africa. I acknowledge and pay tribute to that.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked several important questions about arms dealing, and made valid points about brokering and trafficking. We are committed to new legislation seeking to put that under some kind of control, however difficult that is to do in practice.
The hon. Lady spoke knowledgeably about the problem of AIDS, drawing on her experience of visiting Uganda. Uganda is a good example of how we can begin to turn the situation around if a Government leads and works with donor countries such as Britain. The hon. Lady mentioned landing at Entebbe airport. I am not sure whether she visited the centre which is tackling the AIDS epidemic and which Britain helps to fund—I visited the centre when I went to Uganda in October.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands talked extremely movingly about the problem of AIDS in Zambia, where the effect is devastating. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting for his generous tribute to the excellent high commissioner in Kenya, Geoffrey James, who does a very good job for us and for the people in Kenya. I agree that it is vital that we see the success of the economic and good governance recovery programme that is led by President Moi, with able assistance from newly appointed civil servants, including Richard Leakey. Kenya has been sliding down for some years and there is now an opportunity to turn it around. President Moi's commitment to the programme should have Britain's support, and we are giving it.
While I acknowledge the African origins of the hon. Member for Eddisbury, I did not think that he did himself any credit by almost obsessively attacking my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend has paid a number of important and successful visits to Africa, including, importantly, a joint visit with the French Foreign Minister, Hugo Vedrine, to try to forge an alliance on African policy. He has also visited Nigeria, South Africa and Ghana. Those visits were extremely successful in cementing the relationship between Britain and Africa.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the current climate of this Government's policy towards Africa, our standing there is very high. I cannot claim that it is at the highest level. The evidence is the persistent response that I get from African Ministers and others when I speak at the United Nations and visit the people of African countries who believe that the British Labour Government genuinely speak in support of Africa. That was echoed at the business lunch yesterday when one

311WH
person after another said that they thought that our policies were a great advertisement for Africa, which assisted in the success of that continent.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury said that we must deliver on peacekeeping when we promise it. That is a legitimate comment. We are doing that by contributing to the peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We cannot put troops in, but we have put in military observers. We are contributing more support to Sierra Leone to end its brutal conflict and estabish peace there than any other country outside Africa.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands for the way that she targeted sanctions busters in respect of Zambia. I am sure that, as she rightly said, President Chiluba will want to tackle that problem, given the lead that he showed in tackling the conflict in the Congo. Many other Governments need to show the same determination to crack sanctions busting in their own countries and to bear down on supplies going to UNITA to sustain their murderous war. The Governments of Rwanda, Cote d'Ivoire, Togo and Burkina Faso, to name just some, ought to show
312WH
leadership because people in those Administrations are operating within the countries to supply UNITA with fuel, arms and other logistical equipment without which the war could not be waged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood was right to speak of the stereotypical image of Africa simply as a continent ravaged by famine, conflict, AIDS and corruption, as if nothing good is happening there. There are lots of success stories in Africa, and my hon. Friend said that South Africa was the prime example. We need to build on those because they give tremendous opportunities for Britain and British business to build a close relationship and partnership with Africa.
Finally, in respect of western Sahara, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, South that we are indeed urging all the parties to abide by the United Nations peacekeeping agreement, which includes a commitment to a referendum. I believe that more creativity is needed to tackle the problem. Legitimate grievances are held by the people of western Sahara. The recent dismissal of the Interior Minister, Mr. Basri, by the King of Morocco is a very encouraging sign because there were serious human rights abuses there.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nationalist and Republican (Definition)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his oral statement of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 133, what is his definition of (a) a Nationalist and (b) a Republican. [109589]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Nationalists are those who support the SDLP, and Republicans are those who support Sinn Fein.

  Terrorist Violence
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have been(a) shot and (b) mutilated by terrorists since the Good Friday Agreement. [110057]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The following table shows the number of persons injured as a result of terrorist attacks during the period 10 April 1998 to 10 February 2000.

  Persons injured

  Gunshot wound

  155

  Explosion

  456

  Other

  1,811

  Total

  2,422

  Notes:

  1. 'Gunshot wound' includes casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings.

  2. 'Other' includes casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults, serious public disorder, etc.

  3. The figure of 155 shown in the table includes the 125 paramilitary style shootings shown in PQ 142 plus 30 other terrorist shootings ie those not recorded as paramilitary style.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have been murdered by terrorists since the Good Friday Agreement. [110058]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: During the period 10 April 1998 to 10 February 2000, there have been a total of 49 deaths recorded as being attributable to the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have been hospitalised following beatings by terrorists since the Good Friday Agreement. [110056]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: It is not possible to state how many were hospitalised but the following table shows the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks in Northern Ireland during the period 10 April 1998 to 10 February 2000.
  618W

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Shootings

  79

  46

  Assaults

  172

  88

  Total

  251

  134

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many attacks have been made on the RUC since the Good Friday Agreement. [110053]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The following table shows the number of attacks on police during the periods 10 April 1998 to 10 February 2000 and includes all attacks as a result of terrorist activity and serious public disorder.

  Type of attack

  Number

  Firearms

  23

  Explosive

  45

  Missile1

  2,348

  Assault

  6

  Other2

  279

  Total

  2,901

  1 "Missile" includes petrol bombs, stones, bottles, etc.

  2 "Other" includes minor assaults (not resulting in injury)

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Disqualifications Bill
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) oral and (b) written representations he has received from members of each party represented in the House and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the subject of the Disqualifications Bill indicating in each case the date on which representations were received; and if he will place a copy of each representation in the Library. [107629]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 10 February 2000 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Official Report, column 240W.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the long-term funding arrangements for police pensions. [109831]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are closely examining the practicability of establishing a fully funded police pension scheme. This is part of our wider consideration, following a major review, of what long-term changes, if any, are required to the Police Pension Scheme.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists were convicted and fined during 1999 for driving in a bus lane in the Greater London area during the restricted hours of bus lane usage. [110215]
  619W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Convictions for driving in a bus lane cannot be distinguished from other offences connected with neglect of traffic directions in the statistics collected centrally.

  Police Authority Funding
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce plans to restructure the formula governing police authority funding. [110178]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The police funding formula has been subject to continuous refinement since its introduction. The Government do not intend to make substantive changes to the formula during the more general review of the local government grant distribution system that is being taken forward in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.

  Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the crime clear-up rate was by(a) force and crime type and (b) basic command unit and crime type, for the year ending September 1999. [110306]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Clear-up rates by police force and crime type are published annually. The next set of figures, for the year ended March 1999, will be included

  NSPIS applications

  Application

  Benefits

  Contract status

  Supplier

  Expected delivery date

  Custody

  All custody information requirements met, with links to Case Preparation and PNC to provide data to all criminal justice organisations

  Awarded

  Securicor Information Systems

  Mid summer 2000

  Case Preparation

  Reduces police paperwork, improves file quality, support to witnesses and victims, electronic links to the Crown Prosecution Service, courts and others to speed the criminal justice system

  Awarded

  Securicor Information Systems

  Autumn 2000

  Crime and Incident reporting

  Reduced paperwork, improved crime analysis and crime and disorder reduction strategies

  Awarded

  Securicor Information Systems

  Autumn 2001

  Command and Control

  Improved responses to calls for assistance from the public

  Awarded

  Securicor Information Systems

  Early 2001

  Human Resources

  Improved deployment of available resources

  Awarded

  ORBIS Ltd.

  Spring 2000

  Vehicle Procedures and Fixed Penalty Office

  Better traffic law enforcement, lower costs, reduced paperwork for police and courts

  Delivered

  McDonnell Douglas Information Systems

  —

  National Management Information service (NMIS)

  Proactive management of resources to meet national and local performance targets

  Awarded

  Redfern Ltd.

  Summer 2000

  HOLMES II

  Direct support to detectives in solving crimes, reduced costs and improved use of resources

  Delivered

  UNISYS Ltd.

  —

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110165]
  620W
  in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1998", which is due to be published in late March. Clear-up rates for basic command units are not currently available.

  Information Systems
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for which National Strategy for Police Information Systems applications contracts have been awarded; who will supply them; what are the projected delivery completion dates; and what are the expected benefits; [110307]

  (2) which National Strategy for Police Information Systems applications have been designed to address cross-border crime between police authority areas; [110309]

  (3) for which National Strategy for Police Information Systems applications contracts have not been awarded. [110308]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Chief Executive of the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) informs me that all of the National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS) applications contracts have been awarded.

  The NSPIS applications are linked Information Technology systems enabling sharing of information within individual forces and with other police forces. The applications are also linked to the Police National Computer (PNC).

  The table, provided by PITO, details the contract status, supplier, expected delivery date and benefits for the individual NSPIS applications.

  Mr. Straw
  My department aims to purchase only sustainably produced timber and timber products. The Department's current Greening Operations policy (in place since June 1998) contains a specific aim in respect of as possible, wood products purchased by the Home Office should
  621W
  come from forests and plantations that have been independently verified as being well managed. We are continuing to develop and promulgate our Green Procurement policy and emphasise our commitment to considering the environment when making purchases. Our Environmental Action Plan in respect of paper focuses on reducing its overall use and on increasing the percentage of recycled paper used.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source. [110166]

  Mr. Straw
  In keeping with my Department's policy to minimise any adverse environmental impact of its activities, the Home Office welcomes the availability of independent certification schemes such as that of the Forest Stewardship Council.

  Our Greening Operations Policy (agreed in June 1998) encourages the use of ecolabels in procurement and asks purchasers to check environmental claims as thoroughly as possible, particularly with a view to verifying any vague environmental statements.

  Nevertheless, it would be impractical for us to commit to ensuring that all paper and timber products that we purchase have the Forest Stewardship Council certificate. Our understanding is that the scheme does not yet cover the broad range of products that we are likely to require. Also, we would not want to find ourselves in breach of public procurement rules by being seen to favour the Forest Stewardship Council's scheme over and above any other equally valid certification scheme.

  Contested Cases
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the years 1995 to 1999 (1) the average length of time between charge and final disposal of contested cases involving either way offences tried in the magistrates' courts; [110426]

  (2) the average length of time between committal and final disposal of contested cases involving either way offences which are tried before jury after election for jury trial; [110427]

  (3) the number and percentage of those who elected trial by jury who pleaded guilty to different offences from those on which they were committed. [110428]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally. Information on the time taken in magistrates courts proceedings is collected by the Lord Chancellor's Department's Time Intervals Survey. In 1999 and earlier years, the survey collected data on indictable (including triable either way) cases completed in a sample week of each February, June and October. From 2000 onwards, there will be four surveys during each year.
  622W
  The average time taken from charge to completion for defendants in contested triable either way cases which were tried in magistrates courts was 147 days in February 1999 and 132 days in both June 1999 and October 1999. These figures include charged defendants but exclude summonsed defendants. For defendants committed for sentence to the Crown Court, time before committal is included but time spent in the Crown Court after committal is not available and therefore is not included.

  These figures use information collected for the first time in 1999 following an enhancement to the survey. Equivalent figures for previous years are not available.

  Crown Court
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of appeals to the Crown Court per annum as a result of the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill (Lords). [110467]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 250W.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has (1) to end the power of magistrates to commit for sentence to the Crown Court; [110424]

  (2) to reduce the sentencing power of magistrates to those available to the Sheriff's Court in Scotland. [110520]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Pleadings
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the requirement to plead before venue for each of the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. [110425]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 ("plea before venue") provides for defendants in either-way cases to be asked to indicate their plea before the magistrates decide whether to accept or decline jurisdiction. Its purpose is to allow cases in which a guilty plea is indicated, and which might previously have been committed for trial, to be dealt with by the magistrates themselves where the appropriate sentence (after any discount for the guilty plea) is within the court's powers, or if not through being committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The provision was implemented in October 1997, since when (as expected) substantially fewer cases have been committed for trial, but there has been a significant increase in the numbers committed for sentence. Statistics collected by the Crown Prosecution Service show that the percentage of either-way cases committed for trial reaching the Crown Court by way of the defendant's election was 28 per cent. in 1997 and 1998, and 32 per cent. in 1999.
  623W

  Number of defendants at magistrates' courts committed for trial or sentence for a triable either-way offence1 in 1997, 1998 and January to June 19992

  Year

  Committed for trial

  Committed for sentence

  1997

  66,456

  6,823

  1998

  51,952

  18,185

  January-June 19992

  25,777

  9,533

  1 Where the triable either-way offence is the principal offence

  2 Data for this period are provisional

  Young Offender Institutions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to re-role existing adult prisons as(a) young offender institutions or (b) young offender institutions holding 16 and 17-year-olds. [110436]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service is considering a proposal to re-role Blantyre House, an adult male prison to a young offender institution for under 18-year-old juvenile males. This forms part of a strategy drawn up by the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board for securing further improvements to the under 18 secure estate. The proposal is contingent upon the availability of resources and trends in the prison population. No other adult prisons are being considered for re-role to a young offender institution, or young offender institution holding 16 and 17-year-olds. However, changes in the composition of the prison population may require the Prison Service to consider other strategic re-role options in future.

  Blantyre House Prison
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of Blantyre House Prison. [110438]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 48W.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current penalties are for malicious calls to emergency services; and what plans he has to increase the penalties. [110314]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The penalties for malicious calls to the emergency services, as to any other party, are a maximum fine of £5,000, level 5 on the standard scale, or six months' imprisonment, under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 as amended by section 92 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Currently there are no plans to increase these. The penalties came into force on 3 February 1995, and include the option of a custodial sentence for the first time.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the arrangements for the publication of the Charity Commission's Annual report. [111225]
  624W
  Mr. Boateng
  I have agreed that in future, the Charity Commission's Annual Report should be prepared on a financial year basis, rather than a calendar year basis. As a transitional measure, the next Annual Report will cover the 15 month period, 1 January 1999 to 31 March 2000 and should be published this Autumn.

  Boundary Commission
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Boundary Commission for England intends to start the next general review of constituencies in England. [111226]

  Mr. Straw
  The Commission has given notice of its intention to commence a general review forthwith. It is required to report between April 2003 and April 2007.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1999–2000 Departmental Expenditure Limits and running costs limits within his responsibility. [111227]

  Mr. Straw
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL), which covers Class IV Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) and Vote 2 (Prisons, England and Wales), will be decreased by £71,496,000 from £7,763,444,000 to £7,691,948,000. The running cost limit will be decreased by £1,141,000 from £2,137,953,000 to £2,136,812,000. A separate running cost limit of £163,000 has been established for expenditure on Welfare to Work.

  The changes are the net effect of the following transfers: £60,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) towards the cost of the Teenage Pregnancy Implementation Unit; £500,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) for the publicity campaign costs on teenage pregnancy; £200,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1), £93,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service (Class V Vote 4) in relation to contributions towards the costs of the Integrated Business and Information Systems Unit; £1,000,000 from the Department for Education and Employment (Class I Vote 1) and £1,500,000 from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III Vote 1) in support of the Youth Inclusion Programme; £411,000 from the Welsh Assembly (Class XIV Vote 1) to support Closed Circuit Television projects in Wales; £20,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) for the development of a handbook for drug service commissioners; £25,000 from the Cabinet Office (Class XVII Vote 1) in relation to the transfer of posts from the security facilities division; £600,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Class VII Vote 1) as contribution towards two overseas drug prevention projects; £9,612,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of costs arising from the Kosovan humanitarian evacuation programmes; £176,000,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of asylum support costs; £3,980,000 to the Scottish Executive for asylum seekers support arrangements; £233,000 to the Northern Ireland Office (Class XV Vote 1) in respect of legal services provided to the Northern Ireland Office; £56,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Class VII Vote 1) to cover the short-term attachment of the former Director of Operations (North) to the South African

  625W
  Department of Correctional Services; £45,000,000 from the DEL Reserve to fund the payment of special grant to local authorities for Kosovan evacuees. In addition, £300,000,000 in the DEL for asylum support costs has been reclassified as Annually Managed Expenditure.

  The decrease in the department's running costs limit is the net effect of the following transfers: £60,000 to the Department of Health towards the costs of the Teenage Pregnancy Implementation Unit; £200,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department and £93,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to contributions towards the costs of the Integrated Business and Information Systems Unit; £25,000 from the Cabinet Office in relation to the transfer of posts from the security facilities division; £8,500,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of asylum support costs; £233,000 to the Northern Ireland Office in respect of legal services provided to the Northern Ireland Office; £56,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to cover the short term attachment of the former Director of Operations (North) to the South African Department of Correctional Services; £6,000,000 from the Prison Service's running costs to fund the issue of long term loans to the Forensic Science Service; £3,722,000 from the Departmental Unallocated Provision (running costs element) to other current expenditure to fund the purchase of DNA services from the Forensic Science Service.

  These changes will be offset by transfers or a charge on the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

CABINET OFFICE

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 573W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by her Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108195]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  All research contracts placed using Cabinet Office standard terms and conditions of contract include the requirement for departmental consent to be granted prior to the disclosure of any information to journalists, both before and after publication. A copy of the standard Cabinet Office terms and conditions, which include the relevant conditions, has been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Subtitling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is his policy to ensure parity of subtitling across BBC1 and BBC2 and the new BBC digital channels before analogue switch-off. [106972]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 January 2000]: The provision of subtitling on BBC services is a matter for the BBC Governors and their policy is at least to match the targets set for any other broadcaster.
  626W
  I understand from the BBC that they have concentrated on subtitling their most popular analogue services and this has inevitably led to a disparity between BBC1 and BBC2. As a result, 63 per cent. of BBC1 is currently subtitled and 53 per cent. of BBC2. On digital services, 60 per cent. of output on digital BBC1 and BBC2 and 30 per cent. on BBC Choice is subtitled. The BBC has recently increased its targets for its new digital channels to 50 per cent. of subtitling within five years and 100 per cent. within ten years.

  Exercise England
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future role of Exercise England in setting standards and regulations. [110088]

  Kate Hoey
  I understand that Exercise England is currently in the hands of the liquidator. Sport England is now looking to safeguard standards by buying out Exercise England's register of members and the rights to its standards and regulations database. Sport England is also considering which organisation would be most suitable to take on this responsibility in future.

  Remploy
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Remploy products his Department has purchased in the last three years. [109937]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has no records of purchasing any Remploy products in the last three financial years.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the average amount of National Lottery grant awarded(a) per region and (b) per parliamentary constituency in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [109923]

  Kate Hoey
  The tables show the average amount of National Lottery grant awarded(a) by English region and (b) by UK parliamentary constituency in each year since 1995. These figures have been taken from the National Lottery Awards database which has been compiled using information supplied by the lottery distributing bodies. The tables exclude lottery awards not attributed by the distributing bodies to a particular constituency or region. The constituency or regional information relates to the address to which the lottery award was sent.

  £

  Year

  Average amount of grant awarded per English region

  1995

  108,548,057

  1996

  185,166,968

  1997

  267,196,685

  1998

  139,391,778

  1999

  102,335,368

  20001

  5,224,042

  1 Correct to 11 February 2000

  627W

  £

  Year

  Average amount of grant awarded per parliamentary constituency

  1995

  1,480,532

  1996

  2,529,394

  1997

  3,647,867

  1998

  1,902,230

  1999

  1,387,355

  20001

  69,723

  1 Correct to 11 February 2000

  Welsh and Gaelic Language Television
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on broadcasting Welsh and Gaelic language television programmes throughout the United Kingdom; and what proposals his Department has in this area. [110285]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department does not keep a separate record of such representations. S4C has already made its Welsh programmes more widely available on its digital satellite platforms while, in relation to Scottish Gaelic broadcasting, a task force established by the Scottish Executive is currently considering future provision; my Department is keeping in touch with its work.

  Works of Art (Nazi Era)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will make an announcement about the establishment of a panel to advise on works of art which may have been looted during the Nazi era. [111224]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am very pleased to be able to announce that the right hon. Sir David Hirst' has agreed to chair a Spoliation Advisory Panel to consider and advise on claims from anyone who lost possession of a cultural object during the Nazi era where such an object is now in the possession of a UK national collection or in the possession of another UK museum or gallery established for the public benefit.

  The draft terms of reference for the Panel are set out below and I am now inviting interested organisations and individuals to let me have their views before these are finalised.

  Spoliation Advisory Panel

  Draft Constitution and Terms of Reference

  Members of the Panel
  1. The members of the Spoliation Advisory Panel ("the Panel") will be appointed by the Secretary of State on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. The Secretary of State shall appoint one member as Chairman of the Panel.

  Resources for the Panel
  2. The Secretary of State will make available such resources as he considers necessary to enable the Panel to carry out its functions, including administrative support provided by a Secretariat ("the Secretariat").

  Functions of the Panel
  3. The task of the Panel is to consider claims from anyone (or from any one or more of their heirs), who lost possession of a cultural object ("the object") during the Nazi era, where such object is now in the possession of a UK national collection or in the possession of another UK museum or gallery established
  628W
  for the public benefit ("the institution"). The Panel shall advise the claimant and the institution on what would be appropriate action to take in response to such a claim. The Panel shall also be available to advise about any claim for an item in a private collection at the joint request of the claimant and the owner.
  4. In an appropriate case the Panel may also advise the Secretary of State

  (a) on what action should be taken in relation to general issues raised by the claim, and/or

  (b) where it considers that the circumstances of the particular claim warrant it, on what action should be taken in relation to that claim.

  Performance of the Panel's functions
  5. In performing the functions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4, the Panel's paramount purpose shall be to achieve a solution which is fair and just both to the claimant and to the institution.
  6. For this purpose the Panel shall:

  (a) make such factual and legal inquiries, (including the seeking of advice about legal matters, about cultural objects and about valuation of such objects) as the Panel consider appropriate to assess each claim as comprehensively as possible;

  (b) assess all information and material submitted by or on behalf of the claimant and the institution or any other person, or otherwise provided or known to the Panel;

  (c) examine and determine the circumstances in which the claimant was deprived of the object, whether by theft, forced sale, sale at an undervalue, or otherwise;

  (d) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the claimant's original title to the object, bearing in mind the difficulties of proving such title after the destruction of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the duration of the period which has elapsed since the claimant lost possession of the object;

  (e) give due weight to the moral strength of the claimant's case;

  (f) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the institution's title to the object;

  (g) consider whether any moral obligation rests on the institution taking into account in particular the circumstances of its acquisition of the object, and its knowledge at that juncture of the object's provenance;

  (h) take account of any relevant statutory provisions, including stipulations as to the institution's objectives, and any restrictions on its power of disposal;

  (i) take account of the terms of any trust instrument regulating the powers and duties of the trustees of the institution, and give appropriate weight to their fiduciary duties;

  (j) where appropriate assess the current market value of the object, and

  (k) formulate and submit to the claimant, the institution and the Secretary of State, its advice in a written report, giving reasons.

  Scope of Advice
  7. If the Panel upholds the claim in principle, it may recommend either:

  (a) the return of the object to the claimant, or

  (b) the payment of compensation to the claimant, the amount being in the discretion of the Panel having regard to all relevant circumstances, and not tied to the current market value, or

  (c) an ex gratia payment to the claimant, or

  (d) the display alongside the object of an account of its history and provenance during and since the Nazi era, with special reference to the claimant's interest therein; and

  629W

  (e) that negotiations should be conducted with the successful claimant in order to implement such a recommendation as expeditiously as possible.

  8. Where the Panel considers it appropriate to advise the Secretary of State under paragraph 4(a), it may make such recommendations in relation to general issues raised by the claim as it considers fit.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sellafield
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Health and Safety Executive and BNFL to report on the situation at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement. [111334]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Three HSE reports on the Sellafield site will be published by HSE tomorrow, Friday 18 February. BNFL's report into the data falsification incident at its MOX demonstration facility at Sellafield will also be published tomorrow. I will make arrangements for copies of the three HSE reports and the BNFL report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Hawk Exports (Zimbabwe)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government of Zimbabwe has paid for(a) the Hawk aircraft and (b) the spare parts for these aircraft for which export credits guarantee support has been given. [109729]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: ECGD supported bank loans to finance the sale of Hawk Aircraft and associated equipment to Zimbabwe in 1981 and 1989. These loans have been repaid.

  Objective 2
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to enable GO-East to manage the Objective 2 Programme in the Eastern Region. [110137]

  Mr. Caborn
  In deciding on my Department's contribution to GO East's running costs for the financial year 2000–01 I shall have regard to the additional administrative demands which will arise if the European Commission agrees to a substantial Objective 2 Programme in the East of England.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Turkey about the impact of the plans for the Ilisu Dam on neighbouring countries; and if he will make a statement. [110029]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State personally has had no discussions with Turkey about this matter. ECGD and FCO officials are continuing discussions with the other export credit agencies involved and the Turkish authorities on a number of issues, of which this is one.

  Defence Exports (Bahrain)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the export licences for defence equipment to Bahrain for each of the past five years, indicating the amount underwritten by the ECGD. [109488]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 1995 and 1 May 1997, 71 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 19 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Bahrain of goods subject to control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List.

  As regards export licences granted for the export of military goods to Bahrain between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1998, details of export licensing decisions in this period were set out in the Government's Annual Reports published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in March and November 1999. The Reports give details of the military equipment licensed for export during the periods as well as the ratings of these goods. Similar details of the military equipment licensed in later years will be set out in the relevant Annual Reports.

  As regards licences granted since 1 January 1999, the Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 1999 and 31 January 2000, 17 SIELs and 14 OIELs have been issued covering the export of the relevant goods to Bahrain. A breakdown of the licences issued between 1 January 1995 and 1 May 1997 and between 1 January 1999 and 31 January 2000 are set out in the tables.

  Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued for the export to Bahrain of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  1995

  1996

  1 January 1997 to 1 May 1997

  1 January 1999 to 31 January 2000

  ML1

  10

  9

  3

  9

  ML2

  2

  0

  0

  3

  ML3

  2

  5

  1

  2

  ML4

  1

  3

  0

  0

  ML5

  1

  1

  0

  4

  ML6

  0

  2

  0

  0

  ML7

  4

  2

  1

  0

  ML9

  0

  1

  0

  0

  ML10

  1

  1

  0

  2

  ML11

  2

  6

  2

  0

  ML13

  0

  2

  1

  0

  ML15

  4

  3

  0

  1

  ML24

  0

  1

  0

  0

  PL5006

  1

  1

  0

  0

  PL5017

  0

  0

  0

  3

  PL5018

  1

  1

  0

  1

  PL5021

  0

  1

  0

  0

  PL5032

  0

  1

  0

  0

  631W

  Open Individual Export Licences issued for the export to Bahrain of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  1995

  1996

  1 January 1997 to 1 May 1997

  1 January 1999 to 31 January 2000

  ML1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML4

  0

  2

  0

  2

  ML5

  0

  3

  0

  7

  ML6

  0

  2

  0

  3

  ML11

  2

  5

  0

  6

  ML13

  1

  5

  0

  1

  PL5006

  0

  0

  0

  1

  PL5017

  1

  1

  0

  1

  PL5030

  0

  0

  0

  1

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

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

  In addition, Bahrain is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences, covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  As regards export credit, ECGD has not provided cover in support of the export of any defence related equipment to Bahrain in any of the last five years.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the circumstances in which it is possible to revoke arms export licences. [110167]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 14 July 1999,Official Report, columns 155–56W.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the ATMs earmarked for post offices have been installed; and if he will list their whereabouts. [110175]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the first of the ATMs under the new partnerships will be installed during the summer. The sites are still being agreed but they will be located at post offices across the whole of the UK, in both rural and urban areas.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria will be used to decide the location of the ATMs to be sited at sub-post offices. [110174]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that all offices in the Post Office network will be considered for an ATM. The selection process and criteria used for selection are commercial and operational matters for the Post Office and its partners.
  632W
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Post Office and banks concerning(a) the criteria to be used for locating ATMs in post offices and (b) the additional income to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses ATMs are planned to generate. [110176]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  These are commercial and operational matters for the Post Office.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in each year since 1979, how many sub-post offices have closed; and how many of that number closed because no-one was prepared to take the business over following the(a) death and (b) retirement of the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. [110177]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of sub-post offices which have closed in each financial year since 1978–79 are as follows:

  Number of sub-post offices

  Closures in the year

  1978–79

  21,213

  21

  1979–80

  21,056

  157

  1980–81

  20,894

  162

  1981–82

  20,832

  62

  1982–83

  20,734

  98

  1983–84

  20,499

  235

  1984–85

  20,110

  389

  1985–86

  19,796

  314

  1986–87

  19,708

  88

  1987–88

  19,572

  136

  1988–89

  19,537

  35

  1989–90

  19,532

  5

  1990–91

  19,471

  61

  1991–92

  19,141

  330

  1992–93

  19,041

  100

  1993–94

  18,982

  59

  1994–95

  18,826

  156

  1995–96

  18,761

  65

  1996–97

  18,645

  116

  1997–98

  18,407

  238

  1998–99

  18,175

  232

  No detailed records are kept on reasons for closure. In many cases closure would have been the result of no one being prepared to take over the business.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110149]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's Estates and Facilities Management Directorate has established an Environmental Management System. This system requires all timber products to be purchased from a sustainable source.

  The Department encourages staff to purchase recycled paper where practicable; at present recycled paper accounts for some 44 per cent. of consumption.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken since 1997 to reduce the administrative burden on small businesses. [109562]
  633W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: One of the key steps has been to establish the Small Business Service, which is to be formally launched in April this year. One of the primary functions of the Small Business Service will be to find ways of reducing the regulatory burden encountered by small business, by eliminating unnecessary regulations wherever possible and ensuring that the "Think Small First" principle is applied across Whitehall to all new regulations. The Small Business Service will also encourage Government Departments to make information on regulations more comprehensible and accessible, including through an SBS gateway.

  Other important measures taken by the Department include exempting small shops from the EU requirement to unit price pre-packaged goods in fixed quantities and exempting employers with 20 or fewer employees from the trade union recognition procedures in the Employment Relations Act 1999. In addition we have recently consulted on proposals to increase the threshold below which companies are not required to have their accounts independently audited.

  Nuclear Fuel (South Korea)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantity of nuclear fuel containing reprocessed uranium has been(a) licensed for export and (b) subsequently exported by BNFL to South Korea for use in the Hanaro research reactor at Daeduk; and what bilateral nuclear co-operation agreements are in force between the United Kingdom and South Korea. [109908]

  Mrs. Liddell
  An export licence was granted on 11 November 1997 for the export of up to 50kg of recycled low enriched uranium powder to the Republic of Korea for research and development on nuclear fuel. My officials have been informed by the company that a shipment of 43.7kg of uranium was made under this licence in 1998. I am disclosing this information in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The UK has an agreement with the Republic of Korea for Co-operation in the Peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy which was presented to Parliament in June 1992 (cmnd 1961).

  BRITECH Initiative
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those firms participating in the BRITECH initiative in(a) Israel and (b) Britain. [109540]

  Ms Hewitt
  The BRITECH Foundation Ltd., which administers the BRITECH Fund, has recently been established. The Foundation has not yet made any grants from the Fund to UK or Israeli firms.

  Home Work Convention
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to ratify ILO Convention No. 177 on Home Work; and if he will make a statement. [110381]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to fair and decent minimum standards for all workers, including those who work from home. Our approach is fully in line with the principles of the ILO Convention 634W
  which calls for policies to promote equality of treatment between homeworkers and other workers. The Government White Paper published in December 1997 makes it clear that we are working towards ratification of the Convention, on a basis which does not impose excessive burdens on business.

  Competition Act 1998
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests there have been for the Director General of Fair Trading to examine agreements under section 12 of the Competition Act 1998. [110365]

  Dr. Howells
  None. Parties cannot make use of the notification provisions in Part I of the Act until the Act itself comes fully into force on 1 March 2000. The transitional arrangements in schedule 13 of the Act allow parties to agreements made between the time the Act received Royal Assent (9 November 1998) and 1 March 2000 to notify those agreements to the Director General for guidance. To date (15 February) there have been 10 such notifications.

  Hydro-Agri
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Hydro-Agri' s plans to restructure their UK operations. [110209]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: I am aware that discussions are taking place concerning the future of Hydro-Agri' s fertiliser manufacturing plant at Immingham. However, as it is a commercial matter for the company, it is not an issue on which it would be appropriate for me to comment.

  Millennium Bug
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what identifiable operational difficulties were caused to(a) nuclear power stations and (b) other nuclear facilities as a result of computer and other malfunctions arising from the Year 2000 millennium bug. [110651]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No identifiable operational difficulties occurred at any of the nuclear installations in the UK because of Y2k difficulties.

  Ukraine
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, under the G8 memorandum of understanding, Ukraine is intended to receive international funding for the continuing Chernobyl clean-up operation(a) before and (b) after the closure of reactor number three. [110573]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The G7/EU Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Ukraine covers a wide range of support to Ukraine to allow them to close Chernobyl by 2000—including assistance in areas of nuclear safety, energy efficiency, energy investments and the social impact resulting from closure. The MOU does not stipulate whether this support is to be given before or after closure of Chernobyl 3. In practice, much assistance has already been given and will continue after the anticipated closure of Chernobyl this year.
  635W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Britain has pledged as part of the G8 funding for the Chernobyl clean-up operation. [110574]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK has pledged $16.82 million to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) managed Chernobyl Shelter Fund (CSF), set up to finance work to repair the sarcophagus surrounding the damaged reactor 4 at Chernobyl, and a contribution of £18.25 million has been made to the EBRD managed Nuclear Safety Account (NSA), which is helping to fund a range of nuclear safety projects, including two pre-decommissioning facilities at Chernobyl. Further G8 contributions to the CSF are under consideration.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the UK and EU tariffs applicable to products imported from Ukraine. [110578]

  Mr. Caborn
  Goods imported from the Ukraine into the EU are charged either the tariffs laid down in the Common Customs Tariff of the European Communities, or, if they qualify, the preferential rates applicable to Ukrainian goods under the Community's Generalised Scheme of Preference.

  Full details are published in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to phase out the use of peat compost in gardens(a) owned and (b) tended by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [110718]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's current policy is not to use peat compost.

  Recycling
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportions of the material in(a) cars, (b) computers, (c) refrigerators and (d) televisions are recycled. [110349]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no published "average" figures for the recycled content of any of these products. However, there are industry estimates available for the amounts of each product which are recycled at the end of their lives, except for televisions, where the level of recycling is low and no firm figures are available.

  (a) Cars—according to figures from the industry's Automotive Consortium on Recycling and Disposal report, 1.8 million vehicles (two million tonnes) came to the end of their lives in 1998. Around 75 per cent. of the material from these vehicles was recovered for reuse.

  (b) Computers—the Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER) estimates waste arisings of 125,000 tonnes of IT equipment per year. In 1997, recyclers handled around 30,100 tonnes of this equipment of which about 35 per cent. was reused and 58 per cent. was recycled, which equates to a recycling rate of 14 per cent. for IT equipment.

  636W

  (c) Refrigerators—ICER estimate that approximately 90 per cent. of large white goods, including refrigerators, are entering the recycling market. The former Warren Spring Laboratory estimated in 1993 that around 59 per cent. of material in refrigerators is recycled when processed by a shredder.

  (d) Televisions—televisions fall into the category generally known as brown goods. ICER estimate annual waste arisings in this category of around 53,300 tonnes, and televisions are thought to make up around 50 per cent. of this total. The recycling of televisions is not as commercially attractive as the recycling of computer equipment. As a result, the level of recycling is low and no firm figures are available.

  Custodian of Enemy Property, Palestine
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has completed the report into the affairs of the Custodian of Enemy Property, Palestine. [111238]

  Mr. Byers
  Yes. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Functions (Food)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if all food served at his Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. [109783]

  Mr. Lock
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The Department has contracted out catering. All food served at official functions by the caterers fully complies with current Environmental Health Authority legislation. The caterers are also ISO 9002 accredited.

  Our caterers confirm under their specification that all pig and cow meat purchased by their supplier is born and bred in either the UK or Ireland, that the livestock are free range, and not fed meat and bonemeal foodstuffs. Their supplier is audited and verified regularly to ensure compliance with these specifications.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110163]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department includes a requirement in specifications for plain paper, and paper for publications, that any virgin wood pulp is to be sourced from sustainably managed forests. My Department also specifies that all timber products be sourced from independently verified sustainable sources and that no products supplied to us are made from rare woods as classified by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source. [110164]
  637W
  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department already requires all timber and timber products to come from independently verified sustainable sources. No accreditation body is currently specified for certificates, but the supplier of our plain paper is part of a group supporting the verification of forestry management standards via the Forest Stewardship Council accreditation process.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Budget Requirements (London)
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what budget requirements he has set for the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority for 2000–01; and what will be the Greater London Authority's precepts for that year. [111119]

  Mr. Hill
  After considering responses to the consultation paper announced on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 270W, I have today decided not to alter the proposed consolidated budget requirement for the GLA and functional bodies for 2000–01 of £2,178,800,000. The component budget requirements will also remain unchanged. These are:

  £

  Greater London Authority

  32,500,000

  Transport for London

  9,900,000

  London Development Agency

  0

  Metropolitan Police Authority

  1,830,000,000

  London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

  306,400,000

  I have determined General GLA Grant at £22,300,000 and today will be issuing on behalf of the GLA precepts totalling £335,702,801. For a Band D council tax payer, this is equivalent to £122.98 a year in the London boroughs and £32.03 a year in the City, of which £1.72 or about 3p a week, is to fund the new GLA services.

  Regional Eurostar Services
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received the consultants report he commissioned on regional Eurostar services; and if he will make a statement. [111272]

  Mr. Hill
  Arthur D. Little' s report on regional Eurostar services is published today. I have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report considers whether Eurostar services directly serving the English regions and Scotland would be financially viable, and what wider transport and social benefits they would bring. The consultants consulted widely with local and regional authorities and groups. The report provides an independent assessment of the costs and impacts of a range of options.
  638W
  Under Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, the British Railways Board, now part of the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority, has a duty to prepare a plan for regional international rail services. The Board is now reviewing its 1989 plan. It will no doubt wish to consider the Arthur D. Little report in that review, which it expects to conclude in early summer. In the longer term, the Strategic Rail Authority will have a duty to produce a strategy for services in various parts of Great Britain for facilitating the carriage of passengers by way of the Channel Tunnel.

  I am today giving the go ahead for Eurostar UK Limited to lease some of the regional trains to GNER for a limited period, for additional services on the East Coast Main Line. This will allow regional passengers to enjoy an immediate benefit from the investment made in these trains, while leaving open future options for the use of the trains for regional Eurostar services. This arrangement accords with the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that leasing to a domestic rail operator should be considered while decisions on regional Eurostar services were under review.

  Free Parking
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with each of the London borough councils as to their policy of providing free parking facilities within their borough; and if he will make a statement. [108016]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State's "Traffic Management and Parking Guidance for London", published in February 1998, a copy of which is in the Library, gives advice to the London boroughs on the development of a parking strategy and the level of parking charges, which must be set for traffic management reasons. I am in contact with the London boroughs (including regular meetings with the Association of London Government) on all their transport and traffic management issues.

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what child care provision was made available in the financial year 1998–99 for use by (i) his departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department; what was the cost to parents of this child care; and how many parents used the facilities. [108832]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office set out in his reply of 15 February 2000,Official Report, columns 518–20W, the importance of family friendly policies to the Civil Service Reform programme, and action in respect of the pilot studies.

  In this Department (i) DETR(C) provides 11 subsidised workplace nursery places. The DETR(C) subsidy for nursery places is 48 per cent. The weekly cost to parents for each place for financial year 1998–99 ranged from £79.00 to £84.50. A total of 10 parents used the nurseries during that period.

  DETR(C) participates in a Holiday Playscheme open to permanent members of staff with children between the ages of five and 12 years. The Department funds

  639W
  50 per cent. of the cost of places. The daily cost to parents in financial year 1998–99 was £8.06. A total number of 28 parents used the playscheme.

  Provision of child care differs across the Executive Agencies. Most provide holiday playschemes and subsidised nursery places. The cost to parents for the financial year 1998–99 ranged from £52.00 to £80.00 per week for a nursery place, and between £5.00 to £9.00 a day for a playscheme place. The total number of parents in the Executive Agencies making use of child care provision ranged from five to 40.

  The Department and its Executive Agencies will reimburse child care costs incurred when work requirements demand a change to a member of staff's normal working hours eg to attend a training course.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provisions are made available to (i) departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department, for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contract, (l) child care allowances, (m) careers' leave and (n) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [108849]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office set out in his reply of 15 February 2000,Official Report, columns 519–22W, corporate actions that we are taking as part of the civil service reform programme to improve the balance between work and private life. In this Department (including its Agencies) staff with one year of service or more are entitled to 18 weeks maternity leave on full pay plus up to 34 weeks unpaid maternity leave in the period of 11 weeks before and 41 weeks after childbirth. Staff with more than 26 weeks, but less than one year, of service are entitled to 18 weeks maternity leave with Statutory Maternity Pay and 22 weeks unpaid leave in the period of 11 weeks before and 29 weeks after childbirth. Staff with less than 26 weeks service are entitled to 18 weeks unpaid maternity leave which may be extended by a further 11 weeks.

  Across the Department, paternity leave ranges from between five and 10 days on full pay. This leave may be taken either at the time of the birth or during the following weeks. Unpaid paternity leave of varying lengths is offered in some parts of the Department. Parental leave applies across the Department as set out in the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999. Departmental staff are covered by arrangements based on the default provisions as set out in the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999.

  Flexible working hours are, subject to management requirements, available to staff across the Department. A variety of arrangements and opportunities for part-time working and job sharing are available throughout the Department with some parts now opening up all posts to part-time and job sharing unless it is operationally vital that they be full time only. Across the Department paid leave up to five days may be granted to DETR(C) staff to
  640W
  take care of or make arrangements for dealing with the illness of a sick child. Additionally a period of unpaid leave may be granted if the illness continues.

  Homeworking is available throughout the Department subject to the cost and business implications. Requests to work from home are generally taken on a case-by-case basis. Requests to work to term time or annual hours contracts will be considered throughout the Department. Child care support throughout the Department ranges from participation in subsidised workplace nurseries and holiday playschemes and reimbursement of additional child care costs incurred by attending training or other work events.

  Career breaks of up to five years unpaid are open to staff throughout the Department. In all the above cases the criteria used to judge eligibility is based on statutory requirements and/or on staff handbooks and particular Agency guidelines. In some cases management discretion will apply.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in each of the last five years, what proportion of women employees in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies under the control of his Department(a) returned to work after childbirth, (b) returned to work after childbirth before the end of maternity leave, indicating the (1) time-range and (2) mean time, (c) returned to work after childbirth on reduced working hours, indicating the average hours worked and (d) returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours. [108971]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office set out in his reply of 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 519W, corporate actions that we are taking as part of the Civil Service reform programme to improve the balance between work and private life. In this Department (including its Agencies) the number of women who have returned to work after childbirth in the last five years are as follows:

  Women returning after childbirth

  Number of which returned before end of maternity leave

  1995

  129

  15

  1996

  116

  22

  1997

  150

  35

  1998

  141

  28

  1999

  118

  25

  We are unable to provide reliable information on the time range and mean time for staff returning to work after childbirth and before the end of maternity leave.

  As regards the number of women returning to work after childbirth on reduced working hours, we do not have figures for 1995 and 1996; however, the figures for 1997 to 1999 are:

  13 in 1997

  22 in 1998

  15 in 1999.

  641W
  The average hours worked ranged from between 21.3 to 23.9. Finally, the number of women who returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours are:

  16 in 1995 and 1996;

  23 in 1997;

  38 in 1998; and

  23 in 1999.

  Unfit Drivers
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further measures he plans to prevent persons who are unfit to drive from being licensed to drive vehicles on public roads. [109814]

  Mr. Hill
  The present legislative and administrative systems are intended to allow only those who qualify to be granted a driving licence. It is not at present planned to introduce further measures. However, the statutory requirement to declare medical conditions that may affect a person's fitness to drive will continue to be reinforced through publicity and, with their co-operation, through the medical profession.

  Car Insurance
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to combat the avoidance of car insurance. [109579]

  Mr. Hill
  Evidence of valid insurance must be produced when a vehicle is licensed and the Vehicle Excise Duty is paid. Police have wide powers to stop vehicles and check insurance. As a result more than 250,000 motorists are convicted of insurance evasion each year. When vehicles are clamped and impounded for not displaying a tax disc an insurance certificate must be produced in order to buy the disc and reclaim the vehicle. The department is supporting the Association of British Insurers in setting up a computerised insurance database with links to the vehicle register. This should be operational by autumn next year.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce measures to make the displaying of a car insurance certificate on the car compulsory. [109580]

  Mr. Hill
  Display of a certificate would provide no assurance that the driver was covered by an insurance policy or was complying with policy conditions. Although the Government have not discarded the possibility of a requirement to display evidence of insurance, it appears at present that other measures, such as a computerised insurance database, would offer a better approach to the problem of the irresponsible minority of drivers who fail to take out insurance.

  Chief Nuclear Inspector
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the reason for the Chief Nuclear Inspector's recent visit to Japan; and what discussions he held about the purpose of his visit with departmental Ministers and Officials in advance of his visit. [109907]
  642W
  Mr. Meacher
  HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, Mr. Laurence Williams, visited Japan on 7–11 February to brief his opposite number on the conclusions of HSE's forthcoming report "An Investigation into the falsification of pellet diameter data in the MOX Demonstration Facility at the BNFL Sellafield site and the effect of this on the safety of MOX fuel in use". He was not part of the Department of Trade and Industry team visiting Japan at the same time.

  My Department was briefed by HSE officials about the purpose of the visit. In view of her accountability to Parliament for nuclear safety, the Minister of State for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe met the Chief Inspector and HSE officials on 2 February, following which she wrote to the Chair of the Health and Safety Commission to stress the independence of the HSE. I am placing in the Library a copy of this letter, together with a letter to the Japanese Minister for International Trade and Industry on 26 January about the Chief Inspector's visit.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cases were heard in 1999 against employers who had exposed their workforce to asbestos; how many employers were found guilty of this offence; and what fines were imposed. [109998]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information for December 1999 is not yet available.

  Between 1 January and 30 November 1999, 39 cases were heard for breaches of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (as amended). This figure includes cases against both employers and the self-employed, and comprises 100 informations laid, or charges preferred (Scotland). It includes all breaches of the Regulations, not all of which may have been for permitting the exposure of employees to asbestos.

  The provisional results, recorded so far, indicate that there were 31 guilty verdicts on individual informations laid or charges preferred. One case was referred to a higher court on indictment, 67 cases were adjourned, and a result of not guilty was found on one charge preferred.

  The fines imposed as a result of the 31 guilty verdicts on individual informations laid or charges preferred were as follows:

  1 fine of £100,000

  2 fines of £60,000

  3 fines of £6,000

  5 fines of £5,000

  2 fines of £4,000

  3 fines of £3,500

  3 fines of £2,500

  2 fines of £2,000

  1 fine of £1,500

  4 fines of £1,000

  1 fine amount unrecorded.

  In addition three cases resulted in a Community Service order and one defendant was conditionally discharged.

  Health and Safety Prosecutions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average fine imposed in cases heard in 1999 against employers for health and safety offences involving their workforce; and if he will make a statement. [109999]

  Mr. Meacher
  The average fine imposed on employers and others convicted in Health and Safety Executive cases heard in 1998–99 was £6,654, per defendant. The average fine in such cases, per individual offence, was £5,038. These are provisional figures. The average fine per individual offence following local authority prosecutions in health and safety at work cases was £2,224 in 1997–98. Providing a figure for the average fine in cases against employers for offences involving their workforce would entail disproportionate cost.

  The general level of fines imposed by the courts for health and safety at work offences has been far too low to properly reflect their true seriousness. In November 1998, the Court of Appeal said in a judgment that health and safety fines were too low and set out factors which should guide future health and safety sentencing. I welcome the Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill introduced to Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) which is taking forward the Government's intention to raise the maximum penalties for health and safety offences, especially making imprisonment available for a wider range of these offences. I hope this measure will send a clear message to all employers that society will not tolerate failures to safeguard health and safety.

  Motor Vehicle Ban
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of banning motor vehicles from UK cities for a period of one day as part of an experimental environmental awareness programme. [110000]

  Mr. Hill
  Our view is that it is for local authorities to assess the case for banning motor vehicles, if they wish to, taking into account local circumstances. I understand that several UK local authorities are interested in taking part in the European Car Free Day on 22 September 2000.

  Urban Waste Water Directive
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Anglian region to meet the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Directive for primary and secondary sewage treatment. [109948]

  Mr. Mullin
  Following our decision in September 1998 to reverse the previous Government's policy of seeking to apply primary treatment only, for coastal discharges into areas of high natural dispersion, water companies are required to install secondary treatment at all major discharges as soon as practicable. Wherever possible they are expected to meet the initial deadlines set out in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. The majority of large works in Anglian region already have secondary treatment and we expect these to be compliant at or before the end of December 2000. Seven coastal discharges, into areas previously designated as areas of high natural 644W
  dispersion, will have secondary treatment installed at or before December 2001. Some of these works already have primary treatment. In other cases, primary treatment will be installed as part of the total scheme to deliver treatment to secondary level.

  Secondary treatment for smaller works will be delivered as part of the investment programme for Anglian water provided for in the recent determination by OFWAT of price limits for the period 2000 to 2005. These schemes are scheduled to be delivered by the end of March 2005, within the timescale required by the Directive.

  The Environment Agency has agreed completion dates for each of these schemes with Anglian water. We expect the Agency to make prompt use of its enforcement powers, if the dates are not met.

  Newspaper Recycling
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department gives to the UK newsprint industry to encourage newspaper recycling(a) at a local level and (b) at a national level. [110101]

  Mr. Mullin
  At present, my Department gives no assistance to the UK newsprint industry.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the environmental implications of newspaper recycling. [110103]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have taken into account a range of reports and investigations into the implications of newspaper recycling from a variety of sources. At this stage, there is no common agreement on the precise impacts of newspaper recycling in comparison with other end-of-life options.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will calculate the proportion of newsprint currently consisting of recycled material. [110105]

  Mr. Mullin
  According to information supplied by the Newspaper Publishers Association, newspaper publishers in the UK use newsprint containing both virgin and recycled paper in varying proportions, and on average recycled paper made up 52.4 per cent. of the raw material for UK newspapers in 1998.

  Euratom
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for further consultation on the European Union Directive 96/29 on Euratom. [110172]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 14 February 2000,Official Report, columns 356–57W.

  Public Transport Employees (Attacks)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many recorded attacks there were upon public transport employees in each of the years from 1992 to date. [110239]
  645W
  Mr. Meacher
  The only statutory reporting system for attacks on employees in public sector transport is the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR), which came into effect on 1 April 1996. RIDDOR defined, for the first time, an "accident" as including"an act of non-consensual violence done to a person at work".

  RIDDOR requires the reporting of all incidents which cause a fatality or major injury, or result in the employee being unable to work or to undertake the full range of their normal duties, for more than three days.

  Reported assaults on employees in public transport sectors subject to RIDDOR are as follows:

  Number

  1996–97

  522

  1997–98

  577

  1998–99

  1651

  1 Provisional figure

  Manor Farm Estate, Scunthorpe
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the residents of the Manor Farm Estate in Scunthorpe receive a definite offer of 100 per cent. compensation immediately. [110311]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 30 November 1999, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and officials of the Department met representatives of North Lincolnshire Council, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and also a local estate agent acting on behalf of the property owners, to discuss the issue of compensation. At that meeting a number of options were explored, with a view to seeking the best possible solution and a fair deal for those concerned.

  From that we believe that a positive way forward, involving the use of "buy back" provisions, has been identified. This, including the proposed compensation arrangements, is now subject to further discussions between North Lincolnshire Council and the owner-occupiers concerned. My Department and North Lincolnshire are hopeful that this will lead to a positive outcome for all concerned.

  Advertising Budgets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110259]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: The Department's advertising budget for 1999–2000 is £13,160,000 and for 2000–01 is £16,150,000. The Department uses advertising, in conjunction with a range of other publicity activities, to promote its key road safety messages (on subjects such as drinking and driving, speed, using mobile phones while driving and rear seat belts) and environmental awareness messages (through the Are You Doing Your Bit? campaign). The figures provided do not include the cost of statutory and recruitment advertising.
  646W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average cost of issuing a media release from his Department in 1999. [110272]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: The average cost of issuing a press release in 1999 was £104.

  Devolved Assemblies
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for holding referendums to establish elected devolved assemblies in the regions of England. [110440]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We said in our manifesto that, in time, we would introduce legislation to allow people, region by region, to decide in referendums whether they wanted directly elected regional government. We remain committed to this. However, finding the right arrangements may take time, just as the arrangements for Scotland, Wales and London have taken time.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of Sir David Davies' assessment of rail safety systems. [110384]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: Sir David Davies' report on train protection systems will be published shortly.

  Secondment Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the secondment policy in his Department. [110672]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department has a long history of seconding staff to organisations outside the civil service and of taking inward secondees. There have been secondments with the wider public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector. The Department intends to build on these links as part of the Modernising Government initiative on bringing in talent and creating a more open civil service.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many second homes entitled to the 50 per cent. council tax discount there are in each district and county/unitary authority area; and what percentage they represent of domestic housing stock in each such area. [110204]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: I have placed in the Library of the House today a table showing the latest available information on the number of dwellings in each English district and county/unitary authority area which are entitled to the 50 per cent. council tax discount. Not all of the dwellings that receive the discount are second or holiday homes.

  647W
  The Department does not collect separate information on these dwellings. The 50 per cent. discount applies to all unoccupied dwellings and certain occupied dwellings such as those where all of the residents are disregarded—for example, households consisting of someone who is severely mentally impaired and their carer.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are employed by the National Air Traffic Services at(a) Prestwick in Scotland and (b) in total throughout the United Kingdom. [111005]

  Mr. Mullin
  The air traffic control facilities at Prestwick comprise the Scottish Area Control Centre (ScACC), which handles traffic over Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Oceanic Area Control Centre (OACC), which handles traffic over the north Atlantic to the west of the UK and Ireland. The combined facilities, sometimes referred to as ScOACC, currently employ a total of 532 staff, including 217 controllers. The overall number of UK staff employed by National Air Traffic Services totalled 5,372 at 31 March 1999.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to introduce legislation to enfranchise leaseholders. [110465]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Leaseholders of houses already enjoy rights to enfranchise their property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, and leaseholders of flats enjoy collective enfranchisement rights under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. We intend to make these existing rights easier to exercise. The first stage in this will be the publication of a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for consultation during this session, as was announced in the Gracious Speech given on 17 November 1999,Official Report, columns 4–7. Following that consultation, we intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Bus and Train Companies (Liquidation)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the responsibilities of his Department in the event of a(a) bus and (b) train operating company going into liquidation. [110251]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: My right hon. Friend has no specific responsibilities if a train operating company or a bus company goes into liquidation. The Franchising Director has a responsibility to take over the operation of any franchised train operator in the event of premature termination of a franchise, as a result of liquidation of the company or for any other reason, and he has arrangements in readiness to do this at short notice, if necessary. London Transport Buses are responsible for the provision of bus services in London.

DEFENCE

  Bloody Sunday
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what(a) date he was informed of the establishment of a judicial inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday and the appointment of Lord Saville, (b) how many self-loading rifles were submitted for ballistic testing to the Widgery Inquiry, (c) how many of those rifles are available with their original barrels for examination, (d) on what dates were batches of those rifles sent for the fitting of new barrels and for destruction and (e) who was responsible for the decision in each instance; and if he will make a statement. [108485]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government decision to set up a new inquiry into Bloody Sunday and the appointment of Lord Saville of Newdigate to chair the Tribunal of Inquiry was announced by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 29 January 1998.

  The Bloody Sunday Inquiry believe 29 self-loading rifles (SLRs) were submitted for ballistic testing during the Widgery Inquiry to the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science. It is not possible to say how many have retained their original barrels; it is highly probable that they would have been re-barrelled at some point during their operational lives, in which case their forensic value would be substantially reduced. Detailed records were not kept of repairs to SLRs and no record was kept of whether a rifle had been re-barrelled, or how many times this may have occurred. The SLR was declared obsolete in November 1997 and authority to commence destruction was given in January 1998. SLRs were therefore recalled for disposal in line with this policy. By the end of January 2000 approximately 116,000 rifles had been disposed of out of a total of 144,000.

  A list of 29 partial serial numbers, relating to the rifles fired on Bloody Sunday, was sent by the Inquiry to the MOD on 1 September 1999. From the information available it was not possible to identify the rifles until 29 September 1999. Of the 29, 14 were identified as having been issued for destruction on the following dates: 26 January 1998, 13 February 1998, 8 April 1998, 29 April 1998, 30 April 1998, 3 June 1998, 29 June 1998, 10 August 1998, 17 August 1998, 22 February 1999, 29 March 1999, 23 August 1999 and two on 24 September 1999. Ten rifles were identified as having been sold to private companies, leaving the five in the possession of the MOD. Despite an embargo on the movement of the remaining five, two of these rifles were destroyed on 26 and 28 January 2000.

  Thus 24 of the rifles were disposed of as part of the routine disposal programme at a time when they could not be identified as Bloody Sunday rifles from available MOD records. That two rifles have been destroyed since is a matter of deep regret and an investigation has been launched by the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police to which officers from the West Mercia Constabulary will be seconded. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry will be invited to send an observer. The remaining three rifles have been secured and the Bloody Sunday Inquiry has been given assurances about their safe keeping.
  649W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations have been made to the Northern Ireland Office regarding proposals for a fresh inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday; and what response his Department has made. [108486]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department was closely involved in considering the need for a fresh inquiry into Bloody Sunday and it has co-operated fully with the Tribunal of Inquiry chaired by Lord Saville. I am withholding details of internal discussion and advice under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Warships (South Atlantic)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the deployment of warships in the South Atlantic in(a) the current financial year and (b) each of the next five years. [109864]

  Mr. Spellar
  The costs incurred by warships on manpower, fuel, port visits and associated minor costs, while deployed in the South Atlantic in the current financial year are approximately £10 million. Annual costs in future years are expected to be broadly similar.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what UK military units are deployed in support of the UN force in Sierra Leone; what further units he will deploy to the operation; and when. [110516]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. The UK currently has 15 military observers and six logistics personnel deployed in support of UNAMSIL. There are no plans to deploy formed units.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the budget of the Defence Medical Services in 1998–99 and 1999–2000; what was the budget allocation to the(a) DSCA, (b) DDA, (c) DMTO and (d) MSA in the same period; and if he will make a statement. [109495]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on budget allocations within the DMS is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Allocation

  Financial year 1998–99

  Financial year 1999–2000

  DMS total, of which:

  276.5

  301.7

  (a) DSCA

  113.4

  117.0

  (b) DDA

  33.8

  35.9

  (c) DMTO

  16.4

  21.4

  (d) MSA

  37.2

  48.6

  Note:

  The figures exclude devolved primary care costs, other than those for Germany, and various other posts filled by DMS personnel.

  Army Tanks and Vehicles (Maintenance)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average time spent in maintenance for(a) Warrior variants, (b) Challenger One, (c) Challenger Two, (d) Saxon variants, (f) AVF 430 variants, (g) Sabre, (h) Striker, (i) Scimitar, (j) Spartan,
  650W
  (k) Sultan, (l) Samaritan and (m) Samson in each of the last five years; what proportion was planned maintenance; what proportions was reactive repair maintenance; and if he will make a statement. [109498]

  Mr. Spellar
  Maintenance of Army tanks and vehicles is carried out at four levels ranging from low level upkeep (eg tyres, batteries, lights) (Level 1) to major work conducted by the Army Base Repair Organisation or Industry (Level 4). This work, covering some 5,500 vehicles, is undertaken at over 150 locations both in the UK and overseas. Maintenance records are held by the Unit where the work is conducted and a networked information system is being developed to give greater overall visibility of the work undertaken. At present, however, the information is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Imphal Barracks
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the numbers of(a) officers and men and (b) civilian workers, there will be at Imphal Barracks, York, following the transfer of 2 Division HQ to Edinburgh. [109446]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of people working in Imphal Barracks is currently changing as the Headquarters of the 2nd Division departs and the Defence Vetting Agency and the Queen's Gurkha Signal Squadron build up in strength. It is estimated that there will be 430 civilian staff in the Barracks by early 2001 and 546 military personnel by 2003.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education and Training (Deprived Areas)
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to raise the educational and training aspirations of young people from deprived areas. [109145]

  Mr. Wicks
  The new Connexions Service will raise the expectations and aspirations of all young people, wherever they live, by ensuring they receive the advice they need, when they need it, to make a success of their lives. In addition, we have introduced the £350 million Excellence in Cities programme and £60 million Neighbourhood Support Fund to focus specifically on the issues faced by young people in deprived areas.

  Information and Learning Technology (Access)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans his Department has to extend access to information and learning technology among those who do not own computers. [109146]

  Mr. Wills
  We are taking a number of initiatives to ensure that the benefits of information and communication technologies are made available as widely as possible. These include the development of City Learning Centres, community ICT Learning Centres and also a scheme to support job seekers and families on low incomes in getting ready access to computers.

  New Deal
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal, specifying the total number of businesses that have participated to date. [109147]

  Ms Jowell
  The New Deal is progressing well, with 179,000 people into work through the New Deal for Young People and over 32,850 into work through the New Deal for Long Term Unemployed People by the end of November. To date 64,900 employers have signed New Deal agreements.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason information relating to whether employment is sustained is not provided in the Government's statistics concerning participants leaving the New Deal for Lone Parents to enter work; and if he will make a statement. [109275]

  Ms Hodge
  At present we are unable to say how many of the people who left the New Deal for Lone Parents for work are still in employment. If a lone parent were to leave their employment they may claim Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance (among other possible benefits). Legislation allowing the Employment Service access to DSS data on Income Support claimants has only recently been passed in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Without this information it has been impossible for the Employment Service to know if a client has ceased employment and claimed Income Support. Work to measure the sustainability of jobs entered through New Deal for Lone Parents is under way as part of the continuous improvement strategy for New Deal.

  This issues is also covered in the evaluation of NDLP where a survey of lone parents (both participants and non-participants in NDLP) will take place in 2001.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of those participants who had left the New Deal for Lone Parents for jobs were still in employment at the latest date for which information is available. [109278]

  Ms Hodge
  At present we are unable to say how many of the people who left New Deal for Lone Parents for work are still in employment. If a lone parent were to leave their employment they may claim Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance (among other possible benefits). Legislation allowing the Employment Service access to Department for Social Security data on Income Support claimants has only recently been passed in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. We are now looking into the possibility of tracking the employment status of clients after they leave New Deal for Lone Parents. We will also cover this issue through a separate evaluation survey in 2001.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total cost of issuing letters to lone parents inviting them to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents. [109276]

  Ms Hodge
  The total cost of issuing letters to lone parents inviting them to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents to December 1999 is £196,498.15.
  652W
  The breakdown of the total cost is as follows:

  £

  Print costs

  56,180

  Initial set up costs

  29,061

  Postage costs

  111,257.15

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the proposed learning and skills councils. [109148]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are making good progress in our plans to establish the Learning and Skills Council. We are on course to have the Council in place by April 2001. 1 will shortly be announcing the locations of the local arms of the Council.

  Class Sizes
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the average size of secondary school classes in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [109149]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The most recent figures show that in January 1999 the average secondary class had 21.9 pupils. The corresponding figure for January 1998 was 21.7. January 1999 saw the first fall in overall average class size for 10 years, from 24.9 in January 1998 to 24.8.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on class sizes in primary and secondary schools since May 1997. [109166]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Between January 1998 and January 1999 the size of the average primary school class in England fell from 27.7 to 27.4, the first fall in 10 years. Average classes in secondary schools are much lower than in primary schools. The most recent figures show that in January 1999 the average secondary class had 21.9 pupils. The corresponding figure for January 1998 was 21.7. January 1999 also saw the first fall in overall average class size for 10 years, from 24.9 in January 1998 to 24.8.

  Post-16 Education (Lancashire)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on post-16 education in Lancashire. [109150]

  Mr. Wicks
  The new Learning and Skills Council will, for the first time ever, bring post-16 funding into a single body to invest in learning and skills. It will cut out the waste and bureaucracy of the current system. This is good news for the people of Lancashire.

  School Funding
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the funding of schools. [109151]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are determined to see increases in funding for schools. For 2000–01 we have increased the funding available to local authorities by £1.8 billion. We are urging local authorities to pass on the
  653W
  £1.1 billion increase in education SSA to their education budgets; and we have set LEAs three targets which will further increase the funding delegated to schools.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he will take to increase the equity of funding for school education. [109143]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government announced in November 1998 a three-year review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for SSAs.

  Summer Schools
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement regarding his plans for summer schools aimed at encouraging young people to apply for higher education. [109152]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to helping gifted young people from inner cities to make full use of their abilities. This summer we are spending £4 million to finance university summer schools which will raise the confidence and aspirations of these young people and give them a taste of university life.

  This programme is part of the Excellence in Cities (EiC) initiative, which addresses: concerns over the standards of achievement which are lower in inner cities than in other areas of the country; truancy is higher and rates of exclusion higher; the fact that pupils in city areas often face multiple and reinforcing disadvantages that require multiple and reinforcing solutions; the need for continuity of support from pre-school to post-compulsory education for vulnerable pupils at all the points of institutional transition in their education to ensure that early intervention is continually consolidated and reinforced; and providing a safety net for those who experience disadvantage later. Excellence in Cities (EiC) was launched on 22 March 1999 by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Summer schools are an integral part of this continuing support through the education system. The Summer Schools programme is an extension of these initiatives and was announced on 23 November 1999.

  In all there will be places for 5,000 gifted and talented 16–17 year olds from EiC areas this summer. The £4 million will cover all academic and accommodation costs and the costs of teaching and parental or teacher pastoral care, as well as the start-up costs of this scheme.

  The summer schools are drawing on the pioneering work that has already been done by Institutions and we are building on their expertise and experience and the work of the Sutton Trust. The Sutton Trust is sponsoring six university summer schools this year at Oxford (2); Cambridge (2); Nottingham and Bristol. The schools will run this summer and will be open to able year 12 students throughout the UK who fulfil criteria recommended to universities by the Sutton Trust. The selection criteria will help ensure that many successful applicants are from inner-city secondary schools and colleges. The Minister for School Standards has agreed to offer a grant of £30,000 to contribute to the running of the schools.
  654W
  Too many young people from the inner cities do not get the encouragement they need to make full use of their abilities. The Government are helping to put that right by giving them a chance to attend summer schools in our leading universities. This will raise their confidence and aspirations and give them a taste of university life.

  Further Education Students
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the increase in the number of full-time equivalent students at further education colleges in England and Wales(a) in 1992 to 1997 and (b) since May 1997. [109153]

  Mr. Wicks
  The number of full-time equivalent students at further education colleges in England funded by the Further Education Funding Council increased from 862,000 in 1992–93 to 1,084,000 in 1996–97. Actual numbers for later years are not yet available, but we are projecting an increase to 1,186,000 by 2001–02 financial year.

  Figures for Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Millennium Volunteer Projects
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many millennium volunteer projects have been approved; and if he will make a statement on progress. [109154]

  Ms Hodge
  There are currently 95 projects which have been contracted for under the Millennium Volunteers Programme in England. I announced on 19 January that a further 88 projects had been approved from the second bidding round, which will build on the success of the earlier projects. There will be further activity supported during 2000 to extend the scope of Millennium Volunteers coverage and to ensure a sufficient variety of opportunities to attract a broad range of young people to Millennium Volunteers.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop more specialist schools. [109155]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In March last year we announced the expansion of the Specialist Schools programme under the "Excellence in Cities" initiative to 800 specialist schools by September 2003.

  Neighbourhood Support Fund
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Neighbourhood Support Fund. [109156]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have invested £60 million over three years on the Neighbourhood Support Fund. These innovative projects, run by local and voluntary community organisations, will connect young people back into education, training and work in the most deprived areas as part of the wider Connexions strategy launched on the 3 February 2000. The first projects will be up and running by March this year.

  Secondary Schools (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the funding of secondary schools in Gloucestershire. [109158]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For 2000–01, Gloucestershire's education SSA has increased by £11.21 million to £226.01 million. While it is for local authorities to set their education budgets, my right hon. Friend has written on behalf of the Government to urge all council leaders to ensure that all the additional provision we have made available is actually spent on education. Gloucestershire's Standards Fund allocation for 2000–01 is £15.21 million, an increase of £4.76 million. I hope it will take up all of this allocation. In addition, Gloucestershire will receive £572,000 as its share of the extra £50 million grant for education on condition that it is used for education and added to schools' delegated budgets. My right hon. Friend shall look for prior confirmation that the whole of the increase in Gloucestershire's education SSA has been passed on to education before deciding whether to release its share of the grant.

  Performance-related Pay
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with teachers' professional bodies on performance-related pay. [109159]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department for Education and Employment submitted detailed evidence on pay reform to the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) last September. The STRB's Ninth Report was published on 1 February. The Secretary of State has initiated consultation with key stakeholders including teacher unions and employers on the STRB's recommendations. The consultation ends on 7 March and a further announcement will be made following this.

  Work-based Learning
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he intends to ensure that young people have access to work-based learning. [109160]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Connexions Document issued by the Government on 3 February (copies placed in the Vote Office in the Commons on Thursday 3 February and in the Library in the Commons) set out a comprehensive strategy to ensure that all young people are enabled to stay on in learning after the age of 16 in school, college or on the work-based route.

  Labour Market Access
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the measures required to improve labour market access for the most disadvantaged groups; and what policies are in place to address this situation. [109161]

  Ms Jowell
  My Department assesses continuously the progress of groups at a disadvantage in the labour market. All of our policies and programmes are underpinned by a clear focus on equality of opportunity.
  656W
  Improving access for those at a disadvantage is an important element of all of our New Deals with early help for those facing particular problems. The Policy Action Team on Jobs identified a range of proposals to help people living in deprived areas and from ethnic minority backgrounds as part of the Social Exclusion Unit's work on neighbourhood renewal. Some are already being acted upon, such as the piloting of the use of intermediary organisations in New Deal.

  Improving participation in learning by people from the most disadvantaged groups will be a key objective for the Learning and Skills Council. The Connexions Service, for all young people, will target intensive advice and support on those with greatest need. And our drive to improve standards in schools will also ensure that young people from disadvantaged communities are properly equipped to compete for jobs.

  Early-years Education
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government have taken to raise the status of those who work in early-years education since May 1997. [109162]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government are committed to raising the status of early-years workers and improving the quality of early education. We have listened to early-years practitioners who have said that early education should be recognised as a distinct phase of education. The Foundation Stage of the National Curriculum will be launched in September, with the new Early Learning Goals which most children should achieve at the end of the reception year. And we will be providing significant extra training and support to help deliver that.

  A highly trained and qualified workforce is the key to attracting and retaining good people. Our aim is to introduce minimum levels of qualifications for leaders of early-years settings and for the practitioners that work in them. In October 1999, we introduced "A Framework of Nationally Accredited Qualifications in Early Years Education, Childcare and Playwork". The framework provides for the first time clear, comprehensive and integrated information about the skills, competencies, training and qualifications that are needed for the wide range of jobs in the sector. It will be updated this spring. We are developing occupational standards for the sector which will form the basis for further qualifications. This work is being led by the Early Years National Training Organisation, which was established in November 1998.

  I believe the steps we are taking will provide people working in early-years education with a more clearly defined career structure and better recognition of the contribution they make to children's development.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the sure start programme. [109163]

  Yvette Cooper
  Forty-seven of the 60 trailblazer programmes in England have now been approved and are starting to help children. The remaining 13 will follow shortly. In November 1999 we launched the second wave of Sure Start by inviting a further 69 areas to start work
  657W
  to develop local programmes. All of these are now working on drawing up outline plans. My Ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have responsibility for implementing Sure Start in their areas of responsibility.

  Training and Further Education Spending
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to re-direct resources for training and further education from spending on administration to vocational and academic education. [109164]

  Mr. Wicks
  Our plans to create a Learning and Skills Council will bring together, for the first time into a single coherent system, the current range of learning opportunities for individuals and workforce development. The new arrangements will cut through the present duplication and bureaucracy, and will secure savings of at least £50 million a year across post-16 learning.

  These savings will be redirected to improving the quality of learning for individuals, raising standards, widening participation and tackling the skills deficit.

  Disability Rights Task Force
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department plans to take to implement disability rights task force proposals as they affect education. [109165]

  Ms Hodge
  We announced our intention on 13 December to bring forward legislation to give people with disabilities equal access to schools and further, higher and adult education. The proposed legislation will address the key education recommendations of the final report of the Disability Rights Task Force.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he last met the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator to discuss the use of illegal drugs in schools and places of work. [109167]

  Jacqui Smith
  I met the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator at the end of November last year, to discuss the DfEE's contribution to the Government's Anti-Drugs Strategy. We have agreed to meet quarterly in future.

  As DfEE Drugs Minister, I also have met Mr. Hellawell regularly in meetings of the Ministerial Steering Group on Drug Misuse.

  Maths Year 2000
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support his Department is giving to the Maths Year 2000. [109138]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have invested £6.75 million in Maths Year 2000 to promote a "can-do" attitude towards maths throughout the community. Only this morning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment launched the first supermarket Maths Corner as part of the ASDA Big Sum Campaign. The funding for Maths Year 2000 is in addition to the £64 million which we have invested in the National Numeracy Strategy this year to raise standards of mathematics in primary schools.

  Remedial Education
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies his Department has commissioned or evaluated on the effectiveness of remedial education in primary schools. [109741]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Literacy and Numeracy Strategies form the core of our programme to raise standards in all primary schools for all pupils including those with special educational needs. These strategies are being formally evaluated by a team from the University of Toronto.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the total cost of abolishing tuition fees in England and Wales for each of the years 2001–02 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [110024]

  Mr. Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 393W. Figures for beyond 2001–02 depend on student numbers on which decisions have not yet been made.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what impact the fundamental review of Employment Service Annual Performance Agreement will have on the Annual Performance Agreement for 2000–01. [111060]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am today announcing the outcome of a fundamental review of the Employment Service Annual Performance Agreement (APA) which was launched in May 1999. The review included a wide-ranging public consultation involving employers, voluntary, public and private sector organisations and other Government Departments.

  The review has been an important staging post in the modernisation of the Employment Service. I want the ES to provide an outward looking, accessible and efficient service, using the latest generation of technology, which can meet the demands of its customers, whether they are jobseekers or employers, by working in close partnership with a wide range of public, private and voluntary sectors. I also want greater emphasis on equal opportunities.

  As a result of the review, the Employment Service will have a brand new Vision and Purpose for 2000–01 which describes the key elements for modernising the service. I am also announcing a new Aim and Objectives, which can be easily understood by ES staff and will help them to focus on the service that they provide to employers in helping to fill their vacancies. I believe that these proposals, together with a new set of targets, will help ES to be an inclusive service which helps all people without work and particularly the most disadvantaged jobseekers. During the year I will be exploring alternative ways of weighting targets. I hope to announce target numbers before the end of March 2000.

  Vision and Purpose
  "The Employment Service aims to make a major contribution to an efficient and flexible labour market and to the Government's objectives of high and stable employment and growth, equality of opportunity and social inclusion. ES works closely with

  659W
  employers and with its private, voluntary and public sector partners to provide a quality service for all people without a job and to promote employment opportunities for all who can work. It aims to attract a diverse range of vacancies and to fill those vacancies quickly by matching the right people and skills with the right jobs. Its chief priority is to help individuals facing particular difficulty in the labour market to move from welfare and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. It does this through correct application of the JSA regime, delivery of the New Deals and the pilot ONE service, and provision of appropriate information, advice, training and support. The Agency has achieved much over the past three years. The challenge and opportunity now facing it is to sustain continuous improvement in its services to jobseekers and employers and to make those services more accessible and relevant to customer needs, through effective use of modern technology and close working with a wide range of partners"

  Aim
  "To help people without jobs to find work and employers to fill their vacancies"

  Objective A
  To help all people without jobs, and particularly those on welfare and at a disadvantage in the labour market, to find and keep work by providing appropriate information, advice, training and support and by encouraging employers to open more opportunities to them

  Objective B
  To ensure that the rights and relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA and other benefits are fulfilled, while helping to combat fraud and abuse of the benefit system

  Objective C
  To harness new technology, the pursuit of excellence and continuous improvement to deliver effective, efficient and accessible services to all people without jobs and to employers in Jobcentres and, increasingly through other locations and means of communication

  Objective D
  To deliver services to all ES customers in a way which respects individual differences, helps to overcome disadvantages due to ethnicity, gender, age or disability and achieves the best possible outcome for each of them

  Targets (linked to Objectives A, B and C above)
  A1: To help x participants in the New Deals and Employment Zones into work, directly or in partnership with others (includes all New Deals and relevant EZs)
  A2: To help x people with disabilities into work, directly or in partnership with others (includes all people with disabilities, including NDDP participants)
  A3: To help x disadvantaged jobseekers into work, directly or in partnership with others (includes A1, A2 plus other disadvantaged people in receipt of benefit)
  A4: To help x people from welfare into work, directly or in partnership with others (includes Al-A3, plus unemployed people claiming JSA for 0–6 months)
  A5: To help x jobless people into work, directly or in partnership with others (includes Al-A4, plus others without work not claiming relevant benefits)
  A6: Pilot target: For x per cent. of long term JSA claimants to be off benefit 13 weeks after starting a job
  B: To ensure that the relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA are fulfilled in x per cent. of cases checked
  C1: To achieve an x customer service level for jobseekers
  C2: To achieve an x customer service level for employers
  Milestone Target(s) [eg. Programme x to be introduced successfully by date y-to be specified]

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in establishing the Disability Rights Commission. [109139]

  Ms Hodge
  There has been good progress in establishing the Commission since the Bill to set it up received Royal Assent in July 1999. I expect it to open its doors for business on 25 April this year. The chair, the commissioners and the chief executive of the Commission have all been appointed. Recruitment of the Commission's staff is under way. The DRC's main office in Manchester is being fitted out.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to expand access to higher and further education. [109134]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government are committed to widening access to post-secondary education as part of their strategy to create a ladder of lifelong learning. We have already funded an additional 800,000 places in further and higher education through the current Comprehensive Spending Review.

  This week I announce the development of the new two year foundation degrees and a new framework for vocational qualifications, both in institutions and in the workplace.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when an official from his Department last visited the Lytham St. Anne's High Technology School. [109133]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Officials from the Department last visited the school on 18 September 1996.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what change there has been in processing times for Disability Living Allowance claims in the past year. [108746]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Colin Breed, dated 16 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked what change there has been in processing times for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claims in the past year.
  For your information the average processing time for the past year (1999) has been 40 days as against the average for 1998 of 35 days.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his written answer of 4 February 2000,Official Report, columns 748–49W, how many lone parents under the New Deal for Lone Parents broken down into (i) targeted and (ii) non-targeted groups, (a) were issued with initial invitation letters, (b) booked initial interviews with personal advisers, (c) attended initial interviews,

  Prototype Phase 1 (July 1997-October 1998)

  Phase 2 (April 1998-October 1998)

  Results for the National Programme (October 1998-November 1999)

  Target group

  Non-target group

  All lone parents

  Target group

  Non-target group

  Initial invitation letters issued

  150,612

  0

  1—

  443,710

  0

  Initial interviews booked

  7,198

  1,981

  21,647

  269,982

  62,149

  Initial interviews attended

  6,289

  1,818

  15,193

  61,033

  51,536

  Number agreeing to participate

  5,561

  1,741

  12,889

  54,659

  45,838

  Number entering education

  300

  75

  2,569

  4,405

  3,961

  Jobs obtained

  2,473

  920

  2,878

  18,949

  13,756

  (Number of these obtained by part-time workers increasing their hours)

  3(355)

  —

  (487)

  (829)

  (401)

  1 The number of letters issued during phase 1 and 2 cannot be divided into separate figures because these phases ran concurrently from April 1998 to October 1998. Letters were only issued to target group lone parents.

  2 This figure is taken from internal management information and so has not been validated in the same way as other figures for the National Programme.

  3 The number of lone parents who were working part-time before obtaining work of over 16 hours cannot be split into target and non-target group for phase 1.

  Notes:

  1. The results for phase 2 of NDLP are not available split into the target and non-target groups on/training.

  2. In some cases it was not recorded whether the lone parent was either from the target or non-target group. The figures shown in the table are only those definitely recorded as in one group or the other. Consequently the sum of these figures do not always equal the total number of lone parents at each stage.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents, under the New Deal for Lone Parents, have(a) been issued with initial invitation letters, (b) booked initial interviews with personal advisers, (c) attended initial interviews, (d) agreed to participate in the programme, (e) been referred to Employment Service

  Results for the National Programme (October 1998-November 1999)

  Prototype phases 1 and 2 (July 1997-October 1998)

  Initial invitation letters issued

  443,710

  50,612

  Initial interviews booked

  1134,948

  30,826

  Initial interviews attended

  112,570

  23,300

  Number agreeing to participate

  100,500

  20,191

  Number entering education/training

  10,630

  2,944

  Jobs obtained

  32,710

  6,271

  (Number of these obtained by part-time workers increasing their hours)

  (1,230)

  (842)

  Note:

  This figure is taken from internal management information and so has not been validated in the same way as other figures for the National Programme.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional annual cost of the Minimum Income Guarantee in(a) 2005, (b) 2010, (c) 2020 and (d) 2050 if annual increases are in line with earnings assuming (i) one in three, (ii) one in four and (iii) one in five pensioners qualify for income support. [109588]

  Mr. Rooker
  Estimates for the cost of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) for the years shown are not available. This is because it is extremely difficult to obtain accurate projections of the future level and distribution of income and assets.
  662W
  (d) agreed to participate in the programme, (e) were referred to Employment Service programmes or other training, (f) obtained jobs following participation and (g) have increased their hours of work following participation. [109503]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  programmes or other training, (f) obtained jobs following participation and (g) have increased their hours of work following participation. [108001]

  Angela Eagle
  [pursuant to her reply, 4 February 2000, c. 748–50W]: The information is in the table.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of abolishing the shared residency requirement for housing benefit; what assumptions underlie his estimate; and if he will make a statement. [110063]

  Angela Eagle
  We are unable to estimate with any accuracy the cost of abolishing the Single Room Rent restriction. There is insufficient quantitative information on how this group responded to the change, and without this information we cannot estimate the behavioural effects of reversing the change.

  Pensions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the(a) cost in real terms and (b) resulting increase in pensions, of raising pensions to the level they would have reached if the link between pensions and the rise in earnings had never been broken. [110415]

  Mr. Rooker
  If the link uprating the basic State pension by the higher of earnings or prices had not been broken the rate for a single pensioner would be £97.45 per week from April 2000. The gross cost of increasing the basic retirement pension to this level in 2000–01 would be £17.2 billion. The net cost would be £13.5 billion.

  Notes:

  1. The Retail Prices Index (all items) and the Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non Seasonally Adjusted) have been used as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  2. From April 1994 the basic rate of Retirement Pension has been increased by 50p to reflect VAT on fuel.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

  4. Costs are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  5. Costs include benefits whose rates are linked by statute to the rate of basic Retirement Pension (RP).

  6. The figure of £97.45 per week refers to the full Category A rate; other rates of basic RP have been assumed to increase pro-rata.

  7. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Net costs have been estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  Benefit Entitlements
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total annual net cost of restoring benefit entitlements to 16 and 17-year-olds; what assumptions underlie this estimate; and if he will make a statement. [110061]

  Angela Eagle
  We believe that every young person should have the opportunity to achieve their potential. That is why our aim is to engage 16 and 17-year-olds in education, training or work with training, rather than starting their adult lives dependent on the benefits system.

  Departments are working together to develop and implement the proposals in the Government White Paper "Learning to Succeed" and the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bridging the Gap". The recently announced Connexions Service will help, support and guide young people through their teenage years including those most at risk from disadvantage.

  The estimated annual cost of restoring full entitlement to Social Security benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds would be £100 million at present rates. These costs do not make any allowance for possible changes in labour market behaviour as a result of these changes.

  Notes:

  1. Figure is rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  2. Figure is based on data taken from the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey.

  3. Figure assumes benefit would be paid at benefit rates for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Software Releases
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the number of software releases he plans to make available within his Department in each of the next three years; and what changes to the benefit system each release will produce. [107295]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: Software releases are a matter for the Chief Executive of the Information Technology Services Agency, George McCorkell. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Shanley, on behalf of George McCorkell, to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 11 February 2000:
  Further to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Departmental software releases. You specifically asked about the changes that these releases would make to the benefit system.
  Upgrades and enhancements to the Department's Information Technology (IT) systems are agreed and planned jointly between the Information Technology Service Agency, Departmental Agencies and other units and Stakeholders. The attached annex outlines the benefit system software releases planned for the next three years and concentrates on the benefits these releases will introduce for their recipients.
  The work planned over the next three years has accounted for several legislative changes. Any further legislative changes announced will have an effect on the contents of the releases planned.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Annex
  Over the next three financial years the following releases have been planned:
  Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) has three proposed releases which plan to implement enhancements to:
  New Deal for Partners of the Unemployed providing equal treatment as a joint claim for partners in 18–24 age
  support payment of a revised range of benefits and allowances to both Widows and Widowers;
  apply a penalty to a Jobseeker's benefit where (s)he has failed to comply with Probation or Community Punishment Order;
  improve allowances where a higher-rate of Carer's Component of Disability Living Allowance is in payment;
  to improve system notifications issued to customers.
  Income Support (IS) has four proposed releases which plan to implement the following enhancements:
  an extension of the New Deal for Lone Parent scheme to lone parents with children between 3 years and 5 years 3 months;
  introduction of new premiums as part of the 'Disability Income Guarantee' initiative;
  the provision of certain forms directly to Social Service locations;
  to account for the introduction of the Child Support Reforms;
  to improve system notifications issued to customers.
  Social Fund (SF) has four proposed releases which plan to implement the following enhancements:
  to improve the system notifications issued to customers;
  extension of Budgeting Loans to low income groups by allowing Council Tax Benefit recipients access to the scheme;

  665W
  improvements to the repayment of loan interface with the Income Support Computer System;
  introduction of Automated Credit Transfer for Social Fund customers.
  Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance (DLA/AA) has four proposed releases which plan to implement the following enhancements:
  automation of some notifications to improve consistency of customer information;
  identification of certain renewal cases to allow for further medical enquiries;
  a range of system administration enhancements.
  Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC)/Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) has three proposed releases to implement the following enhancements:
  support changes intended to bring WFTC into line with DPTC; support changes for new rules for DPTC;
  Support changes where the system will calculate entitlement to remission from NHS charges, and issue a certificate with the award notification;
  support changes to the award amount to certain WFTC applicants;
  a range of system administration enhancements.
  Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) has two proposed releases which plan to implement the following enhancements:
  production of restricted orderbooks which account for the recipient reaching retirement age or changes to their receipt of DLA/AA;
  a range of system administration enhancements.
  Industrial Injuries has two proposed releases which plan to implement a range of system administration enhancements.
  War Pensions (WP) has six proposed releases, which plan to implement the following enhancements:
  to reflect decisions made at the European Court of Human Rights;
  a range of system administration enhancements.
  Pensions and Incapacity Benefit (PSCS/INCAP) has five proposed releases which plan to implement the following enhancements to:
  support changes in the award of Maternity Allowance from April 2000;
  support changes relating to Pensions Sharing on Divorce;
  support changes relating to the provision of support in bereavement;
  support changes in Incapacity Benefit for helping young disabled people;
  support changes to cater for where a claimant has a personal or occupational pension;
  support the Child Support Reforms;
  support a State Second Pension Scheme;
  support Teleclaims processing for new Retirement Pension claimants in Great Britain.
  Child Benefit (ChB) has three proposed releases which plan to implement the following enhancements:
  new processing of late claims to Child Benefit;
  new communications with Welsh customers;
  introduction of new and improved communications for Child Benefit customers.
  Child Support Computer System (CSCS) has two proposed releases which plan to implement the following enhancements:
  to provide new customer payment statements;
  to provide changes to the way information from Job Seeker Allowance (JSA)/Income Support (IS) is handled;
  to improve system notifications issued to customers;
  to the debt management system.

  Discretionary Social Fund
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he intends to make to the discretionary social fund. [111228]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making changes to the discretionary social fund, with effect from 3 April 2000, to take account of new legislation in other benefit areas being introduced on that date. A range of other minor improvements, identified during the course of routine monitoring will also be included in the amendment to directions and guidance.

  Details of these changes have been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase charges in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [111237]

  Mr. Denham
  We shall lay before the House regulations to increase National Health Service charges in England from 1 April 2000. There will be a cash increase in the charge of 10p, (1.69 per cent.) from £5.90 to £6.00 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed.

  The cost of prescription prepayment certificates will rise to £31.40 for a four-month certificate and £86.20 for an annual certificate. These offer savings for those needing more than 5 items in four months or 14 in one year.

  Prescription charges are expected to raise some £380 million for the NHS in 2000–2001.

  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and most fabric supports supplied through the Hospital Service will be increased similarly.

  The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 2000 will increase from £348 to £354. Only about 1 in every 1,000 courses of treatment will attract the new maximum charge.

  The increases are in line with the movement of the retail prices index from January 1999 (the benchmark for the current charge) to November 1999 of 2 per cent., but rounded to the most convenient unit. Movements in the retail prices index from November to November will become the benchmark for any subsequent charges increases within the three year period following the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Optical voucher values in England will increase overall by 2 per cent. to help children, people on low income and certain people with complex sight problems with the cost of spectacles or contact lenses.

  NHS charges and optical voucher values in Scotland and Wales are a matter for the devolved administrations. However, I can inform my hon. Friend that these proposals have been considered jointly with the Secretary for Health and Social Services to the National Assembly for Wales who tells me she will be putting forward parallel proposals for consideration by the Assembly.
  667W
  Details of the revised charges have been placed in the Library.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures showing the percentage of patients seen for first appointment within 13 weeks of referral by a GP in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) England, (ii) East and North Hertfordshire, (iii) West Hertfordshire and (iv) the health authority in the prospering growth area with the (1) lowest figure and (2) highest figure. [109683]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures are given in the table.

  Percentage of patients seen for a first outpatient appointment within 13 weeks of referral by a general practitioner

  1997–98

  1998–99

  England

  82

  79

  East and North Hertfordshire health authority

  85

  80

  West Hertfordshire health authority

  83

  80

  Health authority with lowest percentage in prospering growth area

  173

  271

  Health authority with highest percentage in prospering growth area

  392

  389

  1 Cambridge and Huntingdon

  2 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  Solihull

  Note:

  All figures are resident-based

  Insulin Pens
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce free needles for diabetics who require insulin. [109530]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 199W.

  Worcestershire and Alexandra NHS Trusts
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Chairman of Worcestershire NHS Trust and the Alexandra NHS Trust is receiving salaries for both posts; and what his total annual salary is. [110391]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: Mr. Harold Musgrove will continue to receive remuneration of £17,625 a year as chair of the Alexandra Healthcare National Health Service Trust until 31 March 2000. He will not receive remuneration as chair of Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust until this newly merged trust becomes operational on 1 April 2000.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area for the(a) total number of patients waiting for hospital treatment, (b) total number of people waiting 12 months or more for treatment, (c) total number of people waiting over 18 months for treatment and (d) number of people waiting 13 weeks or more to see a consultant on the out patient waiting list. [109972]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the tables.668W

  Total number of patients waiting, the number of patients waiting over 12 months and over 18 months for hospital treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust in December 1999

  Month

  Total waiting

  Number waiting over 12 months

  Number waiting over 18 months

  December 1999

  9,851

  1,060

  0

  Source:

  Form KH07—completed by the Trust quarterly

  Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust at Quarter 3 (quarter ending 31 December 1999)

  Quarter

  Patients waiting over 13 weeks

  Quarter 3 1999–2000

  3,699

  Source:

  Form QM08—completed by the Trust quarterly

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE and CJD
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria determine whether the European Commission intervenes in respect of the problem of BSE and CJD in a member state. [109852]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The European Commission has powers to take action in respect of BSE under Council Directives 89/662 and 90/425. When considering whether to take action, it acts in accordance with the precautionary principle of avoiding risk in order to protect human and animal health.

  Advertising Budgets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110261]

  Mr. Morley
  The current budget allocation for advertising in the financial year for 1999–2000 is £835,000. The budget for 2000–01 is in the process of being decided.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Ethnic Minority Staff
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2000,Official Report, columns 25–26W, on staff, (a) which departments of the House employ no ethnic minority staff, (b) what targets the House of Commons Commission has for ethnic minority recruitment and (c) if the Commission will publish a statement of aims on equal opportunity employment. [109602]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: (a) All departments of the House employ staff from an ethnic minority.

  (b) The House of Commons Commission has set no targets for ethnic minority recruitment.
  669W
  (c) The House of Commons Commission has recently considered equality of opportunity among employees at the House and has approved a programme of initiatives designed to encourage working practices which will allow every member of staff to contribute his or her best, regardless of race, sex, marital status, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant factor. This programme includes training for all our staff, improvements to procedures and better monitoring.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on the net income of each decile group of(a) benefit units and (b) households, of extending the working families tax credit to (i) couples without dependent children and (ii) single people without dependent children; and if he will estimate the gross cost in each case. [110219]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The impact of extending the Working Families Tax Credit to couples and singles without children is contingent on the detailed parameters and assumptions used, for example the credit rates for people without children and the earnings thresholds.

  Taxation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the combined net annual change in Exchequer revenues which would result from reducing the top rate of income tax from 40p to 30p and removing the ceiling on employees' national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement. [110022]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated Exchequer cost of reducing the top rate of income tax from 40p to 30p and removing the ceiling on employees' national insurance contributions is around £3.7 billion in 2000–01.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to more closely align the income tax and national insurance systems; and if he will make a statement. [110023]

  Dawn Primarolo
  By bringing policy responsibility for tax and NICs together in the Inland Revenue, we have provided a single focus for employers' representatives to discuss improvements in legislation and processes across both income tax and national insurance contributions. From April 1999 we have aligned the point at which employers start to pay national insurance contributions with the income tax personal allowance. From April 2001, we will align fully the point at which employees start to pay National Insurance contributions with the income tax personal allowance. Provisions in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill currently before Parliament go a long way towards aligning, in the interests of fairness, the tax and NICs treatment of benefits in kind. The Chancellor announced in the Pre-Budget Report that the Inland Revenue will work with employers' representatives and others to reduce technical differences between tax and National Insurance, while having due regard to individuals' benefit entitlement.
  670W
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were paying income tax at the higher rate in(a) 1989–90, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [110025]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of taxpayers paying some income tax at the higher rate were as follows:

  million

  Year

  Numbers

  1989–901

  1.50

  1996–97

  2.08

  1999–20002

  2.40

  1 Prior to 1990–91 most married couples were counted as one taxpayer

  2 This estimate is based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal incomes and consistent with the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total annual net cost of(a) raising the income threshold at which the upper rate of income tax is paid by £3,000 per annum and (b) aligning this threshold with the ceiling on making employee national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement. [110059]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the year 2000–01 the estimated full year cost of raising the higher rate threshold by £3,000 is £1.3 billion and the estimated yield from aligning the threshold with the Upper Earnings Limit is £3 billion. These estimates are based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost savings which would result if the national insurance system were abolished and integrated into the income tax system; and if he will make a statement. [110062]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to calculate the effects without more detail on how the integrated charge would work. In particular, income tax is charged on a wider base than national insurance contributions, covering in addition savings and investment income, pensions and contributory benefits. Income tax has no cap on employees' liability, no charge on the employer and no cessation of liability at retirement age, unlike National Insurance contributions, and payment of National Insurance contributions maintains access to contributory benefits.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present terms of employment of members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. [110060]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The terms of employment of members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England are set out in the Bank of England Act 1998. Additional details may be found in the Bank of England's latest Annual Report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Disqualifications Bill
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) oral and (b) written representations he has received from (i) hon. Members of and (ii) parties represented in the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the subject of the Disqualifications Bill, indicating in each case the date on which representations were received; and if he will place written representations in the Library. [107854]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 10 February 2000 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Official Report, column 240W.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he and his predecessor held bilateral meetings with his Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997. [109870]

  The Prime Minister
  From taking office in May 1997 until December 1999, I have had three bilateral meetings with my Austrian counterpart, Chancellor Klima. We have also seen each other at many multilateral meetings. We have discussed a wide range of issues, mostly on EU related business.

  Steven John Hayden
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the report of the Security Commission on the case of Steven John Hayden. [111061]

  The Prime Minister
  I announced on 30 April 1999 that, after consultation with the Chairman of the Security Commission and the right hon. Gentleman, I had asked the Security Commission to investigate the circumstances in which breaches of security had or might have occurred arising out of the case of Chief Petty Officer Steven Hayden, who was convicted on 23 October 1998 of offences under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989; and to advise in the light of that investigation whether any change in security arrangements was necessary or desirable.

  The Commission has now submitted its report to me and it is being published this afternoon as a Command paper, with the exception of some details which it would not be in the public interest to publish on national security grounds. I am most grateful to the Chairman, Lord Lloyd, and to Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Sir John Foley and Sir Clive Whitmore.

  It became apparent to the Commission at the start of the inquiry that the main issues at stake were in the area of personnel security. The Commission has fully examined the history of the Ministry of Defence's security assessment of Hayden. The Commission was critical of the decisions to continue to allow Hayden a security clearance and surprised at the lack of communication between the vetting authorities, the personnel authorities and line management about the management of the risk presented by him. In particular they considered whether
  672W
  the correct balance was being struck between maintaining vetting confidentiality on the one hand and the effective involvement of line and personnel management in the active aftercare of vetting risk cases on the other.

  It was also concerned that recommendations made in earlier Security Commission inquiries had sought to address similar situations to those in the Hayden case which suggested that they had not been fully implemented.

  However, the Commission acknowledges the Ministry of Defence's acceptance that Hayden's case represents a clear failure in personnel security and welcomes the changes to vetting processes and procedures that the Ministry of Defence have already implemented based on the lessons learned. The Commission has made a number of recommendations. These, in summary, are that:
  (i) It should be standard practice for vetting authorities to consider whether to consult an individual's personnel or line managers, in order to ensure that the latter are aware of any particular vulnerabilities.
  (ii) In cases where doubts emerge, it should be normal practice for regular consultations to take place between all those involved in assessing a clearance. Where the recommendations of Investigating Officers seem likely to be overridden for wider policy considerations of a non-security kind, there should invariably be a discussion between them and those responsible for making the assessment, so that options can be explored before final decisions are reached.
  (iii) In risk cases where confidential medical reports exist on an individual, someone at an appropriately senior level should have the authority to see all the papers including a medical report on the individual's suitability to hold a DV clearance and thus be in a position to reach a proper assessment based on all relevant information.
  (iv) More emphasis should be given to threats outside the traditional risk of an individual being vulnerable to approaches from a hostile foreign intelligence service. Threats from "cheque-book journalism" and industrial espionage should be given more emphasis in the current Field Investigation Officers Guide issued by the Cabinet Office, and in departmental guidance based upon it.
  (v) The question of follow-up to Security Commission recommendations should be revisited to ensure that effective implementation of agreed recommendations takes place.

  The recommendations of the Security Commission have been accepted in principle by the Government subject to further consideration of some detailed points and in the case of (iii), subject to discussion with the appropriate medical authorities. Work is now in hand to ensure that they are eff ectively implemented.

  Countryside Reception
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those people who were invited to the Countryside reception at 10 Downing Street on 2 February. [110503]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to list individual names of guests invited to receptions at 10 Downing Street. The 200 people who were invited to the Countryside reception on 2 February came from a wide range of backgrounds, including the health service, schools, farming, forestry, rural businesses, rural post offices, youth hostels, churches, holiday villages and tourism.

WALES

  Objective 1
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure adequate finance from the Treasury on a contingency basis, to cover the eventuality that expenditure on Objective 1 schemes in Wales in the year 2000–01 exceeds the sums covered in the budget of the National Assembly, while still being within the limit laid down by the EU for that year. [109105]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The provisions for seeking additional finance from Treasury on an exceptional basis are detailed in "A Statement of Funding Policy", which was published by HM Treasury on 31 March 1999.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 327W, on departmental budgets, how much of the increase in the total budget for his Department and the National Assembly between the expected outturn for 1999–2000 and the budget for 2000–01 is for the effects of inflation. [109094]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  During Spending Reviews, forecasts for inflation are reflected in the settlement, but form only one component of that settlement.

  Changes to the size of the Welsh block are mainly determined by applying the population-based Barnett formula to changes in planned spending on comparable services in Departments of the United Kingdom Government, with some exceptions where this is not appropriate.

  As a result it is not possible to identify an element of the increase to the block which is solely an allowance for the effects of inflation.

  Waterhouse Report
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Waterhouse report into abuse in North Wales Children's homes will be published. [110214]

  Mr. Hanson
  The report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the abuse of children in care in North Wales was published on Tuesday 15 February. Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and Libraries of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many arms export licence applications relating to zimbabwe examined by her Department her Department has(a) supported and (b) opposed since May 1997. [109106]

  Clare Short
  From 1 September 1997 until 28 January 2000, we have received 69 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence and 51 applications for an Open Individual Export Licence. These licences by being listed in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods 674W
  (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. Applications were not circulated to the Department for International Development before 1 September 1997.

  Regarding advice given by this Department on individual licence applications, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Secretary of State for International Development on 26 April 1999, Oficial Report, column 18W.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many licence applications for arms exports to Indonesia her Department has examined since August 1997; if she will list them; and how many her Department(a) supported and (b) opposed. [109174]

  Mr. Foulkes
  From 1 September 1997 until 28 January 2000, we have received 78 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence and 70 applications for an Open Individual Export Licence. These licences cover the export to Indonesia of goods subject to control by being listed in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994. This is commonly known as the Military List. Applications were not circulated to the Department for International Development before September 1997.

  Regarding advice given by this Department on individual licence applications, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Secretary of State for International Development on 26 April 1999, Official Report, column 18W.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many licence applications her Department has examined for arms exports to Pakistan since May 1997; if she will list them; and how many her Department(a) supported and (b) opposed. [109104]

  Mr. Foulkes
  From 1 September 1997 until 28 January 2000, we have received 208 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence and 80 for an Open Individual Export Licence. These licences cover the export to Pakistan of goods subject to control by being listed in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. Applications were not circulated to the Department for International Development before 1 September 1997.

  Regarding advice given by this Department on individual licence applications, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Secretary of State for International Development on 26 April 1999, Official Report, column 18W.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many locally employed staff are employed by her Department in Zimbabwe at pay levels below the British national minimum wage. [105687]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply from the Secretary of State on 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 430W.

  Funding
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list, by country, the
  675W
  percentage of her Department's funding that goes (a) directly to foreign Governments, (b) to NGOs and charities and (c) directly to the private sector. [110565]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Detailed information on a country basis is not available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  However, for the 1998–99 financial year, the last year for which figures are available, we estimate that bilateral aid expenditure overall was as follows:

  Channel

  Percentage of 1998–99 bilateral expenditure

  Governments

  37

  Private sector

  47

  NGOs

  16

  Further detailed information on a country basis, divided into Project or sector aid, Programme aid, Technical Co-operation, Aid and Trade Provision, Grants, Humanitarian Assistance, and Debt Relief, is available in the publication "Statistics on International Development", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Chernobyl
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the amount of(a) UK bilateral aid to Ukraine for use in the clean-up following the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident, (b) aid relating to Chernobyl from the UK Government channelled through international organisations and (c) UK aid specifically targeted to the victims of the Chernobyl accident, expended in (i) Ukraine and (ii) Belarus. [110581]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The UK Government have pledged a contribution of £10.5 million towards the Chernobyl Shelter Fund. In addition, some £62.5 million has been pledged by the European Community, of which around 16 per cent. is the UK share. Since 1997, we have provided some £300,000 for measures specifically targeted at the victims of the Chernobyl accident in Belarus. There has been no support specifically targeted at the victims of the accident in Ukraine.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by her Department come from a sustainable source. [110196]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government, through the Green Ministers Committee of which I am a member, have issued a model framework which Departments have used as the basis for preparing their own environmental strategies. Among its key aims are the conservation of resources and minimisation of waste by reducing our reliance on virgin materials and ensuring that any products derived from wildlife—such as paper and timber—are from sustainable sources and comply with EU and international trading agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
  676W
  Our policy statement declares:
  "We will seek to conserve energy and natural resources and reduce our production of waste, emissions to air and discharges to land and water".

  The Department for International Development monitors its performance on the above and other aspects of its operations with respect to green housekeeping and reports on progress made. As part of our continuing efforts to constantly improve our performance, an environmental management system is currently being implemented.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will ensure that paper and timber products purchased by her Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source. [110197]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development is currently involved with providing support, through the Natural Resources Institute and bilateral aid funded projects, for the FSC as part of its efforts to set up the certification program.

  The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is accepted by buyers as demonstrating that timber and timber products have come from sustainably managed sources.

  That said, it is not however viewed as being practicable to require that all paper and timber products purchased by this Department are independently certified by the FSC because this might discriminate against any equally valid schemes and therefore be contrary to public procurement rules.

  Specifying the FSC label alone might also result in us failing to meet all our requirements, as currently only a tiny percentage of timber products are certified by the FSC.

  My Department's policy statement for greening its operations states:
  "We will encourage our suppliers to minimise the impacts of their operations, products and services on the environment through a procurement policy based on the standards in the Government's Green Claims Code".

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Advertising Budget
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110263]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not have any budgets dedicated solely to advertising. However, as part of the recruitment process, advertising is included in the overall costs.

  For the financial year to date the FCO has spent £438,282 on recruitment advertising. This covers recruitment to all grades in the generalist and specialist cadres. Owing to the demand led nature of recruitment it is not possible to predict advertising costs for 2000–01.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the export of demining equipment to the HALO Trust in Kosovo. [111120]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have granted a licence for the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of a rocket wrench, de-arming kit and power charges for use by the HALO Trust, an organisation engaged in humanitarian demining activities in Kosovo on behalf of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). These goods are on the UK's Military List.

  UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1160 imposed an arms embargo on the FRY. The only exception to this embargo is that in UNSCR 1244, which provides that prohibitions imposed by UNSCR 1160 shall not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material for use by the international civil and security presence in Kosovo. We have notified the UN Sanctions Committee of this export and they have raised no objection. The export of the equipment required for demining purposes is not prohibited by the EU arms embargo.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by United Kingdom representatives at the United Nations to help ensure the speedy implementation of the proposed referendum on the future of the Western Sahara. [110478]

  Mr. Hain
  UK representatives in New York give their full support to efforts to implement the UN-sponsored referendum in the Western Sahara. UK representatives are also active members of the Friends of the Western Sahara grouping at the UN. The Permanent Representative to the UK Mission, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, recently met the Secretary-General of the Polisario Front and assured him that the UK would continue to support all efforts to find a just and durable peace in the Western Sahara acceptable to the Saharawi people.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of human rights is undertaken by his Department in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [110477]

  Mr. Hain
  Our High Commission in Islamabad monitors human rights in Afghanistan and is in regular contact with NGOs and UN agencies on this subject.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to re-open the British Embassy in Kabul. [110568]

  Mr. Hain
  We have no plans at present to re-open the British Embassy in Kabul.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when his Department last(a) received representations from and (b) made representations to the Afghan Embassy in London; [110570]

  (2) when his Department last received representations from the former Afghan Government of President Rabbani. [110569]
  678W
  Mr. Hain
  We are in regular contact with the Charge d'Affaires at the Afghanistan Embassy in London who was appointed by the Rabbani Government. He last met officials from the FCO on 16 February. We are also in contact with the other Afghan factions, including the Taliban

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the location of heroin production within Afghanistan. [110571]

  Mr. Battle
  The FCO funds a series of studies of the drugs problem in Afghanistan by the United Nations International Drugs Programme (UNDCP). Heroin production in Afghanistan is concentrated mainly in the Helmand, Nangahar and Badakhshan provinces. Approximately 90 per cent. of the areas in which opium poppy is cultivated is under Taliban control. According to estimates of the UNDCP, 1999 saw a 117 per cent. increase in the Afghan poppy harvest, to a total of 4,800 tonnes of opium, making Afghanistan the world's largest producer of illegal opiates.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department last had contact with a representative of the Taliban Government of Afghanistan. [110566]

  Mr. Hain
  We are in regular contact with the main Afghan factions, including the Taliban. The last contact between a representative of the Taliban and a British official was on 16 February 2000.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs where representatives of his Department have met representatives of the Taliban Government of Afghanistan. [110567]

  Mr. Hain
  Our meetings with the Taliban take place mainly in Islamabad. However, members of our Embassy in Copenhagen met a visiting Taliban delegation on 12 February 2000.

  Departmental Meetings
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) meetings and (b) official social contacts between Foreign Office (i) Ministers and (ii) special advisers and Mr. Philip Gould from 1 May 1997 to date. [110510]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, Civil Service Code and guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis and, in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the recent departmental meetings with Stanley Greenberg and James Caville. [110511]

  Mr. Hain
  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, Civil Service Code and
  679W
  guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis and, in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 739W, on departmental expenditure, how much is (a) the transfer from another departmental expenditure limit of DFID and (b) the charge on the departmental expenditure limit reserve. [110514]

  Mr. Hain
  Our answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) regarding the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Departmental Expenditure Limits contained an administrative error. The closing statement should have begun "The increase will be offset by a transfer from another Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL)", not "Departmental Expenditure Limit (DFID)". This is a standard Treasury line used when a department increases its DEL.

  Our answer detailed an increase in our DEL of £5,157,000 and a breakdown of how this sum was made up. The breakdown detailed a variety of transfers between the FCO and other Government Departments internal movements and a claim on the reserve to support peacekeeping operations.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 739W, on departmental expenditure, what is the reason for the increase of £2 million in the capital expenditure and £2 million in the appropriation in aid for FCO estates rationalisation. [110515]

  Mr. Battle
  The reason for the increase in appropriations in aid is that the FCO was able to sell assets worth £2 million more than projected. The increase in capital expenditure reflects the recycling of those proceeds into other FCO capital programmes.

  Ukraine
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many diplomats in the British Embassy in Ukraine are engaged in trade promotion; and what monitoring he conducts of the comparable figures for other EU states. [110572]

  Mr. Battle
  One senior diplomat leads a team of four locally engaged staff on trade promotion in Kiev. Our Ambassador devotes about 20 per cent. of his time to this work as do other staff to a smaller degree.

  A full review of our Embassy in Kiev was conducted in November last year. British Trade International, who now operate the trade support services of the FCO and DTI, take account of the positions of comparable EU states when planning the allocation of resources.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to support Ukraine's aspiration for EU membership; and 680W
  what representations he or his Department have received from Ukraine concerning Ukrainian membership of the EU. [110579]

  Mr. Vaz
  We support Ukraine's aspirations for closer relations with the EU, but consider it too early to consider the question of possible EU membership. The EU/Ukraine Partnership and Co-operation Agreement offers wide scope for closer relations and we encourage Ukraine to implement it fully. Ukraine Ministers have frequently requested EU support for their aspirations to EU membership. It was one of the topics raised with me yesterday by the Foreign Policy Adviser to the Ukrainian President.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Ukrainian Government about(a) Ukraine's weapons exports and (b) illegal export of arms from Ukraine. [110582]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made representations regarding reports of Ukrainian manufactured arms in Sierra Leone and Angola to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister on 1 February and 16 December 1999. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) made similar representations to the Ukrainian Ambassador on 16 September 1999. A team of officials will travel to Ukraine in March to explore ways in which we can co-operate to combat illegal arms transfers in Africa. We do not believe that the Ukrainian Government is itself involved in illegal arms exports.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to other EU states by his Department concerning Ukrainian membership of the EU. [110580]

  Mr. Vaz
  The future of Ukraine's relations with the EU was discussed extensively with other EU member states during drafting of the EU Common Strategy on Ukraine, which was adopted at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999. The UK successfully argued that the Common Strategy should acknowledge Ukraine's European aspirations and welcome Ukraine's pro-European choice.

  Children's Rights
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report on Children's Rights published by the Children's Select Committee. [109822]

  Mr. Hain
  In November 1999, to mark the tenth anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the FCO and Save the Children UK organised a Children's Select Committee. 16 children from across the UK chose to examine four issues of central importance to children: child soldiers, child labour, child rights and the environment, and child participation. The Committee's findings were presented in a report to the FCO on 8 February making a number of recommendations for the Government, business sector and NGOs to consider.

  The FCO is co-ordinating the Government's response which we plan to publish by the middle of April. We will also be looking at ways to publicise the Committee's report and a video of the event as widely as possible, including through our Posts overseas.

  Departmental Property
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Forign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all his Departments's premises(a) currently for sale and(b) being considered for disposal. [110513]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of current FCO properties for sale are as listed. As to listing properties being considered for disposal, the entire estate is reviewed as part of a rolling programme revaluation exercise. This reveals properties which appear to performing poorly on the basis of key preformance indicators. These are then examined in detail to determine whether they should be replaced by more effective properties.

  FCO Sale of assets: property currently for sale— 16 February 2000

  Country

  Location

  Description

  Egypt

  Alexandria

  Land

  Malawi

  Blantyre

  Residential

  Colombia

  Bogota

  Residential

  Germany

  Bonn

  Residential

  Barbados

  Bridgetown

  Residential

  Hungary

  Budapest

  Residential

  Egypt

  Cairo

  Residential

  FCO sale of assets

  Country

  Location

  Description

  Number of sales

  Proceeds (£000)

  From 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1998

  Germany

  Berlin

  Land

  1

  127

  Colombia

  Bogota

  Flat

  1

  46

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires

  Flat

  1

  65

  Australia

  Canberra

  House

  1

  141

  South Africa

  Capetown

  House

  1

  296

  Switzerland

  Geneva

  House

  1

  576

  Guyana

  Georgetown

  House

  1

  145

  Zimbabwe

  Harare

  House

  1

  32

  Finland

  Helsinki

  House/Flat

  3

  541

  South Africa

  Johannesburg

  House

  1

  28

  Zambia

  Lusaka

  House

  3

  169

  Spain

  Madrid

  Flat

  1

  91

  Mozambique

  Maputo

  House

  1

  82

  Lesotho

  Maseru

  House

  2

  54

  France

  Paris

  Flat

  7

  835

  France

  Paris (OECD)

  Residence

  1

  1,661

  South Africa

  Pretoria

  Land

  1

  46

  Ecuador

  Quito

  Land

  1

  135

  Iceland

  Reykjavik

  Flat

  1

  42

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  Flat

  2

  152

  Albania

  Tirana

  House

  1

  65

  New Zealand

  Wellington

  House

  1

  58

  Total

  —

  —

  35

  5,387

  From 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Colombia

  Bogota

  Offices

  1

  539

  Morocco

  Casablanca

  Offices

  1

  863

  Denmark

  Copenhagen

  Residential

  2

  190

  Ireland

  Dublin

  Residential

  1

  297

  Switzerland

  Geneva

  Residential

  4

  506

  Soloman Island

  Honiara

  Residential

  1

  53

  South Africa

  Johannesburg

  Residential

  2

  72

  France

  Marseilles

  Residential

  1

  691

  Swaziland

  Mbabane

  Residential

  1

  29

  Portugal

  Oporto

  Land

  1

  781

  Norway

  Oslo

  Residential

  1

  201

  Canada

  Ottawa

  Residential

  2

  672

  France

  Paris

  Residential

  2

  176

  Trinidad

  Port of Spain

  Residential

  1

  162

  682W

  FCO Sale of assets: property currently for sale— 16 February 2000

  Country

  Location

  Description

  Tanzania

  Dar es Salaam

  Residential

  Jamaica

  Kingston

  Residential

  Malaysia

  Kuala Lumpur

  Residential

  Nigeria

  Lagos

  Residential

  Portugal

  Lisbon

  Residential

  Spain

  Malaga

  Offices

  Swaziland

  Mbabane

  Offices

  Kenya

  Nairobi

  Residential

  Canada

  Ottawa

  Residential

  France

  Paris

  Garage

  Spain

  Seville

  Offices

  Tunisia

  Tunis

  Land

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all of his Department's premises sold since 1 May 1997 together with the sale price and the names of the buyers. [110512]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1 May 1997 the FCO has sold 78 estate assets. Details are as listed. Total proceeds to date from completed sales amount to £39 million. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the FCO does not publish names of buyers. Were we to do so, prospective purchasers might be dissuaded from bidding.
  683W

  FCO sale of assets

  Country

  Location

  Description

  Number of sales

  Proceeds (£000)

  South Africa

  Pretoria

  Residential

  1

  135

  Ecuador

  Quito

  Land

  1

  188

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  Residential

  1

  74

  U.K.

  Gawcott

  Land

  1

  355

  U.K.

  22–24 Whitehall

  Offices

  1

  8,500

  Total

  —

  —

  26

  14,484

  From 1 April 1999 to date

  Swaziland

  Gaborone

  Residential

  1

  155

  Chile

  Santiago

  Residential

  1

  103

  France

  Lille

  Residential

  1

  289

  France

  Paris

  Residential

  1

  134

  Germany

  Bonn

  Offices

  1

  6,388

  Germany

  Bonn

  Residential

  1

  364

  Ireland

  Dublin

  Residential

  1

  19,900

  Israel

  Tel Aviv

  Residential

  1

  159

  Malaysia

  Kuala Lumpur

  Residential

  1

  31

  New Zealand

  Wellington

  Residential

  1

  206

  Spain

  Madrid

  Residential

  1

  262

  Swaziland

  Mbabane

  Residential

  1

  23

  Sweden

  Stockholm

  Residential

  1

  126

  Switzerland

  Geneva

  Residential

  2

  194

  U.K.

  Poundon

  Land

  1

  477

  USA

  Cleveland

  Residential

  1

  353

  Total

  —

  —

  18

  19,164

  1 A further £10 million will be received from this sale in March 2000, and a further £3.6 million will be received in 2001–02

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made by him to the Government of Zimbabwe concerning demands that the UK compensate white farmers for land to be taken by the Zimbabwean Government. [110576]

  Mr. Hain
  Our High Commissioner called on the Vice President on 2 February. I wrote to President Mugabe on 4 February. The draft constitution, containing clause 57, was rejected by the Zimbabwe people in a referendum on 12–13 February.
  684W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him by opposition groups within Zimbabwe about(a) that country's referendum on a new constitution and (b) human rights in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [110575]

  Mr. Hain
  We maintain close contact with a wide cross-section of society in Zimbabwe, including opposition groups. The referendum process was deeply flawed. The `No' vote showed that there was clearly wide discontent with both the process and the content of the draft.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 11 January 2000, Official Report, columns 132–33W.

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

St John's Wort
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to draw attention to St John's Wort as a treatment for depression.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we have no plans to draw attention to this particular treatment for depression. However, like other complementary medicines, St John's Wort can be provided on the NHS, provided that clinicians consider it a safe, effective and cost-effective means of meeting patient health needs and its provision is in line with locally agreed health priorities.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware of the research which has shown St John's Wort to be as effective as standard anti-depressants, without the side-effects—some quite serious—that go with drugs such as Prozac and Amitriptyline? Should not the Government be doing a bit more to promote herbal medicines with this in mind, particularly in areas of further research and a more appropriate licensing system?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am certainly aware that many people feel that St John's Wort is beneficial. However, I have to say that the Medicines Control Agency, which approves product licences, has informed me that there have been no successful licence applications for such products in the UK. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has considered a number of applications for product licences, but the data provided have failed to satisfy current regulatory requirements for efficacy.
I take on board the noble Earl's concern regarding research generally. Of course, the NHS has a substantial research programme and applications for research can be considered in line with the normal application processes.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that it is said that a side-effect of taking St John's Wort is that exposure to sunlight may result in serious damage to the skin?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am certainly aware that some concerns have been expressed about the impact of St John's Wort. There have been recent
1336
reports of possible interactions between St John's Wort and other medicines. I can tell my noble friend that the Committee on Safety of Medicines is in fact meeting next week and will be considering the evidence very carefully. It will then advise me on this question.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, whatever the outcome of the committee's investigation into St John's Wort, is it not the case that current arrangements for the registration of herbal medicines are extremely unsatisfactory, both for the consumer and for the producer? Indeed, they can be treated as food, as pharmaceutical products or as border-line cases. I know that the Minister has been sympathetic on a number of occasions to the idea of a third category to go alongside homoeopathic medicines and pharmaceutical products, but can he say something about the Government's intentions in this respect?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. There are unsatisfactory aspects in the current regime. First, when seeking a licence for herbal medicines, many companies have difficulty in meeting conventional requirements as regards product efficacy. Secondly, there are no specific safeguards on quality and safety for unlicensed herbal remedies. We have had extensive discussions with those most concerned and are committed to finding a better regulatory mechanism within the current medicines framework.
As regards the noble Lord's suggested third category, I can tell him that there are many points within the proposals that have been put forward which we have been glad to support. However, we do not see the case for a completely new regulatory category outside medicines.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that St John's Wort (hypericum)—of which there are over 350 varieties—is a plant subject to the sun, as are rosemary, rue, angelica, lovage, calendula and about 40 or so others? Is the noble Lord also aware that the sun is a very strong anti-depressant? That is why we all feel so much better on a lovely sunny day like today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness continues to educate me in the glories of flowers. I am very happy to agree with her.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, on listening to these exchanges, one might be led to believe that one needs to distinguish between clinical depression—we have all known people who suffer from that grave malady—and what Sir Winston Churchill used to call "black dog", from which all of us suffer from time to time? Indeed, should not young people today, especially those looking for a quick fix of one kind or another for feeling down on one day, be warned against quickly reacting to this by taking any remedy, whether it be St John's Wort, drinks or anything of that kind?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. The noble Viscount is right. We should always be cautious about the quick jump into whatever remedy is available. However, one has to be aware that at least 6 per cent of the population at any one time suffer from depression and that one-half of women and one-quarter of men will suffer from the condition before they reach the age of 70. It is a worrying problem and it is essential that the NHS has the local services available to support people who are suffering from depression.
Sometimes anti-depressant medication will be the right answer, but other times more psychological therapies will be the best prospect for a cure. In developing a mental health strategy, the tackling of depression and its prevention are most important.
Baroness Young: My Lords, although I recognise that a great many people use complementary medicines—and the number is, I believe, increasing—is there not a very serious case here for bringing them into line with the tests that would be applied to pharmaceutical products and others that are used in the National Health Service, both as a safeguard for those who are using them and for people who might just buy something off the shelf which could have undesirable side-effects?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I said earlier, it is certainly important that we have a more effective regulatory system for herbal products. We believe that they should be within the current medicines framework. However, in the discussions that have been taking place between the Government and those who represent herbal interests, it has been recognised that we must have a regime in which the safety of the public is paramount. Indeed, I very much agree with that.
As far as concerns the use of complementary medicine in the NHS generally, the noble Baroness is right. We have seen increases over the past few years in this respect. My understanding is that at least half of all primary care groups provide some form of complementary medicine. Clearly, although we need to recognise the absolute requirement of safety, we should also recognise that many people in the NHS also feel that complementary medicine has something to offer.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say—
A noble Lord: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I believe that several noble Lords wish to intervene at this point, but we have now spent eight minutes on this Question and I do not think that we should continue with it.

Political Donations
3.8 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any concerns about issues arising from political donations in other European Union member states.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it is up to individual member states of the European Union to decide upon their domestic legislation regarding donations to political parties, and on how to deal with irregularities or breaches of the rules. We do, of course, follow political developments within the European Union with interest. Noble Lords will have seen reports that rigorous procedures are pursued in Germany following allegations of irregularities relating to donations to political parties.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Given the argument that she advanced a few weeks ago that the internal affairs of Austria are of common concern, does she not agree that the allegations against the late President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl are also of great concern to this country? Would it not be intolerable if a government in any European country used state money to try to influence the outcome of an election in another country? Is it not important, therefore, that the origins of the Kohl money become clear so that the people of this country do not believe that the European project is being pursued by a cabal using secret funds to suppress opposition?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is most important to note that the countries themselves are addressing this issue. In the case of Germany, the Parliament president has already levied a fine on the Christian Democratic Union and I understand that further action may follow. Many noble Lords will know that the extent of the fine is 43 million deutschmarks. It is obviously important that political parties behave appropriately. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government take that matter seriously. Later this year we shall introduce appropriate legislation in relation to it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is particularly praiseworthy that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has raised the question of political donations? Will she consult her noble and learned friend the Attorney-General on the exchange of correspondence between the Home Secretary and Conservative Central Office about what happened to Mr Asil Nadir's substantial contribution to the Conservative Party, which there is every reason to believe was stolen money?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Lord that we still have not had an adequate response on that. We await with interest the various other revelations that doubtless the party opposite will be anxious to disclose, bearing in mind its long history of non-disclosure in this regard.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it true that European Union governments are not considered as being foreign countries for the purpose of foreign donations to political parties? If that is so, does that mean that shady money, money from the European Union Commission or money from foreign governments could be used to finance British political parties?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the position is clear so far as concerns the United Kingdom. As I said, we shall bring to this House the political parties and referendums Bill, in which we seek to put such matters on clear lines. Our party has made it absolutely clear that it does not accept donations from foreign governments or others. That is a position which we hope will be shared. When the Bill arrives in this House and in the other place, I am confident that all noble Lords—particularly those opposite—will give it their full and unreserved support.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, what is the Government's attitude towards contributions to British political parties from residents of the European Union? Is it the Government's view that there is something more meritorious in such contributions than in contributions to British political parties from residents of Commonwealth countries?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not take that view. It is surprising to hear such comments coming from the Benches opposite. We know that the party opposite has received a number of contributions from individuals who are resident elsewhere.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered the question. Will she please do so? Do the Government view differently contributions to British political parties from residents of the European Union as compared to contributions to British political parties from residents of Commonwealth countries?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we take the same approach in all cases. We have clearly stated that all contributions made to political parties should be transparent, wheresoever they come from.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that I may pursue this matter a little further. Does the Minister's reply mean that when the Bill is brought forward the same rules will apply to contributions from citizens of European Union countries as to contributions from countries outside the European Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the theme remains the same—transparency, transparency, transparency and proper recording. I am delighted, as always, to provide your Lordships with entertainment in this regard, but I should remind your Lordships that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is a matter for the Foreign Office, and we are now straying a little outside that realm.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords—
Lord Brookman: My Lords—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think it is the turn of the government side.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, we should avoid the shadow boxing emanating from the Opposition Benches. The allegation against Chancellor Kohl is that he took very large political donations from foreign and other sources which he did not list in his party's public accounts. Does the Minister agree that the Conservative Party has been doing that for as long as I can remember? Does she further agree that the difference is that in this country we do not have the laws, as yet, to stop it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble friend. I emphasise the words "not yet". I remind your Lordships, yet again, that there will be an opportunity to regularise that position later this year. I am sure that all noble Lords now await that moment with bated breath.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, returning to the question of European Union funding, I am puzzled by the answers given by the Minister to the questions of my noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Cranborne. If I am not wrong, citizens of the European Union are eligible to come to this country and to be on the electoral register. Surely, therefore, citizens of the European Union are quite entitled to give donations to British political parties? That was the question that was asked. Is the answer yes or no, because the noble Baroness did not seem to know?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, anyone resident in this country will be able to make a contribution. But there remains the question of transparency. The noble Lord knows that, in relation to contributions to our party, any contribution over £5,000 is declared in order that it should be transparent. I invite the party of noble Lords opposite to emulate that if it dares.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Cranborne—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend has answered the questions on this matter very satisfactorily. We have now reached the 17 minutes point and it is time for the next Question.

Newly Qualified Drivers
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the incidence of motor accidents involving young or new drivers, they will introduce regulations for the display on vehicles of R (restricted) or P (provisional) plates for newly qualified drivers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, there are mixed views on whether there would be a significant safety benefit from requiring newly qualified drivers to display what are commonly described as probationary, or P-plates. We believe that, in improving new driver safety, the priority should be to encourage learners to get more experience before they take the test rather than placing restrictions on them after they have qualified. However, we are actively considering a package of measures to improve new driver safety. The question of probationary plates will be addressed in the road safety strategy, which is soon to be announced.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the effectiveness of the provisional licence under the New South Wales road transport driver licensing regulations, which impose particular vehicle speed restrictions on drivers for the first 12 months after passing their tests? Such licences can be cancelled immediately if the holder is convicted of a road traffic offence or has to pay a penalty for certain breaches of road traffic regulations during those 12 months. Should not the Government be giving serious consideration to such a provision?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of the New South Wales scheme. There are similar schemes in other Australian states, although the details vary. A research project is being conducted by TRL which is looking at all such schemes for what, effectively, become phased or graduated licences. It will report later this year. Also, the Northern Ireland experience is rather inconclusive as to whether or not such schemes bring safety benefits. Some of our provisional conclusions on this issue will be contained in the road safety strategy.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Among the package of measures which the Government are considering to ensure that drivers are better qualified, are they looking at the concept of a log book which an intending driver would present at the time of the test to demonstrate that he had the requisite experience to be worthy of passing?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, the Government are concerned to ensure that by the time someone comes forward to take a test—well over half fail at present—the quality of his training has the breadth, scope and period of experience that could be recorded in a log book. That is certainly one of the options that will be considered and contained in our road safety strategy.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, as a former owner of a driving school, I was always concerned that although pupils had sufficient lessons to enable them to pass the test, in many cases they did not have sufficient driving experience. Although we tried to persuade them to gain driving experience with their parents, often that was not possible. Will the Minister therefore give serious consideration to the idea of a provisional plate, in particular so that we can survey students who take the test to find out how many hours of non-tuition experience they have obtained?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are two aspects to that matter. The first relates to the pre-test period. It is clear—I concur with the noble Lord's experience—that many candidates come forward without sufficient hours or breadth of experience. We are trying to address that problem by introducing a more structured approach to pre-test learning. The second aspect relates to the rather high level of accident propensity of those in their first year or so of driving. The noble Baroness's P-plate proposal seeks to address that situation. However, so far the conclusions on the matter are inconclusive. There are already some provisions in the legislation relating to penalties which apply to new drivers. We are considering other, currently voluntary, schemes such as Pass Plus and P-plates.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister consider another angle relating to my noble friend's Question; namely, if P and R-plates were used, perhaps the rest of us would give the drivers displaying them more room and not carve them up? I am not saying that I personally carve them up, but a good deal of carving up goes on in the roads. My noble friend's proposal might reduce road rage and create more tolerant drivers.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am greatly in favour of anything which decreases the propensity of any of us to road rage. I am not entirely sure that having a variety of different plates to which one may respond differentially is necessarily the best way of reducing road rage. However, as I said, all those proposals are currently under consideration and they will feature to some degree in the strategy.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, if the idea of plates finds favour with your Lordships, would it not be a good idea for those who use mobile telephones to

1343
have to use a plate showing, let us say, a red telephone? That would give others the opportunity of avoiding them earlier than otherwise would be the case.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there may be a serious point behind the noble Viscount's suggestion. As he will know, the department has recently been trying to point out to the public the danger, particularly to other drivers, of using a mobile phone while driving. I am therefore glad of the opportunity to underline that point here today.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend's suggestion has many merits. The involvement of youngsters in death and injury is extremely distressing, particularly if many are involved. Would a further advantage of P-plates be to make it possible to limit the number of passengers that an inexperienced driver may carry?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is a slightly two-edged proposition. In the case of drink-driving, for example, it is advantageous that one may swap the role of driver and that three or four people, one of whom does not drink, may therefore travel in one car. Any move to make drivers always drive on their own, particularly within that age group, could have detrimental as well as positive effects.

Defence Contractors
3.24 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether certain major defence contractors have been instructed not to submit any further accounts before the end of the financial year.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the answer is no. That is because the Question is based on the erroneous premise that government can instruct contractors when to submit bills. As the noble Lord knows, what we do every year is to discuss with industry how to manage expenditure most effectively. This year is no different.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, does the Minister's reply mean that no instructions have been given but that it has been admitted tacitly that it would be wise to leave bills unsubmitted until the following year? If that is the case, what will be the effect of the Budget in that year?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, no instructions are given. The MoD routinely enters into agreements with its suppliers to promote commercial relationships which benefit both parties. Details are commercially confidential between us and the individual companies. Arrangements are freely entered into on both sides.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in. the Chair.]
Clause 98 [Inadequate sixth-forms]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 43, line 34, leave out ("(inadequate sixth-forms)'') and insert ("(sixth-form centres)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 210.
The amendments that I have tabled will almost inevitably necessitate further consequential amendments, but I prefer to leave it to the Government, with the help of parliamentary counsel, to resolve how that may be best accommodated. I have tabled the amendments because many outside the Committee and certainly a number of Members of the Committee believe that the Bill as set out constitutes a threat to the future of sixth forms.
The Bill will change the way in which school sixth forms are funded, but it will also give the local skills council significant new powers over them, which is where a great deal of uncertainty begins. At present, funding for school sixth forms is distributed via LEAs' individual formulae for their secondary schools. Under the new system, the local skills council will make grants to local education authorities for sixth-form provision, which they in turn will distribute to schools as part of their local schools' budget. The question arises as to the formula that the local skills council will use in distributing funds to the local education authorities. Of course, there may be winners and losers, not least because different LEAs currently have different funding priorities, directing either more or less money to school sixth-form provision than is suggested by their standard spending assessment.
The National Association of Head Teachers of course supports the changes in funding mechanisms, but on the important proviso that they will deliver enhanced resources for sixth forms to support them in delivering the wider post-2000 curriculum for 16 to 19 year-olds. The detail of how the funding system will work is of crucial importance to the sixth forms themselves. It needs to be teased out from the Government as soon as possible. The local skills council is also being given the power to develop schemes for the assessment of the performance of those providing post-16 education and training and, crucially, it will be able to base its funding decisions on those assessments. It may also attach conditions to grants. Therefore, the Bill seems to allow the LSC to

1345
determine how much money individual sixth forms may receive; indeed, whether they will receive any money at all.
There are also questions about whether a local learning and skills council could look at sixth forms in its area, make value for money judgments and determine what is taught and where, such as rationalising the teaching of minority subjects at the expense of parental and pupil choice. Both situations would be unacceptable. The National Association of Head Teachers has expressed its concern on this point.
This form of intervention is unwelcome. Not only will the LSC have wide-ranging powers to intervene, but both LEAs and the Secretary of State will retain their respective powers of intervention as well. School sixth forms will have to be mindful of yet another line manager, in addition to remaining focused on what they should be concerned about—that is, standards in the classroom.
One of the greatest threats to school sixth forms rests in Schedule 7, where the local skills council's powers to propose the closure of inadequate sixth forms are spelt out. A sixth form is considered inadequate if it is failing or likely to fail to give an acceptable standard of education or if it has a significant weakness in one or more areas. In a rural primary school, only a small number of students may be taking a subject. Is that determined to be a weakness? Do we know quite what will constitute a weakness?
Unlike under the School Standards and Framework Act in relation to schools, no procedures are set out to tackle problems and help turn the sixth forms around. Instead, if two inspection reports identify the sixth form as being inadequate, proposals for closure can go forward. It is important to note that not only may the inspections be carried out by persons other than Ofsted inspectors, but there is also no minimum period between inspections. That would give sixth forms no guaranteed timeframe within which to turn problems around. It goes even further. The Bill allows the first report to be counted retrospectively.
With the local skills council having such wide-ranging powers over 16 to 19 provision, it is important that sixth forms have representation on the national and local councils and are consulted properly on any changes to provision, particularly as they account for at least one-sixth of the £6 billion—or £5 billion, depending on which Minister one listens to—which is to be the LSC budget. The Bill raises so many issues that will need careful examination. Those include the powers for local education authorities to create new 16 to 19 maintained schools, which again will have an impact. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, introduced an amendment on the previous day in Committee about the creation of new schools impacting on existing provision in an area.
Despite attempts to assure those who are concerned about sixth forms, they face an uncertain future under the Bill. Their demise would be a great loss to many pupils. It would much reduce their choice of the type of
1346
educational establishment they wish to attend. These uncertainties are greatest in the rural areas of this country. In such areas it would be quite easy to exercise a subjective judgment that there was a weakness simply because in a rural secondary school one gets considerable fluctuations from year to another. Indeed, many schools are very innovative in how they work co-operatively together or with their local FE colleges to overcome some of the difficulties. In A-level classes in many rural schools both first and second year sixth-form studies will be taught. Such schools will resort to all kinds of innovations. But the power is there to make a subjective judgment that that constitutes a weakness and thereby could trigger the closure proposals. The Minister shakes her head, but it is important not just to give verbal assurances but to put something on the face of the Bill to give some assurance to those schools that that kind of judgment not only will not be made but cannot be made. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As Amendment No. 110 is also being spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 210A to 210E inclusive.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Before we add to the weight attributed to the results of Ofsted inspections, we should take a short pause to consider whether the judgments of Ofsted are of sufficient quality and reliability to allow that to be a sensible course to take. I admire and approve of many of the things Ofsted has done. I think that it was one of our fine creations when in office. But one of the things I least admire about Ofsted is that it has not submitted itself to any form of research or evaluation. There has been no research into the validity of its inspection system; there has been no comparison of pre-announced and surprise visits; there have been no studies of how long inspectors need to spend in schools to achieve a reliable judgment; and no comparisons of results. In fact, there was one tiny study, using inadequate research criteria, of whether different inspectors inspecting the same school and the same lessons come to the same conclusion or whether there is too much variation between the conclusions that different inspectors reach about individual teachers. There has been no comparison between the results of inspection and independent evidence of how well a school is doing, such as value added data.
It is not right for an organisation such as Ofsted to stand out against a proper evaluation of how good its judgments are, particularly when they are to be put to the use which we are considering in this part of the Bill. It should be a research oriented, research-based and respectful-of-research organisation. It is not. I hope that the Government will set their mind to changing that approach.
We also need to consider the difference in style between Ofsted and the FEFC. The FEFC has run what might be called a professional audit style of inspection. It has worked with the organisations it has

1347
inspected. In the judgments it has made it has carried with it not only the organisation but the individual teachers through feed-back from individual inspectors and from the teams of inspectors working in a school. Ofsted has maintained throughout a purity of stance which has made it difficult to live with in a school. It has refused to provide or even contemplate providing advice to a school on what it should do or to work with the school, let alone individual teachers, in order to provide feed-back on inspectors' views on individual lessons, on the school or on how the school might work to improve itself.
I understand the purity with which the Chief Inspector of Schools approaches this matter. But when one is coming down to a delicate decision about whether a school should have a sixth form or whether it is inadequate in relation to the local demands of its customers, one needs a much more participatory style of inspection in order to arrive at an answer which will be seen as valid by the people who at the end of the day will be subject to the results of that inspection. There is a great deal to be done by Ofsted in moving towards the old FEFC model of inspection if As verdicts are to be accepted as well-based, well-founded and in tune with what is required by the local people. Beyond anything else, if we are to have Ofsted involved in this kind of decision, it must operate in a much more transparent and open mode than it has heretofore. It must be possible for people to understand what its judgments have been and why its judgments have been and to criticise intelligently the judgments it has arrived at.
At the moment, Ofsted is a closed organisation. It is sometimes hard to understand how it has reached its judgments. That must change. Until those things have been changed, we should be cautious about expanding its powers in the way envisaged in this part of the Bill.
Baroness Warnock: I should like to say a few words in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Not enough thought has gone into the concept of inadequacy in a sixth form. Provision, particularly in rural schools, may be exceedingly good but not cover all possible ranges that are now open to people of 16-plus. It should be made known on the face of the Bill what the criteria for inadequacy are to be: whether they are a matter of poor provision, bad teaching, and all the things that point to proof of inadequacy, or whether the question of breadth of provision will also be taken into account in judging whether a school is inadequate. Given the huge range of options which are properly spelled out in the Bill as being open, with luck, to people of 16 onwards, there is a very limited number of institutions that can feasibly provide all of those options. Questions of transport between different schools and colleges of further education will become enormously important. The business of timetabling a student's whole programme seems a schoolmistress's nightmare.
Apart from that, it is totally unclear from the Bill as it stands what criteria will be used. A new Sword of Damocles is hanging over schools. They will not be
1348
clear from reading the Bill what it is their duty to provide. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to consider Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 together. No one, I hope, doubts the Government's commitment to investing in high-quality school education. We have increased funding and ensured that more of is it passed on to schools to spend on improving pupil performance. We have also increased the rigour with which poor standards are tackled in following up inspection reports.
The Bill demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that the learning opportunities available to all students aged 16 to 19 are of similarly high quality. That is why we have in the Bill established a level playing field in inspections, with Ofsted looking across the piece at 16 to 19 provision in schools and colleges and applying similar standards. It would be quite wrong to apply different standards in one sector from the other—to suggest that a student choosing a school rather than a college at age 16, or vice versa, was thereby opting for a sector where the standards applied were different and possibly less rigorous. But that would be the precise effect of the noble Baroness's amendments. They seem to be driven by an attachment to sixth forms which is perhaps a little blind to the need to take action to address poor standards.
Having secured a level playing field in inspection, we need to ensure that it is followed up with equal rigour in both sectors. If any provider of post-16 education fails to provide the standards which students deserve, it must make the necessary improvements without delay, or face the possible consequences. The Bill secures exactly that for further education colleges, in respect of which the LSC and CETW will have significant powers to intervene where necessary. The councils must have parallel powers in respect of inadequate sixth forms.
Schools providing high-quality education for their sixth formers have nothing to fear from the proposals in Schedule 7, under which the LSC and CETW would have powers to propose the closure of inadequate sixth forms. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that that is defined in Schedule 7—after two successive reports to that effect.
These powers are part of our strategy for ensuring high quality throughout post-16 learning, as was outlined in the White Paper. They are consistent with the principle that intervention should be in inverse proportion to success. Where any provider fails to meet the necessary standards of quality, firm action will be needed. In the first instance, it will be for providers to take that action, so as to secure the necessary improvements within a reasonable time. In the case of schools, that action will involve the governing body and the LEA. But where their response is inadequate, we shall look to the LSC and CETW to propose remedial action.

1349
I must stress that the powers in relation to school sixth forms are a fallback to operate where the local education authority and the school governors have not managed to sort out persistent failure. I am confident that in most cases they will do so, as they currently do under the arrangements that this Government have developed for schools in special measures and introduced for schools with serious weaknesses. Those arrangements are working well: during 1999, the number of schools in special measures fell, as did the average length of time that schools spent before coming out of special measures. We expect similar success in turning round inadequate sixth forms, thus ensuring that all students get a fair deal. Inspection reports will be clearer about inadequacy in sixth forms, and so the school and local authority will have a more focused agenda for action than has been the case up to now. Improvements must be secured quickly.
But we have to recognise the possibility that, in a particular case, for whatever reason, the governing body and LEA may not succeed. The powers to which Clause 98 and Schedule 7 give effect are powers of last resort in those circumstances. In that respect, they are consistent with the Secretary of State's and the National Assembly's existing power to direct the closure of a school in special measures.
No school should allow standards in its sixth form to fall to a level which results in an adverse inspection report. But, if that happens, the school will have the opportunity (with support from the LEA and, if appropriate, the diocesan body) to make the necessary improvements, as will be secured by government amendments that we shall discuss later.
Only where a second consecutive adverse inspection report is made about a sixth form will the LSC's or CETW's powers to propose closure be triggered. We shall ensure that schools and LEAs have a reasonable time to make the necessary improvements before re-inspection. I hope that that is helpful to Members of the Committee who have taken part in this short debate. That will generally be around two years, as it is for schools with serious weaknesses. If schools have failed after that time to do what is needed to provide their students with the standard of education that they need and deserve, the situation cannot be allowed to continue.
The powers which are then triggered are not of summary closure. The power is for the LSC to publish proposals which will be subject to the usual statutory decision-making process by the school organisation committee and the schools adjudicator. Proposals published by the CETW will be subject to the usual procedure for approval by the National Assembly. That means that the LSC and CETW would need to consult widely before deciding to publish proposals; that there would be an opportunity for objections to be made; and that the decision-makers would consider all the relevant arguments and evidence before deciding whether to approve the proposals. The school organisation committee contains all the main partners in the
1350
provision of school education, including post-16 education—LEA, diocesan authorities, governing body representatives and, in the future, the LSC.
So I do not accept the noble Baroness's suggestion that school sixth forms must be directly represented on the local LSCs. If the committee fails to agree on a proposal, the final decision is made by the adjudicator, who will be looking to ensure that local needs and wishes are given full weight, alongside quality judgments. The parallel arrangements in Wales provide equal safeguards before the National Assembly could make a decision.
These provisions are not a threat to sixth forms in general, or to small sixth forms in particular. I want to give the noble Baroness that reassurance. She mentioned rural sixth forms and was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. But there is no wish in any way to be punitive about arrangements such as a doubling-up of teaching to first-year and second-year sixth forms in rural schools. Indeed, the Government would certainly want to encourage that kind of initiative and are saying that that might happen in some other schools in urban areas where groups are very small in minority subjects. So that is the last thing that we should want to do.
The issue is this: if students are achieving the standards of which they are capable, there should be no question of Ofsted deeming a sixth form to be failing or seriously weak for such reasons, or even for value-for-money considerations, which may have been behind the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock.
These judgments can be triggered only where students are achieving significantly below comparable standards elsewhere. In such cases, we should be doing the students no favours by protecting such provision. These arrangements are not in any way about limiting choice between what are equally good alternatives, but are part of a crusade for high quality across the 16 to 19 spectrum, for which I would have hoped and expected enthusiastic support from Members of the Committee all around the Chamber.
Regrettably, not all sixth forms are of high quality. A-level students at about 10 per cent of maintained schools achieve an average points score of less than 10 compared with 19.3 in school sixth forms overall. The students who attend that minority of sixth forms are not getting the opportunity that they deserve at a key moment in their education and, as a result, their ability to move on to further study or employment may well be seriously compromised.
The provisions in the Bill which allow proposals to be brought forward in the case of persistent failure are already surrounded by the safeguards that I have mentioned. They ensure that schools have a real chance to make improvements before any new intervention powers apply, and that proposals which are made by the LSC or CETW are subject to full and open decision-making processes of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred. But the need to safeguard the interests of schools must be

1351
balanced against the need to safeguard the interests of students by ensuring that all 16 to 19 education is of high quality. Paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 7 are needed to provide the same safeguard for students in sixth forms as those in other types of post-16 provision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about the formula for the distribution of funds to sixth forms. We are consulting on the technical details. We shall consult schools, LEAs and others on exactly how the funding process will operate. The National Association of Head Teachers is among those to be consulted. Indeed, the association has already been consulted on earlier stages of the whole process and welcomes the suggestion that the LSC should be involved in distributing funds to sixth forms.
It is not the case that the Bill allows the LSC to determine how much money individual sixth forms may receive. That will be a matter for the LEA. The LSC will not fund individual schools directly. We shall provide funds to the LEAs and are working with them to determine over the coming months the most sensible way to distribute funding from the authorities to the sixth forms.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, questioned whether Ofsted was the right organisation to do the job and asked a variety of questions about its performance. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has direct responsibility under legislation for managing a high quality inspection system and answers to the Select Committees of Parliament for that function. I have confidence in Ofsted. There is wide agreement that so far the process has had a significant impact on standards. Ofsted and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector are committed to continuing improvement in quality, and I am sure that they would be interested in any suggestions by the noble Lord about further research that might be done to evaluate and monitor performance.
I hope that I have managed to respond to all the issues that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I do not always agree, but I think that she shares with me a passion for maintaining and improving standards in sixth forms. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness. The Minister's answer was disappointing. The noble Baroness began by referring to the increased funding that had gone into schools. That is simply not true. The £3.3 billion this year and the £3 billion-odd in the following two years is subject to unprecedented deductions at national level. Not all of that money finds its way into schools. As a result of the way in which money is allocated by the department, the core funding for schools is simply not getting down to the classrooms. Governing bodies up and down the land, including my own local authority, are bemused as to where this large amount of extra money is in the system. To take just one case, the need to meet this year's teacher pay awards causes great angst among many local education authorities. The schools are very concerned that even if, as the
1352
Secretary of State suggests, the money that is deemed to be passported down reaches the schools, the money takes no account of those LEAs which are spending at, above or even below their SSAs. Therefore, schools will be at the receiving end of budgets that leave staffing provision wanting, and that impacts on their ability to sustain sixth form education.
I turn to the point that the noble Baroness made about the need to avoid different standards for different sectors across sixth-form provision. There are different standards between sectors. While no one wants a different standard of education, everyone wants standards of educational quality to be raised. The truth is that the sectors are different one from the other. As for schools, rural schools are very different from urban ones. It will be necessary to look differently at rural schools and to take different views about what does and does not constitute a weakness in terms of numbers. It is also important to make a distinction between judgments that are made purely on the criterion of value for money as opposed to educational quality. For example, can we have an assurance that if value for money is the criterion it will never stand alone or aside from the importance of the quality of education? If whoever makes the judgment is of the view that a sixth form is simply uneconomic, however well it is doing, and that comparable education can be provided at a sixth form centre or FE college, that will be justifiable grounds for closing it. Schedule 7 does not properly define "inadequate" or "weakness". Those matters are left to the subjective judgment of those who decide. What is the interpretation of "inadequate" and/or "weakness"?
The noble Baroness was confident that it would be all right on the night. My amendment is not about that but about having something firm in statute: either to leave the inspection arrangements and the procedures for closing inadequate schools as they are or to give greater force to some of the assurances to which the Minister has referred.
Parents choose sixth forms of their own volition. Their daughters and sons are beyond compulsory school age. Their choice needs to be given some credence in terms of whether they believe the school is performing well. The noble Baroness also said that reasonable time would be given, and the Minister even referred to the possibility of a two-year period. There is nothing in the Bill which says that. If schools are to be given that opportunity, why not spell out the procedure for that and provide a timescale which allows a sixth form to address some of the critical comments in a report?
As for my next point, I anticipate some glimmer of support from Members of the Committee on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We have never supported organisational committees and the power of the adjudicator. They second guess local authorities and do the dirty work for the Secretary of State so that he has clean hands in relation to any decision to close a school and/or sixth form. I was given assurances by the Minister in writing that organisational committees would not be able to remove a sixth form

1353
from a school, but there is now a mechanism in the Bill which allows that to happen. We were told that that would not be the case.
The Minister also said that sixth forms should be represented on the organisation committees. That is not necessarily so. There will be heads of schools on the organisation committees; schools will be represented. No provision states that schools for 11 to 16 and 11 to 18 year-olds must be represented. Sixth forms in schools are not there as an entity in themselves. Nothing in the School Standards and Framework Act states that.
Further education is represented. As we all know, the FE element has looked hungrily for a long time at school sixth forms. It is always possible that it comes with a pre-conceived view that if there were no sixth forms in an area it would benefit as a result and would, therefore, have a vested interest in taking a negative view about the future existence of a sixth form.
Will some of the assurances given in good faith by the Minister be forthcoming in amendments to the Bill from the Government to assuage some of the concerns held by those of us concerned about the future of sixth forms as part of the tapestry of post-16 education?
Money will be top sliced at national level, fed through the national skills council, cascaded down through the local schools councils, given to the LEAs, and then to the schools. First, there is real concern about that administratively circuitous route. Secondly, we are legislating for change, and the detail comes later. Once we have legislated, it is a matter of how the system will work rather than whether the schools will take a different view of the system when they know the formula. The schools and the National Association of Head Teachers are in a difficulty. Until they know what will happen, they have given a temporary welcome to the changes with provisos. Those provisos cannot be delivered while the Bill is going through Parliament.
Finally, the Minister referred to funding being a matter for the LEA. That may be so, but it is dependent on the quantum of money that comes down from the Secretary of State through the local councils and then to the LEAs. As I understand the funding document, it will be money for post-16 provision in an LEA area; there will be other calls on that money apart from funding the sixth forms. So if the quantum of money is not sufficient—it may be required for other forms of post-16 education—there will not be enough money for the LEA to do what it determines and would like at local level. There is a practical issue. As always, the aspirational comments are fine. However, in practice the delivery of the service is a very different matter.
4 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may reply briefly to the Minister's comments on my arguments.
1354
The chief inspector has long been aware of the arguments I have put forward and has long ignored them. I believe that a Government who, much to their credit, have introduced more emphasis on evidence-based medicine should do the same for schooling. We have a system for assessing schools which is essentially unchecked and not evaluated. It would not take much to evaluate what Ofsted is doing. We are basing some serious decisions on the future of schools, teachers, and so on, on the judgments of Ofsted. They should be independently and properly evaluated. It is an argument which elsewhere has been accepted by the Government and acted upon. I hope that the Government will take it up as regards education.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is open to him to try again with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. I suggest that he does so. He is, of course, independent and I am sure he would be interested in any suggestions the noble Lord might like to put to him.
Perhaps I may return to some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments about funding for schools. We are now dealing with a specific amendment about the way in which we ensure high quality education in sixth forms. However, I should like to reiterate what I thought I had stated fairly clearly in answer to the noble Baroness's first speech in the debate. What the Government are doing here in no way hits institutions which are small and, by comparison with very large sixth forms, have high unit costs. The judgment we make is entirely about the quality of provision. That is what we expect Ofsted to do. It is not about its cost. I can give the noble Baroness that reassurance.
The noble Baroness referred to the formula and suggested that there may be concerns about the money going down to LEAs from the LSCs. We have had a wide welcome for this change from many of the parties involved. I accept that there are more details, at the very detailed level, to be gone through. I have already said that we are consulting on that. That is common in legislation of this kind.
I do not feel that I can offer to take this issue away. The provision on the face of the Bill is perfectly adequate. I have explained the matter at some length and responded, I think, to all the noble Baroness's questions. Therefore, I hope that she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I take it that the answer is "no" to bringing forward any more amendments to give force to some of the assurances the Minister gave.
I accept, as I believe I said, that the funding system has been welcomed. But there are provisos, and they relate specifically to the detailed work after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That gives no assurances to those who have these concerns.

1355
I must have one more question answered before deciding what to do with the amendment. The noble Baroness said that there was no question of cost being an issue. Because it is so stated in the Bill, can I take it that cost effectiveness and value for money will not be considerations when making judgments about provision for sixth forms?
Baroness Blackstone: I said that the judgment that a sixth form is inadequate will in every case be made by Ofsted's independent inspectors; and that the judgment will be about quality of provision and not its cost. I am sure that, when looking at quality of provision, the chief inspector will have to take into account whether money is being misspent, whether there is a total failure to make provision in a sensible way and using resources properly. In that sense, of course value for money is part of it. But I want to reiterate that small sixth forms, especially in rural areas, which of course will have somewhat higher costs than larger sixth forms' unit costs, will not be punished because they have higher costs.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that answer. I am not talking only about small sixth forms in rural areas. The sixth forms may have small subject areas either because of the number of takers for a subject or because a minority subject is provided by a school. It is the subjectivity of the people making the judgments on cost. Unit costs could be high as a result of teaching a minority subject or small numbers of people taking a subject.
I am not satisfied with the answer. I wish to take the opinion of the Committee
4.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 209) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Denham, L.

Attlee, E.

Elles, B.

Belstead, L,

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Biffen, L.

Elton, L.

Blaker, L.

Flather, B.

Blatch, B.

Fookes, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Geddes, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Burnham, L.[Teller]

Glentoran, L.

Buscombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Butterworth, L.

Haslam, L.

Byford, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L[Teller]

Cockfield, L.

Holderness, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hooper, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Howe, E.

Courtown, E.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Hylton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

1356

Laird, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lucas, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Lyell, L.

Rees, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rogan, L.

McConnell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Selborne, E.

Mancroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Northesk, E.

Trumpington, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Warnock, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Wharton, B.

Onslow, E.

Windlesham, L.

Palmer, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg. L.(Lord

Ahmed, L.

Chancellor)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Alli, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord

Amos, B.

Privy Seal)

Ampthill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Laming, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bach, L.

Levy, L.

Barker, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

[Teller]

Bradshaw, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brett, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brookman, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Burlison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Molloy, L.

Christopher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Paul, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Puttnam, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Elder, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Serota, B.

Filkin, L.

Sewel, L.

Gale, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gavron, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Simon, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Stallard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harrison, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hayman, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Healey, L.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Uddin, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

1357

Watson of Richmond, L.

Wilkins, B.

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Whitty, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.18 p.m.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Inadequate Sixth Forms]:
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 69, line 33, leave out ("5") and insert ("5B").
The noble Lord said: A number of other amendments are grouped with this amendment. On behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I shall deal with them in two sets. The first, which amends part I of Schedule 7 and Schedule 8, relates to inspection and reporting arrangements. The second set, consisting of Amendments Nos. 211 and 212, amends Part III of Schedule 7. It relates to the decision-making process on statutory proposals to close an inadequate sixth form or to discontinue an inadequate 16 to 19 institution.
The significant amendments in the inspection and reporting set are Nos. 210F and 210L which will put in place the necessary legal underpinning for the actions to be taken following an adverse inspection report about a school sixth form or LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institution.
These actions come into two categories. First, there are provisions for inspection reports to be made and copies to be sent to those who have an interest, including parents of pupils at the school or institution concerned, and made available to the wider community. Amendment No. 210F provides for the same requirements to apply where there is a report that a school has an adequate sixth form as are already in place for school inspection reports. Amendment No. 210L similarly provides for the same requirements to apply where a report on an LEA-maintained institution states that it has serious weaknesses as are already in place for reports which state that a school requires special measures. These include procedures, where an adverse judgment is made in a contracted-out inspection, for the chief inspector to decide whether an adverse report is indeed appropriate.
Secondly, there are the procedures which governing bodies and LEAs will be required to follow in the light of the adverse report, which will form the basis of their efforts to restore the sixth form or 16 to 19 institution to health. The governing body will draw up and publish an action plan and the LEA will prepare a parallel statement of the action which it will take to support the school.
Amendment No. 249B provides that a report on an LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institution as part of an area inspection can trigger the powers of LEAs to intervene in schools causing concern, and so provides
1358
consistency with other types of inspection. The amendment will also secure that, if such an institution previously had an adverse report, a subsequent report as part of an area inspection which states that the school is no longer causing concern will mean that LEA powers to intervene are no longer triggered.
All of these provisions will ensure that procedures for dealing with inadequate 16 to 19 provision in schools and LEA-maintained institutions will follow very closely those which have resulted in a higher success rate in turning round schools in special measures or with serious weaknesses. These procedures are explained in the department's circular No. 6/99. We intend to issue similar guidance about inadequate 16 to 19 provision, which will also cover matters for which no statutory provisions are required; for instance, the monitoring of schools' progress by Ofsted's inspectors.
Of the other amendments in the group, I would mention only Amendment No. 249A, which provides for the LSC/CETW to receive copies of all inspection reports for schools with sixth forms and LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institutions, not only adverse reports. The remaining amendments are technical or consequential.
I turn briefly to the second group of government amendments, Nos. 211 and 212. They correct a technical omission in Schedule 7 in relation to the decision-making process on proposals by the LSC to close a sixth form or discontinue a 16 to 19 institution maintained by a local education authority. The amendments thereby bring Schedule 7 into line with the equivalent provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. That Act provides for proposals for change in school organisation made by LEAs and school governing bodies in England to be considered by local school organisation committees, with referral to the schools adjudicator in certain circumstances.
There are four sets of circumstances in which the school organisation committee must make referrals to the adjudicator under the 1998 Act: first, where the committee has voted on school organisation proposals, but has been unable to reach a decision; secondly, where the committee has not voted on the proposals by the end of the period set out in regulations and the person who published the proposals requests referral.
The third and fourth sets of circumstances apply to the committee's consideration of changes to proposals already approved; for example, to modify the date of implementation or to remove the duty to implement the proposals. These cases are similarly referred to the adjudicator where the committee has not been able to reach a decision or where it has taken no action within a specified time.
The amendments secure that all these circumstances are fully applied to the consideration of proposals made by the LSC under the Bill. Regulations will be made to match those applying to the consideration of LEA and governing body proposals under the 1998 Act. We shall, for example, provide by regulations made under Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act that, in voting

1359
on LSC proposals and any subsequent changes, the members within each group on the school organisation committee will collectively have a single vote and that the voting must be unanimous for a decision to be reached.
I am sorry that I have taken so long in explaining the purposes of these government amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It will come as no surprise that we do not agree with the whole process of organisation committees and adjudicators. It is almost a contradiction. Local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that standards are maintained in their schools, yet another body which is divorced from them and on which they have only partial representation will make the recommendations and the decision. That will then go to an all-powerful, single person.
We have already seen the quality of the judgments made by adjudicators who have not performed well. They have cost the taxpayers considerable sums of money when they have acted beyond their remit. I therefore have grave reservations about the proposals, but I should like the Minister to answer one or two questions.
First, what period do the Government have in mind beyond which a decision will automatically be taken from the organisation committee and referred to the adjudicator? Secondly, will the Minister be kind enough to repeat the fourth criterion for reference to an adjudicator?
Lord Bach: As regards the noble Baroness's second question, the third and fourth sets of circumstances apply to the committee's consideration of changes to proposals already approved; for example, to modify the date of implementation or to remove the duty to implement the proposals. These cases are similarly referred to the adjudicator where the committee has not been able to reach a decision or where it has taken no action within a specified time.
In reply to the noble Baroness's first question, the period is likely to be about two months.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back on both of those points. I thought that the period of time was the third criterion. I had not realised that it was also the fourth and that the Minister had read them out as being separate.
Given the length of time that previously the Secretary of State has taken to make decisions, we know that they can be complicated and extremely complex when more than one school in an area is being reorganised. Two months is a short time in which to make a decision. The proposition appears to be totally inflexible; it appears to be two months unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. As regards the third and fourth criteria, if the organisation committee cannot reach a decision it can refer the matter to the adjudicator. Must that also be a unanimous decision?
Lord Bach: I shall be frank with the noble Baroness and say that I cannot answer that question now, but I promise to write to her with an answer. If one is forthcoming, I shall give it to her in order to save the stamp!
I repeat that the fourth set of circumstances is where the committee votes but is not unanimous. However, that is not a complete answer to the noble Baroness's question. So, I shall pay the price of a stamp and write to her with the correct answer.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It will be most helpful to have a full answer. There appears to be a first, second and third set of criteria, but no fourth. Some clarification and confirmation on the other questions I have put to the noble Lord would be very helpful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 210B, 210C and 210D:
Page 70, line 9, leave out ("in the same way as") and insert ("for all purposes of this Schedule and the School Inspections Act 1996 as if it were").
Page 70, line 10, leave out ("the School Inspections Act 1996") and insert ("that Act").
Page 70, line 17, leave out ("or a report under paragraph 3 of this Schedule").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 210E:
Page 70, line 26, at end insert—
("(3) Sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall not apply where a report is made within six months of the previous report.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 210E, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 210M. We welcome the Minister's assurance that the proposals put forward for Schedule 7 will not target small sixth forms, in particular those in rural areas. We accept that high standards are necessary and that it is usual for Ofsted to make such inspections.
However, we have reservations about the details of Schedule 7 and have thus tabled a series of amendments. Amendment No. 210E refers to sub-paragraph (2)(b) to ensure that it,
"shall not apply where a report is made within six months of the previous report".
This aims to ensure that, if a second inspection report becomes a trigger for the publication of proposals to close a sixth form, it should not be made within six months of the previous report, thereby giving the school sixth form a reasonable period of time in which to make rapid improvements and turn itself around.
Amendment No. 210M removes the provision to allow an inspection report made before the Act is passed to be counted for the purposes of allowing publication of a proposal to close down a school sixth form or sixth-form centre. The amendment would

1361
ensure that the mechanisms of the Bill come into play only once the Bill becomes an Act, and not before. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support the noble Baroness. We have already touched on the issue of the period between inspections. I believe that there is a strong argument for the period to be longer than six months and I gather from the Minister that it is likely to be so. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that a form of words giving effect to that should be put on the face of the Bill.
I support absolutely the removal of retrospection. It is a bad thing in principle, and I certainly support Amendment No. 210M.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her support for the necessity to maintain high standards in this area.
First, on Amendment No. 210E, the Government's policy is that where post-16 learning provision is not of the quality expected, the provider will be given a reasonable amount of time to make the necessary improvements. Only where adequate progress is not made by the end of the period would we look to the LSC or the CETW to propose remedial action. In the case of inadequate sixth forms, we intend that the time to be allowed for a school to make the necessary improvements will generally be around two years. However, we want to have the necessary flexibility to deal appropriately with each case. I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that a little flexibility here is desirable.
At the end of the period, the sixth-form provision will be reinspected and an adverse report from that second inspection would, as noble Lords know, trigger the LSC and the CETW's powers to propose closure. I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness that this power should not be triggered by a reinspection after an unreasonably short interval. Together with the National Assembly, we shall certainly be guarding against that risk when we agree with the respective schools inspectorates the detailed arrangements for reinspecting inadequate sixth forms. I can reassure the noble Baroness that no sixth form will be placed in jeopardy by a premature reinspection; namely, before it has had a real opportunity to make the improvements needed after an adverse inspection report. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Perhaps I may now turn to the second amendment in this grouping, Amendment No. 210M. The inclusion of paragraph 11 in Schedule 7 again reflects our commitment to high quality in post-16 education and the need for any necessary improvements to be made quickly. After all, students have only two years in a sixth form. Those are two extremely important
1362
years in terms of their futures. Where a school or LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institution has had an adverse report, action needs to be taken straightaway. That is no less true where an adverse report is made before this Bill is passed and the schedule comes into effect.
If the second inspection report finds that students continue to be short-changed because the necessary improvements have not been made, we would not want the LSC or the CETW to be prevented from proposing remedial action until there had been a third adverse report. Under current inspection arrangements, the school as a whole may be deemed to require special measures because it is failing to provide its pupils with an adequate standard of education. A school supported by an LEA must take action to tackle the problems. If a school sorts out a number of problems but fails to address the inadequacy of the sixth form, a further report under the arrangements now planned may state that that sixth form is still failing. In such circumstances, the provisions now under debate would allow the LSC to take action.
I recognise that the amendment is intended to provide a safeguard for schools. However, we have already written into the provisions a number of safeguards: at least two adverse reports, statutory processes and so forth. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 7 provides a safeguard for students against low standards, which is the other side of the coin. We believe that the need to ensure high quality should take priority in this case. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will share this view and that she will feel able not to move this amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply and for putting on the record her assurances in relation to the first amendment in the group.
As regards the second amendment, I am somewhat less happy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has already said, retrospective legislation is not satisfactory. We shall not press the amendment today, but we may wish to return to this matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 210F, 210G, 210H, 210J, 210K and 210L:
Page 70, line 37, at end insert—
("5A.—(1) This paragraph applies to a report of an inspection under Part I of the School Inspections Act 1996 which—

(a) states an opinion that a school has an inadequate sixth-form, and

(b) is made by a member of the Inspectorate or states that the Chief Inspector agrees with the opinion mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) The person making a report to which this paragraph applies shall send a copy (together with a copy of the summary, if there is one)—

(a) to the Secretary of State or, in the case of a school in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales, and

(b) if the person making the report is a member of the Inspectorate, to the appropriate authority for the school.

1363
(3) The following provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996 shall apply (with the necessary modifications) in relation to a report to which this paragraph applies—

(a) section 16(3) (additional copies);

(b) section 16(4) (publication by appropriate authority);

(c) section 17 (action plan by appropriate authority);

(d) where the local education authority receives a copy of a report about a school the governing body of which have a delegated budget, section 18(2) and (3) (measures by local education authority).

(4) In the application of those provisions—

(a) a reference to a report and summary shall be taken as a reference to a report and, if there is one, its summary, and

(b) a reference to a summary alone shall be taken, in a case where there is no summary, as a reference to the report.

5B. Section 13(2) to (7) of the School Inspections Act 1996 (inspections by registered inspectors) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, where the inspector is of the opinion that a school has an inadequate sixth-form as it applies where he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to a school.'').
Page 70, line 39, leave out ("10") and insert (10B").
Page 71, line 12, leave out ( "in the same way as") and insert ("for all purposes of this Schedule and the School Inspections Act 1996 as if it were").
Page 71, line 13, leave out ("the School Inspections Act 1996") and insert ("that Act ").
Page 71, line 20, leave out ("or a report under paragraph 8 of this Schedule").
Page 71, line 40, at end insert—
("10A.—(1) This paragraph applies to a report of an inspection under Part I the School Inspections Act 1996 which—

(a) states an opinion that a school has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of its activities, and

b) is made by a member of the Inspectorate or states that the Chief Inspector agrees with the opinion mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) The person making a report to which this paragraph applies shall send a copy (together with a copy of the summary, if there is one)—

(a) to the Secretary of State or, in the case of a school in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales, and

(b) if the person making the report is a member of the Inspectorate, to the appropriate authority for the school.

(3) The following provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996 shall apply (with the necessary modifications) in relation to a report to which this paragraph applies—

(a) section 16(3) (additional copies);

(b) section 16(4) (publication by appropriate authority);

(c) section 17 (action plan by appropriate authority);

(d) where the local education authority receives a copy of a report about a school the governing body of which have a delegated budget, section 18(2) and (3) (measures by local education authority).

(4) In the application of those provisions—

(a) a reference to a report and summary shall be taken as a reference to a report and, if there is one, its summary, and

(b) a reference to a summary alone shall be taken, in a case where there is no summary, as a reference to the report.

10B. Section 13(2) to (7) of the School Inspections Act 1996 (inspections by registered inspectors) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, where the inspector is of the opinion that
1364
a school has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of its activities as it applies where he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to a school.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 210M not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guilford Baroness Sharp of Guilford moved Amendment No. 210N:
Page 72, line 16, leave out ("such") and insert ("the governing body and head teacher of the school concerned and such other").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 210N, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 210P to 210V. Amendment No. 210N is the first of a further set of amendments relating to the details of Schedule 7, in particular to Part II of the schedule relating to proposals for the closure of sixth forms. Amendments Nos. 210N and 210P relate to England and require that the learning and skills council consults with the governing body and headteacher on any proposals to close a sixth form, including passing over a copy of the proposals. Amendments Nos. 210Q and 210R require the same procedures to be followed in relation to Wales.
Amendments Nos. 210S to 210V refer to sixth-form centres in England and Wales respectively. It is inconceivable that any sixth form would be closed down without wide consultation, especially with the headteacher and governors of the school. These amendments are essentially probing amendments to try to ensure that the provision is written on to the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on picking up all the points where this raft of amendments has referred to keeping informed the governing body and the head teacher of individual schools. The Government have seen fit to name, yet again, the organisation committee and the LEA which maintain the school. However, the subject of such a proposal would be the individual institution; that is, the school and/or the sixth-form centre. Not only do I agree with the noble Baroness that it is inconceivable that they would not be informed, but I believe that it is important that they should be informed. Therefore, I believe that this provision should go on the face of the Bill and I support it.
Lord Bach: As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said in so briefly and accurately moving her amendments, their aim is to ensure that the governing bodies and head teachers of schools are kept fully informed about proposals made by the English and Welsh councils to close the sixth forms at their schools or, if they are 16 to 19 institutions, to discontinue them. Perhaps I may take the amendments together.
Amendments Nos. 210N, 210Q, 210S and 210U relate to the consultations which the LSC and the CETW are required to undertake before they publish proposals. The two councils are required to consult such persons as they consider appropriate, having regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales. Exactly the same provisions appear in the School

1365
Standards and Framework Act 1998 in relation to proposals for school organisation to be published by LEAs or governing bodies.
In England, the Secretary of State has set out in the department's Circular 9/99 his views on which interested parties should be consulted by proposers. The National Assembly for Wales has done likewise in its Circular 9/99. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that the parties listed in those circulars include the school in question, any LEA and other schools, parents and teachers in the area who may be affected by the proposals. We intend that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly will also give guidance on consultations to the LSC and CETW in respect of post-16 proposals and, importantly, that the same interested parties will be specified.
The Government understand the concern of the noble Baroness that the school in question should be consulted. Of course, it is right that it should be. Indeed, if I may use her expression, it is inconceivable that the two councils would not judge it appropriate to consult the school which is the subject of their proposals. In the forthcoming guidance on the councils' proposals published under the Bill, we intend to recognise that, as we have done in the guidance on proposals published under the 1998 Act. Unless and until proper consultations had been conducted, we would not expect the decision-making bodies—the school organisation committee or schools adjudicator in England and, respectively, the National Assembly for Wales—to consider their proposals.
I clarify by adding that we would expect the head teacher to be subsumed within the word "school". Communications with schools under Schedule 7 would be with governing bodies. Head teachers have the right to be members of such bodies if they wish. In the great majority of maintained schools—some 90 per cent—head teachers are also governors.
I deal now with the four remaining amendments. Amendments Nos. 210P, 210R, 210T and 210V would require the LSC and CETW to send copies of the published proposals and information to be prescribed in regulations to the governing body and head teacher of the school concerned, as well as to the school organisation committee and the National Assembly for Wales. This will be factual information which the decision-making bodies will need for their decision-making role. We envisage that the content of the regulations to be made under Schedule 7 will be very similar to the content of regulations governing information that go to the school organisation committee and National Assembly on proposals to close sixth forms published under the 1998 Act. No doubt it will include details of present and forecast pupil numbers, examination performance and details of other 16 to 19 institutions in the area. Much of that information will be in the public domain and, indeed, some may have been directly provided to the councils concerned by the schools themselves.
Perhaps I may make it clear that none of the information is intended to be secret. It will be open to schools which are the subject of proposals to request a
1366
copy of the information. Those bodies—that is, the school organisation committee or, in Wales, the National Assembly—would be expected to release the information on request. We believe that that is a far better way to proceed than to place a requirement on the face of the Bill for the two councils to provide information automatically to schools.
We understand the concern of the noble Baroness to protect the interests of the schools concerned. However, we believe that there are other ways to achieve this end and that it is unnecessary to provide for those concerns through amendments to the Bill. In those circumstances and as this is a probing amendment, as the noble Baroness said, I respectfully expect her to withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his full reply to these amendments. I am much heartened by the degree to which he has given assurances that the detailed guidance from the department, which will be incorporated in a circular similar to Circular 9/99, which relates to the School Standards and Framework Bill, will apply in a similar way in this case. These concerns have been raised by the National Association of Head Teachers. Clearly, it is concerned that there have been occasions when it has not been consulted as fully as it would have wished. We have tabled the amendments on behalf of that association. As I said, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am glad to have it so fully on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 210P to 210V not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 210W:
Page 74. line 44, after ("issued") insert ("or assurances given").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 210W, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 210X and 212A. I believe that I am right in saying that the Minister has already replied to Amendment No. 210W, which relates to the issue of publications. I should like to place on record that this amendment would require a school organisation committee in England to have regard to assurances given by the Secretary of State on the future of school sixth forms.
Lord Bach: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. If I have replied to it, I have not meant to. I shall be ready to reply to it in a few minutes' time.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I believed that the Minister had already mentioned Amendment No. 210W. Again, this amendment concerns the issue of consultation. From these Benches, we have never been too happy with school organisation committees, but we accept that they now exist. However, it is extremely important that they take account of the assurances given by the Secretary of State on the future of school sixth forms.

1367
Amendment No. 210X inserts a requirement that a school organisation committee in England consults the governing body and the head teacher of the school concerned or modifies proposals to close a sixth form prior to its implementation. Amendment No. 212A inserts a requirement that the National Assembly for Wales consults the governing body and the head teacher of the school concerned on any modified proposals put forward to close a sixth form. Therefore, these amendments are somewhat similar to those which I have just moved, which relate to ensuring that the governing body and head teacher are kept fully informed of what is happening. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: These are similar amendments and I shall reply as briefly as I can. However, I must deal with Amendment No. 210W. I want to remind the noble Baroness of the limited nature of the proposals which would be made by the LSC. They would be proposals to close an inadequate sixth form or to discontinue an inadequate 16 to 19 institution. As has been said by my noble friend, they would be made by the LSC only after the school had had reasonable time to secure improvements. It is only when a second consecutive adverse inspection report has been made that the council's powers to propose closure would be triggered. The period between the two reports generally would be about two years.
We believe that the fact that we are restricting the circumstances in which proposals can be brought forward by the LSC represents a substantial assurance to any school with inadequate 16 to 19 provision that it will be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to turn round its sixth-form provision.
The Secretary of State will be providing guidance to the school organisation committees and adjudicators on the factors they should take into account in considering proposals published by the LSC. It will be on broadly similar lines to that produced for the 1998 Act. The decision-makers must have regard to this guidance in considering the particular facts and circumstances of each case and all proposals must be considered on their individual merits.
We do not believe that it would be right for the Secretary of State to fetter the decision-making of the school organisation committee or adjudicator by providing blanket assurances that they should take into account in performing their statutory duty. The assurances that we are able to give today reflect the safeguards we have built into the provisions in Schedule 7. In other words, the school organisation committee or adjudicator will be involved in LSC proposals only as a genuine last resort.
The other amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness are Amendments Nos. 210X and 212A. When the school organisation committee or adjudicator in England or the National Assembly in Wales are minded to approve proposals but with modifications, they must consult such persons as may be prescribed. There are equivalent provisions under the 1998 Act. The regulations under that Act require the decision-makers to consult the body that made the proposals together with the LEA if the proposals come
1368
from a governing body or the governing body if the proposals are made by the LEA. Where the decision makers wish to make modifications to proposals to close, it must make sense for those most concerned with the proposals to be consulted.
Accordingly, we intend—and I am sure that this will give some satisfaction to the noble Baroness—that the regulations made under Schedule 7 should specify that the councils in England and Wales respectively should be consulted on modifications together with the LEA and the governing body of the school concerned. Usually, modifications to proposals to close or discontinue will be modifications to the implementation date of the proposals. We believe that these are important but are still procedural details that are best left to regulations. That is exactly how it was dealt with it in the 1998 Act.
I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about the amendment, does the noble Lord really think that this is a limited and modest power given to the committees to cause the closure of a sixth form of a school?
Lord Bach: It is clearly not a minor power. The important point is whether it is circumscribed. We believe that it is because of the reasons that I tried to outline in my reply to the noble Baroness's amendments.
Baroness Blatch: Circumscribed or not, it is a power to close the sixth form of a school.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his full reply to this series of amendments and for his assurances on Amendment No. 210W. I do not think that we were wishing to fetter the power of the school organisation committees in any sense. It is extremely helpful to have on the record the very full explanation that the noble Lord has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 210X not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 211 and 212:
Page 75, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
("( ) A committee shall refer proposals to the adjudicator if—

(a) the committee votes on a decision in relation to the proposals,

(b) the decision is required to be unanimous by regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (school organisation committees), and

(c) the result of the vote is not unanimous.

( ) A committee shall also refer proposals to the adjudicator if—

(a) by the end of the prescribed period the committee has not determined what action to take in relation to the proposals, and

(b) the Council requests that the proposals be referred to the adjudicator.").

1369
Page 75, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) A committee shall also refer to the adjudicator a question of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) if—

(a) the committee votes on the question,

(b) the decision is required to be unanimous by regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (school organisation committees), and

(c) the result of the vote is not unanimous.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 212A not moved.]
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 [Provision of services]:
[Amendment No. 213 not moved]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No 214: 43,
line 38, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 214, I shall speak also to Amendment No 217. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will speak to Amendment No 214A.
This clause refers to 13 to 19 year-olds and the procurement of services by the Secretary of State for that age group. Given that we are talking predominantly about young people to whom there is an obligation under the law to provide education, it seems to me that the word "may", which gives a degree of flexibility, should be replaced by the word "must". Alternatively, I should agree to the word "shall" and I would not go to the barricades for one or the other, provided that the matter is given serious consideration by the Government. The obligation under Clause 99 that the Secretary of State must or shall,
"provide or secure the provision of services which he thinks will encourage, enable or assist … effective participation by young persons in education and training",
is a relatively modest amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 214A. I shall not do so quite as succinctly as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has done.
On the first day in Committee I attempted to insert into the duties of the learning and skills council the obligation to support the kind of work we see identified in Clause 99 and the government's Connexions document. The noble Baroness was adamant that those duties—which include a provision for support, motivation and mentoring for all learners, but especially for those who have been alienated or excluded—should not be the responsibility of the learning and skills councils but would be adequately dealt with under Clauses 99 to 108.
We have come to Clause 99. Alas, we find that the Government propose only a permissive clause, one that would permit the Secretary of State to do these much needed things for young people aged 13 to 19. In my view, that is not quite good enough. There is serious concern in the minds of those who provide youth services that the Government's plan to achieve their admirable objectives under the Connexions programme is going to be achieved by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
1370
I recognise that democracy forces on governments the need to provide the maximum splash with the minimum cash, the maximum effect for the minimum pain to the Treasury. It seems to me that the Bill as drafted leaves it open to the Secretary of State to do as much or as little as he pleases, or, indeed, as the Treasury pleases, towards the objectives of Clause 99. Secondly, it leaves it open to him to resource what he does either by directing the existing public services to divert resources into this programme from some other activity or by encouraging them to withdraw financial support which at present is going to the voluntary sector unless the voluntary sector does what the Secretary of State wants in terms of the kind of young people who are targeted, and also the services provided.
Those currently providing youth services—that is, a diverse range of opportunities including youth clubs, information centres, outdoor adventure programmes, street-based work and so on—are anxious that they will now be forced to focus only on the socially excluded, mainly in terms of mentoring and the advisory service, and that this will effectively reduce or bring to an end their work with those who are not socially excluded. Yet they too are tomorrow's citizens and they, too, need the kind of personal development that the youth services offer if they are to grow to their full potential and play their part in their community in the future.
I cannot do better than quote from a letter from the chief executive of the National Youth Agency. He states:
"The Learning and Skills Bill is proposing to weaken further the already frail duties on local authorities to secure sufficient youth services. There is no evidence that the Learning and Skills Council is planning to step into the gap".
We know that already. He goes on:
"With whom will the Connexions personal adviser connect if the diverse infrastructure of youth services—statutory and voluntary—is no longer in place? Individual guidance is a necessity but not sufficient condition for human development. And universal services—the Connexions goal—need serious money".
Individual guidance is a necessity but not a sufficient condition for human development. Universal services—the Connexions goal—need serious money.
Either we need the Secretary of State to accept the duty—which the noble Baroness has suggested in her amendment or which I have suggested in my amendment—to provide services to all who need them or, at the very least, we need to know from the noble Baroness how much new money the Government are prepared to put into the Connexions programme; what their priorities are in terms of target groups and services; and what they propose to do about the non-priority groups.
5 p.m.
Lord Tope: My noble friend Lady Sharp and I have our names to Amendment No. 217, which is being debated here. It relates to Clause 99(2) which provides that if the Secretary of State is to make provision, either because the amendments under debate are

1371
passed or under the provisions as currently drafted, he "must" rather than "may" make arrangements with local authorities, direct local education authorities and so on.
The Bill as drafted states that he "may" which means also, of course, that he may not We feel that that is not adequate if this is to be done. I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by both the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and at rather greater length but extremely eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. If the Secretary of State is to make such provision, that must be done through arrangement with local authorities and local education authorities. That is why we have tabled that amendment.
Lord Lucas: As we were sitting through the debate on social exclusion yesterday, my mind was drawn back to the arguments that I made on Schedule 3 and the requirement that it should be provided in statute that the learning and skills council has separate adult and young people's committees.
Here we are again looking at adult education being provided to young people. It was extremely clear from what was said yesterday that the most crucial advances to be made in making sure that adults who find themselves socially excluded can return to the mainstream and that young people do not fall into social exclusion are to do with making available what might ordinarily be called adult education to many young people and what might ordinarily be called young people's education to many adult learners.
That is something which this Government should consider again in the way they have set out in this Bill. They should provide more flexibility to the learning and skills council as to how it sets up its committees. Yes, they should impose on it the obligations to do the work which is required in the first three paragraphs of Schedule 3, but please may we not have the rigidity of structure which is imposed on them by those paragraphs because it surely must inhibit the proper cross-fertilisation of ideas which is necessary to relieve social exclusion in this country.
The Earl of Listowel: I wish to support Amendment No. 214A. When I have coached young people in a hospice in chess, I have seen how much they value the attention and how they delight in learning a new skill which helps them to develop themselves while they are in limbo, waiting for move-on accommodation. This amendment would ensure such opportunities for all. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne.
Lord Hylton: I can foresee that there may be serious difficulties if the Secretary of State directs under subsection (2) the provision of some services without acting also under subsection (3) to provide grants or other kinds of financial assistance. That may be particularly serious where a local authority is capped or it has reached the limit of its ability to raise money through council tax.
1372
It seems to me that if the Secretary of State wants some provision made, he must also logically be in a position to make it possible.
Baroness Blackstone: As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said so eloquently earlier in the Committee, provision for learning is about more than making facilities available. It is also about providing support, encouragement and advice, about raising aspirations and expectations, about enabling people, especially young people, to exploit the facilities which are available and to maximise their potential.
The Connexions service is an ambitious, interdepartmental initiative designed to meet exactly those needs which the noble Lord identified. It has received widespread support across the range of public, private, voluntary and community organisations, as I believe the noble Lord is aware. Everyone is agreed about the benefits for young people and for society by collaborating to provide a comprehensive, integrated service for 13 to 19 year-olds to support them in effective learning throughout their teenage years.
The legislation does not attempt, and nor should it, to prescribe in detail how the service will operate because we want it to be developed bottom-up at local level. So Clauses 99 and 100 deliberately give scope for flexibility—I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas— so that the new service can accommodate local needs and circumstances and can evolve over time to meet the changing needs of young people.
The Connexions policy document set out our vision and a framework of how we expect the new service to operate. It is not, and is not intended to be, a detailed prospectus.
We have been and are continuing to consult with a range of local partners about the detail of local delivery and are considering with them which delivery models work best. Clearly, if the service is to meet local needs, we shall not be expecting all delivery partners to fit their Connexions contributions into an inflexible and standardised blueprint. The detailed prospectus, which will be published in the late spring, will reflect that.
We shall also be piloting particular aspects of the service across the country with the first wave starting in April. That will enable us to learn from experience what works well on the ground. We and our partners will continue that evolutionary process as we phase in the service.
I turn now to Amendment No. 214. As I said, the service will build on existing services for young people provided by a wide range of statutory, private sector, voluntary and community bodies. Those include health authorities, local authority social services, youth offending teams, LEAs, the Careers Service, the Youth Service and so on.
A number of the services which will contribute are already the statutory responsibility of the Secretary of State at large. As I said, the Connexions service will build on and extend those services, and I hope that that

1373
provides reassurance for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It will be developed in a flexible manner in the light of experience.
A duty on the Secretary of State to provide those services would risk cutting across other related duties in respect of young people performed by the LSC, LEAs and other statutory bodies. The whole approach of our policy is to try to enable co-operation. Creating an overlap or, worse, a conflict of statutory duties in that area would only raise the spectre of disputes about responsibilities and muddle. Defining new services through a power is by far the most effective approach, enabling the Secretary of State, through the new service, to support and work alongside other agencies. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the Secretary of State has every intention of exercising that power.
I turn to Amendment No. 217, which would make two changes. First, it would require rather than empower the Secretary of State to make arrangements with local authorities and other bodies in respect of the new service. As we have made clear in the policy document, we expect that local authorities will play a major role in the Connexions service. However, we do not intend, nor should we, to prescribe in statute the part that particular organisations will play in providing the service. That would be over-centralist and bureaucratic; something on which noble Lords have commented earlier in Committee.
We made clear that we want an outcome-driven service allowing local discretion over delivery. As we know from inspection reports, not all local authorities meet the high standards of the majority and not all afford the same priority to their youth services, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is fully aware.
It must remain open to local partners to test the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector delivery against delivery in other ways and to make local decisions about the provision of the Connexions service in the light of local circumstances.
The second change the amendment would make would be to require rather than empower the Secretary of State to direct local authorities. That duty would be clearly inconsistent with the parallel duty to make arrangements with the same bodies that he is also required to direct. That would also be inflexible and, as a number of local authorities have already noted and informed us, unacceptable to them. Clearly a duty to direct is inappropriate, whereas a power allows the Secretary of State to direct local authorities in those limited circumstances where services are, for some reason, inadequate or arrangements have broken down.
In the light of those explanations, I very much hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will not press their amendments.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Baroness sits down, and to save me from delaying the Committee by moving my amendment in order to speak again to it, I
1374
wonder whether she would be prepared to undertake to write to me concerning the three questions I raised at the end of my peroration?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes.
Baroness Blatch: I support the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on this issue. I certainly agree with him. We were simply saying that if there is an obligation on the Secretary of State it should not be one that he may or may not use but one that he must use. I am sorry that even given the fulsome explanation we have had from the Minister, we are still not reassured that there would be an absolute obligation. That is unfortunate.
I shall not press the amendment. However, I shall use the next amendments to give some views on the new arrangements to be made under the Connexions document. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 214A and 215 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 43, line 40, at end insert ("appropriate to their needs").
The noble Baroness said: It is important to note that the Bill does not contain much specific reference to Connexions or to the arrangements that will impact greatly on the younger age group. That is unfortunate because it leaves an informal debate to be had outside. All the groups to whom I have spoken in preparing for the Bill are desperately anxious to know how it will work in practice.
There is a huge welcome for the aspirations and ambitions of the Government and the care which they have shown in making more coherent and effective provision for this age group. However, many questions are left begging about how it will work on the ground. Having read through the document, I still find it difficult to understand how all the networks will operate. How will the service be delivered? What will be the responsibilities for the various bodies at community level? How will the Connexions partnerships and the local management committees work in practice? How will the link with the Benefits Agency work?
A personal adviser is to be appointed to each young person irrespective of their needs. As we understand it, that will apply to all young people in the age group. What will be the specific remit of 20,000 new mentors? What will be their areas of operation? It is important to have definition if we are to avoid confusion.
I refer to the transfer of data on young people. The Data Protection Act applies in this area. Therefore, if the Benefits Agency and the other agencies are working together, information about individuals will pass from one to the other. It would be helpful to know how that will work and what legal protection there will be, both for the individual and for the people providing the information.
There is also anxiety on the part of the voluntary sector. The careers management group recognises the importance of the voluntary sector, as, indeed, we all do. However, it is concerned about quality control and how that will be achieved, especially as regards recruitment and training. There is also the question of the protection and safety of both volunteers and the young people concerned. Is it likely that the careers management group will be represented on the working group which we understand will be charged with developing the detailed specification of the new service? Again, a particular difficulty is that of not knowing the details of the new service at the stage when the legislation is being passed.
As always, resources continue to be an issue. It would be helpful to know what cash is available for the new arrangement. We understand that about £450 million is in the system at present. We also understand that an extra £750 million will be needed to make sense of and give proper force to the arrangements. There will, therefore, be a shortfall of around £300 million. If the Government disagree with that estimate, it would be helpful to know their own estimate of the cost of the provisions when up and running, as well as the set-up costs. Perhaps they could give some indication of the source of the new money which will be needed.
Another concern is that some existing careers companies will survive under the new arrangements, despite having already received a letter from the DfEE saying that they must prepare to wind up or close down. How will their existing areas, which are dotted all over the country, fit in with the new support service areas?
I have mentioned the mentors. How on earth, from a standing start, will 20,000 mentors be recruited, accommodated, serviced, trained and made operational in just three years? Who are these people? What is their source? What kind of people are likely to be recruited? Will they be additional to careers advisers or is the intention to transform careers advisers into mentors? If that is the case, what part of their service will be sacrificed as a result? Who, for example, will be the employer, and to whom will they be accountable? Where will they be accommodated? What will be their modus operandi?
Will all local services for youth be able to draw down cheques on the youth service bank account? I include the hard-pressed social services, who will already be subject to a raft of changes as a result of the shocking report on child abuse in Wales.
I return to the voluntary youth service, whose record of meeting the diverse needs of young people is considerable. The, service is flexible. It targets and focuses its work on young people. It works particularly effectively with young people at risk, vulnerable or excluded for one reason or another. I believe that in many instances the voluntary sector works more effectively than official provision. That is not a criticism of official provision. Very often, young people in these categories have an aversion to officialdom. The voluntary sector effectively bridges that gap.
In addition, the voluntary sector provides a rich tapestry of provision through many organisations. I refer, for example, to the army, navy and air cadets; church youth organisations; brownies; guides; and music, theatre and sports groups. One could list an enormous number of organisations who make a considerable contribution to the country as a whole.
The National Council for Voluntary Youth Services is particularly anxious to know how the practical arrangements will work and what the funding streams will be. Can an assurance be given that the present level of voluntary services to young people will not only be sustained, but that scope for increased capacity will be allowed for, both in terms of funding and as an integral part of the new arrangements? It is still not clear who will be making the decisions given that there is central control housed in the DfEE. It would be helpful to have some light thrown on this detail which is very important as we discuss this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: In the context of what the noble Baroness has just said about the need to recruit 20,000 mentors, it may be helpful for the Committee to know that the national total of full-time local authority staff engaged in direct work with young people today is 3,190. Some are involved in administration and there are also a number of part-time workers. For the full-time equivalent within the local authority sector only, there are just under 8,000 staff today and we are looking for 20,000.
In the context of my Amendment No. 216A, the Government have repeatedly referred to the importance of this Bill extending and enhancing the Government's policies for reducing social exclusion, or to put it positively, for promoting social inclusion. It is in the context of Clause 99 that the services will be provided. If that is part of the intention of that clause, the Bill should say so; but if it is not, I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness can explain why.
Baroness David: My name is attached to this amendment. I come back to what it actually says; namely, adding the words "appropriate to their needs". I do not believe that that was mentioned very much by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who gave more or less a clause stand part speech as regards Clause 99.
It is important that young people have advice and guidance appropriate to their needs. How is that to be gained? I come back to the Careers Service. The Secretary of State still has a duty to have such a service. It is wondering what its position is to be in the new regime. How will the duty of the Secretary of State to retain a careers service be carried out under these new arrangements? I have read Connexions, too. I agree that it leaves a great many questions still to be answered. I also understand when the Minister says that it is going to be an evolutionary process. A little more information would set a great many minds at rest, which I hope she can give us when she replies to this amendment.

1377
Connexions indicates that the new service group is to be focused around personal advisers for people at school. They will often be the learning mentors. They will be appointed and managed by the headteachers, but they will operate as part of the Connexions service. Does that mean that there will no longer be access for all young people to a careers adviser who is based outside the school, and who is in contact with the labour market and able to give impartial advice? The learning mentors inside the school, or the personal advisers, are not likely to be in touch with the labour market which is very important when giving advice to young people. How can we ensure that there is impartial advice appropriate to the needs of young people? That is extremely important. We must try to ensure that that will be so.
The Education Act 1997 ensured that schools would be given access to the Careers Service and therefore to the impartial advice that I have mentioned. Can the Minister tells us whether the Careers Service will be going to the schools as much as it has done before? The heads are very anxious about this. I was telephoned by John Dunton, the General Secretary of the Secondary Heads Association. He said that they are extremely anxious to know exactly who is going to provide the sort of impartial advice that they are now getting, and which I have mentioned.
I have sent a copy of a letter to the Minister from the head of Skipton Girls' High School. She emphasises this anxiety. I shall quote a little from it. She says:
"Neither I nor my colleagues have any difficulty with the philosophy of inclusion for that sector of young people, but we feel that the new agenda needs extra resource, rather than switching the use of the present resource from main-stream education. The latter policy means that the careers advice and help available for main-stream pupils in main-stream schools will be decimated and, in my own institution, where almost all students go into the Sixth Form, and indeed on to Further or Higher education, it will be practically non-existent. We place an extremely high value on the professional and impartial advice given to our students by the Careers Service".
She goes on to say:
"If the whole onus for careers advice and support is in future to fall on to the schools, we lack both the professional expertise and the resource to keep our students fully informed and fully prepared at all stages in their school careers".
Therefore, I hope that the Minister can enlighten us a little about all of this.
What will happen to the other services that the Careers Service has provided in the past; for instance, careers library support and careers education to help the careers teachers in the schools? The Careers Service also helps with in-service training. It also manages work experience programmes and placement services. Will these services be sustained under the new arrangements and, if so, how?
Resources are extremely important. Will adequate resources be available to sustain all these services in the light of the considerable resources that will be required by the new Connexions service? It is an extremely important issue.
1378
As regards planning guidance for learning mentors—the personal mentors—the department says,
"Effective links to the Careers Service are also needed to ensure young people receive sound advice and guidance on post-school options. The learning mentor role should be recognised in partnership agreements between schools and the Careers Service".
When replying, I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more about it. I am anxious that these young people should have advice on their future training and education appropriate to their own abilities.
The Earl of Listowel: I speak to Amendment No. 216A. When young people, whom one might describe as "socially excluded", take part for the first time in some exciting and stimulating activity such as dry skiing, sailing or rowing, they feel elated and excited to be doing something they would never have imagined themselves doing. It is something which a privileged person might do and they might not think of being able to do it themselves. I hope that those kinds of activity are exactly what the Government have in mind as the purpose of the Connexions scheme. If that is so, and that kind of inclusion is the aim, why not put it on the face of the Bill?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I speak to Amendment No. 216 and reinforce the arguments that have already been made. The central issue is resources. We all endorse the Connexions document and the social inclusion agenda set out in Connexions. We recognise the importance of this issue and of getting 160,000 young people who are currently out of education or any form of employment or training, into some form of training leading to employment. We thoroughly endorse that as part of the Government's agenda.
However, a figure of £500 million has been put on that agenda. We assume that each mentor will cost something like £25,000 a year. If there are 20,000 mentors, that will cost £500 million. Where is that money coming from? Does it mean that it is coming from the budgets of the existing youth services, paltry though they are in many cases, and the existing Careers Service? That is what worries us and why we want to have written on the face of the Bill the words "appropriate to their needs" because there are also the needs of other young people other than the socially excluded, who are currently in schools and being serviced by the Careers Service.
Roughly £250 million a year goes to the Careers Service. Is it envisaged that the £500 million, which will be required for the Connexions service, should take all this £250 million from the Careers Service? If so, what about the needs of those who are currently in school or out of school who are being advised by the service? The service is extremely important. What is more, as I understand it, there is a duty on the Secretary of State under the terms of the 1973 Act to provide advice and guidance to help such young people decide on their futures. We need to be quite clear that Clause 99 is about additional powers and that it will not destroy duties that are already there and incumbent on the Secretary of State.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support both Amendment No. 216 and Amendment No. 216A. It has been known for a long time that there is such a thing as a hierarchy of human needs; for example, it is probably rather useless to provide careers advice if the real problem is something like destitution, homelessness or drugs. All those factors have a bearing on social exclusion and inclusion. That is why I should like to see both the needs relating to social exclusion, as well as its promotion, written into the legislation.
Baroness Blackstone: My noble friend Lady David suggested that we have had a clause stand part debate; indeed, we certainly have. A huge number of different questions and issues have been raised, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with the amendments that have been tabled. However, I shall do my best and try to answer the questions that have been posed.
Baroness Blatch: I take great exception to what the Minister has just said. The way in which the service will be delivered locally depends very much on the questions that we have asked; for example, the networking, the funding, who will be responsible and how people will be recruited. We can secure the appropriate provision only if we understand the mechanisms involved. We know that the Connexions document underpins information that is needed to understand this Bill. I make no apologies for raising these matters; nor, I hope, will other Members of the Committee. It is not a Second Reading debate. We are now talking about the detail of such issues.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not wait and allow me to finish what I was about to say. Indeed, that is not helpful. We should be having a reasonable discussion. I was not saying that this was a Second Reading debate; I said that a huge number of questions had been raised which would have been appropriate to a clause stand part debate, in which case I would have been perfectly happy to accept them.
As I said before, if we are going to get through this Committee stage, we must try to avoid getting into details that relate to later amendments. Perhaps I may outline some of them. I see that the noble Baroness is shaking her head, but, quite honestly, she and a number of other speakers in this debate have raised issues that relate to later amendments. I shall not answer them when dealing with this amendment. However, I shall do my best to respond to as many of these questions as possible. I shall then deal with the amendments on the Marshalled List.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised the question of whether we are talking about additional powers, which would not destroy existing duties. That is indeed what we are talking about; that is exactly what I tried to say when we discussed the matter in relation to the previous grouping. Again, as I said previously, this legislation does not attempt—nor should it—to prescribe in detail how the service will operate. I should point out to the noble Baroness,
1380
Lady Blatch, that we do want it to be developed "bottom-up" at local level. These clauses are deliberately quite open-ended so as to give scope for flexibility, thereby enabling the new service to accommodate local needs and circumstances to meet the changing needs of young people, as well as evolving over time. I hope that Members of the Committee who contributed to the debate on these amendments will accept that explanation.
Many of the questions that have been raised are currently the object of discussion with all the partners, the statutory bodies and a whole range of organisations. We shall return to them in the prospectus that will be published late in the spring, as I said when discussing the previous grouping of amendments.
Perhaps I may return to the issue of cost. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who raised this question at the end of his contribution when moving an earlier amendment. We are committed to resourcing the Connexions service properly so that every 13 to 19 year-old, whatever his or her circumstances, has access to the help needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also raised this issue. Perhaps I may tell her that resources for the service will come from the pooling of existing central government resources and from those that are already devoted by local partners to youth support and guidance. Of the resources that we expect existing agencies to contribute, about half will come from the existing Careers Service budget because that service will be absorbed into the new service.
As I said earlier, we have to ensure that the Connexions service is properly funded; otherwise it will not be able to undertake the important tasks that we propose. However, we are currently considering what additional funding will be required as part of the Government's Year 2000 Spending Review. Members of the Committee will understand that I cannot in any way predict what the outcome of the review will be.
We are actively examining the number of personal advisers that will be required. Our current planning assumptions are that the service may need between 15,000 and 20,000, although the number will not necessarily be as high as 20,000. Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords who raised the question that the number will be built up over a period of time. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, questioned how far it would be possible to get from a standing start to 20,000 people. We are not quite at a "standing start", in the sense that there are substantial numbers of people undertaking work that is highly relevant to Connexions, many of whom will be absorbed into the new service. That includes a large number of careers advisers. However, the rate at which the service is phased in will depend partly on the resources available to it and on the time it takes to recruit sufficient numbers of suitable and qualified staff. Again, I cannot give detailed answers at present.
Perhaps I may also point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that every young person will have access to a personal adviser. That access will be available

1381
according to his or her need. Not every young person will have an individual personal adviser, but every young person who needs such support will have access to one. Acting as advocates for young people, such advisers will obviously have a very key role to play in ensuring that they get access to the help that they need across a range of areas, including benefits, housing, and so on, as well as education and training.
The noble Baroness raised questions about data protection. Perhaps I may reassure her that we shall apply all the appropriate data protection principles. The noble Baroness also asked about the voluntary sector. This is a good example of a matter that could be dealt with more appropriately under later amendments where it features more directly.
I turn now to the points raised by my noble friend Lady David. As currently constituted, the Careers Service will cease to exist. We expect that the best Careers Service companies will play a major role in the Connexions service, along with other partners. Careers advice and guidance will continue to be an important part of the new service. Therefore, it will be vital for the new partnerships to build on the skills and experience that exist within Careers Service companies. In fact, the staff who work within such companies will form the core of the Connexions service, alongside staff from the youth service and other organisations. I can reassure my noble friend that schools will continue to receive the support and impartial advice that they need on career matters through the new service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about existing areas and how they will fit in with the new areas. This is a very substantial change and there will be a need for a restructuring. The existing areas will no longer be relevant from the point of view of the Careers Service because we will move towards a Connexions service based on the 47 local learning and skills councils' geographical areas.
Turning to Amendment No. 216A, I think that I understand its purpose. However, I have to question the use of the word "or". This seems to imply that the promotion of social inclusion may be a separate and alternative purpose of the Connexions service for encouraging, enabling and assisting effective participation in learning by young people. As noble Lords who have spoken in the debate will know, the promotion of social inclusion is a central plank of the Government's agenda. We believe—the evidence available strongly bears this out—that the most enduring way of promoting social inclusion is to equip young people with the skills that they need in order that they may engage fully in both economic and social life. Participation in effective learning is central to our social inclusion agenda.
I am sure that the noble Earl accepts that the Connexions service is about more than promoting social inclusion. It is about providing appropriate support for all young people so that they can participate in effective learning and achieve their potential. The promotion of social inclusion is implicit
1382
in Clause 99. I believe that the clause, as drafted, properly reflects our purpose for the Connexions service.
Turning to Amendment No. 216, I do not think that it adds anything to what is already implied by the existing wording of Clause 99. This makes clear that the objective of the support services to be provided will be to secure the effective participation of young people in learning. Participation in learning which is not appropriate to an individual's needs could hardly be described as effective.
If there is any doubt in the mind of my noble friend Lady David—I refer to the headteacher's letter—I can assure her that the Connexions service will be a universal service, as I indicated earlier in Committee. The Connexions service personal advisers will ensure that appropriate advice, guidance and support are available to all 13 to 19 year-olds, of all abilities, whatever their needs and circumstances and wherever in England they live. Clearly, this will involve giving particular time and attention to those young people whose needs are the greatest and most complex, and who suffer very often from multiple disadvantage, an issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
The service will be comprehensive. It will integrate and build on the support services for young people currently provided by a range of rather unco-ordinated and different public, private and voluntary organisations. We hope that it will simplify young people's access to support, fill gaps and eliminate duplication. It will also be proactive in assessing young people's needs and in raising their aspirations.
We intend that it will work closely with the LSC, both to improve information, advice and guidance on post-16 learning opportunities and to ensure that those opportunities match young people's aspirations.
The Committee has spent some time on these two amendments. If I have failed to answer any specific questions, I shall be very happy to write to noble Lords and to give them further information.
Baroness David: I think that I heard the Minister say that the Careers Service would go. If she did say that, how will that affect its duties under the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, which amends the 1973 Act? Will that Act have to be repealed?
Baroness Blackstone: I do not know the answer to that question. Again, I shall be very happy to write to my noble friend and give her that information.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness, Lady David, pre-empted a question that I believe was left begging at the end of the Minister's explanation. It seems that the only way that the new arrangements can be delivered along the lines explained by the noble Baroness will be by the wholesale redefinition of job descriptions. If that is the case, and all the transfer arrangements come into play, people will have to be given the opportunity as to whether or not they wish to retain their existing job description. If they do not have the option of

1383
retaining their existing job description, then the choice is a stark one: it is either not to work at all or to be absorbed in the new arrangements under a totally different job description.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness is quite right, there will be new job descriptions for people working for the Connexions service. I can reassure the many hundreds of thousands of people who currently work for the Careers Service and for those parts of the youth service that will become part of the Connexions service, that those kinds of arrangements will be put in place. I expect that the vast majority of them will be able to obtain jobs. After all, we will need more—not fewer—people to operate the Connexions service once it is fully implemented than are currently employed in the various organisations which will be absorbed into it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness makes my point. We are talking about needing a very large additional number of people. I was making a technical point. If job descriptions change, other pieces of legislation come into play. People cannot be made to accept a new job description. They have been employed on one job description and one set of terms and conditions; if that changes as a result of the new arrangements under the Connexions service programme, I simply pose the question—as did the noble Baroness, Lady David—which pieces of legislation will be invoked?
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the numbers of people employed in the present system. As a result of these changes we expect to employ a great many more. It is a very big change. That makes it necessary that we should have some assurance about funding and the resources to be made available. The noble Baroness has said that half the Careers Service would change.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. I said that something like half the funding provided for the Connexions service will come from existing expenditure on the Careers Service. I did not say that half the Careers Service would change. That is a quite different point.
Baroness Blatch: Unless I missed something, the noble Baroness said that half the funding will disappear. The vast bulk of the funding is used to pay specific Careers -Service personnel for doing specific work, and if the specific job descriptions change then half the Careers Service will change. If the funding is not being used to fund the Careers Service, as it is at the moment, and it is going to be changed—I am not arguing about that—then there is a technical issue to be addressed. Removing half of the funding will remove at least 50 per cent of its capacity to pay for the service it has been providing up until now. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain.
Baroness Blackstone: We are not removing half of the funding; we are absorbing the entire Careers
1384
Service into the Connexions service. I was asked about the financial resources available to the Connexions service. In answering, I said that something like half the total amount that we will be spending on the Connexions service will come from the existing Careers Service budget. I hope that I have made myself clear. I am totally confused by what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I, too, am still somewhat confused. I understand that the Minister is saying that, in effect, the Careers Service becomes the Connexions service. She has given an assurance that the existing duties under the Careers Service will remain as they were. It is quite clear that those whose needs are the greatest—as the Minister put it—come top of the social inclusion agenda.
There are a number of problems here. There is not enough slack in the current Careers Service. I know that the Government propose to take on more people in the Connexions service, but nevertheless, at present neither the Careers Service, let alone the youth service, has slack in it if one wants to continue the current provision of services to schools, which we do. The letter that the noble Baroness, Lady David, read out from the headmistress of Skipton Girls' High School indicates clearly that schools are not good at providing careers advice to pupils and that they need the help of careers advisers who are trained to help them, particularly with guidance. There are many pupils, as it were, not included in the social exclusion agenda who need guidance on their choices in relation to GCSEs, A-levels and going on to university. The Careers Service helps enormously with those choices. Schools cannot manage without those services.
So far as I understand it, the Government now propose to divert those services. Many of those people will need retraining. I agree entirely with that policy, but there is a need for new resources.
Baroness Blackstone: I rise to intervene because an unfortunate misunderstanding is developing in the Committee. I am rather surprised that the noble Baroness is raising the issue again, because I have already made it clear to my noble friend Lady David that there is no sense in which the Government intend to change the provision of important careers advice for pupils and students at school or in FE colleges. That service will continue to be provided, but, unlike m the past, it will now be under the auspices of the Connexions service.
The duty to provide careers services to all people in full or part-time vocational education includes young people and remains a statutory duty on the Secretary of State. All that Clause 99 does is to empower the Secretary of State to provide some additional services

1385
which will build on the duty to provide careers advice. That duty remains. As a result, there is in fact no repeal of any duty.
Baroness Blatch: I am even more confused. Perhaps we may analyse what the Minister has said. She said that approximately 50 per cent of the present funding of the Careers Service—
Baroness Blackstone: I shall try once more to explain. I said that the resources on which the new Connexions service will draw will be wide ranging. Some will be new money, which will of course have to be debated with the Treasury in the usual way in the Year 2000 spending review. I cannot anticipate the amount. Some of it will be money currently spent by existing services which are to be absorbed into the Connexions service. I hope that I have made that clear. The Careers Service will comprise a large part of what is absorbed and will therefore make up a substantial part—probably around half— of the funding for the new organisation. The services provided in the shape of guidance and advice to schools will continue.
Baroness Blatch: No further light has been thrown on the matter. The Careers Service currently in existence has extremely tight funding for its remit. Its employees have job descriptions. They know what their aims and objectives are. As we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady David, schools are quite certain about the service which they receive from the Careers Service. Our understanding is that under the new system it will be absorbed into the new Connexions arrangements and around 50 per cent of the funding will be pooled. If that 50 per cent—not the 100 per cent of the funding, because I understand that the entire Careers Service is to be absorbed into the new system—
Baroness Blackstone: I really am surprised by my failure to communicate. Obviously all my years of experience as a university lecturer are not standing me in good stead. I shall try to spell out yet again what I have said. One hundred per cent of the funding for the Careers Service will go into the new Connexions service, which will amount to about half the funding available to that service. I cannot go any further than that. I have tried to make myself clear. I hope that the matter is clear to other Members of the Committee, even if it is not clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Baroness Blatch: If the Minister reads Hansard, the very first reference to the 50 per cent funding was a rather different explanation from the one given just now. I shall analyse what the Minister is saying now: the Careers Service will be absorbed under the new Connexions arrangements and 100 per cent of its funding will represent 50 per cent of all the funding that will be needed. That will not be enough.
Baroness Blackstone: I have already explained to the noble Baroness that that is only part of the funding
1386
that will be available. I have explained that we are seeking further funding from the Treasury in the current spending review and that a number of other services will be contributing to the Connexions service, which means that further funding will be available. The noble Baroness may not believe that that is enough, but there is never enough money for anything. There is not enough money for 1,000 different services, but in the real world there will always be a limit. At some point the noble Baroness will discover what the total available funding will be, but I cannot give her the figure today.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister said that the Careers Service funding will represent 50 per cent of all the funds that will be needed and that the other 50 per cent will come from new money under the new spending review and from other pooled moneys. The Minister already referred to pooled moneys from the DfEE itself. It will be interesting to know which elements of the DfEE money will form part of the funding. However, if the Careers Service is to provide 50 per cent of all the money needed and the other 50 per cent is to come from other sources, we are in a position to make a judgment about how much 100 per cent will be. One only has to take the cost of running the Careers Service at present to work out what the cost of 100 per cent funding will be.
That equation put to one side, there is a point which the Minister has not answered. She admitted that there will be changes in job descriptions. We need to know technically how that will be managed. Will TUPE be invoked? Will transfer arrangements from other pieces of legislation be invoked? Even if people are persuaded and agree voluntarily to an altered job description, changes will nevertheless take place and TUPE will still apply, just as it will in the case of people who are to move from TECs to work with the learning and skills councils, where they will have a completely different job description. The same will apply, and it would be helpful to have some view about that.
The Minister referred to the 20,000 mentors. She did not say where they would come from, but she said that there was no promise or guarantee that the scheme would apply to all young people in the age group irrespective of need. It would be helpful to know who decides whether they need them. In many cases, young people themselves make those decisions. Will they have individual referral rights? If so, how will they go about the process and how will they know who the mentor is? In the Connexions document, the intention is that the mentor would become extremely knowledgeable about the person. He will get to know him and have an in-depth relationship with him, which will develop to the point where any advice and guidance given to the young person will be all the more effective.
It is important to get those answers, but I do not know whether we shall receive all of them. We have had a muddled discussion, but we now know that the current cost of running the Careers Service represents

1387
half of the money needed to provide the new arrangements under the Connexions programme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 216A and 217 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 44, line 12, after second ("to") insert ("the promotion of equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people in education, training, and all support services covering transition and to").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment homes in on a somewhat narrower target. It aims to ensure that the youth support services will have regard to promoting equality of opportunity for disabled and non-disabled learners. It is similar to amendments I moved and to which I spoke on the first day of Committee—at cols. 621 to 624 of Hansard—in relation to the LSC, local LSCs and the CETW, when the Minister most encouragingly agreed to come back with amendments to meet the point.
This amendment is similar but it is not quite the same, in that Clause 99 has emerged clearly in the two debates on the previous two groups of amendments as an enabling clause. There is nothing concrete or appropriate on which to hang it. If the youth support service cannot have a duty placed on it, it is important to ensure that the service can provide support for young people with learning difficulties. If they are to make the most of the equal opportunities that will be on offer to them in post-school education, they must have the support of the youth support service.
The Disability Consortium on Post-16 Education and Training—SKILL is a member and I declare that I am president of SKILL—feels that some reassurance would not only be valuable but really is necessary. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: I should like to give my support to the amendment and to the way in which it was moved. It is difficult to find the right form of words, but the point has to be made. If the youth support service is to do its job properly, it must bring in those who have disabilities. Indeed, that should happen almost automatically in any government legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will secure an assurance that that will happen. If she does not, I hope that the Government will tell us that they are going to do something about it.
Baroness Blatch: I rise briefly to support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: No one would disagree with the sentiment behind the amendment, which seeks to ensure that the new Connexions service promotes equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled young people. That is an aim, I am sure, we all share. The promotion of equal opportunities
1388
among all groups in society is, of course, at the very heart of this Government's philosophy. That is exactly the purpose of the Connexions service, for which Clause 99 lays the foundation. The clause sets out that the aim of the service is to ensure that every young person has the support they need to engage effectively in learning and to achieve their potential, whatever their ability and circumstances, and wherever in England they live.
To achieve that aim, the Connexions service will ensure that all 13 to 19 year-olds have access to a personal adviser who will assess their needs and ensure that they have the support they need. Some young people—for example, those with multiple disadvantage, including learning difficulties—will need more help than others. The personal adviser's caseload must reflect that. In particular, and as we shall discuss later, the Connexions service will support the transition of young people with statements of special educational needs from school to other post-16 learning.
This amendment simply states what is already implicit in Clause 99. Indeed, I can assure the noble Baroness that we intend through the service to go beyond the promotion of equality and take steps to help to make equality between disabled people and non-disabled people a reality. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that we do not need her additional element in the Bill and that, with the assurances I have given, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their stalwart support, and thank the Minister very much for her reassuring reply. We all want equality for disabled learners along with able-bodied learners. The youth support service will supply that valuable first rung on the ladder to what we hope will be life long and really inclusive learning. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. We have it in Hansard. I imagine that a good deal of guidance will go out as well. It would be reassuring if the noble Baroness nodded or told me that it would also be in guidance. The Minister is nodding. I appreciate that very much. I have no hesitation in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 218A not moved.]
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 218B:
Page 44, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In carrying out his functions under this section, the Secretary of State may—

(a) provide financial or other assistance to persons providing supported residential accommodation to young persons in education or training;

(b) provide financial or other assistance to persons providing mentoring or support and guidance to young people.").

The noble Earl said: Earlier in the Committee stage the Minister made it clear that supported residential accommodation and support and guidance for disadvantaged young people were intended to be among the things the Secretary of State could provide

1389
under Clause 99. But Clause 99 refers only to services. The provision of accommodation might well be challenged in the courts as not being part of the clause. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Northbourne avoids that possible risk. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support Amendment No. 218B. It refers particularly, but perhaps not exclusively, to foyers. I raised this matter at an earlier stage of the Committee's discussions. As the Minister has had clear warning and notice of this question, it would be helpful if she could say how she sees the provision of foyers—both their capital costs and their running costs—fitting into the new scheme of things that will flow from the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: This amendment relates to the statutory and voluntary youth services. I should like to preface my comments with a few general words which I hope will meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. As I said earlier in the Committee, we fully recognise the valuable contribution made by these services in providing support and informal learning experiences for young people; and, in particular, in providing a gateway for re-engaging some of the most vulnerable young people in society. We are keen that their contribution is both supported and strengthened. We therefore expect that effective local youth services will be key Connexions partners and that much of their existing provision for 13 to 19 year-olds will be integrated with the new service.
The youth service is, of course, provided by a large number of voluntary and statutory organisations and covers a wide range of activities which promote the social and personal development of young people from 11 to 25. Much of this work will continue in tandem with the Connexions service. But I would expect local authority outreach and detached youth workers focusing on the core 13 to 19 age group to become key personal advisers within local multi-agency teams as these are set up by Connexions partners. It is that kind of youth worker in particular who will be integrated fully into the Connexions service whereas much of the other work done by the youth service will work in tandem. That would apply in particular to some of the more recreational side of what the youth services currently undertake
On Amendment No. 218B, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, proposed a similar amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill earlier in the Committee. At that time he was seeking to clarify which bodies had responsibility for funding different aspects of support for young people. I shall treat the amendment in two parts. The first part would empower the Connexions service to fund or otherwise assist supported residential accommodation for young people engaged in learning. As our Connexions policy document sets out, the function of the Connexions service will be to provide, through a network of trained personal advisers, comprehensive advice, guidance and support for young people. This will include advocacy and referral to specialist services, where
1390
necessary. Financial or other direct assistance in the provision of social housing is outside the remit of the Connexions service—that must remain part of housing services or work done by the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security— but advice, guidance and advocacy in obtaining accommodation for a young person would fall within it.
The second part of the amendment is slightly perplexing. It apparently seeks to empower the Connexions service to fund or otherwise assist in establishing a network of personal advisers—which is precisely what the clause is about. The Bill already makes sufficient provision. I suspect that the noble Lord wants to explore how far the service will rely on existing services to staff the Connexions personal adviser network and how far it will fund the recruitment and training of new front-line staff.
I am aware of the concerns that the Connexions service could impact on the wider work of the voluntary sector by attracting its key front-line personnel. I should start by reminding the Committee that we fully expect voluntary and non-profit-making bodies, far from being marginalised, to be important Connexions partners in a great many localities. In terms of their wider work, which may fall outside the remit of the Connexions service, perhaps because it is aimed at different age groups, I can assure the noble Earl that we have given careful thought to how we can ensure that we recruit sufficient qualified Connexions staff without having an adverse impact on the related services that will continue to operate in tandem. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to phase in the new service over around three years. We intend to undertake an audit of all the human resource implications of the very wide range of the existing and new advice and support services that will be provided.
We believe that the first part of the amendment would create an expectation which is outside the remit of the Connexions service, and the second would add nothing as the provision is already inherent in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her full and helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 99 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I do not intend to oppose the Question. However, perhaps I may press the Minister on a point that was not answered earlier.
Some of the careers companies have received letters inviting them to prepare to wind up their present services. If that happens, it will create gaps in the

1391
system. First, why have they been given such notice? Secondly, where gaps are created, how is it intended to fill them?
Baroness Blackstone: It is right to give the Careers Service longish notice of our intentions. But no careers service will be closed down before new Connexions services are in place.
Baroness Blatch: But only part of the service has been given notice to wind up.
Baroness Blackstone: That is the part that will be absorbed into the Connexions service. The Careers Service also provides adult guidance in some cases. That will continue.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister. I wonder whether she would let me see a copy of the letter that has gone out to those companies.
Baroness Blackstone: I am happy to send the noble Baroness a copy of the letter.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Consultation and coordination]:
[Amendment No. 219 not moved. ]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 44, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) a body providing services in pursuance of arrangements made or directions given under sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Employment and Training Act I973,").
The noble Baroness said: I am leading on this amendment, but it is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I am afraid that it covers part of the same ground that was trodden so thoroughly and painstakingly a few minutes ago. Nevertheless, I shall move it.
As we have said, the Secretary of State retains his duty to provide a Careers Service. Under Section 10 of the 1973 Act he is empowered to make arrangements to secure that service. Clause 100 of the Bill requires the body providing that statutory service on behalf of the Secretary of State to be consulted in planning provision, so that it is manifestly appropriate to local needs. It seems possible under the Connexions strategy that a body will provide the statutory Careers Service which is not the lead contractor for Connexions. Then, it will be essential that the Careers Service subcontractor is consulted as of right about the provision of the services to 13 to 19 year-olds.
The unique contribution of the Careers Service is its impartiality, alongside its knowledge of the needs of young people progressing through education and training. The amendment would put on the face of the Bill the reinforcement of the role of the statutory service, which, as the Minister confirmed, the Secretary of State will retain. That provides the means to ensure that young people's needs are at the heart of the learning and skills processes and structures. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My name is attached to Amendments Nos. 221 and 224, and my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton has his name to Amendment No. 222 to which, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak on his behalf.
My Amendment No. 221 covers the same ground as that of the noble Baroness, Lady David. I prefer the noble Baroness's amendment to my own, and I therefore support it. My other amendment refers to those who should be consulted. As I think the noble Baroness and the Minister will agree, local learning partnerships are important; they involve the local organisations that will be responsible for networking in the interests of the community. My noble friend Lord Wade makes the important point that employers are also a key group in the community and it seems right that they should be included in the consultation process.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My name is attached both to Amendment No. 220 and to Amendments Nos. 223 and 225. I rise to speak to the last two amendments, as well as to endorse the remarks of the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Blatch, about Amendment No. 220.
The points that have been made on that issue are important, in so far as those who will be providers of the Careers Service—we now understand that they will not be wholly absorbed into the new Connexions service—have already been providing services within the areas concerned. It is important that they, as well as all the other providers, are consulted when the new service is established.
Amendments Nos. 223 and 225 are concerned with the consultation process. In an earlier debate, we talked at length about the role of local learning partnerships, the way in which they have developed and how valuable they have been in those areas where they are thriving. Where they are in existence, it is important that they, too, should be consulted in the development of the new Connexions service. Similarly, Amendment No. 226 relates to our belief that other providers of education and training should be included in the consultation process.
Amendment No. 226 is linked to this series of amendments. Perhaps I may speak to it at greater length. It relates to a slightly different issue. It proposes a code of practice to be inserted after Clause 100. The reasoning behind the amendment is that, during the Committee stage in the other place of the School Standards and Framework Bill., the Government agreed that there was a need for a code of practice to underpin the relationship between local education authorities and schools, particularly in the light of the new power for local education authorities to intervene in schools to ensure standards. As a result, Section 127 on securing effective relationships between LEAs and schools was included in the School Standards and Framework Act. The proposed new clause is largely derived from Section 127.

1393
Under the system proposed in the Bill there will be three areas which will have to interact: providers, local education authorities and the learning and skills council with its local councils. The learning and skills council and the local learning and skills councils will have strong powers over 16 to 19 provision, particularly in relation to school sixth forms, under Clause 7 of the Bill, allowing unspecified conditions to be attached to grant and, under Schedule 7, on the closure of sixth forms.
There are many questions as to how those sweeping powers will be used. For example, will the learning and skills council or the local learning and skills councils tell a school sixth form under a threat to withhold grant not to offer Spanish because it is already being offered elsewhere in the area and is considered a disproportionate expenditure or poor value for money?
At the moment, how the new bodies will interact with existing local education authority providers is somewhat uncertain. The School Standards and Framework Act introduced a code of practice for effective LEA/school relations in recognition of the powers of LEAs to intervene in schools in the drive to improve standards. The national learning and skills council and local LSCs will have the same standards agenda. Therefore, guidance by the Secretary of State by way of a code of practice as to how the individual partners involved in this relationship should behave is vital to the fostering of good and effective relationships under the proposed system.
Lord Bach: I deal with Amendments Nos. 220 to 226. The purpose of Clause 100 is to ensure that all those involved in the provision of youth support services in a locality contribute to and collaborate in Connexions service provision. Subsection (1) specifies certain key statutory bodies responsible for providing youth support services in an area which must be consulted before making Connexions service provision in that area. Subsection (2) extends this to relevant voluntary bodies and such other "persons" as the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to consult. We meet our old friend the Interpretation Act 1978. Members of the Committee will be aware from previous exchanges that "persons" is a legal term that includes bodies.
Subsection (4) requires all consultees listed under subsection (1)—the statutory bodies —to support and assist the Connexions service, which includes coordinating their functions with the service. The significance of that in relation to this group of amendments is that all of the bodies under subsection (1) are statutory bodies involved in relevant aspects of youth support service provision. The express provision on the face of the Bill is intended to put beyond doubt that they would be able to enter into a contract with, or otherwise contribute to, the Connexions service. We are also able to impose on those statutory bodies the duty to support, assist and collaborate in the provision of youth support services. That is another reason for listing them expressly
1394.
By contrast, such statutory duty as is found in subsection (4) cannot be imposed upon private, voluntary and the many other local bodies which can and, in many cases, should contribute to the Connexions service. Moreover, we believe that to list them all for the purposes of consultation would make the legislation cumbersome and risk omission of others which in some parts of the country would certainly make a significant contribution. We believe that, as drafted, Clause 100 provides for a wide range of bodies to be involved in the new service, while maintaining simplicity and a degree of flexibility. I assure the Committee that in establishing the service the Government expect to consult those who deliver careers advice and guidance—local learning partnerships, employers, education institutions, training providers, including the people and organisations referred to in the amendments—about Connexions service provision in their areas.
Perhaps I may say a little more about each of the bodies referred to in this series of amendments. I welcome this opportunity to expand on the position of Careers Service companies when the Connexions service is introduced. This matter was touched on by my noble friend in an earlier debate. As we have consistently made clear in Learning to Succeed, Bridging the Gap and the recently published Connexions policy document, careers information advice and guidance will be an important element of the Connexions service. We expect the best Careers Service companies, together with a range of other local partners, to play a major role in the service. The phased introduction of the Connexions service is deliberately intended to allow us to look at different approaches to the involvement of existing Careers Service companies. This will depend in part on the type and number of existing careers services in each Connexions partnership area. For example, where local careers services are constituted as partnerships between local authorities and TECs, the local authority partners which remain after the withdrawal of TECs from April 2001 will need to consider how each company should be developed to fit into the local Connexions service arrangements within their boundary or boundaries, where a Careers Service covers multiple local authority areas.
Private and not-for-profit Careers Service companies will have the opportunity to demonstrate their potential contribution to the local Connexions service either as partners in a public/private partnership or by sub-contracting to deliver particular services. We are working with the Careers Service National Association and others to consider all the implications of the change in structures for Careers Service staff and to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements. But we fully expect that the new Connexions partnerships and local management committees will build on the skills and experience within Careers Service companies. The Connexions service will offer challenging new posts to be filled by people with appropriate competence and skills from the Careers Service and other statutory, community and voluntary organisations.

1395
In schools, we expect that the Connexions personal adviser will be a learning mentor based on the Excellence in Cities model. The learning mentors will be the first point of advice, including advice on learning opportunities relating to young people's career aspirations. They will be on hand to develop a long-term relationship of trust with those young people who need it and thus will supplement the advice given by careers teachers. Where appropriate, they will refer young people on to specialist careers advisers.
I turn to the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and tabled by her noble friend Lord Wade, which is concerned with employers. I am sure that the noble Baroness agrees that employers are a large and diverse category. It would be difficult to define which employers should be consulted and which it would be perhaps inappropriate to consult. Under subsection (2) a duty is placed on the Secretary of State to consult any other person he thinks appropriate. Therefore, appropriate employers or employers' representative bodies are covered by this provision. The Government expect employers to play an important role in the Connexions service. The service will develop close links with employers, both directly and through the LSC, to ensure their involvement in planning the service, providing community mentors and appropriate work experience opportunities and contributing to labour market and skills planning information for use by personal advisers.
I turn to Amendment No. 223 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. My responses echo the answer given by my noble friend earlier when the Committee debated the relationship between local learning partnerships and the LSC. It seems a long time ago since we did that. Local learning partnerships are non-statutory bodies which are continuing to develop. We do not believe that it is appropriate to stipulate their role. The new service will need to work closely with partnerships of local providers to develop strategies to match provision with the needs of young people and adults at local level. The detailed knowledge assembled by personal advisers of young people's experiences in learning should provide a powerful impetus to encourage improvements by education and training providers in the learning partnerships. Close links with learning partnerships will also be important to ensure coherence with the information, advice and guidance service for adults.
The Government assure the Committee that local learning partnerships will be consulted about Connextions provision; and subsection (2) allows for that. Equally, we would expect the new Connexions service locally to play a key role in local learning partnerships. It will also be open to learning partnership chairs to be members of Connexions partnerships and. to be represented on Connexions local management committees, subject to local decision.
Finally, I turn to the role of learning providers, and to Amendment No. 225. We can assure noble Lords that there is no question that education and training providers would not be consulted about Connexions.
1396
provision, for they are key partners in providing support. We have made it clear that Connexions provision will become an integral part of schools' frameworks for pastoral work. Much the same applies to college and training providers. We are looking at the best way to integrate the various services as we phase in, over a period of time, the introduction of the national service.
We invite noble Lords to consider withdrawing the amendment on the basis that subsection (1) deals with the statutory organisations and subsection (2) allows all the organisations referred to in the various amendments to be consulted.
I turn to Amendment No. 226 which is grouped with the amendments. On a rather separate area of concern in the Bill, Amendment No. 226 proposes that we specify on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State shall issue the code of practice mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in order to give practical guidance to secure effective relationships between the learning and skills council, CETW, LEAs and providers of education and training.
We want to ensure that the LSC (at both national and local levels) works in a way which is properly consultative of a wide range of bodies and that it promotes sound partnerships. That goes not only for its work on adult and community learning and youth initiatives, but also on employment and work-based training too.
Our intention is that the local planning process for the LSC should be as open and inclusive as possible. The LSCs will seek to engage the wider community in their work through a variety of means, perhaps public meetings, publication of draft and final plans on the Internet, and seeking direct feedback from actual and potential learners on their needs.
We also recognise that the approaches to learning that may attract adult learners will be, as we discussed earlier in Committee, very different from those which are more appropriate to 16 to 19 year-olds. The distinctive needs of both these groups will be reflected, therefore, in the provisions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—he is not in his place at present—made in Schedule 3 to the Bill which we debated last Thursday for the LSC's adult and young people's learning committees. We fully expect that local LSCs will want to seek the advice of experts about their locality, and they may want to establish their own local committees.
We appreciate that codes of practice can capture complex and sensitive relationships, such as the code referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, but the arrangements outlined have already been endorsed by a wide cross-section of partners and stakeholder organisations. We made it clear in the prospectus that we wanted to see a bottom-up approach to planning and post-16 provision. To set out such arrangements in detail, we fear, could stifle the LSC and would not help enable it and its partners to meet the needs of local employers and learners. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary

1397
I remind Members of the Committee that in Clauses 21 and 22—we have debated them in some detail—the arrangements the council must make for consulting a range of bodies on the preparation of its guidance to each local council and on local council plans are set out in some detail.
Moreover, Clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to give directions to the council about its objectives and how it should best meet them. But—I hope that it is of some satisfaction to the noble Baroness—we shall continue to bear in mind the value of providing guidance to the LSC about how it can promote and support partnership and the roles of different partners as and when appropriate.
On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for his full reply. There has been some reassurance. However, I should like to read it with great care and consider whether the reply is adequate, as it may be. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 221 to 225 not moved. ]
Clause 100 agreed to
[Amendment No. 226 not moved. ]
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Educational institutions: information and access]:
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Inspection]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 46, leave out line 12 and insert ("the Chief Inspector of Adult Learning")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to a discussion on Tuesday on the roles of the chief inspector of adult education and of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England.
In Clause 103(2) the amendment would substitute "the Chief Inspector of Adult Learning" for "Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England". The Minister has made clear that the prime purpose of the new Connexions Service and youth support service will be to address a different group from the one addressed to date. Its agenda is closer to that of the chief inspector of adult learning than that of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England. The agenda is closer to the role of the further education community than to the schools community. The Minister assured us that the role of the Careers Service in schools will continue. We are pleased that that is so
Nevertheless, given the new agenda in terms of social exclusion, the importance of links between the education providers and the Connexions service and the role of encouraging those young people to move
1398
back into education and training, in particular into vocational training, we believe that it would be more appropriate for that person to be the chief inspector of adult learning rather than Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Let me start with Amendment No. 228. The advantages and disadvantages of placing responsibility for inspecting the new service with Ofsted compared with the adult learning inspectorate, have been carefully considered. The balance of advantage favours Ofsted because Ofsted's remit and expertise are more relevant to the new service than the adult learning inspectorate's. So here I disagree fundamentally with the noble Baroness. The provision inspected by the adult learning inspectorate will focus more on adult provision. The new Connexions service will be a broad provision aiming to address young people's barriers to participation and achievement in learning.
We believe that Ofsted is well positioned to carry out this inspection. It has relevant broad experience, which includes LEA-wide inspections. These are focused on educational standards and school improvement issues but cover a wide range of LEA activity, including effective partnership working and LEA support to pupils in particular categories. Ofsted's experience makes it decisively the better choice for the inspection of the Connexions service.
At this point it may be helpful to say something about how we envisage links with other inspectorates working. The multi-agency nature of the Connexions service means that Ofsted will need to work closely with other inspectorates. We believe this can work well on a non-statutory basis. Ofsted already successfully works through protocols with the Audit Commission and with a number of inspectorates, in particular the Social Service Inspectorate and the Prison Service Inspectorate.
I turn now to Amendment No. 231 A. It would have no practical effect on the inspection of careers information, advice and guidance for adults but, rather bizarrely, would remove the Secretary of State's duty to arrange for inspection of careers information, advice and guidance for young people. Perhaps I should once again confirm that information, advice and guidance provision for adults will be inspected. It may be recalled that in Tuesday's debate I set out the Government's intention that careers provision for adults will be inspected by the independent Accreditation Board established by the Guidance Council.
I set out in response to earlier amendments today that careers provision for young people will be part and parcel of the Connexions service and that we expect providers of careers services for young people to be key partners in this service. I have also set out why we believe that Ofsted should have responsibility for inspecting the Connexions service. Clearly, Ofsted should also have responsibility for inspecting careers service provision for young people. This is what

1399
subsection (2) of Clause 108 will give effect to. And this is how the Secretary of State will fulfil the duty in subsection (1) in respect of 19 year-olds and under.
I very much hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: I was too slow to rise to speak to Amendment NO. 230A in the name of my noble friend Lord North bourne before the Minister rose. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to it now.
Representatives of the Youth Service have asked for clarification. Will the Ofsted inspectors have a duty, or indeed be entitled, to refer in their reports to the adequacy, in their opinion, of the funding of services? Without such a possibility, those who are asked to provide services may be in the position of being asked to make bricks without straw. If the Government want the fullest co-operation from the voluntary as well as the statutory sector, perhaps it would be wise for that assurance to be given.
Baroness Blackstone: It is always open to Ofsted to comment on the adequacy of funding for services.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply with regard to my amendment. I did not expect the noble Baroness to agree with me on the issue. We on these Benches continue to feel that it would be right for the chief inspector of adult learning to be the person to inspect the Connexions service. We shall withdraw the amendment but we may wish to return to it on Report
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 230A not moved. ]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Information: supply by public bodies]:
[Amendment No. 231 not moved. ]
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Recreation and social and physical training]:
[Amendment No. 231ZA not moved. ]
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Careers Services]:
[Amendments Nos. 231A to 233 not moved. ]
Clause 108 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 234:
After Clause 108 insert the following new clause—

PROVISION OF CAREERS EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
(" .—(1) The Education Act 1997 shall be amended as follow
(2) For section 43 substitute—
"Provision of careers education in schools and colleges
43.—(1) All registered pupils and students at a school or college to which this section applies must be provided, during the relevant phase of their education, with a programme of careers education.
(2) This section applies to—

(a) county and voluntary schools;

(b) grant-maintained schools;

(c) maintained or grant-maintained special schools (other than those established in hospitals);

(d) city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts;

(e) pupil referral units; and

(f) institutions within the further education sector.

(3) It is the duty of each of the following to secure that subsection (1) is complied with, namelyߞ

(a) in the case of a school falling within subsection (2)(a) to (c) the governing body of the school and its head teacher;

(b) in the case of a school falling within subsection (2)(d), the proprietors of the school and its head teacher;

(c) in the case of a pupil referral unit, the local education authority maintaining the unit and the teacher in charge of it; and

(d) in the case of an institution within the further education sector, the governing body and the principal or head of the institution.

(4) Each of sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 (default powers of Secretary of State) shall, in relation to the duty imposed by subsection (3) above, have effect as if any reference to a body to which that section applies included a reference to the proprietors of a school falling within subsection (2)(d) above.
(5) For the purposes of this section the relevant phase of a pupil's or student's education is the period—

(a) beginning at the same time as the school year in which the majority of pupils in his class attain the age of 14; and

(b) ending with the expiry of the school or college year in which the majority of pupils or students in his class attain the age of 19

.
(6) In this section—

"career" includes the undertaking of any training, employment or occupation or any course of education;

"careers education" means education designed to prepare persons for taking decisions about their careers and to help them implement such decisions;

"class", in relation to a particular pupil, means—

(a) the teaching group in which he is regularly taught, or

(b) if he is taught in different groups for different subjects, such one of those groups as is designated by the head teacher of the school or the principal of the college, the case of a pupil referral unit, by the teacher in charge of the unit."

(3) After section 45 insert—
"Extension or modification of provisions of sections 43 to 45.
45A —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend the scope of operation of section 43 or section 44 by substituting for the period specified in section 43(5) or section 44(10)(a)(i) such other period as is specified.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for extending the scope of operation of section 43, 44 or 45 to primary schools or to any specified description of such schools, to secure that a programme of careers education is provided for any specified description of persons attending such institutions."").
The noble Baroness said: The new clause would require the insertion in the Education Act 1997 of a number of new sections requiring post-16 education and training providers to put in place continuing programmes of careers education guidance for 16 to 19 year-olds. Currently the duty relates only to 14 to 16 year-olds, under Section 43(5) of the 1997 Act. Drop-out rates, however, remain very high in the 16 to 19 year-old group and in the transition towards university. Too few students receive sufficient information, advice and guidance about work-based modern apprenticeship options and similar options post-18.
The new sections would require the Secretary of State to secure adequate resources for schools, colleges and bodies providing the Careers Service under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 and to fulfil this additional duty. Section 46 of the 1997 Act would remain as the provision for the Secretary of State to choose to exercise this power to extend the duty with regard to primary schools and in early secondary years. But the amendment is suggested as an essential part of the joined-up thinking within the Department for Education and Employment by addressing the needs of the post-16 students with continued learning to assist them in making successful future career path decisions and transitions. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: The amendment moved so briefly and ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, together with Amendment No. 234A seeks to make changes to the provision of careers education in schools and colleges.
Amendment No. 234 would make both pupils and students undergo careers education until they were 19. It would also enable the Secretary of State to extend careers education in primary schools. There is no argument that careers education is important for young people, whether they are still in compulsory education or not. However, there is at present no mandatory subject for post-16s—other than, of course, religious education in schools sixth forms—and we believe that it would be wrong to make formal careers education a requirement for all.
The amendment would also give the Secretary of State a specific power to secure careers education for primary school children. Again we think that legislation is not necessary. Section 46(2) of the 1997 Education Act is broad enough to allow that without the amendment.
1402
The noble Baroness's second amendment, Amendment No. 234A, seeks to make similar changes but perhaps by a less laborious route. It would provide compulsory careers education for pupils up to the age of 19 and would also put a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring further education colleges to provide careers education and guidance for their students. Again I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness. We do not think that compulsion is either necessary or appropriate. It is better, in our view, that schools and colleges continue to develop their careers education programmes with the support of the new Connexions service
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am somewhat disappointed with it. It seems to me that both amendments have some force. However, I will for now withdraw Amendment No. 234 and perhaps return to the matter on Report
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 243A not moved. ]
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn moved The Lord Bishop of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 235:
Before Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
SEX EDUCATION: MANNER OF PROVISION
(" .—(1) Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 (sex education: manner of provision) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after "family life" insert "and having regard to the following principles—

(a) that marriage should be promoted as the fundamental building block of society and of family life and as the proper context for the nurture of children, and

(b) that pupils are entitled to develop without being subjected to—

(i) any physical or verbal abuse about sexual orientation, or

(ii) the encouragement of sexual activity."").

The right reverend Prelate said: Amendment No. 235 would have the effect of introducing into the Bill a new clause concerned with educational matters. It would amend Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 on the provision of sex education in schools.
The debate in your Lordships' House last week on Section 28 of the Local Government Act and my on Amendment No. 364B (Hansard, cols. 396 to 437) was lengthy and well argued. I shall therefore try to be brief tonight.
Since that debate, I have been greatly gratified and encouraged by the support I have received for the spirit of that amendment, to which this is parallel, from all parts of this Chamber, the media and people in every part of the United Kingdom. I believe that the Government accept the force of this in the light of the misunderstanding, which continues in the country at large, on the relationship between Section 28 and schools and therefore the corresponding fear that its repeal will open the floodgates to the aggressive promotion of homosexuality on children and young people
Sex education is now rightly a matter for the governors and head teachers of schools, with a parental right of withdrawal, but for that they need clear guidance on the framework of the principles and morality on which such teaching must be based. It is claimed that moral consensus in this area is hard to achieve in our so-called pluralist society. But I have to say that it is my firm conviction that in moving the amendment I speak with the support not only of the Church of England Board of Education, which I chair, the Catholic Education Service, with which I work closely, the other Christian Churches and all the other major faith communities in the United Kingdom, but also of a vast majority of the British people. The ideal and practice of marriage as set out in British law—namely, that between a man and a woman—is the fundamental building block for our society, for family life, and is the proper context for the nurture of children
In addition to the remarks which I made in last week's debate about the commitment of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the PSHE framework document, I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that since the debate I have been in close contact with the Secretary of State, and we hope to meet early next week to pursue this matter
I therefore hope that in her reply the Minister will be able to give me the assurances I seek so that the fears of so many parents and others as to the basis of what is to be taught in our schools by way of sex and personal relationships education can be removed and a more positive approach adopted to this vitally important subject for the good of society now and for future generations. I beg to move
Baroness Blackstone: Let me say straightaway that the Government accept the spirit of the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. A similar amendment was moved by him when the House debated the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act a week last Monday. His intention then, as it is now, was to seek further to reinforce the moral framework for sex education and to put in place safeguards with regard to the delivery of sex and relationships education in schools, as we did in announcing the revised national curriculum. During the debate, my noble friend Lord Whitty made it clear, as I seek to do now, that the Government agree with much of the substance of what the right reverend Prelate was seeking to achieve.
Much heat has been generated already around this issue. The Government have made clear their intention to repeal Section 28 on the grounds not only that it is bad legislation, but also that it is divisive legislation. It is misunderstood, misquoted and misinterpreted. There is as much misunderstanding about its effect today as there was when it was put on the statute book 12 years ago.
Clearly, there are worries about the repeal and, despite the fact that the issue is one of local government legislation, the focus of those worries has centred around the provision of sex and relationships
1404
education in schools. We all agree that we need to have in place sensible sex and relationships education in schools. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made it clear that the new guidance will be set within the context of the national curriculum and the framework for personal, social and health education announced in September. This sets out that children should be taught about the importance and nature of marriage and family life in bringing up children. The guidance will ensure that pupils are taught to understand human sexuality and to respect themselves and others. This will enable them to understand difference and will help to remove prejudice.
The Secretary of State is in ongoing discussions with the right reverend Prelate, Church representatives and faith groups. These are sensitive issues which require further discussion as to the best way to ensure that guidance has greater coherence and force. I should therefore like to give the right reverend Prelate, from the Floor of the Committee, the same reassurance given to him in the earlier debate by my noble friend Lord Whitty. In response to the right reverend Prelate in agreeing to further discussions about sex and relationships education in schools, my noble friend said:
"We hope that in those discussions before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, we shall have reached an understanding as to what is appropriate for primary legislation and what is appropriate for guidance and perhaps secondary legislation".— [Official Report, 7/2/00; col. 400.]
I repeat that reassurance and hope that rather than press the amendment today the right reverend Prelate will agree to those further discussions.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister must forgive me, but I was passed a note by the Chief Whip, which I always instantly obey, and had no idea that the Minister would rise immediately after the right reverend Prelate
First, I welcome the positive duty to "promote" marriage, as stated in the amendment. I noticed that that word was missing from the Minister's assurances. She spoke of the "importance" of marriage. I welcome a change to the 1996 Act if it is to strengthen it along the lines of promoting marriage. However, a positive duty to promote marriage in no way precludes schools from promoting homosexuality as well. There is no bar on that in this amendment; nor was there such a bar in the amendment that the right reverend Prelate proposed to the Local Government Bill. Therefore, although I support the promotion of marriage, as stated in the amendment, it is no substitute for an argument for repeal of Section 28.
The Government have made no secret of their position. They have said that irrespective of a decision in the other place, the will of Parliament or anything else, they will repeal Section 28 because they have the vote to do so. We understand that they intend to use it and that therefore the fate of Section 28 is sealed. But since that debate, I, too, have received a great deal of mail from the Church and from people around the country saying, "Continue the fight to keep Section 28

1405
on the statute book". Indeed, I was surprised by the number of teachers who wrote in as a result of reading the debate.
I repeat that the amendment is not a substitute for Section 28. Furthermore, subsection (2)(b)(i) of the proposed new clause, which deals with bullying, confusingly cuts across the provisions of Section 61(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. That section places a duty on head teachers to prevent bullying for whatever reason; whether the child is fat, thin, from an ethnic minority, is not very bright, or whatever. There is an absolute obligation on schools to produce policies for the prevention of bullying.
Throughout the debate last week, and indeed tonight's debate, one aspect has been ignored. The issue is not only about teachers in classrooms with children, but it is also about public money—that is, the money of local authorities—being spent by grant-aid on the bodies which produce materials such as those displayed in the exhibition recently held in the House of Lords. Some of those materials are horrendous and I do not know how they can be supported. But some of them are teaching aids for key stages 1 and 2 and because it comes through a circuitous route from people who are not caught by Section 28, the young people who use the services, the young people at the school gates and the young people outside the classroom are just as vulnerable. The issue is not only about children inside the classroom in the charge of teachers, but also about those outside.
Earlier in the week, we were subjected to the horrors revealed in the publication of the report into child abuse in Wales. I simply say this to noble Lords: looking at the record and reflecting on my experience in the Home Office, the majority of paedophilic behaviour is shown to be that of men preying on boys; the majority of incest cases usually involve fathers and girls. Thus, paedophilic homosexual behaviour on young boys is often recorded.
A point I raised during our brief discussion on the report when it was brought before the House was that there are still issues of concern about those who have indirect access to young people, rather than those who have direct access. The case for keeping Section 28 on the statute book remains as strong as ever. However, I wish absolutely to give my full support to moves to strengthen the 1996 Education Act along the lines of promoting marriage.
7 p.m.
Lord Tope: I had hoped that we might have been able to discuss the amendment before us without degenerating—and I mean to say "degenerating"—into the kind of contribution that we have just heard. I am sorry if that comment provokes the noble Baroness, but perhaps I may say as a matter of fact that the vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual rather than homosexual. I deeply regret the inference made by the noble Baroness. I shall give way.
Baroness Blatch: I was referring to cases of paedophilic behaviour which come before the courts.
1406
Furthermore, I should like to say to the noble Lord that I did not raise Section 28 as a subject for discussion. It was referred to by the Minister in her response to this amendment. Indeed, it was also referred to in passing by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Tope: I shall turn to what I want to say rather than what I have been provoked to say.
I welcome the words of the right reverend Prelate and pay tribute to the spirit in which he has moved the amendment. I welcome in particular his opening remarks when he said that, because legislation has changed since 1998, the inclusion of Section 28 in a local government Act—whatever one thinks of it; I believe that my views are clear to the Committee—is no longer relevant to this issue. The right reverend Prelate is therefore quite right to raise the matter in relation to an Education Bill and an Education Act.
As he rightly pointed out, for some time this has been a matter for school governors and headteachers. Whatever one thinks about the materials that are produced, their use in schools is a matter for headteachers and school governors. It is certainly not a matter for local authorities.
I welcome also the Government's response to the amendment. However, I have considerable doubts about whether this form of words will be appropriate in primary legislation. I shall quote the relevant section from the 1996 Act, to which this amendment seeks to add. It states:
"to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
That is perfectly adequate and the right statement to make in primary legislation. It is included in an Act of Parliament passed only a few years ago by a Conservative government of which the noble Baroness was a member.
These are difficult and sensitive matters. I accept— not least because of the continuing debate on the subject—that teachers need guidance on these issues. The Government propose to introduce such guidance and I am sure that that is the right way to approach the matter. I shall wait to see the draft guidance itself before I will be sure that they have got it right, but I do not doubt that that is what is needed here.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel that he has received on the record adequate assurances from the Minister as regards his amendment. I hope also that he will take comfort from the discussions he has already had and will continue to have with the Secretary of State. In that way, I hope we shall see guidance that will be helpful to teachers and which will deal with these important and sensitive matters in a calm and considered manner, reflecting what is already in the 1996 Education Act.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and her reassurances. I wish only to say that I believe that discussions on the implications of the repeal of Section 28 are going to continue. There is no doubt about that. It is on the parliamentary agenda and the issue will continue to be heard.

1407
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated that there is unfinished business so far as concerns schools. I believe that there is widespread misunderstanding about the implications of Section 28, which is, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, directed towards local authorities, and the arrangements as regards schools in place under the 1996 Act. For that reason, I hope that we can build on that Act and find an appropriate framework which has, as far as possible, the consensus of the people of this country as to how sex and personal relationships education should be delivered.
Given the assurances of the noble Baroness, for the moment I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: I should like to intervene briefly on a matter of business management. I believe that seven groups of amendments remain to be discussed on the Bill. If the Committee feels that it is able to finish those discussions by around eight o'clock. we could cancel the dinner break and move straight through the remainder of our proceedings. However, I have no wish to curtail discussions on the Bill.
Clause 109 [Induction periods for teachers]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 49, line 37, at end insert—
("(8) Induction providers shall ensure that all new teachers and other appropriate staff members have received preparation for working with people with learning difficulties or disabilities or both.
(9) The Learning and Skills Council and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales shall establish a programme of disability equality training for serving teachers within the further education sector who have not received such initial training as indicated in subsection (8) above, and as part of an ongoing process of staff development.").
The noble Baroness said: Before I speak to the amendment, I do not know whether the Committee has assented to the request of the Chief Whip. I do not believe that it will be possible to finish all that early because we need to address so many diverse amendments. It is difficult to say when we shall finish. I hope that the Chief Whip has not placed a constraint upon us that we must finish.
Amendment No. 236 addresses the important subject of the induction of teachers and other relevant staff members who have responsibility for working with people who have learning difficulties or disabilities. The group I have in mind are those to whom, over the years, we have come to refer as the "Warnock children"; the original Warnock report made the statement that around 20 per cent of all children require teaching provision in the classroom above the norm. That 20 per cent of children encompasses those with minor learning difficulties over and above the average of normal capabilities right through to the most severe learning difficulties.
I believe that coping with such children will inevitably be the experience of almost every teacher in the land during the course of his or her working life. For that reason, I believe that we need to see on the face of the Bill a proper obligation to ensure that relevant training is included in induction programmes.
Such a provision would ensure that all teachers and support workers who come into contact with this group of young people would receive appropriate training in this area.
The proposed new subsection (9) states:
"The Learning and Skills Council and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales shall establish a programme of disability equality training for serving teachers within the further education sector who have not received such initial training as indicated in subsection (8)".
If my noble friend Lord Roberts were here today, I know he would agree with that sentiment. I should like to recommend strongly to the Committee this valuable extra provision. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I intervene briefly to say that I believe a little agreement has broken out between these Benches and the Conservative Benches. I thank noble Lords for their chuckles.
We have been seeking an amendment along these lines for some time now. Appropriately trained teachers will be able to provide properly for those with moderate difficulties in the classroom. However, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, the Government wish to see the vast majority of the population move on into further education. Such young people will need continuing proper support in those institutions.
The amendment is sensible and addresses a valuable provision. We should be encouraging further help for those already moving through the system. I do not know how the Minister intends to reply, but. I am sure that teachers and support workers need the tools of appropriate training to do their jobs well.
Baroness David: My name too is down to this amendment. I believe it is an extremely important amendment and I hope the Minister will be able to look on it favourably.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I also support this amendment. It is obvious that the quality of training of teachers will have an impact on the quality of learning and on the general development of learners. Certainly, Tomlinson bore this out. In 1996 a report produced by SKILL called Student Voices led people to believe that there was quite a long way to go to ensure that teachers in FE colleges were really good at dealing with students with disabilities.
Lord Bach: I start by setting out what this clause is designed to do. Last September, the Government introduced a statutory induction programme for newly-qualified school teachers serving in maintained schools. Since that time, we have listened to the views of, in particular, sixth-form colleges and have agreed to enable certain FE sector institutions to participate in the induction programme. Those institutions will employ teachers who are qualified to teach children in maintained schools and will offer a suitable teaching environment. The regulation-making powers set out in this clause will enable us to do that.

1409
We expect that most sixth-form colleges will take the opportunity to participate in the induction programme. Other FE sector institutions may be interested if they wish to recruit newly-qualified school teachers specifically to teach students under the age of 19 and would like to offer them an opportunity to undergo the professional induction.
Amendment No. 236 is motivated by a quite understandable concern that teachers, both in maintained schools and in further education, should have appropriate preparation for working with students with disabilities or learning difficulties or both. Provision already exists to meet that laudable aim in respect of school teachers, and currently we are consulting on how best to achieve the same in respect of FE teachers.
The standards for qualified teacher status require that initial teacher training trainees must be able to demonstrate the following: first, that they establish a safe environment which supports learning and in which pupils feel secure and confident; secondly, that they use teaching methods which set high expectations of all pupils and which keep them engaged through the use of approaches appropriate to the pupils being taught; and, thirdly, that they understand their professional responsibilities in relation to school policies and practices, including those concerned with pastoral and personal safety matters.
Those standards are currently being reviewed by the Teacher Training Agency. As part of that review, the Teacher Training Agency will consider whether there is a case for making explicit reference in the standards to appreciating and accommodating the needs of disabled pupils.
The induction standards for determining whether an induction period has been completed satisfactorily require newly-qualified teachers to be able to demonstrate that they plan effectively to meet the needs of pupils with special education needs and that, in collaboration with their SEN co-ordinator, they contribute to the preparation, implementation and upkeep of individual education plans.
Therefore, the principle that school teachers should be able to recognise and seek to meet all pupils' needs is fundamental to the standards for qualified teacher status and induction. Everyone who successfully completes initial teacher training and the induction programme will have been prepared to work with children who have learning difficulties and/or disabilities, and the carers of such children.
I turn to the same question in respect of FE teachers. The Department for Education and Employment recently launched a consultation paper on the introduction of compulsory teaching qualifications for FE teachers. That paper sought views on a wide range of issues, including possible requirements for FE teachers to be trained to teach people with learning difficulties or disabilities. Indeed, as the paper made clear, the Further Education National Training Organisation is,
1410
"looking at developing standards for teaching students with learning difficulties or disabilities. Some teachers will want to specialise in this area, so there is a need for a detailed set of standards to accommodate their needs. Also, all further education teacher training courses should include the skills needed to teach such students. This indicates a need for 'core' and 'option' routes in these additional standards".
The consultation paper is being distributed widely among interested parties, including the Disability Consortium on Post-16 Education and Training, with which, of course, many noble Lords are well acquainted.
The Government support the principle that all teaching staff in schools or in the FE sector should have an appropriate awareness of issues relating to disabilities or learning difficulties. However, I hope that I shall not disappoint noble Lords when I say that the Government intend to resist this particular amendment for two reasons, sympathetic though we are to the idea behind it.
First, it would be quite wrong to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation exercise, which is already in hand, through which we shall determine how best to ensure that FE teachers have an appropriate awareness of the needs of students with disabilities or learning difficulties or both. Secondly, and perhaps not so significantly, we do not believe that this amendment is appropriate to the clause that we are debating. As I set out at the beginning of my comments, Clause 109 is in the Bill to enable us to allow FE institutions to take part in the statutory induction programme for newly-qualified school teachers—those who represent, of course, only a very small part of the FE workforce.
I hope that, during the course of what I have said, I have given some assurances that will be received sympathetically by those who are interested in the amendments. Of course, we hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, given the assurances that have been made on behalf of the Government.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Quite a lot of what the noble Lord has said has been reassuring, but it will be necessary for me to read in much more detail what he has said in order to understand its full import. However, I am puzzled as to why he believes that Clause 109 is not the appropriate place for the amendment. It opens with Section 19 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act. It is referred to as an induction period for teachers. If induction periods and the nature of induction are to be referred to at all, I cannot think of another clause in the Bill where that subject would fit. That is certainly not an argument to use against the amendment. If the noble Lord believes that there is a more appropriate place in the Bill, then we should like to give that some consideration. However, my understanding is that Clause 109 is about induction and makes quite specific reference to FE and HE. The noble Lord has said quite a lot on this matter. I shall read what he has said in order to reassure myself.

1411
I want to raise one issue. I am not sure that there is a system in place which is sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that the relevant people receive induction periods during the course of their professional careers which will help them to deal more effectively with teaching young people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109 agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 236A:
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—

PROVISION OF CAREERS EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

  GOVERNORS' LIABILITY
  (" . The governors of an institution incorporated under section 15 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 or under section 112 of this Act shall not incur any personal liability in respect of anything done reasonably and in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of their powers under section 18 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 as amended by this Act.").
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 236A, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp. I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has also added her name. This amendment seeks to address an issue of great concern to college governors: that of their personal liability. Since colleges were incorporated in 1993, there has been great concern that in certain circumstances governors might face claims that they were personally liable for problems resulting from some action or default on the part of the governing body which led to a college entering serious contractual or other difficulties. As the law stands at present, governors of further education colleges have significantly less legal protection than school governors, company directors and charitable trustees in such situations.
  This question has been raised by the representative bodies in the further education sector on a number of occasions, both under this Government and their predecessor. It has been the consistent view of the DfEE that provided individual governors act honestly and without ulterior motive, showing reasonable care and common sense within the scope of their functions and procedures, they will in practice be protected by existing law against any risk to their own assets as a result of the governing body's decision.
  However, the department has acknowledged that there could be exceptional circumstances under which a question of personal liability might arise. More significantly, legal advice from outside the department casts considerable doubt on this interpretation of the law.
  I move to another aspect. The Committee on Standards in Public Life was sufficiently concerned about the potential problems in this area that it drew attention to the issue in its second report and subsequently commissioned a legal study on the comparative position across a number of public bodies. That study—entitled Personal Liability in Public Service Organisations, published in summer 1998—confirmed the anomalous position in relation
  1412
  to college governors in particular. The conclusions to that study made clear the need for legislation to ensure equal legal protection for all appointees to responsible bodies of public service organisations in the form of a statutory discretion to grant relief equivalent to Section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 and Section 727 of the Companies Act 1985.
  In conveying the recommendations of the committee to the Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Neill, made it clear that the committee regarded the need for legislation as pressing—that was in the summer of 1998—in order to ensure that all appointees had a right to seek relief from the courts if potential liability arose. To date, the Government have not seen fit to act on those recommendations. I hope that the Minister will either accept this amendment in his reply tonight—in which case I shall be very pleased, as will many college governors—or, at the very least, tell the Committee how and when the Government will act to implement those particular recommendations of the Neill committee.
  It is becoming increasingly evident that the question of personal liability being raised in the courts is rather less remote than the DfEE has imagined. This is an issue of considerable importance to college governors up and down the country. Those of us who meet college governors, as many of us do, will have heard it raised by them on many occasions. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has covered the ground extremely well. The normal defence in such situations has been that one was acting reasonably; the defence of reasonableness has been so long as governors, or those who sit on the boards of charities, act in good faith, but the world has changed. Personal liability, particularly in the area of governors, as has been well recorded by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is giving cause for concern. There are very firm recommendations that legislation is needed in this area. It will not be enough for the Minister simply to say that, provided people act reasonably and in good faith, they will receive full protection. Therefore, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. In the mean time, I support this amendment.
  Lord Bach: We have much sympathy with this amendment. We do not resist it. We ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment so that we can consider what he and the noble Baroness have said. I do not think that he can expect very much more than that.
  We agree with the previous government that if individual governors act in a way that the noble Lord described, honestly and without ulterior motive, showing reasonable care and common sense within the scope of their functions and procedures, as they invariably do, they will be protected against any risks to their own assets as a result of a decision of a governing body. We do not believe that the real risk is anything more than minimal. We do not know of a case where a further education governor has been affected.
  We believe that the one group of governors at slightly greater risk is that comprising those in designated institutions because they act as individuals

  1413
  rather than through a corporation. We are taking steps to reduce that risk in Clause 112 by allowing for the incorporation of such institutions.
  I point out, in passing, that college corporations may be, and have been, incorporated under both Sections 15 and 16 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The powers are provided under both Sections 18 and 19 of that Act.
  This amendment is so drafted—which is why we cannot accept it—as to exclude many governors from the protection it seeks to give. However, we are aware that the issue of liability is, as has been said by representatives of all parties here, of concern to many governors in the FE sector. We should not wish such a perception to affect the valuable work of the governors or to serve as a disincentive to new governors entering the sector.
  We are certainly prepared to reconsider this issue, how best we can give some reassurance to FE governors, and to come forward with our own proposals at a later stage. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I accept the assurance that the Government acknowledge that there is just a viable concern. We all hope that if college governors act reasonably and so on, they will not suffer for it; but the strong possibility exists. They are, in law, in a different position. They do not have the protection of, for instance, school governors. There is an issue here that was addressed by the Neill committee. It is not just my opinion or that of college governors.
  I am pleased to hear—perhaps a little belatedly, but better late than never—that the Government will address the issue. I hope that they will be able to return with their amendment so that we know not only that they will address it, but how they will do so. I look forward to that, as will all college governors. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 110 [Assessments relating to learning difficulties]:
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 237:
  Page 49, line 41, after ("1996,") insert—
  ("( ) a person is identified by the school as someone who will qualify as a student with a learning difficulty or disability (or both) within the meaning of section 13(2), (3) and (4);").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 237, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 241. I say immediately that these are probing amendments. As they stand, they are alternative ways of achieving the same end. I think that one of them is defective, in any case.
  Their aim is to ensure that in their last year of school, students with learning difficulties are assessed so as to identify their individual support needs and arrangements irrespective of whether those students have a statement of special educational need. The
  1414
  disability consortium welcomes the fact that under this Bill all young persons with statements must be assessed. It is concerned that those without statements simply may be assessed. Thorough assessment has often been identified as a major factor in the subsequent successful performance of students and trainees with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. The Tomlinson report recognised that.
  My noble friend Lord Rix, who apologises for his non-attendance today, spoke at Second Reading on 17th January, at cols. 921 to 922, about a London study into the transition experiences of people with severe learning difficulties, which demonstrated not only the problem young people had in obtaining a proper assessment but also the quality of those assessments when they were carried out.
  A young person may well have a learning difficulty but no statement; he may be one of the 18 per cent as opposed to one of the 2 per cent mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. As the Committee knows, the number of statemented pupils varies enormously between LEAs. Many statements are resource-led but, on the other hand, an LEA may cope so well with pupils with learning difficulties that there is no need to issue a statement of special educational need.
  The problem is that those young people without statements are not required under the code of practice to have a transition plan so it is those young people who experience most difficulty during transition. Some may have quite significant impairments and some may have less obvious ones such as a mild learning difficulty or dyslexia which is not sufficiently severe to have triggered a statement. They will often have attended a mainstream school but when they move on to an FE college or training programme, they find that, because their needs have never been properly assessed, they cannot cope with their learning programme. They become disenchanted and may drop out.
  The FEFC additional support funding mechanism has often been praised for the way it can respond flexibly across the whole spectrum of disabled learners. I am sure that we should regret it if the Bill created a divided entitlement between those who have statements and those who do not.
  As I said at the beginning, these are probing amendments and I understand that it would not be practical to accept them, thereby imposing a duty to assess all school-leavers with a learning difficulty as defined in Clause 13. In fact, it would not even be necessary in some cases. But we are looking for a clear recognition that many of those school-leavers without statements but with learning difficulties will benefit hugely from proper assessment and may well go under if their needs are not assessed. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response but I hope that she will say something about guidance and that she will recognise how crucial it is for many school-leavers without statements to have an assessment before they leave. I beg to move.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness David: I want to add my support to these amendments. I think it is a difficult stage for a lot of children—moving from one stage of education, school, to further education. An assessment may be of great help to them. They need some help at this stage if they have been missed out before and their disability has not been recognised. I hope that we can have some reassurance.
  Lord Addington: I merely want to reinforce what has been said. We are talking here about bringing more people into the structures which give them help. The statement system misses people and certain people are not designed for it. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it depends on who you are; who was doing the assessment; and which criteria were being used, which I am afraid vary locally. The current assessment system is much better than what went before it but it is not perfect. I suggest that we should be seeking something along the lines of this amendment, or at least the intention behind it.
  Lord Hylton: These amendments touch on a very important matter. I say that as a parent of a son who was diagnosed with a rather particular kind of dyslexia when he had already reached the age of 17. That was some years ago. I hope that matters have improved greatly since those clays. But I believe that there is need for constant vigilance.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for bringing forward her probing amendments because they give me the opportunity to say a little about the purpose of Clause 110.
  Clause 110 requires the Secretary of State to arrange an assessment of the education and training needs of pupils with SEN statements who move into other forms of education and training. Under government Amendment No. 243, the assessment will also set out the nature of provision needed to meet those needs.
  We set out in our Connexions document how we would expect the arrangement to operate. Those new arrangements will ensure that transition planning into post-16 provision for those with statements of special educational needs starts at 14 and involves all local partners, including the young people themselves, their parents or carers, the local LSC and potential or identified providers of suitable learning opportunities. The young people concerned will have the support of a personal adviser throughout the transition and assessment process. Further details will be the subject of continuing work with our partners, including those representing the interests of students with learning difficulties.
  Clause 110 corrects an anomaly. At present, if a statemented pupil stays at school beyond the age of 16, the statement and everything which it guarantees remain in place until his 19th birthday. If that pupil moves into another form of education or training, the statement lapses. Where the transition process is handled effectively, the statement will in practice
  1416
  survive in another form. But, sadly, in some circumstances that has not been the case, and the noble Baroness will be aware of that. For that reason, some young people have been deterred from choosing the type of post-16 education and training which is best for them. The purpose of Clause 110 is to ensure that when a young person with a statement leaves school, his education and training needs are properly set out in all cases. It will give pupils and their parents greater comfort in opting for education or training that is in their best interests, wherever it takes place.
  The discretionary power under Clause 110(3) is designed to give the Secretary of State a power to make similar kinds of assessment of the needs of young people where appropriate. That might be appropriate, for example, where a student with a statement of special educational needs remains at school after the compulsory school-leaving age but subsequently leaves to engage in other forms of post-16 learning before he reaches the age of 19. Similarly, where a student develops learning difficulties after leaving school, an assessment may help him to overcome or tackle such difficulties.
  I do not believe that we should impose a duty to make an assessment of all students with learning difficulties, as the noble Baroness conceded in her opening remarks. The range of learning difficulties of young people leaving school will be very wide indeed. In some cases, they may be relatively mild. Only a small proportion of students with special educational needs go on to have a statement of those needs under the Education Act 1996. We shall of course expect the Connexions service to spend more time dealing with the young people whose needs are the most complex, whatever their background, in order to secure a truly effective transition.
  I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that the needs of pupils with learning difficulties will be fully addressed. Clause 110 is in the Bill to remove the anomaly I have described. That anomaly does not arise in the same way for pupils with special educational needs who do not have statements. In view of the reassurance that I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for their extremely relevant contributions. I thank the Minister for what she said and for her full and careful reply. I am grateful for what she said about students with statements. I shall read carefully in Hansard what she said.
  I am not absolutely sure that she met my point about students without statements. I am not sure that there is a sufficiently clear recognition of how badly some of the 18 per cent will need an assessment. I do not know whether she would like to make a clearer statement about that now and whether it will be possible to include in guidance how important it is for many of them to be assessed. I believe that Clause 110 uses the words "if appropriate". I shall read what she said and

  1417
  perhaps have further discussions with the noble Baroness and the department. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 238:
  Page 50, line 2, leave out from ("to") to end of line 4 and insert ("receive post-16 education or training (within the meaning of Part I of this Act) or higher education (within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988).").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 238, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 239, 240, 242 and 243. These amendments clarify the arrangements for assessments to be undertaken under Clause 110. Amendment No. 238 ensures that the Bill more accurately reflects the type of provision which young people leaving school, and for whom assessments may be appropriate, might enter. The effect of Amendment No. 238 will be that young people leaving school with a statement will be entitled to an assessment whatever course of post-16 education or training or higher education they wish to undertake. For post-16 education and training, this amendment aligns the entitlement to an assessment with the principal functions of the LSC for people under the age of 19 and the range of provision which it can secure for young people.
  Amendments Nos. 239, 240, 242 and 243 define more clearly the nature and purpose of an assessment. Their effect is to make clear that an assessment must result in a written report which sets out not only the education and training needs of a young person but also what kind of provision is required to meet those needs.
  These are important provisions. Noble Lords will remember that Clause 13(2) places the LSC under a duty to have regard to an assessment conducted under the clause we are discussing. The combined effect of these two clauses will be to ensure that at last we can make sure that the transition from school to post-16 education outside school goes well for people with special educational needs. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, the amendments refer to the formal assessments that apply to somewhere between 2 per cent and 4 per cent of young people, or have done hitherto. My understanding of the previous amendments was that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, referred to both formal and informal assessments of all young people. Therefore, their needs would be assessed, whether or not they fall short of the formal statement requirements. I understood that there would be an assurance, which I do not think is contained in Clause 110, that appropriate provision would be provided on the back of an assessment. I understood that that would apply whether the assessment was formal, as set out in Clause 110, or whether it falls short of that for the many young people who will still need assessing for appropriate provision.
  Baroness Blackstone: The amendments relate to young people leaving school with a statement.
  1418
  Therefore, the noble Baroness is right in pursuing her question. However, I give the same assurance to her that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. It is our intention to ensure absolutely that all young people with learning disabilities are given the special help they need.
  Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for the amendments which give a greater degree of coherence to the provisions for those with special needs. I thank both noble Baronesses for the debate. The more often we see repeated in Hansard that we shall do more for the future, the easier it will be when the time comes.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. However, I shall pursue the point I raised regarding the 18 per cent of young people to whom I referred.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 239 and 240:
  Page 50, line 5. after ("arrange") insert ("for"). Page 50, line 5, leave out ("person's educational and training needs") and insert ("person").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
  Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 242 and 243:
  Page 50, line 9, leave out ("of the educational and training needs").
  Page 50, line 13, at end insert—
  ("( ) For the purposes of this section an assessment of a person is an assessment resulting in a written report of

  (a) his educational and training needs, and

  (b) the provision required to meet them.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 111 agreed to.
  Clause 112 [Further education sector: designated institutions.]:
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 244:
  Page 51. line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to the preservation of the essential nature of the institutions designated therein").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 244 is a minor, probing amendment. Clause 112 relates to designated institutions in the further education sector, of which there are a number, such as the Working Men's College, of which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is a governor. I refer also to a number of the residential colleges, the WEA, and so forth, who are a little uncertain as to their future under the new arrangements of the learning and skills council. They seek an assurance that the essential character of the institutions will be preserved under the new arrangements. I hope that the Minister will be able to give such an assurance. I beg to move.
  7.45 p.m.
  Baroness Blackstone: Section 28 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 designated, as eligible to receive support from the FEFC, voluntary aided sixth-form colleges, institutions (other than schools) assisted by the LEA, and grant aided institutions. It did not permit the incorporation of the governing bodies of these institutions. We have received representations from a number of those concerned with this special group of sixth-form colleges. In these provisions we address their main concerns and are pleased to respond to their requests.
  The Secretary of State will be able to incorporate the governing bodies of existing designated sixth-form colleges or those that may be designated in the future. It will also allow the Secretary of State, when incorporating a governing body, to specify the corporation's powers and to confer exempt charitable status upon the corporation and the institution.
  The Committee may be concerned that in replacing Section 30 we threatened the protection afforded to voluntary aided schools on entering the sector. That is not the case. Indeed, we have taken care to ensure that all voluntary aided schools which enter the sector through the designation route will still be covered by the requirement on the trustees of voluntary aided sixth-form colleges to appoint a majority of governors with a view to ensuring that the established character of the institution at the time of its designation is preserved and that it is conducted in line with any trust deed relating to it. We have extended the protection to apply to institutions either specified or in a class specified by the Secretary of State that in future enter the sector through the designation route. In view of that.. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the amendment is unnecessary and will withdraw it.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her full reply. I believe that gives us the assurance we have been seeking. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 112 agreed to.
  Clause 113 agreed to.
  Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 245:
  After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  (".—(1) Schedule (Transitional provisions) contains transitional provisions relating to—

  (a) the dissolution of the Further Education Funding Councils, and

  (b) the establishment of the Learning and Skills Council for England and the National Council for Education and Training fir Wales.

  (2) Nothing in that Schedule prejudices the generality of section 114(4).").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Amendments]:
  Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 246:
  Page 78, line 8, leave out ("of providing education or").
  The noble Lord said: The introduction of an explicit power for college corporations to form, or take part in forming, companies, is a welcome clarification of the law. However, the principal powers of a corporation are to provide further and higher education and now secondary education at key stage four.
  Education in this context has always been understood to include training. The definition of "further education" in the Education Act 1996 makes that explicit. It is unclear, in the context of this section, whether education in this context should be taken to mean further education as defined in that Act or some more limited meaning.
  If, as I assume, it means the former, the section would have the effect of debarring college corporations from delivering not only education but also training. I am sure that that is not what the Government intend. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: The provision has been made in the Bill in response to some doubts about the power of FE corporations to form companies. The provision in the Bill provides that corporations may form companies, but restricts this power to exclude explicitly the formation of such companies to provide education or to conduct an educational institution. These are clearly matters for which the corporations must take direct responsibility and be accountable for where they receive public funding.
  On reflection, we accept that this provision could be interpreted as excluding the formation of companies to provide education or training which is not publicly funded. That was not our intention and we agree with the points made by the noble Lord.
  However, there is a technical issue. We believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord might allow corporations to create self-financing companies to provide education for students registered at the institution and for whom there is already public funding.
  Clearly, it would not be acceptable to allow publicly-funded education to be provided by college companies and by so doing for corporations to evade the accountability framework. Therefore, while we accept that the provision as drafted needs amendment, we do not consider that the amendment presently before the Committee is quite what is required. However, we understand the concern and I undertake to the noble Lord—this is the second time he has had such success this evening—that the Government will table an amendment in the other place to clarify the issue. Perhaps the least he can do for us is to withdraw the amendment, for the time being.
  Lord Tope: I am very pleased to help the Minister in that way. I believe that I am on something of a roll. Perhaps we should carry on like this for the rest of the evening, but I expect that we shall not. I am grateful

  1421
  to the Minister for that reply and for the fact that the Government have reflected on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 247:
  Page 78, leave out line 17 and insert—
  ("(1) Section 29 of that Act (government and conduct of designated institutions) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) for "subsection (3)" substitute "subsections (3) and (7A)".
  (3) After subsection (7) insert—
  "(7A) Provision made by the instrument in relation to the appointment of members of the governing body shall take into account the members who may be appointed by—

  (a) the Learning and Skills Council for England under section 11 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, or

  (b) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales under section (Further education: governors) of that Act."

  (4) In").
  The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: This is a new and long group of amendments. It is also a very technical group. I would appreciate an explanation. I refer to Amendments Nos. 247 to 250.
  Baroness Blackstone: This amendment was dealt with under Clause 11. It has been debated already.
  Baroness Blatch: This and the other amendments represent the insertion of a new schedule. There has been no discussion about Schedule 8. I do not remember one. I agreed the groupings this morning. This amendment is not listed as having been already debated. It was not grouped with the Clause 11 amendments. Quite a number of explanations are required on Amendment No. 249, particularly on the insertion of the new schedule.
  Baroness Blackstone: We debated these consequential amendments during the quite considerable time we spent on Clause 11 last week. That clause has been agreed by the Committee. I do not want to go into that debate again at this time. These amendments to the 1992 Act are necessary because at present it makes provision only for governing bodies themselves to appoint members. But the point is that these matters have already been debated. I apologise if that has not been indicated in the Groupings List.
  Baroness Blatch: It has not been indicated. It has been indicated that these amendments are for discussion tonight. I have done my homework on them. I take leave to see what was said previously about each of the four amendments. It is not my recollection that they have been referred to. I do not remember the insertion of a new schedule.
  Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 248:
  Page 78, line 19, at end insert—
  (" . In section 31 of that Act (designated institutions conducted by companies) after subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) Provision made by the articles of association of the company in relation to the appointment of members of the governing body shall take into account the members who may be appointed by—

  (a) the Learning and Skills Council for England under section 11 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, or

  (b) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales under section (Further education: governors) of that Act."").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 249 to
  249C: Page 80. line 15, leave out from beginning to ("insert") in line 16 and insert ("Schedule 4 to that Act (instruments and articles of government for further education corporations) is amended as follows.
  (2) After paragraph I insert—
  "1A. Provision made by an instrument under this Schedule in relation to the appointment of members shall take into account the members who may be appointed by—

  (a) the Learning and Skills Council for England under section 11 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, or

  (b) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales under section (Further education: governors) of that Act."

  (3) In paragraph 5, at the end").
  Page 81, line 34. leave out paragraph 30 and insert—
  ("30. In section 16 of that Act (destination of reports) after subsection (4) insert—
  "(5) Subsection (6) applies to a report of an inspection of a school falling within section 11(2) if—

  (a) the inspection was a section 10 inspection or was carried out by a member of the Inspectorate, and

  (b) the school provides full-time education suitable to the requirements of pupils over compulsory school age.

  (6) The person making the report shall send a copy (together with a copy of the summary, if there is one) to—

  (a) the Learning and Skills Council for England, if the school is in England, or

  (b) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales, if the school is in Wales."").

  Page 82, line 9, at end insert—
  (". In section 15 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (intervention by LEA) after subsection (6) insert—
  "(7) For the purposes of this section a report of an inspection under section 62 or 79 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 shall be treated as a report of an inspection under Part I of the School Inspections Act 1996."").
  Page 82, line 10, leave out ("the School Standards and Framework Act 1998") and insert ("that Act").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 250:
  After Schedule 8, insert the following schedule—

  SCHEDULE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
    PART I

      ENGLISH COUNCILS
      Introduction
      1.For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule—

      (a)the appointed day is the day appointed under section 116 for the commencement of section 83;

      (b) the old Council is the Further Education Funding Council for England;

      (c) the new Council is the Learning and Skills Council for England;

      (d) the new Council's full functions are its functions under sections 2 to 18.

      Transitional provisions
      2. The old Council must do its best to secure that any functions remaining to be discharged by it at any time after the commencement of this paragraph are discharged before the appointed day.
      3. —( 1 ) Anything being done by or in relation to the old Council immediately before the appointed day may be continued on or after that day by or in relation to the new Council.
      (2) In particular. any legal proceedings to which the old Council is a party immediately before the appointed day may be continued on or after that day by or in relation to the new Council.
      4. Every agreement (whether written or not), and every instrument or other document, which relates to any property, right or liability to which section 83(1)(b) applies shall have effect, so far as may be required for continuing its effect on or after the appointed day, as if—

      (a) where the old Council is a party to it, the new Council were substituted as that party,

      (b) for a reference to the old Council there were substituted a reference to the new Council,

      (c) for a reference (however worded and whether express or implied) to the chairman, the chief officer or a member of the old Council there were substituted a reference to the chairman, the chief executive or a member of the new Council, and

      (d) for a reference to the office or place of business of the old Council there were substituted a reference to the office or place of business of the new Council.

      5.—(1) This paragraph applies if the new Council is established before it acquires its full functions.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision—

      (a) conferring such powers on the new Council as the Secretary of State thinks will help it to carry out its full functions when it acquires them;

      (b) imposing on the old Council a duty to give such assistance to the new Council as the new Council may reasonably require to help it to carry out its full functions when it acquires them.

      (3) The Secretary of State may make an order under this paragraph at any time before the day on which the new Council acquires its full functions.
      6. At any time before the day on which the new Council acquires its full functions, section 1(2) has effect as if for "12" there were substituted "2".
      7.—(1) The new Council must discharge a duty which satisfies the following three conditions.
      (2) The first condition is that the duty arises under—

      (a) section 8(6)(a) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (report on further education for disabled students), or

      (b) paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 to that Act (accounts).

      (3) The second condition is that the duty arises in respect of a period ending before the appointed day.
      (4) The third condition is that apart from this Act the duty—

      (a) would have fallen to be discharged by the old Council after the appointed day, or

      (b) fell to be discharged by the old Council before the appointed day but has not been discharged.

      8. If an order under section 8(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 confers or imposes a function on the old Council, on or after the appointed day the order is to be treated as if—

      (a) it were made under section 18(4) of this Act, and

      (b) it conferred or imposed the function on the new Council.

  PART II

    WELSH COUNCILS
    Introduction
    9. For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule—

    (a) the appointed day is the day appointed under section 116 for the commencement of section 84:

    (b) the old Council is the Further Education Funding Council for Wales;

    (c) the new Council is the National Council for Education and Training for Wales;

    (d) the new Council's full functions are its functions under sections 31 to 43.

    Transitional provisions
    10. The old Council must do its best to secure that any functions remaining to be discharged by it at any time after the commencement of this paragraph are discharged before the appointed day.
    11.—(1) Anything being done by or in relation to the old Council immediately before the appointed day may be continued on or after that day by or in relation to the new Council.
    (2) In particular, any legal proceedings to which the old Council is a party immediately before the appointed day may be continued on or after that day by or in relation to the new Council.
    12. Every agreement (whether written or not), and every instrument or other document, which relates to any property, right or liability to which section 84(1)(b) applies shall have effect, so far as may be required for continuing its effect on or after the appointed day, as if—

    (a) where the old Council is a party to it, the new Council were substituted as that party,

    (b) for a reference to the old Council there were substituted a reference to the new Council,

    (c) for a reference (however worded and whether express or implied) to the chairman, the chief officer or a member of the old Council there were substituted a reference to the chairman, the chief executive or a member of the new Council, and

    (d) for a reference to the office or place of business of the old Council there were substituted a reference to the office or place of business of the new Council.

    13.—(1) This paragraph applies if the new Council is established before it acquires its full functions.
    (2) The National Assembly may by order make provision—

    (a) conferring such powers on the new Council as the National Assembly thinks will help the new Council to carry out its full functions when it acquires them;

    (b) imposing on the old Council a duty to give such assistance to the new Council as the new Council may reasonably require to help it to carry out its full functions when it acquires them.

    (3) The National Assembly may make an order under this paragraph at any time before the day on which the new Council acquires its full functions.
    14. At any time before the day on which the new Council acquires its full functions, section 30(2) has effect as if for "10" there were substituted "2".
    15.—(1) The new Council must discharge a duty which satisfies the following three conditions.
    (2) The first condition is that the duty arises under—

    (a) section 8(6)(a) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (report on further education for disabled students), or

    (b) paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 to that Act (accounts).

    (3) The second condition is that the duty arises in respect of a period ending before the appointed day.
    (4) The third condition is that apart from this Act the duty—

    (a) would have fallen to be discharged by the old Council after the appointed day, or

    (b) fell to be discharged by the old Council before the appointed day but has not been discharged.

    16. If an order under section 8(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 confers or imposes a function on the old Council, on or after the appointed day the order is to be treated as if—

    (a) it were made under section 43(4) of this Act, and

    (b) it conferred or imposed the function on the new Council.").

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 114 [Orders and regulations]:
    Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 251:
    Page 52, line 41, leave out ("section 18(4) or 89(1)(c)") and insert ("any provision of this Act other than section 112(4) or 116(1)").
    The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I move this amendment and speak also to Amendments Nos. 252 to 257. I speak also to those amendments in the names of other noble Lords.
    The Bill provides for delegated powers only when necessary to ensure that administrative arrangements are sufficiently flexible to respond to changing circumstances. Most of the provisions for delegated legislation follow closely the model for existing legislation. Where there are new provisions on individual learning accounts and joint inspection, we have provided illustrative regulations for the House to consider.
    The department proposed Amendments Nos. 251 and 255 in its memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in order to provide appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of delegated provisions. The committee agreed that this amendment was necessary. In its report it said that the department had demonstrated,
    "sensitive appreciation and application of the criteria to govern the use of delegated legislation".
    Amendment No. 252 is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 68, which was withdrawn by the noble Baroness. I hope that she will do likewise with this amendment.
    I am grateful for the close scrutiny that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has paid to all aspects of this Bill. I am pleased to confirm that the effects of the amendments in her name and that of her noble friend Lord Roberts, Amendments Nos. 253, 254 and 256, are included within the more comprehensive government amendments to Clause 114. With that assurance, I hope she will conclude that Amendments Nos. 253, 254 and 256 are unnecessary and that she will not move them.
    Amendment No. 257 would make the use of delegated powers by the National Assembly for Wales subject to the annulment procedure of this Parliament. Delegated legislation relating to Wales is a matter for the National Assembly, not this House, and therefore the effect of Amendment No. 257 would run counter to the devolution policy of the Government of Wales Act. For that reason I hope that that particular amendment will not be moved. I beg to move.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 252 to 254 because of pre-emption.
    Baroness Blatch: I am grateful that my own amendment has been subsumed. I take it that regulations relating to joint inspections will be subject to the annulment procedure. My noble friend cannot be with us this evening. Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 are in his name. I understand from what the Minister has just said that they too are subsumed and therefore become otiose.
    My noble friend has asked me to record that the noble Lord has struck a blow for Parliament with these amendments, providing that statutory instruments relating to orders and regulations made under,
    "any provisions of this Act",
    with two understandable exemptions, are subject to annulment and that they must include the provisions relating to Wales, such as they are.
    Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 in the name of my noble friend specify that an order made by the National Assembly under Section 43(4) or Section 89(2)(c) is subject to this parliamentary annulment procedure. My noble friend believes that the noble Lord had divined his purpose. My noble friend has therefore asked me not to move his amendments.
    I want to make it absolutely clear that, given that this is a reserve power to the National Assembly, nevertheless we have taken upon ourselves that it will be this Parliament that not only determines primary legislation, but which will also have powers to annul the regulations. That seems to me to be at odds with what devolution to Wales really means.
    Lord Bach: Perhaps I may make it clear. I obviously was not clear enough before. As regards Amendment No. 253 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts,

    1427
    that is subsumed. But Amendment. No. 257 would make the use of delegated powers by the National Assembly for Wales subject to the annulment procedure of this Parliament. That cannot happen under delegated legislation because that legislation relating to Wales is a matter for the National Assembly and not for this House. Therefore, if we were to accept that amendment—I am grateful that the noble Baroness is not seeking to move it—it would run counter to the Government of Wales Act. I hope that that is a sufficient answer for the noble Baroness.
    Baroness Blatch: I am not sure now. I shall have to confer with my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. Like me, my noble friend understood that the annulment powers were being given to this Parliament. Therefore, he thought that Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 would, in that sense, be otiose. If they are not, then my noble friend might not have wished to withdraw them. Unless the Minister can offer some further clarification, we shall have to read what he said before making a decision.
    Lord Bach: We look forward to returning to this point on Report if the noble Baroness and her noble friend think it worth raising again. However, perhaps we may be able to discuss the matter before then so that we do not waste the time of the House.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out to the Committee that, if the following amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 256 because of pre-emption.
    Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 255:
    Page 52, line 43. leave out ("section 93 or 94") and insert ("any provision of this Act").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 257 not moved.]
    Clause 114, as amended, agreed to
    Clause 115 agreed to.
    Schedule 9 agreed to.
    Clause 116 [Commencement]:
    Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment 258:
    Page 53, line 12, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 117 and 118 agreed to.
    In the Title
    [Amendment No. 259 not moved.]
    House resumed. Bill reported with amendments.

    Business
    Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I am extremely grateful that Members of the Committee accepted my earlier suggestion that the
    1428
    Committee stage should finish by 8 p.m. I see from the Clock that we have slightly overrun that time, but never mind.
    As consideration in Committee of the Learning and Skills Bill is now complete, this evening's Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour available for business in the dinner break; instead a limit of one-and-a-half hours now applies. This change does not affect the time allocated to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, or to my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, but it increases the time available to each of the other speakers from six to nine minutes. However, if noble Lords have prepared six-minute speeches and prefer to avoid the inconvenience of extending them at such short notice, I am sure that that would attract no criticism.

    Northern Ireland
    8.3 p.m.
    Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
    What plans they have to ensure the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland.
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an appropriate time to be having this debate. It was originally my intention to discuss and examine the maintenance of law and order after devolution and the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. However, sadly, we are not in that position. Most of the problems still remain and some are more serious and difficult than they might otherwise have been.
    I am sure that there are many noble Lords who, like me, took the view that the IRA would never disarm. Those who are familiar with Irish history—or those, like me, who have recently been catching up on it—will know that disarming would be next to impossible for the IRA hard core. However, it has been right for successive governments to attempt to find a way through republican intransigence and, furthermore, to test their resolve. My party totally supports the action taken by the Secretary of State to suspend the executive and all other associated institutions. It is now abundantly clear that disarming was never on the IRA agenda. But, in my opinion, the peace process is by no means dead.
    The republican "hawks" have now shown their hand. But there is no reason why the nationalist and republican community should not embrace the democratic process. After all, Sinn Fein is a legitimate, democratic political party. Let it act as such, without the overt support of the gunmen. A very large percentage of the nationalist and republican electorate, both north and south, have voted for peace. In a recent Irish Times poll I believe the percentage was as high as 90 per cent.
    Devolved democratic government, with power sharing, is what the populations both north and south want for Northern Ireland. However, the security situation today is still critical. IRA guns are silent, but for how long? We hope for a long time. There are still

    1429
    dissident groups at large who are not on ceasefire and have no allegiance to any particular group or party. They are, in fact, their own masters and uncontrollable. The terrorist threat is still as real as ever, if not greater. I wonder how effective our intelligence gathering has been over the past few months. Are we still on top of the military and intelligence game? I hope so, though I do not expect the noble Baroness to respond to that question.
    In his Statement of 19th January, the Secretary of State said that he would bring forward legislation to implement the Patten report later in this Session. I suggest that full implementation of that report at this stage would be very difficult. I am not sure, but I think he is probably regretting that Statement. However, 80 per cent of Patten's recommendations, or perhaps rather more, are purely about good, modern policing and are not in any way contentious. Indeed, they have been accepted by the Chief Constable himself. But they are very expensive. Can the Minister say whether this programme of modernisation—for that is what it really is—has been costed? If so, will she confirm that the Treasury has agreed to fund it and tell us over what period?
    Is the noble Baroness aware that there are still parts of the Province where normal policing cannot take place, where communities are terrorised by armed gangs, where extortion is still commonplace and where expulsion and punishment beatings are a regular occurrence? I should make the point here that this sort of criminal activity is not confined to any one person or group; indeed, it may not even be attributable to any of the paramilitaries currently on ceasefire. There is, of course, the odd incident of "house-keeping".
    Is this the time to start cutting the strength and capability of the police force? The answer is clearly no. No risks must be taken with security at this time. That applies to the RUC as much as to the military. I suggest that now is the time to begin implementing the modernisation and training programme. Now is not the time to be making cuts and taking other actions such as changing the name of this fine force—an action with which we totally disagree and which might reduce the overall morale and efficiency of the RUC.
    Is the noble Baroness also aware that there is a serious and increasing drug problem in the Province? For example, in the country town of Ballymena—just down the road from where I live—which has a population of 56,000, there is estimated to be 1,500 heroin addicts and at least 10 pushers within the town? I am sure that I do not need to explain to noble Lords the associated crime that that brings with it, to say nothing of the misery and the unhappiness.
    Furthermore, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Treasury is losing £250 million a year from smuggling across the border to avoid fuel tax. Of course, it takes place in no man's land, in difficult areas for policing. It might tread on the toes of the paramilitaries. The drug racketeers are mainly linked to the Protestant communities and the paramilitaries and the smuggling is mostly in the border areas, as I said.
    Another part of the Patten report deals with recruitment. Again in his Statement in another place the Secretary of State admitted that the shortfall in Catholic members in the RUC was not entirely due to the name and to the hat badge. I suggest that there is probably only one major reason for the difference—that is, intimidation. I believe that if the paramilitary parties and Sinn Fein were unequivocally to join the democratic process and recommend to their constituents to support and to join the national police force, the nationalist community would be proportionally represented in a matter of a few months.
    However, today if a member of the nationalist community joins the police force, he immediately endangers not only himself but his whole family. He is probably forced to move his home and to leave his wife and family or whatever. He would certainly not be allowed by the gunmen to police his own patch, which surely is what community policing is about. So much for community policing in local areas.
    I suggest that the paramilitaries on all sides have a vested interest in an emasculated police force. In the light of Patten and the present situation, will Her Majesty's Government give an undertaking that policing efforts will be stepped up to meet the current increase in drugs and drug-related crime, extortion, intimidation, smuggling and other forms of violent crime and that in no way at this time will the RUC be emasculated?
    In conclusion, although the political situation is very finely balanced, all is not lost. The initiative is still with those who want peace—that is, with the supporters of the Belfast agreement. However, a wrong or clumsy move could be very dangerous. There must be no acceptance of equivalence between legally-held and illegally-held arms. Any changes to security should only be made commensurate with the level of the terrorist threat. We wish the Secretary of State and the Government good fortune during the next weeks.
    8.12 p.m.
    Lord Dubs: My Lords, I was very interested to hear the noble Lord's comments. I agree with the broad thrust of what he said, but I take issue with his suggestion that the IRA will never decommission. All of us who want the Belfast agreement to work—we see it as the only peaceful way forward for Northern Ireland—cannot conceive that all parts of that agreement will not be implemented. By saying that they never will be implemented, the noble Lord is rather encouraging those who do not want to decommission. I prefer to take the view that all parts of the agreement have to be implemented and that all paramilitary organisations have to decommission.
    It is, of course, bitterly disappointing that devolution has failed so far. I hope that it is a very short failure and that devolved institutions will soon return. For the people of Northern Ireland, life is now incomparably better than it was some years ago. They are able to lead mainly normal lives, mainly peaceful lives—the kinds of lives that we have taken for granted in Britain for years and years.

    1431
    Part of that improvement has been as a result of the reduction in the level of the security forces consistent with the lower threat. There are, for example, now under 15,000 Army personnel on operational duties, except in the marching season when we have had to increase them; 26 Army bases and installations have been closed; 102 cross-border roads have now been reopened; the Castlereagh holding centre is to close, and so on. These changes have taken place because the Chief Constable and the other advisers to the Secretary of State on security matters have felt it appropriate that the level of the security forces could be reduced.
    It is a very sensitive time. We have to be careful about what we say because the situation is so delicate. We do not want to say anything which might in any way encourage people who do not want to move forward peacefully.
    The noble Lord spoke about cuts. Certainly I would be surprised if there were to be any cuts in the security forces other than those appropriate and consistent with the level of the threat at any point in time. There are, of course, still threats. The Continuity IRA is a threat and there are other small paramilitary groupings which have not adopted the peaceful course.
    I think that the main thrust of the debate this evening will be about policing. I have always understood that good policing depends on the consent, the support and the co-operation of the public. That has always been the view expressed to me by the Metropolitan Police in London. The difficulty that the RUC faces is that it does not get that full consent throughout Northern Ireland. Yes the majority of people there believe that policing is carried out in their interests—but that view is held by a larger percentage of Protestants than of Catholics. There are some disturbingly low figures among certain parts of the Catholic population, mainly in the poorer parts of the inner cities where support for the police is disappointingly low. This is all quoted in detail in the Patten report.
    When the RUC has to operate in a situation where it does not get that support, its task is made much more difficult. I do not believe that it will be easy to get the support of Sinn Fein politicians, but I believe that the broad majority of nationalist politicians will come round to being more positive in their support of policing in Northern Ireland. Clearly we want to achieve a position where nationalist politicians are happy to encourage young members of their communities to make their careers in the RUC. That has not been the case up until now; it is highly desirable that it should be.
    It is also desirable that all communities in all parts of Northern Ireland should see the police as their police force and feel that members of their community are properly represented in its ranks. If we can achieve that and the support of all the main political parties, that would indeed make the task of policing easier, more efficient and certainly more satisfactory for the members of the police force.
    I believe that the Patten report will help to achieve those aims. That is not for one second to detract from the courage of the RUC over many years and the
    1432
    enormous sacrifices that it has made over many years. It is consistent with our regard for the RUC and our appreciation of what it has done to say, "Yes, changes have to happen". Incidentally, I think the RUC has had the most excellent leadership under the present Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan. He is probably the best Chief Constable Northern Ireland has ever had. He is certainly an excellent police officer.
    I understand the police reservations about the Patten report. When I was a Minister I visited a number of RUC stations to discuss with police officers what they thought of it. I am bound to say that they were very critical and they were unhappy about some of the recommendations. They were broadly content with most of them, but there were some—we know what they are; the name, the badge and so on—about which they certainly were not happy. However, I still got the impression that quite a few RUC officers would reluctantly acquiesce in the changes if they were convinced that the aims spelled out by Patten could be achieved—in particular, getting more Catholics to join the police. If they were convinced that those aims could be achieved, they would acquiesce in the changes. They are police officers who obey orders and who do what is expected of them by the political leadership.
    I have the strong impression that today the RUC is even handed in its approach to both communities. That may not have been true many years ago and I suspect that some of the criticisms currently made of the police in Northern Ireland reflect the reality of long ago rather than that of policing today. Some surveys indicate that people feel that the police in their immediate neighbourhood are policing far more in their interests than the police in Northern Ireland overall. In other words, the local police whom they know are treated with greater respect than those whom they do not know in some distant part of Northern Ireland. That suggests to me that the RUC is beginning to get it right. Of course, every police force includes some bad apples; we know that from London. But the whole of the RUC should not be condemned because there are perhaps a few bad apples today and because of what happened many years ago, when the RUC itself has gone to a good deal of trouble to make changes.
    To be an effective force, it is important that the RUC accepts the need for change. I believe that it does so and that it agrees that many of the Patten recommendations are uncontroversial. Indeed, some of them were being implemented by the Chief Constable even before the Patten report came out. I am confident that the overall thrust of the Patten report will be to create a force in which individual police officers can give of their professional best in the interests of achieving better policing for all the people of Northern Ireland. That is surely the best way forward.
    8.21 p.m.
    Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, one of the few agreeable prospects arising out of the sad events of the past week or so is that your Lordships may be able to

    1433
    hope for the return one day to his rightful place at the Dispatch Box of the noble Lord who has just sat down. It is a pleasure to follow him, particularly in the remarks he made which, if my memory serves me right, follow quite closely the findings of chapter four of the Patten report on local reactions to the RUC. The conclusions he came to seem to mirror a good deal those I reached, but not entirely the conclusions reached by my right honourable friend as the originator of the report. It seems to me, as I believe it seemed to the noble Lord, that if the local nationalist and Catholic populations fiercely defend the even-handedness, from their own experience, of their own local RUC forces, but nevertheless come to the conclusion that the remainder of the RUC is biased, they have bought the party line about the whole force but rejected it in so far as it applies to them.
    Like the noble Lord, I take comfort from that idea, but it emphasises also the importance of the point made by my noble friend Lord Glentoran about the important part played by intimidation in preventing the recruitment of Catholics to the force. I believe that your Lordships should be extremely grateful to my noble friend for raising the Question this evening.
    We all know that the policing of Northern Ireland has always made different demands on the police force there from those made, for instance, on the Metropolitan Police and certainly those made on the police in my own home county of Dorset. All of us had, of course, hoped that it might be possible from now on for policing to be carried out in a much more conventional fashion. In spite of those hopes, all of us who know a little about the Province—I know far less than most noble Lords who are to speak in the debate—know that 30 years of terrorism have forged a close interdependence between terrorists and organised crime. I believe that I am right in saying that in many cases terrorists have become organised criminals in order to finance their own operations and, indeed, to exercise control over their own supporters in their strongholds.
    Even if the Government succeed in their efforts, which we all hope they will, the police in Northern Ireland will still have to deal with that problem. For a little while at least, that will require a police force equipped to do so. As both speakers so far have observed, sadly, but almost horribly predictably, this week peace seems a more delicate flower than ever. Most of the terrorist groups on both sides of the sectarian divide have not broken their ceasefire. However, it is clear that that position may not last. It is equally clear that the Provisional IRA in particular is still knee-capping and beating in its strongholds and that it has used the past two years to recruit, retrain, target, and indeed, as certain recent captures have proven, to rearm. In the face of that, we continue to release its most experienced terrorists from gaol.
    As my noble friend suggested, this is hardly the time to deprive the RUC of its full anti-terrorist capability. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, all of us, including, I believe, the RUC itself, welcome the overwhelming majority of the Patten report. However,
    1434
    it seems to me—and, I believe, many others—that parts of the report would, if implemented, seriously undermine the anti-terrorist effectiveness of the RUC at a time when we may still need it and need it in spades. That includes those recommendations which seem to be most hostile to its esprit de corps. Of course, we should prefer the RUC not to be a paramilitary force and, indeed, essentially it is not one. Nevertheless, although I have never been a soldier, I gather strongly from friends and relations who have that, if one is under fire, symbols become more, rather than less, important. I suggest that that would apply to the RUC as much as to any other body which professionally is likely to find itself either blown up or shot.
    When I said that "we may still need it", I used the word "we" advisedly. In that "we" I include not only the population of the Province—obviously—but also the population of Great Britain, which has relied increasingly on the RUC over the past 30 years as perhaps its first line of defence against terrorists. There is one other consideration which perhaps we should not forget—and nor should others. It is perfectly possible, if—God forbid—we return to conflict that the people of the Republic may find themselves in the firing line as well. Under those circumstances, it seems at least possible to those of us—including all Members of the House who take an interest in these matters—who recognise that there are terrorists on both sides of the divide, that so-called loyalists could be tempted once again, as they have been previously, to retaliate by going south of the border. The RUC has a function in that respect as a first line of defence not only for all of us but also for our friends south of the Irish border.
    For all those reasons, I hope the Government will postpone implementing those parts of the Patten report which seem likely to undermine anti-terrorist capability until we can at least be certain that terrorist groups on both sides of the divide have, like the rest of the political parties in these islands, given up the Armalite for the ballot box.
    8.28 p.m.
    Lord Hylton: My Lords, I begin from the premise that law and order in Northern Ireland—and, to some extent, in the Republic—depend on agreement and harmony between the British and Irish Governments and between their police, security and legal agencies on the ground. That holds good whether one is considering terrorism, drugs, cattle, fuel—which has been mentioned—money or the many other sources of temptation.
    I move from that statement of the perhaps blindingly obvious to two particular small projects of much importance to Northern Ireland. Here I declare my non-financial interest as President of NIACRO. The first project is known as Base 2. This organisation is necessary because, as has already been indicated, punishment beatings, shootings and expulsions continue, from both loyalist and nationalist sources. Base 2 has techniques for evaluating threats to individuals, to discover whether they are real or imaginary. It has means to forestall violence. It

    1435
    provides effective assistance in conjunction with other agencies to actual victims, and it can sometimes reconcile families and provide continuing channels of communication. If Base 2 ceased to function tomorrow, it would be necessary to reinvent it, given the facts of the current situation.
    The second item is the theory and the practice of local community restorative justice. I am glad to say that several such projects are now functioning and I have visited two of them in Belfast, on either side of the peace line. The do not operate in competition with police work—that is most important—but are fully complementary to it. They provide real alternatives to paramilitary rough justice and can prevent crime; for example, in cases of disputes between neighbours. Their greatest importance is perhaps in dealing with all sorts of anti-social behaviour and minor crime. They do, for instance, bring perpetrators and victims together in a face to face way. They can achieve reparation or restoration of the harm or damage done in ways not always possible to the police, probation or social services. They can reduce very substantially the time taken between the commission of an offence and the resolution of its consequences. This may, and often does, give a huge boost to local community morale.
    I do urge Her Majesty's Government to study the actual workings of the two types of scheme I have mentioned. I believe they will learn a lot from them. They may save some money and will probably end up in the long run with a better criminal justice system. The information gained may well have implications for other situations outside Northern Ireland.
    8.32 p.m.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is no reflection on the importance which I attach to the initiatives mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I do not follow him down that line. I thank my noble friend Lord Glentoran for initiating this debate on the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland. The debate is timely because it comes in a week in which the Belfast Telegraph has drawn attention to some alarming developments. In the first place it speaks of,
    "a spate of hijackings and bomb hoaxes in Lurgan and Waringstown".
    It comes in a week in which the M.1 motorway westbound was closed for five hours by a deliberate hoax suggesting that barrel bombs had been left in a culvert and a week in which three bomb warnings were received in Omagh. That is before one looks at the continuing pattern of so-called punishment beatings, which in the past have included crucifixions as well as other hideous physical assaults and, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne mentioned, banishment orders and all the other paraphernalia of terrorism of this kind.
    I want to ask some questions of the Minister who is to reply. I have not been able to give her notice of them and I shall quite understand if, as she is not a Northern Ireland Minister, she is not able to answer them today. I shall of course be happy if she writes to me about them.
    1436
    May we know now, or later if need be, how many of these so-called punishment beatings have been inflicted in the latest period? Can we know whether or not there is substance in the fears expressed in the Belfast Telegraph that the North Armagh Brigade of the IRA, which has long held a hideous reputation for ruthlessness, has defected to the Continuity IRA? Is it not the case that in the past week the Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan—I interpose here my warm endorsement of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about his qualities—has publicly stated that the threat from terrorist groups remains very real and that the terrorists have not reduced their capability, in his words, "by one iota"?
    Does the noble Baroness agree that it is dismayingly significant that the pattern which I have illustrated should occur even though military patrols and helicopter flights in south Armagh have been reduced by 50 per cent and, as I understand it, security force patrols throughout the whole of Northern Ireland have been reduced by 75 per cent, so that only a quarter of the intensity that obtained before the Good Friday agreement was made is now being operated? I should be grateful if there could be confirmation—not necessarily now—of those factual assertions.
    I used the words "even though" because we had all been given to understand that the commitment by republicans to peaceful methods was contingent on reductions in security force activities and presence. Yet here there has been this very significant reduction in an area of particular danger and sensitivity, and "not one iota" of a reduction in the terrorist threat and capability has been made in reciprocation. It seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that this is another example of the first jump not being reciprocated. It is absolutely essential—I should be greatly obliged if the noble Baroness would indicate that she concurs with this—that the Chief Constable, who is, after all, the Secretary of State's principal security adviser, should feel under no political pressure whatever to reduce the RUC's capability in protecting the public from terrorism. May we have an assurance on that tonight, because it really does not require research, and may we have with it a parallel assurance that, if the Chief Constable were to report that he now needs to have a wider operational deployment of his resources, no impediment from Ministers would be put in his way, however delicate the political or so-called peace process situation might at that time be?
    Do the Government still stand by the assurance—I am sure they do, but it needs to be reiterated—given by the noble Baroness in the House on 19th January of this year that:
    "There will be no question of rushing forward with changes [in police strength] in the absence of a stable security environment"?—[Official Report, 19/1/2000; col. 1176.]
    Is it not clear, in the opinion of the Government, that at present we do not have such a stable security environment?
    Lastly, I echo what my noble friend Lord Cranborne said at the beginning of his remarks. I assure the noble Baroness that what I am about to say is absolutely no reflection on her, merely a reflection

    1437
    on the needs of the lamentable position that now obtains in Northern Ireland. Is it not now clear that we need once again a Northern Ireland Minister to deal with Northern Ireland affairs in this House—valiantly though the noble Baroness attempts, in a very difficult position, to fill that role? It is to be hoped that that Minister will be the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
    8.40 p.m.
    Lord Rogan: My Lords, I hope I have prepared no more than a six-minute speech. I shall certainly try to deliver a speech no longer than that.
    I suggest to your Lordships that the unsettled circumstances of Northern Ireland as a result of the suspension of the Executive make it absolutely imperative that the Government proceed with the utmost caution on how they move on law and order issues in Northern Ireland. Events in Northern Ireland over the past few days should indeed cause those responsible for law and order to proceed with caution.
    The Sinn Fein/IRA decision to disengage from further talks with General de Chastelain and their refusal to interface with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning by withdrawing their representative and taking off the table their propositions put to the IICD since November show how dangerous it is to take progress for granted in Northern Ireland.
    The police service in particular faces great uncertainty as a result of the Patten report—a report which not only failed to acknowledge the singular sacrifice that that heroic force has made over 30 years but brutally recommended the disbandment of over 2,700 full-time reserve officers.
    There is much in the Patten report to commend it. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said, 80 per cent plus is not contentious. But, as ever, it is the process of transition, the management of change, which brings the greatest danger to society. We must not allow our desire for a solid peace to become desperation which clouds our judgment on how peace can best be preserved and protected.
    Over the past 30 years it has been the RUC which has prevented our degeneration into the civic chaos that the terrorists sought to bring down on our heads. Most fair-minded people in Ulster, from both traditions, recognise that fact. If we move too fast, we shall also introduce instability into our communities at the very time when people are looking to see that the stanchions of law and order are firmly anchored. Whether you are a supporter of the Belfast agreement, as I undoubtedly am, or against it, we all need to understand that only evil interests are served if the effectiveness and capability of the RUC or its successor in name—the Police Service of Northern Ireland—is undermined.
    The Secretary of State has promised that he will handle change "with sensitivity". But his recent announcement showed that little was being dropped from the original Patten recommendations. He may, therefore, want to show his sensitivity in relation to the
    1438
    RUC and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland by reducing the haste with which the Government are moving. We have asked an awful lot of the men and women of the RUC. We owe them a predictable and secure future, just as we are trying to make one for ourselves.
    I therefore urge the Government to take note of my advice and that of my colleagues: let the pace of change in the RUC not run ahead of the quality and transparency of the peace.
    8.44 p.m.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the IRA has refused to join in the current review and has withdrawn its representative and the so-called,
    "propositions put to the de Chastelain Commission since November".
    It said categorically in November, after appointing him, that it had never contemplated and would never discuss decommissioning. Its proposition appears to have been (since we still do not know what was said),
    "a comprehensive process to put arms beyond use in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict".
    That is IRA-speak for the withdrawal of all British forces from Northern Ireland, the dismantling of border posts, the disarming and emasculation, or better still abolition, of the RUC and the ending of emergency measures and Diplock courts. All that is to be done before a small band of unelected men, in Mr Bruton's phrase, who hold no mandate from the people, north or south, may graciously agree to hand over, on terms of absolute amnesty, perhaps a tiny portion of their large stores of Semtex to the independent commission for destruction. (The legislation, both north and south, requires destruction.)
    Senator Mitchell understood negotiation as it is practised in the west. For give, there must be take. Sinn Fein/IRA does not. It negotiates Leninist-style: there is no give. All it has done so far is hold the hope of decommissioning over the heads of successive governments, British, Irish and American, on condition that it first secures all its objectives. It acknowledges no commitment, and the sorry story of the return of the bodies of its victims, which reached the grand total of three bodies, is an example of its idea of bargaining.
    The Government have had the courage to call a halt to this endless blackmail. I hope that they will now stand firm. The very last thing that they must do is to say, "Perhaps if we move on reducing security, that might trigger a return to the commission or the conference table". All it will do is produce more demands and more of the formulae which everyone hopefully interprets as meaning decommissioning when they mean only the fixed intent of the IRA to produce a steady erosion of the power of the state to protect its citizens. The agreement called it normalisation.
    It is not possible to call the situation normal in a country where, since the agreement and up only to August last year—incidentally, I am glad that further

    1439
    figures have been asked for—the IRA had carried out 36 murders, 57 shootings and 55 beatings (matched by the loyalists, but at a lower level). Northern Ireland is a country where by August 1999, since the Belfast agreement, 440 men, women and children had been sent into exile by the paramilitaries—told overnight to leave their home, their job and their lives and never come back. As for the murders and mutilations of earlier years, I have seen for myself the tetraplegics and paraplegics of the Disabled Police Officers Association who, with their whole families, have been crippled emotionally ever since.
    Northern Ireland is a country where, according to the Rowe report of June 1998, intimidation of communities continues, paramilitary activity is at a high level and ordinary people feel threatened and are fearful of giving evidence or serving on a jury. The report said that there was a continuing need for the emergency provisions and that the time for normalisation of security arrangements and practices was not yet. The distinguished judge said that he had been urged by some to,
    "send a signal which would assist the peace process",
    by recommending repeal. He could not. Nor could he recommend either a reversion from the Diplock courts to trial by jury or the abolition of powers of arrest, search and seizure.
    The situation has not become better. Indeed, although greater powers were created after the Omagh bomb, it has not yet been possible to arrest and try those whom the Garda and the RUC know to be responsible because no witnesses can be persuaded to testify—a situation which the Irish Government also encountered in their efforts to bring the known IRA murderer of Garda Jerry McCabe to .justice.
    There are practical reforms of the RUC proposed in the Patten report, many of which, such as a new IT structure, had already been proposed by the police authority in earlier times. I hope that those will be pursued. I was partly reassured by the Secretary of State's statement that the Special Branch would be retained, but it will be a fatal mistake to shorten service there. Good sources take a long time to develop and they are not just parcels to be handed on to inexperienced handlers. Long-standing relationships are vital, especially in situations of danger where trust is all. I am deeply uneasy, too, at the proposal for a new police board to include 10 political appointments out of 19 members. Politicising the police is not only extremely dangerous but also folly. Nothing will work, because the judgments made will be partisan, not professional, and everything will leak.
    The Government have already withdrawn three battalions, closed 26 border posts and set out a programme of reform for the RUC which the Secretary of State has described as a process of change that will extend over several years. I hope that it does. It is the nature of both the Army and the RUC loyally to say in public that all is well. That is part of the difficult problem of morale and loyalty. But they have also said that the IRA has continued to train, recruit and re-arm. According to the Garda, those arms
    1440
    arrived by post at addresses of the Provisional IRA, not the Real IRA or Continuity IRA. We must rid ourselves of the splendid idea that these are splinter groups outside the control of the IRA: they are extremely useful surrogates which are brought into play whenever it seems useful to do so.
    Let us by all means get on with the practical reforms proposed in the Patten report, such as the new IT structure, but I hope that we shall go slow on what I call the "political proposals" such as the reform of Special Branch or changes in the police authority. Many such changes are proposed. I shall not go into the issue of the oath and the rest of it. However, I find it extremely difficult to comprehend why, when we are so ready to understand the IRA's feelings about symbols, surrender and all the rest of it, we are wholly unprepared to understand the feelings of ordinary people in Northern Ireland who treasure the name RUC and believe in the symbol. Incidentally, I believe that it is a fair symbol since it incorporates a shamrock as well as everything else.
    At the moment, I do not believe that it should be possible for the IRA to divide and rule by securing fresh support for action in the field of security, which is primarily a British interest, from the Irish Government. It has not yet become a serious problem for that Government. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, that could happen. It is disturbing that Mr Ahern can quote paragraphs 7 and 8 of a commission report, according to the Irish Times, and yet we still do not know officially what was said. Surely, the withdrawal of the IRA changes that. It demonstrates clearly that probably the Secretary of State was right to say that nothing of any consequence had been offered, only the old formula about looking at the causes of conflict. The IRA probably said it at great length but it does not constitute any move towards decommissioning.
    It is of the highest importance to stand firm and make no further concessions other than to proceed as far as possible with a great many practical steps that are non-political. I hope that a great deal more will be done for victims than has been done so far. There will be threats from the IRA; it will attempt to use the so-called splinter groups to send its messages. The Government are right and must keep their nerve and not blink first. The IRA does not represent the people; the Government do. The Government, therefore, have an absolute duty to retain security forces commensurate with the threat. We know that every member of the SDLP in the former Assembly and the Unionists believe that there is a threat to be faced. I do not understand the actions of the IRA in this context. Hitherto it has been extremely clever to move from the political to the violent phase of the struggle and back again. It does not understand that the more it threatens the stronger becomes the case for good security. I hope that one day it will come to understand that it is only weakening the case for normalisation and the prospect of all the political change that it so wishes for, which could legitimately come about if it kept its side of the bargain and events took their course over a number of years.

    1441
    We should strongly support the Government's courage and principle in this matter. I hope that, in their turn, they will not weaken and yield to the Irish Government who, for their own perfectly respectable reasons, want to be loved by Sinn Fein. That is not, however, a good enough reason for us to put the population of Northern Ireland at risk.
    8.54 p.m.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, events can move fast in Northern Ireland, as the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, well illustrates. It was originally intended for a week ago and concerned government policy following devolution but was postponed because direct rule was about to be reimposed. It has now been amended to reflect that. Events can move fast in Northern Ireland, but the situation remains stubbornly the same.
    It is timely to discuss the Government's future policy for the maintenance of law and order, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for initiating this debate. The debate has appropriately reflected the anxieties of the Unionist community. The views of nationalists have not been so clearly articulated, although both the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have emphasised the need for policing by consent which is a major theme of the Patten report.
    I fear that I shall strike a more pessimistic note than other noble Lords who have spoken so far tonight. The question in the minds of most people is: are events unfolding or unravelling? As I said when the House debated the Northern Ireland Bill last week, history shows that in Northern Ireland progressive initiatives, once they falter, have never recovered. I fear that unless devolution is restored within a matter of weeks, the Executive and Assembly will not be revived. As the days go by, the prospect of that unfortunate eventuality being realised increases almost at a compound rate.
    There are, however, those who harbour the desire for the status quo ante to be restored under direct rule. I do not believe that that is a tenable option. It is not just that the events of the past week unfortunately have occurred, but matters have been moving on long since. The nub of it is that it would be very undesirable if the Secretary of State wavered in his intention, stated recently, to implement most of the Patten report or altered his proposed timetable. If direct rule applies for an extended period and there are law and order disturbances—as almost certainly there will be— peppered with sporadic bombing outrages, a return to the former arrangements is neither a practical nor a political option, and may well be counter-productive.
    The Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, is fully capable of providing the required leadership to implement Patten, as I said in the debate which followed the Secretary of State's Statement on the Patten report. It is the best way to secure effective policing and to maintain security. If, as it turns out, there is to be an extensive period of direct rule, it will
    1442
    mean that once again the communal conflict in Northern Ireland is not, at this stage, soluble. In the words of Professor John Darby, an acknowledged expert on ethnic conflict and one of my former colleagues at the University of Ulster,
    "conflicts that cannot be solved have to be managed".
    To that end, it would help to serve the interests of peace in the long run if as many of the other proposals contained in the Good Friday agreement were pursued. I have already mentioned the need to implement most of the Patten report, but the cross-border bodies should be established together with the proposed human rights Bill, which has been signalled. That will help to nurture the climate necessary for policing by consent.
    Unless the political parties can come to an agreement so that devolution is restored very quickly, which is what the overwhelming majority of the people want, I predict that sooner rather than later direct rule will blend into either de facto or de jure condominium rule where Northern Ireland will be jointly administered, albeit reluctantly, by London and Dublin. If my pessimism turns out to be correct—I passionately hope that it does not—that is how the situation is likely to be best managed until a future generation feels able to accept the challenge of trying to achieve a lasting solution.
    9 P.m.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, sadly, the Question originally put by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was asked in happier times and, as he acknowledged, is now out of date.
    On Friday last the Secretary of State announced that he was suspending devolution in Northern Ireland in order to save the institutions from an uncontrolled, possibly fatal, collapse. All of us must join the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in hoping that this suspension will be short-lived.
    Until devolution is restored, all of the functions of the devolved administration will return to the Secretary of State. In the mean time—and indeed, even with devolution—responsibility for law and order rests almost entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. With regard to policing, he must exercise his powers to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service in consultation with the Chief Constable and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. He sets the legislative framework for policing and, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, he must set policing objectives, appoint the Police Authority, and approve the appointment of the Chief Constable.
    His objectives for policing in 1999–2000 cover countering the terrorist threat, maintaining public order, reducing the number of people killed and injured in road traffic accidents, and tackling the problem to which many noble Lords referred of drug abuse and drugs. These objectives are currently under review, not least to take account of the Patten report.

    1443
    On 19th January the Secretary of State announced in another place his decisions as regards implementation of the Patten report. Once in effect these reforms will change fundamentally the way Northern Ireland is policed.
    As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and other noble Lords acknowledged, and as the Chief Constable, described it, the vast bulk of the recommendations are simply about good and effective policing. Much of the report is designed to improve effectiveness and builds on changes the RUC itself had been pursuing. But some elements have caused great pain, in particular the decision to change the name and symbols. However, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, if the RUC is convinced that the aims can be achieved, it will reluctantly accept the pain that is genuine and for which we must show respect. The courage of the RUC in the face of terrible losses was immense and we must salute it.
    The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, indicated that some changes are straightforward and can be implemented at once. Others may require legislation. A Bill will be introduced before Easter.
    The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised issues about security dependent factors and the Patten proposals. Where changes are security dependent, the Secretary of State will be guided by the advice of the Chief Constable. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that the anti-terrorism capacity will not suffer from changes to the Special Branch. We are not reducing security measures as a bargaining counter. We are doing so as a response to a reduction in threat. No one wants enormous numbers of soldiers and police officers on the streets when the threat is low. This is a judgment of the Chief Constable and the GOC, not the Secretary of State.
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised the issue of the number of punishment beatings in the latest period for which information is. available. There has been a total of 384 paramilitary assaults since the signing of the agreement on 10th April 1998.
    As regards the North Armagh IRA defection to the Continuity IRA. the Government have no firm evidence to support this claim. However, the Chief Constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan—I should like to join noble Lords who have paid tribute to his dedication— has acknowledged that the threat is still very real. We agree that the threat from terrorism is still very real as demonstrated in recent days. The Government remain totally committed to maintaining vigilance against this threat.
    We understand the concern expressed about levels of patrolling, but I can assure noble Lords that the level of security activity throughout Northern Ireland is determined by the Chief Constable in direct response to the threat. I can give an assurance that no political pressure is exerted on the Chief Constable, nor will such pressure be exerted. Perhaps I may also give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, an assurance that if the Chief Constable seeks to make changes in
    1444
    deployment, or wishes to take on operational measures in response to the terrorist threat, the Government will support him fully in this. There is no question that security force strengths will be reduced except in response to a reduction in terrorist threat; and then only on the advice of the Chief Constable.
    The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised the issue of undermining the anti-terrorist capability. Changes will reflect reduction in threat and will be made in accordance with the advice of the Chief Constable. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, raised the issue of the likelihood of decommissioning ever happening. Decommissioning, like participation in devolved government, is a voluntary act. We cannot force anyone to hand in his weapons, or sit in government with anyone else. However, the Belfast agreement is clear: that as part of a political settlement all paramilitary arms must be decommissioned by May 2000. Prompt action is now needed to ensure that decommissioning can be completed on schedule in the context of the full implementation of the agreement. That, and only that, will restore cross-community confidence in the agreement.
    We are all agreed that the Good Friday agreement has to be implemented in full. The obligations on all sides have not changed. What we must all seek is a way forward to enable decommissioning to occur as soon as possible.
    The objectives of the Good Friday agreement included the setting up of the review of the criminal justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, referred to the wider environment in which we hope to achieve success. The review group has carried out a broad consultation exercise, taking evidence from statutory, voluntary and other bodies in order to ensure that any proposals have the support of community groups, the political parties, human rights groups and all members of the public. The report of that review is due to be published shortly.
    The current security situation—as noble Lords, in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, have said—is one in which we must all insist that the paramount concern is the safety of the community and the protection of the public against threats of violence. We all want to see a return to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. The Secretary of State announced on 3rd December a review of specific security arrangements, including various installations throughout Northern Ireland. This process will continue as the security situation allows.
    The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of the fight against drugs. Under devolution, responsibility for co-ordinating drugs misuse policy fell to the Assembly. During the suspension, the interdepartmental group is chaired by the Minister with responsibility for security. A five-year strategy, linked to a similar strategy in England and Wales, was launched in August 1999. We shall continue to combat drug misuse and the threat of drug smuggling.

    1445
    The five year strategy covers the same four key areas as the UK strategy, and a total of £5.5 million in additional resources was made available. The Northern Ireland Office continues to have a significant contribution to make to the co-ordination of drug misuse policy, especially in relation to policing and criminal justice issues.
    The RUC has a clear role to play in helping to achieve the objectives of the current drugs strategy, and that strategy will be pursued with vigour. Only last week the RUC seized the largest-ever amount of Ecstasy found in Northern Ireland. We deprecate smuggling, not only because of the loss of tax revenue, but also because of the power and influence it gives to the paramilitaries. We will continue to support the RUC and other agencies in combating it.
    The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised an issue to do with the Base 2 project, of which the noble Lord has great knowledge and with which he has worked very closely. We applaud the work undertaken by such groups, and are committed to restorative justice,
    1446
    believing that it offers an imaginative and reflective approach to dealing with some types of criminal and anti-social behaviour.
    In the context of devolution there has been very little change in the role and responsibility of the Secretary of State with regard to law and order. However, law and order is very much a part of the enormous programme of positive reform that flows from the Good Friday agreement and has built the principles of fairness and equality into the framework for every area of public life in Northern Ireland.
    In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for introducing this short debate, I join other noble Lords who paid tribute to the knowledge, experience and contribution of my noble friend Lord Dubs in Northern Ireland.
    The only assurance that I can give personally tonight is that I share my Government's total dedication to returning to Northern Ireland and its people, who we know want peace, a peaceful resolution to this problem.
    House adjourned at thirteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Steven John Hayden
  Steven John Hayden
  Statutory Instruments: Publication in Draft
  Statutory Instruments: Publication in Draft
  Human Rights Joint Select Committee
  Human Rights Joint Select Committee
  Lord Chancellor: Judicial Sittings
  Lord Chancellor: Judicial Sittings
  Law Officers: Appearances as Counsel in Court
  Law Officers: Appearances as Counsel in Court
  Organophosphates: Effects in Mice
  Organophosphates: Effects in Mice
  Arable Area Payments Scheme: Field Margins
  Arable Area Payments Scheme: Field Margins
  Custodian of Enemy Property Palestine: Report
  Custodian of Enemy Property Palestine: Report
  Boundary Commission: Forthcoming Review
  Boundary Commission: Forthcoming Review
  Charity Commission Annual Report
  Charity Commission Annual Report
  Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Hereditary Peers: Voting Rights
  Hereditary Peers: Voting Rights
  NHS Charge Increases
  NHS Charge Increases
  Hospital Patient Resuscitation Guidelines
  Hospital Patient Resuscitation Guidelines
  Department of Health Expenditure Limit
  Department of Health Expenditure Limit
  Regional Eurostar Services
  Regional Eurostar Services
  Merchant Shipping Regulations
  Merchant Shipping Regulations
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Civil Service and Public Sector Employee Numbers
  Civil Service and Public Sector Employee Numbers
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Conservative Party Tax Policy
  Conservative Party Tax Policy
  Spoliation Advisory Panel
  Spoliation Advisory Panel