Sitting of 22 February 2000

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

    GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 29 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Higher Education
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What representations he has received from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment regarding Scottish higher education students studying in England and Wales. [109584]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friends have discussions from time to time on a range of matters.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for that illuminating reply. Does he agree that the compromise that has been reached with the Scottish Executive is confusing, because students in Scotland will have to repay some of their tuition fees at the end of their courses if they study in Scotland, whereas if they study in England they will have to pay all the fees up front? English students will be discouraged from going to Scottish universities because, unlike their Scottish counterparts, they will have to pay all their fees up front if they study in Scotland, and they will be even further discouraged because Scottish universities have four-year rather than three-year courses. Does the Minister agree with Mr. Brian Monteith, the Scottish Tory education spokesman, that the whole system is chaotic and causes discrimination?
    Mr. Wilson: It is not within my power to dictate what confuses the hon. Gentleman and what does not. What clearly confused him was finding the name of the Tory education spokesman in Scotland. For future reference, it is Monteith with an "o".
    1354
    The hon. Gentleman makes a poor point. There has always been a difference between the education systems in England and Scotland. There have always been four-year honours degree courses in Scotland. If he is confused now, he was presumably confused in the past and will be confused in the future. As for the different funding arrangements, that is what devolution is about. There are two different routes to the same goal, which is to get more money and more people from less well-off backgrounds into higher education. The Tories dismally failed to achieve those two goals in 18 years.
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Conservative party opposed devolution in Scotland and continues to oppose the settled will of the Scottish people? Does he further agree that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament are free to make decisions on behalf of their constituents without the interference of Conservative Members of this House?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive decide to make additional or different arrangements that incur greater costs, they have the right to pay for that from the block grant. That is what devolution is about. I repeat that we have two objectives: to get more money into higher education, and we are doing that to the tune of £58 million this year, which is a 10 per cent. increase; and to get more people from less well-off backgrounds into higher education—40 per cent. of those from Scotland going into higher education do not pay a penny in tuition fees, no matter where they go. Those are the objectives that we shall continue to pursue.
    Mr. John Swinney: Has the Minister or the Secretary of State for Scotland made any representations to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and to the Treasury about addressing the consequences of abolishing tuition fees for Scottish students at English and Welsh institutions? If so, have Ministers in the Scotland Office been privy to the legal opinion obtained by the Scottish Executive that sets out the legal position on this matter?
    Mr. Wilson: As I said, we have wide-ranging discussions, and all aspects of funding are part of the continuing discussions between the Secretary of State and his colleagues and myself and my colleagues. We also have access to all legal opinions offered to the Scottish Executive on such matters, which clearly have reserved implications.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Minister talks about the settled will of the Scottish people, but I am sure that he has seen the poll in today's edition of The Scotsman, which shows a decline in support for devolution and a rise in support for those who wish to get rid of the Scottish Parliament altogether and for those who want independence. Is not the reason for such a decline in support for devolution the fact that people are mystified by the confusion that has crept in precisely in areas such as education?

    1355
    The Minister has never given a clear answer as to why the Scottish Executive is prevented from enabling Scottish students at English universities to have the same regime as those who are studying in Scotland. Will he make it clear what the reason is, or will that confusion remain? Does he agree that it is precisely that confusion that makes people disinclined to favour the present devolution settlement?
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman sets an interesting psephological puzzle. If, as he claims, support for his party's position on these issues is on the increase in Scotland, it is truly remarkable that support for his party continues to be on the decrease in Scotland to the point of statistical insignificance.
    On the issue of Scottish students in England, there are two different systems for funding students. As I said, 40 per cent. of Scottish students, no matter where they study, will pay nothing in tuition fees. Those who pay tuition fees in England have the right to deferred repayment. I repeat that our goals are to put more money into higher education and to have more students from less well-off backgrounds. There are two different routes to those objectives: one in Scotland, one in England. That is not only devolution in practice, but putting principle into practice to widen the options and to improve the quality of higher education.

    Local Government Act 1986
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. [109607]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues relating to Scotland.
    Mr. Swayne: Does not this policy prove to parents throughout Scotland and, indeed, throughout the kingdom that the evangelist Pat Robertson may have been right after all? If Scotland is becoming a dark land, the right hon. Gentleman's policy is responsible. Is he aware of the fate of the cities of the plain?
    Dr. Reid: I do not think that I could have done better than the hon. Gentleman in illustrating why we needed to look again at section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. His views, and those of Mr. Robertson, gave rise to this, under the Thatcher Government.
    The issue is sensitive, and it should be dealt with in a sensitive fashion. It is also an extremely complex issue, on which there are strong feelings on all sides. The First Minister and the Scottish Executive are trying to find a sensitive and correct solution, but, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, let me make it clear that neither the Scottish Executive nor the United Kingdom Government seek to promote homosexuality in schools. That is not the intention of anyone in government, north or south of the border. An attempt is being made, however, to balance the protection of children in our schools and the assurance to every one of them that, in civil and criminal terms and in the eyes of God, they are of equal value with ensuring that we do not go to the other extreme, and allow the promotion of homosexuality.
    1356
    As I have said, the issue is complex and sensitive, and I am afraid that polarisation, and the language used sometimes by the hon. Gentleman and certainly by his hero Mr. Robertson, contributes not light but merely heat to the debate.
    Mr. John Maxton: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the cynical way in which the leader of the Scottish National party, having voted for the repeal of section 2A in the Scottish Parliament recently, now appears to be trying to gather support from those who oppose the repeal in the Ayr by-election? Is that not just another example of the SNP leader's apparent belief that any means justifies the end that he is trying to achieve?
    Dr. Reid: I do not want to make any personal remarks. The personalisation of politics seems to be the hallmark of the Scottish National party, and I prefer to leave it that way.
    I think that people will make their own judgment on what is apparently a matter of principle that has been overtaken by a Damascene conversion at the launch of a by-election in Ayr. They will decide whether decisions have been made in a profound and principled fashion, or whether they are the result of opportunism.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to take a great deal of notice of Mr. Robertson. Does he accept, however, that he really ought to take notice of Cardinal Winning? Has not Cardinal Winning spoken for many people, not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole, in voicing his real concerns?
    Why on earth bother with the section at all? It can only encourage the few predatory people who would cause great damage to many young and vulnerable people.
    Dr. Reid: Let me answer the first part of the question by saying that I have a profound respect for, and indeed friendship with, Cardinal Winning. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I was the first Secretary of State to honour the cardinal with a ceremony and a lunch here in his official capacity. He speaks for a great many people, and we take his views very seriously.
    As for the second part of the question, we have no intention of allowing anyone, whether predatory or otherwise, to promote homosexuality in our schools. We—and the First Minister and the Scottish Executive—are attempting to find a correct solution to a complex issue, having taken consultations into account and having listened to what people are saying.
    As the hon. Gentleman will understand, we are required not only to defend ourselves against those whom he mentioned who would proselytise and promote homosexuality, but to protect children in our schools—all children. Surely, all children are of equal value and equal worth. We have to allow those who care for those children, including the teaching profession, to be able to reassure them of that value and worth without the prospect of falling foul of the law.
    That is the profound and complex issue that we are trying to deal with. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he expressed his remarks. If many others did it in that fashion, rather than in the way that his

    1357
    colleague, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) did, we would probably make more progress on the matter.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement about the impact of the national minimum wage in Scotland. [109608]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The national minimum wage has brought substantial benefits to a large number of people throughout the UK, including Scotland, with no adverse effects on the economy. It is estimated that about 150,000 people in Scotland will benefit from the national minimum wage.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. On behalf of those 150,000 low-paid people in Scotland, may I welcome the recent announcement of the increase in the national minimum wage, which will improve the quality of life of many families in Scotland? I urge him to be tough on two groups who oppose the national minimum wage: first, the small number of Scottish businesses that continue to evade the procedures and legislation. Will he work with others to close those loopholes? Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, will he reserve no effort and no energy in being tough on the Conservative party, which continually opposes the national minimum wage in Scotland and which would have ensured that those 150,000 Scottish families had no national minimum wage whatever?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is correct. The national minimum wage, which is one of the most radical and beneficial changes brought about by the Government, was carried through in the teeth of opposition from the Tory party, with the Scottish National party standing aside, as usual, betraying the low paid in Scotland by refusing to turn up even to vote on the matter. We will be tough on those employers who refuse to implement the national minimum wage. It is of enormous benefit to people not only in his constituency, as he knows, but in a place—I just pluck somewhere out of the air—such as Ayr, where almost 1,000 low paid workers have had an increase. It is not something that they are sneering at, unlike the SNP.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State is right to say that the introduction of the minimum wage has had many beneficial effects, but will he concede that some groups of workers cannot take advantage of it over a year? I think of people such as school dinner staff, who, because of the way in which contracts are configured, are laid off for the long summer recesses.
    The Secretary of State will be aware that the ability of those people to claim jobseeker's allowance during the summer holidays is deadlocked between the Court of Session in Edinburgh and the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords in London. Will he work with his ministerial colleagues and others to change the regulations? At a stroke, they could be changed and those important staff could get access to JSA during the summer.
    Dr. Reid: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but, he will appreciate—in fact, he mentioned it—that the matter
    1358
    is sub judice. Court proceedings are taking place on the matter. As he will know, there have been several court decisions, not all entirely consistent, so we have to wait until the legal position is resolved. I would not want to say anything more than that while the legal proceedings continue.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that the action of national minimum wage enforcement officers has ensured that women employed at Chicony Electronics in Greenock now receive the national minimum wage and not the pitiful 96p an hour that they previously received? Does he agree that Scottish employers now have a duty to their employees to pay that minimum rate?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The national minimum wage is one example of how people's lives are being made better. Politics is not about charts on accountants' walls or graphs published in official statistics, but about ordinary people gaining benefit from their Government. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned is an example of that. The increase that he mentioned amounts to almost £3 an hour, which is £24 a day or £100 a week. With the other social justice measures that we are introducing—such as the working families tax credit, increase in child benefit, restoration of free eye tests to pensioners and the Christmas bonus—we are the first Government not only to pledge ourselves to combating and eradicating poverty, but to put our pledges on those matters into practice.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Given that the minimum wage has been introduced without detriment to the economy, is there not an unanswerable case to give a commitment to upgrade it annually in line with inflation or, preferably, with average earnings? Will the Secretary of State lobby his colleagues to give that commitment?
    Dr. Reid: Given the hon. Gentleman's absolute passion and commitment on the national minimum wage, I am rather surprised that he could not be bothered even to turn up and vote for it. When we were up all night fighting the Tories in the House on the minimum wage, he was absent. Therefore, I do not particularly want to take lessons from him on the matter. All I would say is that 150,000 people in Scotland will be substantially better off as a result of a measure passed by the Labour Government in the teeth of Tory opposition—when, once again, we looked around and found that the Tories' allies in failing to support the minimum wage were the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Scottish National party.

    Strategic Rail Authority
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What assistance he has given in establishing the Strategic Rail Authority; and what its impact will be in Scotland. [109610]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): The establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority is an important step forward in ensuring a co-ordinated oversight of railway services across the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the Strategic Rail Authority

    1359
    will administer all passenger rail franchises, including the making of franchise payments to the relevant train operating companies.
    Mr. Savidge: Will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that new rail franchises stipulate the maintenance and improvement of direct through train links between Aberdeen and London, and particularly the progressive upgrading of passenger and freight services on the neglected stretch between Aberdeen and Edinburgh?
    Mr. Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Labour colleagues in the north-east on their pursuit of that issue. I well remember, during opposition to privatisation, going to Aberdeen to make it clear that if privatisation and fragmentation proceeded, there would not be the same commercial incentive for the upgrading of the link between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. We shall have a Strategic Rail Authority that is able to intervene in those circumstances.
    Moreover, the Scottish Executive will be able to make directions to Railtrack. If Railtrack resists, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Transport will be able to adjudicate. We now have a structure within which it will be possible to pursue those objectives. We have also had to overturn the damage of rail fragmentation that was caused by the previous Government and that endangered the type of upgrading that my hon. Friend and I both want.
    Mr. Michael Moore: Does the Minister agree that one of the important functions of the Strategic Rail Authority will be to promote and re-introduce rail services through rural parts of Scotland? Does he welcome with me last week's report highlighting the fact that there is the possibility of a viable railway through the borders, connecting Edinburgh with England and the west coast main line? Will he work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in promoting that railway and in working with the SRA to ensure that that railway is one of its top priorities?
    Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman knows from my visits to the borders, I am very interested in, and attracted to, the proposition of restoring that link. He will also know that the Scottish Executive have been examining the matter and have expressed positive interest in the proposals. It is a very important project for the borders.
    Again, it would be for the Scottish Executive to make proposals to Railtrack. It would then be for Railtrack to respond, in consultation with the train operating companies. Ultimately, it would be for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to adjudicate on the matter, if that were necessary. The structure is in place, making it possible for us to go forward on those projects. The Tories sought to make doing that impossible by their fragmentation of the railways and by leaving it all to the free market.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: My hon. Friend will be aware that, despite recent improvements in the infrastructure, the rolling stock and the timetabling of rail services in Scotland, it is still not possible to travel from Ayr on the west coast to Edinburgh on the east coast in any time that rivals a direct road
    1360
    journey. In his discussions with the Scottish Executive, the strategic rail authority and Railtrack, will he stress the importance to the economy of the areas west and south of Glasgow of better east-west links and better access to the national rail network?
    Mr. Wilson: The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is cheering with particular enthusiasm as he wants a direct link between Ayr and Tynecastle. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) makes is exactly right. It is important that once again we are getting back to the concept of a united national rail network and a strategic framework for the development of the railways. The Scottish Executive has an important role in promoting rail services and working with the strategic rail authority to make exactly the improvements that we would like. My hon. Friend mentioned Ayr, so we should remember the important role of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive, working hand in hand with other authorities to achieve what Labour wants—an integrated public transport system.

  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Legislation
    Mr. James Clappison: How many Bills introduced in the Scottish Parliament she has considered; and on how many occasions she has advised that such Bills are not within the Parliament's competence. [109632]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Thus far, two Bills have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and I have not considered it necessary to refer either to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They are now the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000.
    Mr. Clappison: Although the hon. and learned Lady of course considers such matters in an entirely independent way, given the fact that, so far, she has not considered any Bills to be outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament and given the political composition of that Parliament, does she agree that one would not have to be a tremendous cynic to think it unlikely that any future Bills will be challenged in that way and that there is very little point to what she is doing?
    The Advocate-General: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's cynicism. He will remember that, in my position as Advocate-General, I have legal functions to exercise. As an advocate, I have been exercising legal functions for many years and I intend to continue using my independent legal judgment when I act as Advocate-General. We shall wait and see what happens when Bills are introduced.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's comments and they are not very illuminating. She mentions her other roles. She will be aware that she has a constitutional right to intervene in cases which might have a constitutional dimension north and south of the border. Why, for instance, did she not intervene in the cases of Starrs v. Procurator Fiscal and Clancy v. Caird, which have direct constitutional relevance to the United Kingdom because they concern the rights of temporary sheriffs to sit, which could have a knock-on effect south of the border? Did she not see it as part of her role to take a part in that, in view of its profound constitutional implications?
    The Advocate-General: The legal advice that I give as Advocate-General is confidential. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great respect for precedent in the House and for legal precedent, so I quote from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) the former Attorney-General in the previous Conservative Administration, who said, on 7 November 1996:
    "By convention, the fact of whether the Law Officers have advised on a given issue is not disclosed, nor is the substance of any advice which may have been given."—[Official Report, 7 November 1996; Vol. 284, c. 610W.]

    European Convention on Human Rights
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What representations she has received on the application of the European convention on human rights to the conditions in which trials in third countries take place. [109633]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I have received no such representations.
    Mr. Dalyell: Assuming that the trial at Zeist ever gets under way, do Ministers think that it should be televised?
    The Advocate-General: That is a matter entirely for the Scottish Executive, and in particular, the Lord Advocate in his role as independent prosecutor and the decisions that he makes in relation to that. The matter is also before the courts and is sub judice.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Circuit Judges
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: What systems there are for assessing the views of circuit judges on proposals to change the operation of Crown courts. [109637]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Whenever changes to the operation of the Crown courts are proposed, the views of the judiciary are sought through consultation, including the views of the Council of Circuit Judges.
    Mr. Grieve: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the Council of Circuit Judges has an important role to play in trying to ensure the smooth running of the court system and trying to minimise costs. Why then is it that the impression that one derives is that the council considers that on issues such as court layout, new court building and information technology, their representations to the Lord Chancellor's Department appear to be disregarded? Is it simply because the council is meant to be a mere focus group sounding board to be disregarded at will, or is it because the Government do not like the suggestions that it makes?
    Jane Kennedy: I cannot be held responsible for any impressions that the hon. Gentleman may form. The views of the Council of Circuit Judges, which is the body that represents the circuit bench, are taken very seriously. It is consulted by the Lord Chancellor and the Court Service on all proposed policy and operational changes relating to the courts.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. When the various proposals for the change in the operation of the Crown courts are considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department, will the Department take into account the change in format and procedure that will arise directly from the incorporation of the European convention on human rights on 2 October and ensure that the judges sitting in the Crown courts have been well tutored in the complex nature of the proposals and the various precedents and other cases that have been decided in the European courts, which will of course affect the running of our courts?
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and great efforts are being made to ensure that the judiciary and those responsible for administering the Court Service are well briefed on the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. Important as that legislation is in establishing the rights of individuals in this country, it does have major implications for all public agencies, including the Court Service.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Parliamentary Secretary must sometimes be embarrassed to defend the actions and attitudes of the Lord Chancellor. I wish to follow up the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Does she accept that it is a matter of profound concern if the Lord Chancellor gives the impression that he goes through the motions of receiving delegations from the judiciary, but that the judiciary feels that its views are simply being ignored and that all that is happening is a face-saving exercise? Increasingly, as one talks to people at all levels of the legal profession, the impression left by the Lord Chancellor is that he is contemptuous and dismissive of any representations that are made to him.
    Jane Kennedy: It is difficult to respond to generalised complaints such as those made by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). All I can say is that, for example, in the consultation on the transforming the Crown court project, more than 62 judges responded individually and six circuits responded collectively. Those responses will be

    1363
    considered along with the conclusions of various groups that have been organised to discuss that project, including the judicial focus group, the think tank and the case management working group. The recommendations of those groups and the individuals who responded will be brought together and a way forward approved by the trials issues group, the senior presiding judge and the Court Service. The views of the judiciary are sought in a range of ways, and those views are taken very seriously indeed by the Lord Chancellor.

    County Courts
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the closure of county courts in England. [109640]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I provided to a similar question from him on 12 January. The Court Service is committed to ensuring that it achieves value for money from its assets and properties and provides good services to its customers. It constantly reviews its estates in the light of work load trends, the state of the available facilities and local county court users' needs.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. She is aware that I have raised this subject from time to time. In her written answer to me of 25 January, she listed a number of county courts that are proposed for closure. I was pleased that the courts at Altrincham, Leigh and Tameside were not on that list. Can I take it from that that the Government have seen sense and decided not to proceed with the planned closure of those county courts? Do the Government now understand the vital service that those courts perform for the community?
    Jane Kennedy: A preliminary court-user survey has been conducted in the Manchester area, which includes the Altrincham, Leigh and Tameside county courts. Such surveys play a very important role in informing the decisions of the Court Service, and they are often a precursor to seeking the Lord Chancellor's approval for formal consultation on possible closures. However, at present there are no plans to take the matter forward.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend the Minister remain her normal, totally impartial self and simply ensure that under no circumstances will Crewe lose its county court?
    Jane Kennedy: I shall take my hon. Friend's comments on board.

    Lord Chancellor
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many times the Lord Chancellor has sat in a judicial capacity in the last 12 months. [109641]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Lord Chancellor has sat in a judicial capacity four times in the past 12 months.
    Mr. Prentice: That is four times too many. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister will not agree that it is
    1364
    simply indefensible for the Lord Chancellor to sit as a judge while he is a member of both the legislature and the Executive. Does she share my disappointment that the report of the royal commission on the House of Lords recommended that the status quo be retained? That is a complete anachronism. Will not the Government be forced by the European Court of Human Rights in the Guernsey case to revisit the matter, and to make it clear that a Minister cannot serve as a judge at the same time?
    Jane Kennedy: I could not disagree with my hon. Friend more profoundly, although he makes his point forcibly, as he has done for some time. The decision in the case to which he referred—the case of McGonnell—is confined to the special position of the Bailiff of Guernsey and his role in that case. In addition, if the Lord Chancellor were not a judge, he could not have the necessary close relationship with the senior judiciary. The relationship between the Executive and the judiciary could therefore deteriorate, with damaging consequences and consequential risks to the judiciary's independence.
    Mr. James Clappison: I declare an interest as a member of the Bar.
    Does the Lord Chancellor ever preside over cases that are heard by a jury? If not, could the Parliamentary Secretary make sure that he has the opportunity to do so? That would enable him to see the good sense of the jury system in operation, and the lengths to which our constituents go when they serve on juries. It would also allow the Lord Chancellor to see that there is no substitute for the fairness of the jury system. Could he then knock some sense into the head of the Home Secretary?
    Jane Kennedy: Lord Chancellors in the past sat judicially for most of their working day, but that practice ceased after the second world war. Although Lord Chancellors since then have not sat as judges to the same extent, there are no particular restrictions on the cases for which they may choose to sit. However, the Lord Chancellor would never sit on any case that involved legislation in whose passage through the House he had been directly involved, nor in any case in which the Executive's interests were directly engaged.

    Solicitors
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment he has made of the progress made by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in dealing with complaints against solicitors. [109642]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): There are fewer outstanding cases, and the last month has also seen an improvement in the turnaround of complaints. However, there are still areas of serious concern, particularly in relation to the quality of adjudication of complaints. My colleague as Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), will be visiting the OSS on 20 March to discuss these concerns. In the meantime, we will continue closely to monitor the progress made at the OSS.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that it is the responsibility of every solicitor to take seriously complaints about poor legal services? Will she ensure that every solicitor understands the message that if complaints are not dealt with responsibly by the profession, the Lord Chancellor will have to use his reserve powers provided in the Access to Justice Act 1999 and impose a statutory system for dealing with complaints?
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right. We have those reserve powers. However, we believe that it would be better if the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors met the targets that we have set. We wish to give the OSS every opportunity to meet those targets. We must bear in mind that anxieties about the quality of casework, real though they are, must be balanced against the practical difficulties experienced by the OSS in turning things around, especially while new staff are being recruited and trained.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady may know that Mr. Tony Walden-Biles, one of the leading lights in the organisation Complaints Against Solicitors-action for Independent Adjudication—CASIA—is one of my constituents. I have on a number of occasions taken him to see two Conservative Ministers and now three lots of Labour Ministers. They all promised that as the supervision of solicitors was not really going according to plan and that as it was a last chance, the Government would probably start to impose supervision of solicitors from outside. Why do Ministers constantly say at the Dispatch Box that they are still not happy with the OSS while doing nothing about it? When my constituents have a serious complaint about solicitors, they are not satisfied with simply having their bills reduced and having a maximum compensation limit of £1,000.
    Jane Kennedy: It is not true that no action is being taken. It was precisely because we had concerns about the operations of the OSS that the reserve powers are provided in the 1999 Act. However, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), we wish the OSS to make every effort to meet the targets that have been set in improving its service to those who complain about the service that they have received from solicitors. We are determined that improvements be made, and we have powers in reserve to use, should it prove necessary.

    Circuit Judges
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: How the Council of Circuit Judges' views are taken into account in respect of proposed changes in the work of the courts. [109644]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Council of Circuit Judges, as I have said, is, like other interested groups, consulted on proposed changes to the operation of the Crown and county courts. Their views are taken into account with the other responses that are received, and they receive the same careful consideration as those of other consultees. Consultation is carried out in various
    1366
    ways—for example, by sending copies of consultation papers for comment, or by inviting circuit judges to sit on project boards.
    Mr. Blunt: Why does the hon. Lady believe that there is such concern among circuit judges that their views are not being taken into account?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made a series of representations on this subject. Such a concern has not previously been expressed to me. We will take on board the comments that have been made—we take them seriously, as they purport to be representative of circuit judges. I will make every effort to reassure circuit judges on the serious way in which their concerns are taken on board by the Department.

    Community Legal Service
    Fiona Mactaggart: If he will publish a referrals handbook for the community legal service which includes details of all national advisory services. [109648]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The community legal service partnerships will create local referral networks which will be supported by regional directories. The directories, to be published at the start of April 2000, will list details of local information and advice providers, and will also include details of relevant national organisations and telephone helplines.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I am very aware of that because we have an excellent community legal service partnership growing in Slough. Our concern is that to get effective referrals, we need a national database of advice centres. We do not want to have to invent our own. We were hoping that the Lord Chancellor's Department would provide a national one that we and those in other areas could plug into so that we can get a better community legal service.
    Jane Kennedy: I, too, have that ambition for the community legal service. The directory will be available on the service's website, which is being designed and built so that it is accessible to the majority of the community. The website directory will be updated daily.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Ministerial Statements
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: How many times Ministers have come to the House to deliver statements since May 1997. [109652]
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: On how many occasions Ministers have made statements to the House since May 1997. [109659]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): As of Monday 21 February, 24 times.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which shows, impressively, how this Government are committed to parliamentary democracy. Does my right hon. Friend have comparative statistics on the number of occasions on which we had such statements from the Conservatives when they were in government, so that we can see who are the true friends of democracy?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Obviously, those statistics were for this Session, but they compare favourably with the record of the Conservative party in the equivalent period in the 1992–97 Parliament—105 statements were made under this Government compared with 96 under the Conservative Government in a comparable period. Similarly, in the previous Session, 80 statements were made compared with 77 in a comparable period. That overall picture is also reflected in the statistics for individual Ministers.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has an impressive record for appearances when compared with his predecessor, who in 1993–94 made only seven appearances, while our right hon. Friend in 1998–99 made 12, which is more than twice the number?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct, and that record is not a flash in the pan. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made statements on no less than 25 occasions compared with 19 by his predecessor in a similar two-year period. That exact picture is reflected in their dealings with questions, where again my right hon. Friend has answered more than his predecessor.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House assure the House that, when Ministers make statements which refer to reports in which hon. Members have been mentioned, the Government will make every effort to ensure that those hon. Members see the report before the statement is made, so that they can comment properly?
    Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Colleagues usually endeavour to do that, although there may be occasions when there is a difficulty. In general, we hope and expect that that would be the norm. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case and concern in mind, I should be grateful if he would draw it to my attention.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely, the real question is not how many statements have been made to the House, but how often they have conveyed new information. Will the right hon. Lady put in the Library a list of those statements that have not been trailed either by a press leak from No. 10 or on the "Today" programme in the morning? Is it not deplorable that we all have a clear idea of what we are to be told in the statement that is to be made in about 12 minutes' time, when in fact that information should be given new, fresh-minted to the House?
    Mrs. Beckett: First, although the hon. Gentleman says that it is not a question of how many statements have been made or questions answered, because the facts do not suit the Opposition's case, the Opposition normally claim that this Government are in the House less and that that is a sign of our disrespect for Parliament. Clearly, neither of those contentions stands.
    On whether information is trailed or comes fresh to the House, I recognise that there are times when there is intense press speculation—sometimes it is so detailed that it is clear that someone has leaked something. The hon. Gentleman knows how often the Government have deplored such detailed leaking. Indeed, he will recall that not so long ago the Home Secretary was extremely upset on behalf of the House because a statement that he had planned to make to the House was leaked in the press. We cannot wholly prevent that, although we try to do so. However, I also take the view that the House needs to give more thought to how we can handle such matters effectively.

    House of Commons Commission
    Fiona Mactaggart: What representation she has received on the method of appointing Members to the House of Commons Commission. [109653]/
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have received no formal representations on that matter.
    Fiona Mactaggart: But has the President of the Council read the debate on the matter, held in the House on 2 February? Is she aware of the unease among Back Benchers about the unaccountability of the House of Commons Commission and the way in which it deals with some of the issues before it? Will she consider finding ways to give the views expressed in that debate some resonance in the Commission?
    Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I have read the debate, and I recognise the concerns that were expressed—not least by my hon. Friend. Like the whole House, I also recognise that one unsatisfactory aspect of the development of the Commission's work is that it is not easy for Members to find out how they can raise issues and have them dealt with. My hon. Friend will be aware that, recently, there was a report on how the Commission could improve its working, so that there are better links and a better flow of information from Members. We hope to make progress on that in the near future.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, whatever the methods of reviewing the means by which Members of the House of Commons Commission are appointed, it is a source of joy to Members on both sides of the House and, no doubt, to a large number of people the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, that last night my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was wisely appointed to the Commission, without a Division? Does she agree that it augurs well for the future that a man of such wisdom, judgment and legendary discernment should make his talents and experience available to that august Commission?
    Mrs. Beckett: Without any disrespect to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I do not think "joy" is quite the word I would have chosen. However, I am sure that he will make a distinguished contribution.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Privy Council
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If she will institute a review of the purpose and effectiveness of the Privy Council; and if she will make a statement. [109654]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): No, the Privy Council is a long-established and effective example of joined-up government, which continues to play a useful role in a variety of policy matters.
    Mr. Prentice: I am again disappointed. Does the House share my astonishment that some Orders in Council are never seen in the Houses of Parliament—for example, orders on new coinage? The pound in our pocket—its shape, what it looks or feels like—is not debated either by peers or Members of this place. The matter is decided by the Privy Council using prerogative powers. Given that we have such a tremendously modernising Government—they want to modernise everything out of sight—surely some parts of our ancient, creaking constitution should be visited. Is not the Privy Council one of those?
    Mr. Tipping: Much has already been done to modernise our procedures and more will be done. Later this year, the Privy Council will have its own website—a real example of new technology and forward thinking.
    As for Orders in Council, my hon. Friend will be aware that they are all published and available for public scrutiny.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Timetabling (Legislation)
    Mrs. Eileen Gordon: If she will make a statement on the work of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in relation to the use of timetabling for dealing with legislation. [109657]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee considered the use of timetabling and programme motions in its first report of the 1997–98 Session—on the legislative process—and recommended that, for a trial period, some Bills should be programmed.
    Mrs. Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a great shame that the conclusions of a cross-party Select
    1370
    Committee report have been flouted by the Conservatives, whose antics in this place have been nothing short of scandalous? Will he ask the Committee to review progress on that important matter? Does he agree that the Conservatives are a bunch of sad people? Even if they have no life outside this place, we do. That is why we are in touch with reality and they have completely lost it.
    Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government are keen on further programme motions. There is a record of working with the Opposition on such matters but, unfortunately, the number of Bills introduced under programme motions has declined. I think that that is the fault not of the official Opposition, but of the unofficial Opposition that sometimes lies behind the official Opposition. I do not want to comment on hon. Members' sad lives, but wish to congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on his Channel 4 award. I note that he was not here for his Defence question yesterday. One fears that his reputation does not give us joy, but is slipping.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister examine carefully the effect of timetable motions? I am serving on the Standing Committee considering the Utilities Bill and am having great difficulty finding out what Labour Back Benchers have to say about it. I am also concerned that we are hearing rumours that the Bill is supposedly being blocked in Committee. That is not the case; we are making rapid progress. However, Labour Whips keep ending our sittings early, and I hope that the Minister and the President of the Council will take note of that. I suspect that the Government will suddenly decide that it wants the Committee to make more rapid progress, will pretend that it has not been doing that and will table a programme or guillotine motion for the Bill's Committee stage.
    Mr. Tipping: My right hon. Friend and I always take note of what hon. Members tell us. Labour Members on the Committee considering the Utilities Bill clearly think that it is an important piece of legislation that has consumers at its heart. I suspect that they are content with proceedings.
    I was not aware that the Committee's sittings were finishing early. Sometimes that is done for the convenience of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman asked me to take note of that point, and I shall do so.

    Lobby Facilities
    Ms Helen Southworth: If the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has considered the facilities available to members of the Lobby. [109658]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee has received numerous representations on the matter, some of which it still has under consideration. However, we have already obtained agreement from the Administration Committee and from Madam Speaker to some relaxation in the use of recording equipment, which had long been sought by the Press Gallery.
    Ms Southworth: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that it is about time that the filming procedures in Members' offices were updated, especially considering that Portcullis house now means that all Members will have an office? Will the Modernisation Committee please address that issue?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, tape recorders have been permitted in the Press Gallery since January. We have had further discussions with the Administration Committee and, with the agreement of Madam Speaker, a further extension to taping to cover the proceedings of Westminster Hall has been permitted since about a week ago. As from yesterday, filming in Members' offices will be allowed. I know that the lack of facilities for the sensible making available of Members' views to the news media has been a source of irritation to them in the past. I hope that the easement will be welcomed.

  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Reform
    Mr. Paul Tyler: What representations he has received on proposals to reform the Commission to make it more accountable to the House.
    [109660]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): We have received one formal
    1372
    representation directly on the matter from the Finance and Services Committee, together with a cogently argued letter from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). These views, as well as those expressed by the hon. Members who took part in the debates on 22 January and 2 February, are all being taken into account by the Commission in deciding how to move forward with improvements to the House's domestic administration and the provision of services to Members.
    Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In the light of the earlier exchanges, can he undertake that he and his colleagues in the Commission will examine one important issue in the context of the Braithwaite report—namely, the way in which the Commission itself is appointed and its accountability to the House?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The way that the Commission is appointed is determined by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. Section 1(2)(d) says that the Commission shall include
    "three other members of the House of Commons appointed by the House".
    The Commission obviously has to submit to that statutory provision, but the method of producing the names that are confirmed by the House is a matter more for the usual channels than for the Commission.
    If there were to be different ways of producing names for appointment by the House, they could be introduced by the usual channels—once memorably described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) as the most polluted waterway in Britain. I do not need to give my hon. Friend any lessons about how the usual channels work.

Rail Safety
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on rail safety.
There is a lot of progress to report in the four months since the tragic accident at Paddington last October. In the week of the Coroner's inquiry into the deaths at Paddington and the Professor Uff report on the Southall tragedy, the deepest sympathies from hon. Members on both sides of the House go out to the relatives and friends of those who died.
That prompts us to redouble our efforts to raise the standards of railway safety. Today is a day for decisions, but not for final decisions. We are taking a significant step towards a safer and more secure railway system. The Paddington disaster taught us that we must do more to improve railway safety in Britain. I have asked Lord Cullen for a full, comprehensive report on rail safety and I have asked Sir David Davies to look at the immediate steps that could be taken now to improve safety.
Both the Davies and the Health and Safety Executive reports published today show that we can make a start on improving rail safety. I am not prepared to wait for the most perfect technology to be developed, for the most perfect administrative machinery to be put in place or for the most perfect legislation to be drafted if that means needless delay in the meantime. What can be done must be done to improve rail safety immediately.
I have been pressed, rightly, not to pre-empt Lord Cullen's inquiry and report, and I shall not do so. What motivates me is asking whether there is anything that I can reasonably do as quickly as possible to improve railway safety. The decisions that I am announcing today are not, therefore, final decisions. They are part of a step-by-step process that started before Paddington and has moved forward today with the Davies and HSE reports.
That process will move forward again when Lord Cullen reports, and again when we put in place any legislative changes that follow from that. The report will cover the overall regime of safety management and safety regulation on the railway. Lord Cullen set to work immediately after the Ladbroke Grove incident.
Shortly after the crash, I called together the industry's leaders to talk about an urgent action plan. We agreed a programme that covers matters such as driver training, signals passed at danger, train protection and a national confidential safety reporting system, which was welcomed by everyone. That programme is on target.
One issue that has caused great concern, particularly in the House, is signals passed at danger. I am glad to report that far fewer trains are now passing red lights. The average monthly figure over the past three months has fallen by one third, from 56 to 38, compared with the same period a year ago. Over the past decade that figure has nearly halved. I am sure that the House will welcome that and congratulate all those who have played a part in reducing the number of those incidents.
I said to the House last year that I was minded to separate out the main functions of Railtrack's safety and standards directorate—that is, its responsibilities towards
1374
train operators. I made it clear that that required careful consideration to ensure greater coherence on safety and not increased risk. I can now announce steps to achieve that separation, pending Lord Cullen's public inquiry. The separation is needed to remove conflicts of interest between Railtrack's responsibility to manage the network safely, which it must retain, and the responsibilities of its safety and standards directorate to train operators, principally in approving their safety cases.
The Transport Sub-Committee identified that conflict, as did the Health and Safety Commission, and today I am taking action to correct it. I asked the commission to investigate those concerns further. It has made a detailed examination of the way in which Railtrack undertakes its safety duties, and will now establish a programme of action to achieve best practice in that work.
A second report was prepared by a senior team with wide experience of safety management and regulation drawn from different industries and led by my Department. It made several recommendations. First, the main area of conflict in Railtrack's safety directorate is its prime role in approving the safety cases for train operating companies. Contrary to press reports, I accept the recommendation that Railtrack should be stripped of that responsibility, which will in future be carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. Secondly, Railtrack will lose direct control of its remaining industrywide responsibilities, principally to develop group standards and prepare the rail group safety plan.
The department concerned, Railtrack's safety and standards directorate, will become a free-standing subsidiary company. New conditions in Railtrack's network licence and a board representing the whole industry, with outside members and an independent chairman, will ensure the independence of that company from Railtrack's commercial interests. It will have finances and accounts separate from those of Railtrack. The company's chief executive will be appointed by the separate independent board, not by Railtrack, and he or she will not be a director of Railtrack. His or her remuneration will be based on safety, not on Railtrack's commercial success.
The existing safety advisory board, a broadly based body with industry and trade union representation, will continue to provide strategic advice to the new company. The new company will be separated from Railtrack's operational management. The Health and Safety Executive will play a greater role in safety audits. The new company will be tasked with a more comprehensive audit regime, including annual audits of safety case holders.
The two reports confirm my judgment that immediate action was needed. The measures can be taken now, without awaiting primary legislation and without pre-empting Lord Cullen's recommendations. They emphasise Railtrack's responsibility to operate the network safely; however, Railtrack's dominance of the industry's safety agenda has not delivered and it must end.
In addition, I have decided that it is not right that responsibility for setting and enforcing security standards, including anti-terrorist measures, should reside in a private company. Therefore, I am transferring that role from Railtrack to my Department, which will bring security regulation of the railways in line with that of aviation, shipping and the channel tunnel.

1375
I should like to make two things clear: first, nothing relieves any railway company of its proper responsibility to protect the safety of passengers, staff and the general public. Secondly, today's announcement sets out an interim position; the final fate of the SSD will be decided following Lord Cullen's report.
The Paddington crash underlined the need for better train protection systems to protect trains from passing red signals, independent of a driver's response. I was determined that our railways should provide the best train protection at the earliest opportunity. I asked Sir David Davies, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, to assess the effectiveness, practicability and cost of train protection systems.
Sir David's principal conclusion is to support the installation of the train protection and warning system across the network as soon as possible, with automatic train protection on lines with speeds above 100 mph when they are upgraded. Track installation of train protection warning systems will be complete by the end of 2002, a year earlier than planned, and installation on rolling stock by the end of 2003. The system will be brought into use across most of the network before then, starting with the Bedford-Brighton line this year.
Sir David supports an enhanced version, TPWS-plus, which would increase the speed at which TPWS is effective from 75 to 100 mph. It would add some £70 million to the approximately £250 million cost of TPWS. Sir David's clear advice is that that strategy strikes the right balance, irrespective of cost. With the added benefit of TPWS-plus, the system will provide within four years a level of protection that it would take 10 years to achieve if we switched to a programme of installing ATP retrospectively across the network to the fastest realistic time scale.
ATP is already in operation on the Great Western line, the Chiltern line and the Heathrow Express. It is being fitted on the channel tunnel rail link, and will be included in the resignalling of the west and east coast main lines. Sir David recommends that all lines running at over 100 mph should be fitted with ATP as they are upgraded. He specifically recommends taking forward the current programme to fit ATP on the west coast main line from 2002; fitting ATP on the east coast main line, with work starting in 2006, if possible; and fitting full ATP to the Midland main line.
TPWS would have prevented the Paddington crash. The enhanced TPWS that Sir David recommends would have prevented the Southall crash. It can be introduced quickly and it can save lives—more than seven out of 10 accidents are caused by trains passing red signals.
Looking further ahead, Sir David recommends that the industry start planning now for a transition to the most advanced European standard of automatic train protection and train control. That is the next generation of ATP, which will use radio-controlled moving-block signalling for optimum safety at all speeds.
At this stage, it is not possible to put a precise figure on the cost of future ATP installation. Radio-controlled moving-block systems should be cheaper and offer greater benefits than current technologies. Some have estimated the cost at between £1 billion and £2 billion. That is a cost which the industry would have to cover, as safety is not an optional extra.
1376
Sir David's report contains a thorough analysis and a comprehensive programme for now and for the future. I am extremely grateful to him for his clear account of a complex and much misunderstood area. It now falls to the industry to take Sir David's recommendations forward without delay. I look to the industry to take urgent action to upgrade the current TPWS programme to the TPWS-plus that Sir David recommends.
Sir David's other recommendations will provide valuable input to the joint inquiry by Lord Cullen and Professor Uff into train protection systems, which will start this autumn. All reports are being published and placed in the House of Commons Library today.
Since coming to power, and particularly since the Paddington crash, the Government and the safety regulator have taken comprehensive action across all aspects of rail safety. We have worked to bring forward the removal of old slam-door rolling stock from the network; to improve driver training; to protect trains from passing red lights; to improve the processes for setting and enforcing standards; and to address the conflicts and confusions that arose from the way in which the railway was fragmented.
The Strategic Rail Authority is already giving leadership. Lessons learned from investigating the causes of the Southall crash have already been put to good effect in the investigation of Paddington.
On Thursday this week, the Health and Safety Commission is publishing the report of the public inquiry chaired by Professor Uff into the Southall crash in 1997, which will make further recommendations.
Taken together with the decisions that I have announced, I believe that we are now well on the way to a significantly safer railway than the one that we had three years ago, before the Southall crash. Last October, I said that the Paddington tragedy must be a watershed for railway safety. The Government give safety in transport the highest priority. As the House knows, I have campaigned for it all my political life.
Never before have we seen such a concerted effort by such respected authorities to ensure greater safety on our railways. Their work is impressive; their conclusions are persuasive; and the industry's response is positive. Now we look forward to Lord Cullen's report on how the strongest possible culture of safety can be constructed throughout the railway industry. Such a total commitment to safety is the response demanded by the tragedies of Southall and Ladbroke Grove, as I am sure the whole House will agree.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and for providing me in advance with a copy of it and of the three reports. I join him in his renewed expression of sympathy for those involved in the Paddington crash.
The Conservatives will shortly submit proposals on rail safety reform to the Cullen inquiry for consideration. We support entirely the Government's objective of strengthening the safety culture on the railway—immediately, if possible. However, the railways could learn from civil aviation, an industry that is privatised and fragmented but enjoys the best safety record of the transport industries.

1377
We want the Cullen inquiry to consider whether the railway inspectorate should be removed from the health and safety inspectorate, and put in a specialist legislative framework with the rail regulator, thus resembling the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Cullen inquiry should consider whether the Government should establish a new independent rail accident investigation branch of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, similar to that which exists for air and marine accidents to ensure the impartiality of investigations. It should also consider whether Railtrack should continue to be responsible for the safety and standards directorate and, if so, in what form.
We have already recommended an independent chairman for the safety and standards directorate. The report issued this morning recommends that its prime functions—setting group standards and the intra-industry system of safety assurance—remain in Railtrack. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that recommendation?
I shall remind the House of the chronology of events that surround the safety and standards directorate. The intensity of the immediate reaction to the Paddington disaster on 5 October demanded a cool head and measured judgment. On Wednesday 6 October, the day after the fatal crash, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Cullen inquiry, and we gave that decision the fullest possible support. When I visited the crash site with Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, the Minister for Transport, on Friday 8 October, he gave no hint that the Government were about to do anything precipitate.
Why, therefore, did we read in newspapers on Sunday 10 October that the Government were to "strip" Railtrack of its safety role? The Deputy Prime Minister has had to change his mind, and I respect him for coming to the House to make his announcement. However, I ask him to reflect on whether his briefing to the Sunday papers on Friday 8 and Saturday 9 October contributed anything to rail safety. Is not there a lesson to be learned? Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall the words of Sir Alastair Morton, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who gave the following warning:
"If you change the rail safety regime in haste, you will repent it at leisure"?
I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's assurance that nothing that he has said today or on previous occasions is intended to limit the remit of the Cullen inquiry. Whatever our view of the issues, that is the basis on which we supported his decision to set up the inquiry. That is also the view of the victims' families.
I welcome the conclusion of Sir David Davies' inquiry, which vindicates the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister and his predecessors to proceed with TPWS. What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give that the next generation of ATP and computerised train control systems, which we all support, can be delivered? What assurances can he give about the increase in the number of signals passed at danger in the past month? What does he learn from the most recent figures and when will the welcome initiative on driver training begin to bear fruit?
It is our duty to question and hold the Deputy Prime Minister to account on this matter as on any other. However, I assure him that we shall put no obstacle in his path to prevent the improvement of rail safety, not only
1378
for the sake of today's rail passengers and staff but for those who were injured, those who died and those who were bereaved last October.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for his statement and his intention to give evidence to the Cullen inquiry. We should all do that if we believe that lessons can be learned and improvements made.
Some of the hon. Gentleman's statements tried to rewrite history. I do not want to go into detail, but I shall respond to two points that he made. I am glad that he welcomes Sir David Davies' recommendation on TPWS, but the previous Administration did not make a decision on that. This Government made the decision. Arguments took place in the previous Administration about whether they should adopt TPWS and, indeed, ATP.
Mr. Jenkin indicated dissent.
Mr. Prescott: Well, it is a matter of record. I shall not go into the arguments, but we had to make a decision. That is why I came to the House and made the decision. However, that is history.
If we can combine to improve safety on the railways, I welcome that. I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's first point and the general tone of his response, for which I am grateful.
On whether there should be a separate regulatory body similar to the Civil Aviation Authority, although I understand the respect that is shown for it as a safety regulatory body, it was hoped that the same might have been achieved for the maritime safety body, but after the Marchioness affair people do not feel quite the same. There is no guarantee that that will occur, but my point is that the Select Committee made it absolutely clear that it wants a separate transport safety body. That is why I set up the transport safety review, which is about to report. There are a number of options—the hon. Gentleman identified one or two and I look forward to the debates on that matter—but it is important to separate the safety and commercial functions. Let me now deal with his point about Railtrack.
Under health and safety legislation, every company in this country—whether a railway company or not—has a direct responsibility for safety. Nobody has ever suggested that Railtrack should be stripped of its direct safety responsibilities, but, like the Health and Safety Executive report, we draw a distinction. I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that I did not brief on that report. I should make it clear that that is not my style; I do not play that way—I did not do so even yesterday, I might add. The separation of those responsibilities was asked for. Group standards affect the train operating companies, for example, and they complained of unfairness and a conflict of interest because Railtrack administers railway system standards.
I initiated two reports—one by the Health and Safety Executive and another, to which I am referring today, by my Department—which confirmed that judgment. That is why I have separated those responsibilities—I have not left responsibility for governing group safety with Railtrack. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the reports to see why I have reached that conclusion. The separation of powers is clear to this extent: there is an independent

1379
company and an independent chairman—[Interruption.] Well, we shall continue the debate, but the prime purpose of the statement is to show exactly what the reports asked of me—that there should be separation.
There could be an argument for going all the way and legislating to take safety out completely, but I would like to hear what Lord Cullen has to say. However, I am not prepared to do nothing and wait for him. I believe that the statement will improve safety. My obligation is to achieve the best possible safety on the railway system, and that is what I have recommended today.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend cares very much about railway safety and when he identified Ladbroke Grove as the watershed he expressed the views of many of the people of this country. Can he tell us, therefore, whether the independent company will be a subsidiary of Railtrack? If so, to whom will the independent chairman report? Will he report directly to the Secretary of State and not through Railtrack under any circumstances?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, since the accident, not one senior Railtrack executive, apart from the person responsible for public relations, has been required to resign. That is a matter of considerable astonishment. Can he give the House a very precise timetable for the implementation by the train operating companies and Railtrack of the new TPWS that he suggests? That can be only an interim measure before we move on, in the next decade, to the new and much tougher equipment.
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The work of her Select Committee has influenced us a great deal in these matters. She asks when TPWS can be implemented. The date has been brought forward by a year, so I can confirm that it should be implemented by 2003. However, I would not want people to believe that that is all we are doing. ATP is already being implemented in the system and it is important that we continue with that, but the argument is about achieving the best balance and the best mix. Going with one—at least TPWS, but not ATP—would not achieve the best possible safety. However, adopting the TPWS recommendation means that about 70 or 75 per cent. of accidents can be avoided, so it is my obligation to implement it as quickly as possible. As Sir David Davies says, it will take the best part of eight or 10 years to implement ATP completely, but I have to make a judgment for the safety not only of train drivers, but of the passengers on the system. We must also consider prevention. That is sufficient justification for me to act today.
The company that is being set up will have an independent chair and the directors will be appointed by the company. It will be a subsidiary of Railtrack.
The main concern is not Railtrack's responsibility for stations and tracks but its responsibility for group safety involving the operators and freight companies. The subsidiary company will have direct responsibility in those matters. It will produce annual reports, be audited and work closely with the Health and Safety Executive. Its finance will come from Railtrack, but it will not be
1380
involved in Railtrack's commercial decisions. Its finances will be properly audited, separated and ring-fenced so that we can all make a judgment.
It is important to take this step now, but a total separation may be necessary, as the Transport Sub-Committee has recommended. I await Lord Cullen's report, but my statement improves the situation and reduces the confusion.
Mr. Don Foster: I begin by reiterating our sympathy to the friends and relatives of all who died in the Paddington rail crash. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, especially the reaffirmation of his commitment to making safety his first priority. I also thank him for making available a copy of the Davies report. I welcome that report and the Deputy Prime Minister's acceptance of its main recommendations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is his intention that the total cost of meeting those recommendations will fall on the operating companies, and subsequently on the users of the services, or whether the Government will make a contribution towards those costs? I found his answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) somewhat ambiguous. In October, he agreed with me that public confidence in our railways would be re-established only with the setting up of an entirely separate body responsible for establishing and monitoring safety standards. What he has proposed is half baked. I do not believe that it will give the clarity that the public require.
Although I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of pre-empting the Cullen inquiry, will he reaffirm to the House his statement in October last year that he is minded to have a complete separation, not this half separation that he is offering? As he has just said, the money for the subsidiary body will still come from Railtrack.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and his congratulations to Sir David Davies on an excellent piece of work. In commissioning that report, I was asking an independent engineer to give a proper judgment on the technical possibilities of the different systems and their cost. The cost is approximately £250 million across the industry. The industry is already gearing up for and carrying those costs: it entered into an agreement with me 12 months ago, so they are already being fed into the system.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the costs will come out of the directors' pockets or be covered by the fare structure. I think that he will agree with me that the regulated framework of fares and track charges will cover most of the costs. Sir David Davies makes it clear that he has made his judgment not on cost, but on safety. That is what the House wanted him to do, and he has given his judgment.
My position on a separate body remains the same, but I am in some difficulty. I could make the decision now to introduce legislation and separate the function entirely before Lord Cullen makes his recommendations and before I have been able to come to a full and proper conclusion on the advice presented to me by the Select Committee. However, it is also necessary to consider other issues, such as the proper evidence of inquiries, whether there are conflicts between inquires and court cases, and the whole business of corporate responsibility. Those matters are being decided now.

1381
I think that the proper way to deal with the problem is to separate these functions. The House will make a judgment about whether the subsidiary company is operating independently. I have no doubt about that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will read the reports and make a judgment about the recommendations given to me. It is not me who is making a judgment: the inquiry will give me, and the Select Committee has given me, recommendations and the House can make its own judgment.
I believe that this measure is the best solution at the present time. We can make changes in the licence that governs the railways to improve safety without primary legislation. I have tried to do what relatives and lawyers have often asked me to do, which is not to pre-empt Lord Cullen's report. That is absolutely right. I have no doubt that it will require legislation, and then I can deal with the matter properly.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I offer strong support for the Deputy Prime Minister's statement? I support both his recognition that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good, and the passion with which he spoke. But will the Deputy Prime Minister do one thing that relates to my constituents? It is a question of the Forth rail bridge, and the outrageous circumstances in which the firm, Wilkie Hook, which is carrying out the maintenance without which the bridge might be in danger, has been driven into receivership by an absurd row—not of its making—between Railtrack and Rigblast? Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask Railtrack what on earth it thinks it is doing?
The chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, George Younger—who is known to the House—is as exasperated as I am by the idea that the greatest monument to 19th-century engineering, let alone the connection to the highlands, has been put in danger. This is a safety issue: it honestly is.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend always makes a powerful case—
Madam Speaker: It does not always relate to what is being discussed.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend related his question to safety in this instance. Let me reassure him: he has raised an important issue, and I shall write to him.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us by what date the process of fitting ATP to all lines on which trains run at more than 100 mph will be completed?
Mr. Prescott: I recommend Sir David Davies's excellent report to the hon. Gentleman. The report says that ATP cannot be introduced before 2008 to 2010. I was forced to decide whether to wait until the modern European technology arrived, or whether to act now, some five or six years earlier, and possibly prevent a great many accidents. I think that I achieved the right balance.
Mr. David Drew: Like a number of other hon. Members, I lost constituents in the Paddington disaster. I lost a good friend in Bob Cotton.
I think that what the Deputy Prime Minister has said will allay the fears of relatives and friends. In the immediate aftermath of Paddington, he met MPs representing people affected by what happened. Will he keep that dialogue open? It is relatives and friends who will pay most attention to what he has said today. I feel that we should do all that we can to convey to them that steps are being taken, and that a balance is being achieved between action now and waiting for the results of, in particular, the Cullen report.
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. He brought to mind the moment when, on the day of the tragedy, Rodney Bickerstaffe—also known to hon. Members—rang me to ask about his close friend Bob Cotton, who, tragically, was on the train.
My hon. Friend reminded us of the role and the concerns of relatives. As the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, it behoves us all to ensure that we establish the best possible safety measures, and we must all work to achieve that.
I did meet a number of people, and intend to retain the obligation as we carry out the various processes involved in improving safety. Many changes will be necessary. In the next year or so we shall receive important reports—quite apart from those that we have already received—and, in view of that, I shall certainly maintain my direct dialogue with relatives.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). He has announced that the safety and standards directorate will, after all, be part of Railtrack. Will he confirm that that is contrary to his previous announcements? We all appreciate that it is important to take account of the reports of the various commissions and that of the Transport Sub-Committee. Why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman say anything at all about his intentions in October, given that he has now completely changed his mind?
Mr. Prescott: I know that the hon. Lady is usually given a question to ask, but I will try to give the best answer. I made the statement about being minded to make a change because I had received a Health and Safety Commission report on the day of the collision itself. Indeed, I commissioned that report in response to the request of the Select Committee to look at the conflict of interest in Railtrack.
That report made it clear—we quoted it and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has quoted it at the Dispatch Box—that there was a feeling that there was a conflict of interest—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Prescott: The report said that there was a feeling in the industry of a conflict of interest, particularly from the train operating companies. It is a matter of record; it has been written into the record of the House. I have had two reports since then to confirm that. Therefore, I am taking action of the kind that I have set out today. It is a

1383
proper balance; the balance is right. It may not have finished the process, but basically it will make the position safer. The Opposition would have done better to understand that, as they directed the safety system and implemented it under the privatisation of the railways.
Fiona Mactaggart: My constituency of Slough is very concerned about this matter—five people who worked in Slough were killed at Notting Hill. I can forgive my constituents for being confused about what is going on because, having read this morning's newspapers, I arrived thinking that we were planning to go completely backwards from the Deputy Prime Minister's welcome statement to the House. I have been immensely reassured by what he has said, particularly by his statement that the step to improve the independence of the safety and standards directorate is not the end of his consideration of the matter, but that, quite properly, he will reflect further after the Cullen inquiry. Particularly in view of the question from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), perhaps he could reassure my constituents that, if the conclusion of all that consideration is that having independence in that function is the way to make our railways safer, he will introduce any necessary legislation to do that.
Mr. Prescott: I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend's remarks. With the modern communications of today, there are always complaints about leaks and whether statements are made to the House. It has always been my intention—and my history—to make statements for which I have responsibility to the House.
I cannot guarantee that there will not be leaks. That is unfortunate, with even the Opposition perhaps responding to them. I find that the turf is set out before I can make the statement. It leaves me a little bemused, but my job is to come to the House and to make the statement. I have
1384
done that today. I have given my best judgment of what the balance is with regard to independence. My hon. Friend can rest assured that, if necessary, and certainly if Cullen recommends it, we will take the necessary legislative actions to ensure that we have the best and safest railway system in Europe.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the two-stage approach that he has outlined: immediate improvement by separating responsibility for safety; and the prospect of further steps if so recommended by Lord Cullen? Just half an hour before the statement, there were television interviews of relatives of victims of the tragedy on the basis that no change was to be made. Does he agree that that was totally irresponsible and that victims should not be exploited by the media on the basis of press speculation?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. I agree with what he has said, particularly having heard the reports on the BBC. It was made clear to the BBC that the reports could not be based on the statement that I was making. It made no difference. It had all the interviews lined up, went on and made its case.

BILL PRESENTED
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MODE OF TRIAL) (No. 2)
  Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Jane Kennedy and Mr. Charles Clarke, presented a Bill to make provision for determining the mode of trial in the case of offences triable either summarily or on indictment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 28 February, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 73].

Television Licence Fee (Abolition)
1.10 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949; to remove the requirement for the obtaining of certain wireless telegraphy licences; to make provision with respect to the funding of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.
Did you know, Madam Speaker, that the United Kingdom is spending more than £150 million every year collecting and enforcing the television licence fee? Did you know that the BBC, through its agents, detects more than 1,000 people every day—more than 365,000 people every year—who should be paying the licence fee, but are not? Did you know that, every year, our court system is clogged by up to 150,000 cases—involving mainly women and students—in which non-payers of television licence fees are prosecuted, convicted, fined and/or imprisoned? Did you know that in Northern Ireland the rate of licence fee evasion is said to be more than 30 per cent?
This deregulatory Bill—that is what it is—would put an end, once and for all, to the monumental waste, abject misery and injustice that the archaic television licensing system entails. It would also set the BBC free. May I—with you, Madam Speaker, and more than 20 million other people in the United Kingdom—declare a financial interest in the Bill? This measure, when enacted, from April, will save us each £104 annually, with the saving rising to about £150 annually in 2006.
My Bill already enjoys significant support. Last week, The Southern Daily Echo conducted a telephone poll on my proposal, causing it to produce a headline in Saturday's newspaper saying, "Our Readers Back MP's Bid to Scrap TV Licence". However, that already strong support is increasing even further, as the impact of yesterday's Government announcement sinks in.
Yesterday, the Government announced that, on 1 April, the television tax, or licence fee, would increase by double the rate of inflation, and by 60 per cent. above the rate of inflation for each of the next seven years. If only the Government treated our deserving pensioners with the same benevolence that they bestow on the BBC!
The so-called digital surcharge is now to be paid by everyone. Yet, the Davies panel concluded:
"It is unfair to charge analogue households for the development of digital services which they cannot receive".
The panel also said:
"The licence fee is a regressive charge since it falls equally on all households whatever their income. It, therefore, bears more heavily on the poor than on the rich."
I welcome the introduction of free licences for those who are over 75—an idea that was promoted earlier this Parliament in a Conservative ten-minute rule Bill. However, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies told the Davies panel, a free licence for those who are over 75 and a 15 per cent. increase in the standard licence for everyone else would result in 71 in every 100 poorest households being worse off. That is exactly what the Government have achieved. They are making 71 in every 100 poorest households worse off.
One might have expected a Government who say that they are committed to reducing social exclusion to act accordingly. However, as is so often the case, the
1386
Government say one thing but do another. The increased television tax will hit the poor hardest and make social exclusion worse.
Is it possible to have public service broadcasting without having to have a licence fee? The answer is that of course it is. The BBC World Service is already funded by the taxpayer, and the principle of taxpayer funding for at least part of the BBC has been accepted by the Government in the abolition of the fee for those aged over 75.
Advertising and sponsorship are also compatible with the public service requirement. Indeed, Lord Bragg, in addressing a meeting at last year's Labour party conference, said:
"ITV and Channel 4 are capable of every bit as much quality, integrity and creativity as the BBC."
The question everyone is asking is why, if ITV and Channel 4 are able to achieve that without a licence fee, the BBC cannot do the same.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State repeatedly referred to the quality of the BBC as though it were the licence fee that generated such quality. However, the Labour-supporting Lord Bragg has exposed the fallacy in such thinking. He has also drawn attention to the way in which, in the past 10 years, the BBC has taken on a great deal of advertising of its own—advertising itself, time and time again. He observed:
"The BBC has actually helped ITV as British TV is now much more seamless than it has ever been before."
Every year some £14 billion is spent on advertising in the United Kingdom—including £4 billion on television advertising and £500 million on radio advertising. Advertising makes innovation and product development more attractive as a competitive weapon. The Bill would make advertising itself more competitive.
I have been asked what the BBC would do without access to the licence fee. My answer is that it would have the freedom to compete globally, deciding its own expenditure priorities and investment, free from Government control. A significant element of yesterday's statement was that the Government wished to take even greater control over the BBC. The Secretary of State wants the BBC to engage in self-help. If it has the freedom that the Bill would give it, it will then be able to exercise that self-help.
At present, because the demand for television advertising is greater than the available air time, the price of advertising is artificially high. That works to the benefit of the independent television companies, but against the interests of consumers and those who wish to advertise their products. That explains why we never find the independent television companies arguing in favour of advertising on BBC.
The Bill would remove a licence fee system that was appropriate in 1949 when independent broadcasting funded by advertising had not been invented and when ownership of a television was the privilege of only a few, but it is not appropriate today. We are in the midst of a digital revolution and the technologies of television, telecommunications and personal computing are converging. Those technological changes will render redundant the concept of a licence for individual items of television receiving equipment in the same way as the advent of transistor and portable radios rendered the old radio licence fee redundant.

1387
The Bill is a modernising, radical and inclusive measure. Indeed, it is a Conservative measure and I hope that it will have the support of the House. If any right hon. or hon. Members are not yet convinced, let me draw to their attention the editorial in one of today's national newspapers, the Daily Star, which says:
"The £3 rise in the TV licence fee is £3 too much. In fact the entire licence fee of £104 is a costly farce … Most BBC programmes are about as exciting as old wallpaper paste … The BBC says it wants to be more adventurous. It can do that by scrapping the licence fee altogether. Think of all the dosh it will save on those stupid detector vans."
I could not have put it better.
1.17 pm
Mr. John Grogan: Like democracy in another context, I would contend that the TV licence system is the least worst system on offer, particularly if we have as our central aim the need to nurture and develop the world-class public service broadcaster, which is still our BBC.
Generally, there is no widespread revolt against the licence fee. Evasion rates are falling sharply. When the BBC took control of the collection of licence fees in 1990, 10 per cent. of licence fees were evaded. According to the report published yesterday by Pannell Kerr Forster for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the figure had fallen to 8 per cent. in 1995–96. It is now down to 5.1 per cent. and is projected to fall to 4 per cent. in the next couple of years. The report concludes that
"the overall cost of collection and evasion"
will be
"down to 9% by 2006–07 compared with 13.2% in 1995–96."
That is due to the widespread development of easier payment mechanisms.
Let us set the £104 licence fee in context. The average spend by a cable, digital or satellite subscriber last year was £300, largely on sport and movies. In its report "Public Service Broadcasters Around the World" published in 1998, McKinsey consultants looked at 20 countries. It found that the BBC's operating income per capita was very much in the mid range.
In terms of distribution, the licence fee is certainly regressive, though less so since the concessions for 75-year-olds. Indeed, my father was 75 on 12 November last year, three days after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the concessions. At least now my father has to accept that I am a man of some influence.
Even though the licence fee is regressive in pure economic terms, I contend that it is progressive in its effects on society as a whole because it means that the BBC can be properly funded. It means that many of the good things about our national life and many of the best things in our culture are available to everyone who has a television or radio set. We should celebrate the mantra of the BBC that it strives to make the good popular, and the popular good. It still accounts for nearly 40 per cent. of our total television viewing. In homes with satellite and cable, the BBC is still the market leader and accounts for 27 per cent. of total viewing. The BBC accounts for
1388
43 per cent. of our total listening and viewing. Its online site is the most visited in Europe and two thirds of all GCSE students last year visited BBC online sites.
McKinsey concluded that there were two essential characteristics of a public service broadcaster that is successful throughout the world. The first was that it was distinctive in programming, content and scheduling; the second that it retained a sufficiently large market share to keep the commercial sector honest. That is one of the reasons why the commercial sector supports the licence fee. The evidence of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee shows little support for the privatisation of the BBC and the abolition of the licence fee, other than from Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, the ex-editor of The Sun and current managing director of Talk Sport. Both BSkyB and the ITV companies support the continuation of the licence fee.
What are the alternatives? The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) suggested funding through taxation, which is an interesting tax and spend promise. Total state funding for the BBC would mean about 2p on income tax. What would that do for the independence of our national broadcaster? Would Jeremy Paxman seriously grill a Treasury Minister if he knew that the next morning the director general would have to troop into a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to plead for next year's income? All the evidence from abroad suggests that state funding of a national broadcaster is massively cut in times of recession, as happened in Canada and Australia with great harm caused to the state broadcasters.
The total advertising income of the commercial television sector was £2.6 billion last year and that would not rise dramatically if the BBC was involved. The consultants London Economics suggested that the BBC could obtain some £1.6 billion from advertising if it freed its schedules to advertising. That would totally disrupt the commercial sector but, perhaps more seriously, it would also dumb down the BBC. The news at 9 pm would go the way of the "News at 10" as the BBC chased ratings because its schedules had to fit in with the needs of advertisers.
Sponsorship of programmes is not really an option either. The total sponsorship of British television programmes last year amounted to £50 million and is projected to rise to £100 million, according to ITV. Individual subscription to BBC programmes would destroy universality of access. Fund-raising by the BBC, as happens in the United States, would mean that programme content and management time were totally devoted to fund-raising.
John Birt said that it was the privilege of his life to lead the BBC and Pannell Kerr Forster concluded that the BBC had made significant savings of £500 million over the past five years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly sets the BBC challenging targets for the next five years, but the BBC should be involved in the digital as well as the analogue world. Market failure also applies in the digital world and market concentration is likely to be more dangerous in the digital world than in the analogue world.
Why should not the BBC seek approval from the Secretary of State to run a children's channel on free-to-air digital to compete with the cartoon-based children's channels that are available at the moment? Why

1389
should not it seek to run a 24-hour news channel? The viewing figures for cable television show that News 24 is now outperforming Sky News. On digital television, Sky News is outperforming the BBC, but that is not surprising because the BBC channel is 584th on the Sky programme guide. That is another big issue for the digital world—who controls the programme guides and the gateways?
The McKinsey study of public service broadcasters around the world concluded by stating:
"Our analysis shows that licence-fee-funding has been more stable and predictable than the other forms of funding … This allows PSBs to invest in programming or operational improvements, as they can be confident about their revenue for the term of the licence agreement."
Who knows what the future will bring? Perhaps people will receive their television pictures mainly through the internet—if so, we shall indeed be in a different world. However, for the foreseeable future, yesterday's settlement and the licence fee provide the best basis for public service broadcasting in this country.
I do not intend to divide the House but, as chairman of the all-party BBC group, I want to illustrate the strength of support in all sections of the House for the BBC and the principle of the licence fee. For those reasons, I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Christopher Chope, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Owen Paterson and Mr. Christopher Fraser.

TELEVISION LICENCE FEE (ABOLITION)
Mr. Christopher Chope accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to remove the requirement for the obtaining of certain wireless telegraphy licences; to make provision with respect to the funding of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 72].

Defence White Paper
[Relevant documents: First Report, Session 1999–2000, on the OCCAR Convention, HC 69, and the Government's response thereto, HC 224; Second Report, Session 1999–2000, on the Ministry of Defence Annual Reporting Cycle, HC 158; Sixth Report, Session 1998–99, on the Reserves Call-out Order 1999 and Progress of Territorial Army Restructuring, HC 860, and the Government's response thereto, HC 220 of Session 1999–2000; Seventh Report, Session 1998–99, on the Strategic Defence Review: Defence Medical Services, HC 447, and the Government's response thereto, HC 221 of Session 1999–2000; Eighth Report, Session 1998–99, on the Committee's Major Procurement Projects Survey: The Common New Generation Frigate Programme, HC 544, and the Government's response thereto, HC 222 of Session 1999–2000; and Ninth Report, Session 1998–99, on Defence Research, HC 616, and the Government's response thereto, HC 223 of Session 1999–2000.]
1.27 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move,
That this House approves the 1999 Defence White Paper (Cm 4446).
I am very grateful to have the opportunity to open the debate on the 1999 defence White Paper—the first that I have had the privilege to present to the House. It gives me the chance to bring the House up to date with the many initiatives that we have under way to modernise Britain's defence.
This debate also enables me to respond to some of the points made in the recent report by the Select Committee on Defence on the White Paper, and in the Ministry of Defence performance report, although we are of course preparing a detailed written memorandum to respond to the issues raised there.
The central theme of the White Paper is modernisation. It sets out the progress that we have made in many areas, not least in delivering the strategic defence review and in taking forward European defence. It describes how we are modernising the whole of defence—from the farthest end of the procurement chain right through to our front-line capabilities. It is a massive programme of change.
This is not modernisation for the sake of it. The process that we have begun is about delivering improvements to the capability of our armed forces. It is about giving them the structures, equipment and support that they need to do the job effectively. It is also about ensuring that we have developed the security architecture to meet the strategic landscapes of this century, not of the last.
Let no one underestimate the ambition or the significance of the undertaking in which we are now involved. It is a hugely complex and challenging process, but it is a necessary one. A modern Britain needs modern defence forces, and the strategic defence review provides them.
When the outcome of the review was announced by my predecessor in July 1998, it was widely acclaimed on all sides. It was admired for its logic, its good sense and its vision. However, we always knew that we would really be judged on our delivery of the improvements that the SDR proposed.
We made it clear that the changes that we are making would take time to achieve. The heavy operational commitments which our forces undertook around the

1391
world last year—in Bosnia, the Gulf, East Timor and Kosovo—have made this still more challenging. We might have preferred a period of calm in which to conduct this revolution, but of course the real world continues, and real operations—such as the need to act to bring an end to Milosevic's repression in Kosovo—had to take priority.
Moreover, our operational experiences over the past year, not least in Kosovo, have reinforced the conclusions of the review. The SDR is on track and will be delivered. The additional £500 million that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently allocated to the defence budget to take account of the additional cost of operations in the Balkans and elsewhere will help to ensure this.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: In a second.
The White Paper describes the significant SDR milestones that we have already met. We have already achieved an initial capability for the new joint rapid reaction forces. When complete, in 2002, the JRRF will enable us to deploy forces with real punch anywhere in the world. It will draw forces from a pool of up to 50 warships and support vessels, four brigades and 260 aircraft of various kinds.
Last October, we set up the joint helicopter command. It brings together under a single command almost all our battlefield helicopters and will command 16 Air Assault Brigade. It is responsible for peacetime training and for providing helicopter force packages for operational commanders. Most importantly, however, it will provide a real improvement in operational effectiveness.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: I undertook earlier to give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), so I will do so now.
Mr. Hayes: Could the right hon. Gentleman confirm how many troops are on permanent standby for United Nations global peacekeeping missions? We were told last year that it was in the order of 8,000 to 10,000. Is that number still valid, or has it changed? Has the plan been drawn up or abandoned?
Mr. Hoon: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the mechanism for making force available to the United Nations. What happens is that we declare a number of forces that could be available to the United Nations in appropriate circumstances. In the event of a requirement arising, a request would come from the United Nations to the United Kingdom Government and, if appropriate, we
1392
would accede to that request. However, there are no forces specifically standing by waiting for a request from the United Nations.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: Certainly.
Mr. Dalyell: At some point convenient in his speech, and not necessarily at this moment, will my right hon. Friend say something about what is happening in Mitrovica?
Mr. Hoon: Yes, I will.
A new joint doctrine and concept centre is already up and running. It will provide the fully joined-up thinking needed to address the security challenges facing us in the future, and will achieve its full capability in April of this year.
We have created a joint nuclear biological and chemical defence regiment. The joint Rapier training unit is now a reality. The Defence Procurement Agency opened for business last spring, bringing greater efficiency in delivering fighting equipment to the front line. The first of our defence diplomacy scholarship courses is already under way. We said that we would do all these things, and we have done each of them.
In the next few months, we will see a number of major new developments. The first Apache attack helicopter for the Army is already flying. Once in service with the British Army, this world-beating piece of equipment will mark a quantum leap in our ability to bring force rapidly to bear on the battlefield. It is about real capability, every bit as revolutionary in its way as the introduction of the tank in 1916.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister is going through a list of initiatives that sound impressive, but when the Royal Navy runs out of fuel and cannot put its warships to sea, how can any of that lead to a credible defence for our country?
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will deal with that in due course. However, the list does not simply sound impressive—it is impressive. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that, with his characteristic generosity.
On 1 April, joint force 2000—the joint Royal Navy/Royal Air Force Harrier force—will form. It is not about organisational neatness—it is about modern ways of working to deliver defence output most effectively. The aircrew who will operate these aircraft tell everyone of their excitement about the new arrangements.
In April, we will launch the new Defence Logistics Organisation. That brings together the three single service logistic support areas into a tri-service organisation employing more than 40,000 people. It will allow us to deliver more cost-effective support by rationalising common functions across the services, freeing up more resources for the front line.
We have also made radical changes to defence procurement, an area in which the record of the previous Government was lamentable. Our smart procurement initiative will help to fix that. Smart procurement is

1393
already delivering results. It will provide high-quality world-beating equipment cheaper, faster and better. For example, the White Paper mentions that the Challenger 2 integrated project team responsible for introducing this new world-class tank to the British Army has so far identified £200 million in savings. That figure could easily rise to £400 million. The adoption of innovative support arrangements for Eurofighter will save up to £1.8 billion over the life of the aircraft.
Smart procurement is also helping to reduce overstretch. In response to an urgent requirement, we have worked closely with industry to place a competitive contract for a new communications system for Bosnia and Kosovo, freeing up to 260 Royal Signals soldiers from their Balkan commitment by the end of the year. Overall, the changes that we have introduced will provide better equipment at lower cost and help to reduce to a minimum the wasteful cost overruns that had become the hallmark of procurement mismanagement under the Conservative Government.
This is an impressive programme of change, but hon. Members might have been forgiven for doubting the picture I paint had they relied on some of the more sensational reporting of recent weeks. I know that some journalists do not like to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but it is a serious matter if misleading reporting leads to a reduction in public confidence in the armed forces. These are important issues and I want to spend some time confronting them head on.
First, much has been written recently about the equipment that our troops had during the Kosovo campaign last year. The fact is that our service personnel had everything that they needed to do the job that they were asked to do. That is not just my view: it is the view of force commanders at all levels; yet there have been constant criticisms, for example, of the boots used in the Falklands campaign—criticisms that have been packaged up and applied to the entirely different and very modern boots worn by our soldiers in Kosovo. The clothing given to our soldiers is excellent. I have seen myself that it is light, warm, waterproof and easy to wear, even in the most difficult conditions.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that every piece of equipment that we have is absolutely perfect. The SA80 rifle, for example, is a capable and highly accurate weapon. It has some reliability problems, especially in extreme conditions, and steps are being taken to ensure that those are put right quickly.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The Secretary of State mentioned equipment. As he knows, I was in Kosovo last week. I visited the Mitrovica bridge last Wednesday with Lieutenant-Colonel Nick Carter. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that our forces on the bridge there will, as of today, have the right respirators, so that if a riot breaks out, as it did yesterday, and French or other KFOR troops use tear gas, our troops will not be left vomiting and crying on the banks of the river because they do not have them?
Mr. Hoon: That is something that we are looking at. I recognise the concern.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned press reports. He will have seen in
1394
this morning's newspapers reports that our armed services in Northern Ireland may be asked to apologise for their activities there in the past 30 years. He will be only too well aware that many British service men have given their lives in defence of their country and to prevent Northern Ireland from falling into anarchy so, as Secretary of State for Defence, will he assure the House that he will stand firmly opposed to our troops being dishonoured in that way?
Mr. Hoon: I will deal with that matter, so, if the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will return to it in a moment. However, as a former journalist she should know that she must not believe everything that she reads in newspapers.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) referred to what I can only describe as the ill-informed speculation about activity levels for the Navy. Let me make it clear that the fleet was not withdrawn at Christmas, it has not run out of money and it is not confined to port. Of course, the Navy has to adjust the fleet's programme to keep within budget and to balance new training against the unusual level of operational activity in 1999, but it is being done without reducing our overall capability. As the Commander-in-Chief, Fleet recently said,
"I have no difficulty with managing my business within the limit given to me".
The Navy is not only going about its business as usual, but has entered a period of major overseas deployment. At the end of last month, HMS Illustrious left for the Gulf at the head of a task group including a nuclear submarine, nine warships and 2,000 men. In the spring, HMS Cornwall will lead a global deployment—Navy task group 2000, which will be one of the largest in 15 years. It will involve three Royal Navy warships, three auxiliaries and a submarine.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Since the Secretary of State is in denouncing ill-informed press speculation mode, perhaps he will extend that to Warship World, which has informed us that, under the long-term costings, Invincible and Fearless will be transferred to the reserve, along with about seven mine counter-measure vessels and three Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. As he is rubbishing press speculation, is he in a position to deny that all that is true?
Mr. Hoon: I thought the hon. Gentleman was in the House for Defence questions yesterday, when the same point was made. I made it clear then that there is no truth in that speculation. Whatever the alleged quality of the publication, the hon. Gentleman would do well not to believe all that he reads.
Our amphibious capability will be transformed over the next few years, when the new assault ships Albion and Bulwark enter service. They will complement the new helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, which I had the privilege to visit during a major multinational amphibious exercise off the coast of Egypt last October. We also have plans to acquire new destroyers, frigates and nuclear powered submarines and two new aircraft carriers—the largest vessels to be ordered for the Royal Navy since the second world war. All our attack submarines will be equipped with the highly accurate Tomahawk land attack missile, which was used to such precise effect during the Kosovo campaign. We are tripling the size of our strategic lift capability, and constructing two new auxiliary oilers. It is no wonder the First Sea Lord commented that that

1395
represents the best forward-looking equipment programme that he can remember during all his time in the Navy. Taken together, those measures will mark a step change in the Royal Navy's capability.
Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Will the Secretary of State explain what he means by "under normal budget constraints"? He sets the budget, so the commanders-in-chief have to live within its limits. When he set the budget, why did he reduce the fuel bill for the Navy by a quarter and then reinstate it as a result of other changes?
Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the budget is set for a year. One of the innovations that we have been able to introduce is to allow budget holders to determine levels of activity over the course of the year. In those circumstances, it is right and proper that the Navy should make those determinations in the light of the budget. We have allowed that process and it is working most successfully. That is why we have received positive endorsements from leading figures in the armed forces.
I accept that some exercises have been cancelled. The Select Committee report picked up on that matter. There is always a need to strike a balance between the requirements to train our people, to meet operational commitments, to live within resources and not to place unnecessary burdens on personnel and their families. I spend more time thinking about the problems created by the armed forces being asked to do too much than I do thinking about almost anything else. We have now got the balance right. Our forces are up to meeting any likely operational requirement—and they will meet it effectively.
There have been suggestions that large parts of the RAF are grounded. That too is nonsense. The RAF has deployments in the Balkans, Italy, the Gulf and the Falklands. That huge programme of activity is being maintained with sufficient resources, aircraft and pilots. Operations necessarily mean that some routine tasks must come second, but not at the expense of safety. Certainly, we need more pilots, but the RAF has more than achieved its recruitment target this year, and a number of measures are in hand to improve retention.
Mr. Tim Collins: The Secretary of State referred to safety in RAF training. Will he say more about that in relation to my constituents in Cumbria? They accept the absolute primacy of national security, but they were most concerned about some of the reports as to the possible causes of the air crash in Shap, in Cumbria, at the end of last year. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance to the people of Cumbria, and of other areas affected by low-flying aircraft, that no reductions will interfere with the primacy of safety—of people in the air and on the ground?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I have just given that assurance. Safety is paramount and will continue to be so—both for those who fly the aircraft and for his constituents on the ground. I am happy to be able to repeat the assurance that I gave him in writing when he properly raised those matters with me.
1396
We are spending £140 million making good the under-investment in the Defence Medical Services and the demoralisation of their staff that we inherited. The former Second Sea Lord commented:
"I have been greatly reassured that two successive Secretaries of State and armed forces Ministers have shown greater interest in the welfare of our people than I have ever known before."
The focus of our investment remains to bring our forces up to the standard where they can operate entirely successfully within the structures set out by the strategic defence review.
Mr. Hayes: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Select Committee on Defence that medical services in the armed services are in a state of crisis, which is the term that the Committee used?
Mr. Hoon: No, I do not accept that medical services are in a state of crisis, but I accept that work has to be done. That is precisely why we have allocated £140 million to address the issue.
That money is part of a continuing programme of modernisation. In the last few months alone, we have approved a wide range of new equipment measures: production of the airborne stand-off radar system, worth some £800 million; the assessment phase of the future aircraft carrier and studies on the type-45 destroyer programme, worth a potential £100 million in all; more Rapier surface-to-air missiles, worth £200 million; and an upgrade of RAF Harrier engines, worth £120 million.
The Government's record on defence is there to be judged by the House. We rightly demand the best for our excellent armed forces. However, we would like to be judged on what we are doing, not on what others sometimes claim that we are not doing.
I have talked a lot about equipment. Let me now talk about the men and women of the armed forces. We made our policy for people a central component of the strategic defence review, because we know how vital recruiting and retaining the best people is to our defence capability. We said that we would introduce measures to improve recruitment and retention, and we have.
I mentioned, when I launched the White Paper last December, that I was determined to tackle overstretch. This has been a tough challenge. We inherited an Army undermanned by more than 5,000 people. On top of that, during the strategic defence review, we identified a requirement for more than 3,000 new posts. Despite that shortfall, our forces performed magnificently last year, at the expense of ever more overstretch. We are now making progress. Recruiting is buoyant. Last year, recruitment figures for all three services were the best in a decade. However, the key to tackling overstretch is to stem the flow of skilled people leaving the forces.
We have now made huge strides in reducing commitments. The latest reductions in the Balkans, when fully implemented in the spring, will bring down the percentage of the Army preparing for, deployed on, or recovering from, operations to 28 per cent., compared to 47 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign. That means that we will have reduced commitments below the level that we inherited. During that period, our force levels in Bosnia will have reduced by more than 2,500 and in Kosovo by 6,500. We have also made smaller reductions in other areas such as the Gulf and the Falklands.

1397
I am also pleased to tell the House that improvements in the security situation in Northern Ireland have enabled us to make significant reductions there. Force levels are now well below 15,000, their lowest level since the 1970s, and 30 installations have been closed. We have been able to make those reductions in the Army's presence in Northern Ireland as a result of the peace process. Of course, we want to make more progress, but I make it clear that further reductions in the military presence must be justified solely in terms of the security situation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it clear, not least in the House, that the Government cannot and will not contemplate anything that suggests any equivalence between the security forces and terrorists. There is no gun-swap plan and there is no way in which such equivalence would be acceptable.
Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State has partly answered the point that I was going to make. However, will he give an absolute guarantee in the House, so that it is clear to the public and to those in Northern Ireland who are trying to give the opposite impression, that the commitment of British troops to the Province is to protect the public and law and order and that they will not, in any circumstances, be allowed to enter negotiations with Sinn Fein-IRA?
Mr. Hoon: I have just given that assurance. The security forces are there to assist the police in performing a valuable security function, and they will continue to do so as long as necessary.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The assurance that the Secretary of State has just given—that there will be no public ceremony of the kind suggested in the newspapers this morning—will be received with great enthusiasm and some satisfaction on both sides of the House. However, will he tell the House by how many the Army is below its permitted establishment? What is the number of vacancies in the Army today?
Mr. Hoon: I shall have to check on the precise figure as of today. We are making progress towards achieving full complement. If we were able to continue at the present rate of improvement, we anticipate that full complement in the Army would be achieved by 2005. We would hope to achieve full complement in the Navy and the Air Force rather more quickly than that. However, that would depend on ensuring that our retention figures improve and, as I said yesterday at Defence questions, on our continuing to make progress away from the previous net reduction in numbers and towards the improvements that we have seen in recent times.
As I have indicated, and as events in Northern Ireland have demonstrated, reducing commitments is not always easy. We have responsibilities around the world and we must discharge them. There are unforeseen contingencies and emergencies to which we must respond. Disruption is in the nature of service life. It is therefore important that our armed forces are well treated and properly rewarded. I am glad that the Select Committee recognises and values the significant steps that we have taken, such as improved access to NHS dentists, to improve the welfare of service families. I am pleased that the Committee also welcomes other practical and manifest changes that the Government have introduced.
1398
We have delivered a package of improved allowances for people deployed on operations. That includes an additional bonus of £1,000 for all who have experienced more than 280 days paid separated service over the two years since December 1997, and a bonus of £2,000 for those who have experienced more than 365 paid days away.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State has described how our commitment throughout the world is being reduced in a number of theatres, such as Northern Ireland, Bosnia and the Gulf. Will he assure us that he will not use that as an excuse to reduce the number of our armed forces below the existing establishment levels forced on him by the budgetary cuts made by the Treasury?
Mr. Hoon: I made it clear in an answer in Defence questions yesterday that we have maintained the levels set out in the strategic defence review and, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, that involves an increase of some 3,300 over the numbers in the armed forces that we inherited.
The bonuses will continue in future years; they will apply to all three services, and they will benefit several thousand of our hardest-working men and women. We have halved the qualifying period for longer separated service allowances from three years to 18 months. We have made personnel who regularly deploy away from home for short periods eligible for separation allowances. We have introduced a common leave allowance. We have guaranteed to all personnel a period of leave after an operational deployment so that they can spend time at home with their families. We have increased free telephone call time on operations from three minutes a week to 20. We are also increasing the allowance for the disruption of normal military life—the so-called X-factor.
A key feature of placing service personnel issues firmly at the heart of our thinking, and part of the implementation of our policy for people, is the armed forces overarching personnel strategy. That is a mechanism that clearly identifies specific actions, breakthrough objectives and responsibilities that will be reflected in the Department's corporate plan. Its aim is to promote operational effectiveness by providing a coherent framework for the development of personnel policies for the future. Implementing those policies will enable us to recruit the people we need and to develop, motivate and retain them. I am pleased to announce that the development of that strategy is now complete, and it will be brought into use from April.
We have just embarked on a major review of training and education, both service and civilian. That is part of the continuing process of modernising defence. Training and education are crucial to the provision of front-line capability. Although much of our training is of a very high quality, there is a need for it to be better integrated and more responsive to training requirements, and to take full account of best practice both inside and outside the MOD.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman clearly recognises the great importance of armed forces training, and that it should be extremely realistic and pretty robust. Will he therefore explain in a

1399
little more detail what he meant by his last comment? What sort of changes has he in mind: for example, to make training more integrated?
Mr. Hoon: Essentially, we are looking to add to the list that I gave earlier many more examples of joint operations between the armed forces. That process began years ago, and I am not suggesting that we have invented it. There is a need for more effective preparation for joint operations and to ensure that training and education integrates activity across the services. In some specific respects, as I have said, we are forming joint organisations that will require a degree of integrated preparation, so that people whose background is in the Royal Navy, for example, will receive training similar to that of people doing a similar job in the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The Secretary of State will appreciate that, following the drawdown from Germany, there is a problem with training grounds for infantry. I know that a lot of training is carried out jointly between cavalry and infantry, but the Salisbury training area near my constituency has been completely taken over by tanks, with the result that there is now nowhere for the "poor bloody infantry" to train—at least, its training areas are greatly restricted. What plans does the Ministry of Defence have to take back in hand those MOD farms that are currently let to tenant farmers—admittedly, with provision made for training? There is a shortage of training areas for the infantry; what is being done to address that problem?
Mr. Hoon: We are carefully considering that problem, because I recognise the importance of having sufficient training grounds. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) appeared to be somewhat surprised to learn that his constituency has been entirely overrun by tanks, but given all his complaints about defence cuts, I should be thankful for small mercies. Nevertheless, we are pursuing a review of training grounds and we shall continue to do so.
On the subject of education and training, I recognise that some of our structures have not quite kept pace with the changing world. It is important that we complete our review early next year, and I shall report to the House on its findings. Policy for people is delivering for service personnel. Once again, as the Labour Government have done every year, we are implementing in full the pay rise for our service personnel. In addition, we have made real improvements to opportunities for personal development in the services through our learning forces initiative. We are determined to ensure that service personnel have access to modern learning facilities such as interactive learning centres and the internet. Those measures will provide skills for life, not simply for an individual's career in the armed forces.
Our efforts in this sphere extend to the reserves. Reservists do vital and important work and help to make a real difference as a force for good in the world. They have proved their worth time and again, for example in the Balkans, where more than 10 per cent. of our forces are drawn from the reserves. They help to reduce the demands placed on our regular forces. In addition, there is a real benefit to employers or potential employers of reservists: the training and experience provided in the
1400
reserves, working alongside our world-class regular armed forces, really does give back a better employee—one who is better skilled and better able to take tough decisions.
Following the strategic defence review, we have taken two key steps to make our reserves more usable. First, we have set up the reserves training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell. That is a dedicated facility to handle the needs of the Army and reservists during mobilisation and demobilisation. Secondly, we have completed the reserve mobilisation study, which has clearly shown that compulsory mobilisation of reserves for peace support operations, such as in the Balkans, can be done: it is both legal and feasible. Although there is no operational requirement to mobilise reserves, I assure the House that we will not hesitate to do so if it becomes necessary. That is not a sign of weakness or lack of preparation—quite the opposite.
I have no doubt that we shall shortly hear a great deal about cuts from the Conservatives. I expect that we shall hear even more about the need to tackle overstretch. However, at no time will we hear anything that even remotely resembles a coherent defence policy. What exactly is the Conservative party's policy on defence? In their so-called common-sense revolution policy document, the Conservatives said that they would match commitments to resources and that, unless commitments could be reduced from their current level, Britain would require a larger Army. However, when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces asked them to name a commitment that they would cut or into which they would not have entered, they could not name a single one.
While Conservatives talk of cutting commitments, the Labour Government have actually been doing it. We are already committed to increasing the size of the Army by 3,300 people—in many cases, plugging the gaps that were left by the previous Government in terms of support to the front line. What exactly would the Conservatives do differently? Would they spend more on defence? If so, how are they going to pay for it? More important is the question of how they are going to pay for extra defence spending when their own so-called tax guarantee commits them to cutting taxes, regardless of the state of the economy—a policy so barmy that even the shadow Chancellor appears to be trying to get rid of it.
The shadow Chancellor is not the only one. Listen to the comments of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the Conservatives' former leader and Prime Minister, in The Daily Telegraph on 13 October last year:
"In principle, it's a good idea to lower taxes if you can. But to say that you are going to reduce the proportion of taxes to GDP in all circumstances is mad. How do you deliver that in a recession? You don't. You simply don't unless you make such swingeing cuts in the health service and education and the Armed Forces as are inconceivable."
There we have it. Even the previous Conservative Prime Minister does not believe in Conservative policy on tax and spend, particularly when it is applied to our armed forces.
For a moment, it looked as though the Leader of the Opposition had decided to water the pledge down by demoting it from a tax guarantee to a tax aspiration, but he did not have the good sense even to do that, so the policy still stands, with its disastrous implications for defence. The Conservative party has no strategy for easing

1401
overstretch, no ideas for cutting commitments, and no money to pay for its empty promises. In short, it has no defence policy worth the name.
Mr. Brady: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He seems to be competing with me for generosity. He says that he is looking for a coherent defence policy. Does he think that the Select Committee on Defence recognised a coherent defence policy when it stated that
"the problems of overstretch and undermanning suggest that if the wheels have not yet come off the SDR, they are certainly beginning to wobble alarmingly"?
Is that the Government's coherent defence policy?
Mr. Hoon: No, it is not. I have made it clear that I will respond in detail and in writing to the Defence Committee. I have got through 12 detailed pages this afternoon setting out precisely what we are doing. What the hon. Gentleman must do—perhaps he should raise the matter with those on his Front Bench—is establish where the money will come from to fund all the various commitments into which he and they seem to be entering. I am certainly prepared to respond to the Defence Committee, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask the same sort of questions of those on his Front Bench and of himself, if he is to advance Conservative policies with any conviction.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I regret that I must intervene on my right hon. Friend when he is entering his Tory-bashing phase, which we all appreciate. However, his remarks are clearly drawing to an end. If he does not intend to address the policy of the European Union and the development of the common foreign and security policy, will any of his Front-Bench colleagues do that, later today or in the debate on Monday?
Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend. My very next sentence deals with that matter. I cannot resist the temptation to invite the Conservative party to consider afresh its thinking on European security and the European security and defence identity. That appears to be the only specific thing to which they are opposed—the only coherent element that we can detect in their otherwise incoherent defence policy, despite the fact that it was the previous Conservative Government who signed up to the idea of a European security and defence identity in the first place.
Before I explain to the House what our European defence initiative is about, let me first say what it is not about—in words which I hope even the Opposition will be able to appreciate. They are these:
"It is not a plan for subverting or replacing NATO. It is not a plan for duplicating the huge investment which we and our allies have made in the NATO infrastructure. It is not a plan for a supranational European army under the control of the European Commission subject only to the European Parliament … what we are seeing now is an evolution of thinking which began to take shape eight years ago."
Those are not my words. They are the words of the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd of Westwell, one of the few sane individuals left in the Conservative party when it comes to the subject of Europe, taken from a speech given earlier this month to King's college, London. I was hoping that there might be a Conservative Member willing to challenge those words,
1402
but either Conservative hon. Members agree with them, in which case, presumably, we need not take much notice of their comments on Europe, or they disagree with them, in which case, presumably, there has been a fundamental shift in thinking. No doubt the shadow Defence Minister will clarify the matter when he responds.
Mr. Marshall: Clearly, the Opposition do not wish to respond. I understand my right hon. Friend's comments on the development of the policy to which he refers, but if we are to enhance security in Europe through that policy, it is essential that we keep on board the European NATO countries that are not members of the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend explain how we can ensure the involvement of those six countries in the discussions, and in shaping and making decisions about the way in which the second pillar of the European Union will evolve?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter, which is of great concern to the British Government. During the negotiations that led to the Helsinki summit, we insisted that words were incorporated in the resolution that took account of the anxiety about non-EU NATO allies. Those words were included, and we are in the process of elaborating on how the policy will work in practice. I assure the House that the British Government continue to regard that as a priority.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State is dying for us to intervene, so it is only fair to do so. He was keen to quote Lord Hurd, but he should also know that one of our predecessors, Malcolm Rifkind, who was a Member of this House at some point, rejected Lord Hurd' s interpretation. Furthermore, as we are considering predecessors, what about Lord Owen, one of the Labour party's great stalwarts? He recently said:
"This is exactly what the EU integrationists wanted. They will now 'communitarise' defence just as they have slowly brought the whole of the CFSP into the orbit of the Commission."
Fair game?
Mr. Hoon: That was an interesting quotation from someone who left the Labour party. As for Malcolm Rifkind, his views show the difference between someone who clearly has ambitions in the Conservative party and someone who has given up the party—or at least its views on Europe—as a lost cause. I have no doubt that Malcolm Rifkind is trying to curry favour with the rampant anti-European obsession tendency which the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) characterises so well.
Mr. Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly give way to a pro-European.
Mr. Soames: I am surprised at the levity and foolishness with which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to dignify his argument. No Conservative Member does not favour sensible, useful co-operation with our European allies and partners. That happens every day in NATO and on many other occasions on joint projects. The previous Administration undertook such projects with the French

1403
and many others. Some projects have been more successful than others, but that is because we have to feel our way in those matters.
Conservative Members object to the fact that the Labour party's proposal will undermine the credibility, authority and cohesion of NATO. That is why Conservative Members have grave anxieties about the future of the policy that the Secretary of State advances. For 98 per cent. of us, our objections have nothing to do with being anti-European; we have a genuine anxiety about the defence and security of Europe.
Mr. Hoon: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because he was a Defence Minister at precisely the time when Lord Hurd was developing the policy of which he now approves. The hon. Gentleman made no objection during the evolution of the policy. On our policy on European defence, Lord Hurd stated:
"what we are seeing now is an evolution of thinking which began to take shape eight years ago."
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) either overlooks developments that took place while he was a Defence Minister, or his party has made a fundamental lurch to the right, in the direction of anti-European thinking. I suspect the latter.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Hoon: I must make progress. I have given way often.
Lord Hurd made it clear that it is wrong that Europe collectively can contribute such a small proportion of the total forces required to solve a problem on its doorstep. During operations over Kosovo last year, Europeans flew only a third of the total number of aircraft sorties during the campaign. American military power gave credibility to the diplomatic campaign, although it is true that the majority of forces that now operate under NATO command as KFOR are from European nations. However, deploying a force of a few tens of thousands—a fraction of the total military personnel available to us—on precisely the type of expeditionary peace support operation that we envisage as typical of the operations of the future has stretched Europe's collective resources. It has also raised very difficult questions that will not go away. They need to be confronted head on. That is what we have been doing, together with our European allies and partners.
At the Helsinki European summit in December, the European Union took an enormous step forward in the process of solving Europe's military capability problems, which were so evident in the first half of last year as we pulled together forces to go into Kosovo. We seek to improve Europe's ability to put more forces in the field and to put them there more rapidly. Unfortunately, that relatively clear goal—a straightforward determination to improve European nations' individual and collective military capability—has been lost sight of at times. I regret that sensible discussion of that important issue is often impossible. As it is frequently viewed through the
1404
distorting lens of Conservative europhobia, some people seem to be unable to focus on the substance—how best to make Europe pull its weight in providing its own defence.
Let me emphasise that our security, and that of Europe, rests fundamentally with NATO. The alliance has been our guarantor of safety for more than 50 years and we have no intention of changing that. As it has shown over and over again since the end of the cold war, not least at the Washington summit last April, it is able to move with the times and to adapt to changes in the strategic environment. As our American allies have said for almost as long as the alliance has existed, Europe should do more and should contribute more to its own security. The Government agree, but that does not mean simply spending more money. In any case, as Kosovo showed, Europe's problem is not so much the quantity of its defence spending, but its quality. We need to generate more real, usable, military capability. That is what we seek to achieve—not window dressing, but real improvements in our collective ability to conduct operations in the real world.
In the United Kingdom, we have led the way, through the SDR, in turning our forces towards the future. That required some hard decisions. Our allies will have to face the same difficult lessons if they have not yet done so. I urge hon. Members to look closely at the language that came out of Helsinki and to consider carefully the European headline goal for defence. European Union Heads of State and of Government committed themselves to be able, by 2003, to deploy rapidly and sustain for at least a year forces up to 60,000 strong for crisis management tasks, as a contribution to a NATO-led or an EU-led operation. That is a challenging but entirely realistic target, and meeting it will require the modernisation of Europe's armed forces. It will mean making them more readily deployable and sustainable in areas where local infrastructure may be very limited—both are major themes in the SDR—and achieving it will tackle those areas where Europe has proved itself to be weak. It is all about enhancing military capability.
Mr. Dalyell: The national service regiment in which I served, which made me an honorary member of its mess, is shortly to go to Kosovo. May I ask, therefore, exactly what is happening in Mitrovica and what are the medium and long-term aims? There is great concern about that.
Mr. Hoon: There is clearly great tension between the two communities in Mitrovica. British forces, together with other police forces and others, have been involved very recently in seeking to ensure continued stability there, but I do not necessarily recognise a description of what took place as a riot. I saw on the television yesterday, as perhaps my hon. Friend did, a British commander describing the demonstration as essentially good humoured. It speaks volumes for the experience and ability of our armed forces that they were able to resolve the situation so professionally. Clearly we are concerned and shall maintain vigilance to ensure that it does not get out of hand.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He is showing considerable generosity. As he knows, I support the European security and defence policy, but he, like me, attended the recent Munich conference on security at

1405
which there was substantial representation from both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Is it not clear that we have some way to go to allay the anxieties of legislators in the United States? I believe that we can do that. Will he accept from me that we may be able to help to allay those anxieties by accepting that there should be a formal right of first refusal for NATO before any EU action is contemplated?
Mr. Hoon: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, I was present at the conference. I spoke there and discussed that issue with a number of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I recognise that some legislators have some concerns. I cannot possibly expect to be able to allay every single one of them, because the United States, like the United Kingdom, is a robust democracy in which there is a wide variety of views. We have work to do and we continue to do it.
I visited the United States last month and was encouraged by the support that I found for what we are trying to do. In particular, the US Administration are with us, which is why they signed up to the European defence initiative at the Washington summit last year and have continually repeated their support for it ever since, not least during my visit. As Strobe Talbott, the US Deputy Secretary of State said last December:
"There should be no confusion about America's position on the need for a stronger Europe. We are not against; we are not ambivalent; we are not anxious; we are for it. We want to see a Europe that can act effectively through the Alliance or, if NATO is not engaged, on its own. Period. End of debate."
Our American allies understand that the proposal is not about weakening NATO. It is about strengthening it and getting rich Europeans to pull their weight in their own defence. That is realised in Washington. It is a pity that, for whatever reason, it is not realised by some here.
I have set out an impressive programme of activity—modernisation, reorganisation and new thinking—but let us not forget that all that innovation is a means to an end. That end is the delivery of effective military force. We will be judged by one thing, and one only: our ability to deliver that force better than ever before. As I speak, we have men in Kosovo acting with skill and courage of which we can all be proud. We have HMS Illustrious in the Gulf at the head of a major naval deployment. We have Royal Air Force aircraft in the skies over Iraq. Those interventions show that we are acting as a force for good, day after day. All the developments that I have described are designed to increase the effectiveness of our forces. I commend them to the House.
2.17 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I should say at the outset that our support and respect for the members of the armed forces is not in question and will not be disputed by any Member of the House—certainly not any Opposition Member. The Secretary of State was correct to say that they serve in the most difficult circumstances and deliver for this country a service of which we can be justifiably proud. If we ever needed a reminder of their skills and quality, it came in the past few days at Mitrovica. I say without fear of contradiction that the arrival of British troops in that area added greatly to the stability that then ensued. They dealt with difficult circumstances, which could easily have flared up and become worse, and the sheer quality of our
1406
armed forces—particularly of the Royal Green Jackets, but also of others—calmed the situation. I am proud of, and determined to support, them. That will not be part of the debate, nor of the criticism, and I hope that he accepts that from Members on both sides of the House.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the strategic defence review was, in essence, debated correctly and welcomed if not in its entirety, then for its central thrust. It would be churlish to say otherwise as I happen to be one of those who published a pamphlet calling for an SDR perhaps two years before the Labour party in opposition came to the idea. A few of my hon. Friends were also involved. I not only thought that an SDR was a good idea, but had high hopes and expectations when it happened. The question is, what happened as a result of the review and what is happening now? The key judgment about which the Secretary of State talked is correct: the review will be judged not on the high hopes of that time, but on what has been delivered. That includes the critical issue of what money has been made available.
To set the debate in context, we must begin with what the SDR delivered in budgetary terms. For all the criticisms of the previous Government about reducing budgets when Labour were in opposition, the fact is that the defence review went on to reduce the budget further. According to Library figures, the reduction is about £800 million, but that is in cash terms and depends on certain variables. If it is not a point blank budget saving of £800 million, much will depend on the in-house savings that have been identified to avoid having to bear the full brunt of the reduction.
It is important to identify the two critical areas, because we need to know whether we are likely to make progress and whether the recommended savings will be made. The first is the smart procurement programme. As Conservative Members know—I am sure that Labour Members also know this, although they will not admit it—Ministers are experts and masters at launching, re-launching and re-relaunching their best initiatives, or at least what they want most of all to be in the public domain, and defence is no exception. The Government think that merely by the inclusion of the word "smart"—just like they use the word "modern"—they will avoid any further scrutiny because it sounds good, warm common sense, so everyone will go along with it.
I have talked to some of my former colleagues and right hon. Friends who were in the Ministry of Defence in the previous Government, and they maintain that many of these plans were already in place. We did not call it smart procurement, because we were not as good at dressing up our proposals as we were at delivering them. I am pleased that the Select Committee did not fall into the trap of accepting that when it says "smart" it really means that.
At the heart of that programme is a saving of at least £2 billion to be delivered over 10 years. If the Government are unable to deliver the total package or, almost as importantly, cannot deliver the saving in time spread over that 10-year period, the defence budget will come under greater and greater pressure.
Cash flow is important at this juncture because there are serious doubts about whether the Government will deliver on the agreed timings. General Burton's departure last summer highlighted that. The Government made little comment about his criticisms and concerns, which came to light in the press. He was seriously angry about the

1407
pressure that Ministers were putting him under to deliver ahead of what he recognised was possible because they had flagged this up as part of their major savings. They were able to spin the idea that they were having to save less by saying that they would deliver more earlier under the smart procurement programme.
Nothing in the White Paper allays General Burton's concerns. It does not even refer to them. As ever, it glosses over the whole issue, and gives us no figures for the Government's achievements against their targets—a point that the Select Committee spotted. Worse still, the industry is already indicating that it is coming under greater pressure from the Ministry of Defence to slow down the submission of invoices so that they fall in the next financial year. That is real short-termism, which I thought smart procurement was supposed to end. That will lead to more pressure the following year, and, although people may not realise it, more expensive contracts subsequently. In this area at least, we have moved from smart procurement to stupid procurement in two short years.
The Select Committee report underlined how crucial the sale of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was to the Ministry of Defence's budgetary calculations. Apparently, the MOD stands to gain some £250 million from the agency's partial privatisation, but the Government are now fraught with arguments and problems, not least the antipathy of the United States Government to the plans.
The Secretary of State faces a stark choice. Either he proceeds with the mess that he has on his plate—admittedly he inherited it—thus alienating the Americans and damaging his relationship with the defence industry, which has expressed grave concerns about the unfair nature of what he may be about to propose, or he faces a hole in his spending plans. All that for £250 million. We may end up jeopardising a critical part of our relationship with the United States, which is very important to the special relationship, which delivers intelligence and technology and is unique to the United Kingdom.
On top of all that, most controversially, comes the three-year efficiency saving. The White Paper contains little of substance on that. The Select Committee report rightly questions whether the 3 per cent. efficiency saving will be anything more than a 3 per cent. cut. The Government produce no evidence to prove their claims, and we are left with the evidence of cancelled exercises, shorter flying hours for the RAF and other pilots and cuts in some of the medical programmes. If the efficiency saving is not delivered, that will punch a further £500 million hole in the Government's allowance for in-house savings.
In paragraph 159, the Select Committee said:
"There is, it seems to us, a fundamental implausibility in the total efficiency claimed by the MoD over the years … in other words that the MoD is simply doing less with less money".
That is the key. There has always been a suspicion that, as the budget came under pressure, greater savings would be justified as a more efficient way of doing things. If the savings are merely a cut, they will be deeply damaging to the overall ability of the armed forces, and to the doability—a horrible ord—of the strategic defence review.
1408
Part of the great saving envisaged in the strategic defence review was the change to the Territorial Army—I use the word "change" advisedly, because it was nothing more than a pretty savage cut. Some 18,000 men were slashed from the Territorial Army as part of the package of savings offered to the Treasury. Now the Government are sending contrary messages about the use of the TA, which the Secretary of State got bogged down in when he tried to describe how it may or may not be used in the future.
In the strategic defence review, the Government said that, although it would not normally be appropriate to call out formed units of the reserves at short notice, we should be prepared to do so if that were necessary to complete the build-up of a large military force in an international crisis, such as the Gulf war. However, the Government have not discussed that with members of the TA. The Government and those who operate on their behalf hardly know where many members work. They have little data on the nature of their work and how to call them up. They have no data worth talking about on the reserves. There has been a panicky change of policy, and there is little chance of delivering it in reality. It is more about window dressing than anything else.
Furthermore, the change to the TA has flown in the face of the experience of Kosovo. Something like 40 per cent. of the TA deployment in the Balkans is infantry—the very group that has been slashed.
There are still unanswered questions about equipment for the TA. I know from many of my conversations with TA soldiers that they are concerned about the fact that, when they try to train in the evenings or at weekends—especially the signals regiments—they find themselves without equipment, because much of it has been deployed and they are left with little to train with. As a result, their training has fallen short. Nothing in the White Paper explains how that problem will be resolved; there is a gaping hole.
The key element in the White Paper that we should try to understand is the effect of any failure in the areas that I have just described. What is important is not what the Government talk about: the key issue is what effect their policy has on the effectiveness of our armed forces.
The Secretary of State was keen to talk about exercises. The Select Committee said that two major UK exercises had been cancelled because of financial constraints. The first was the Marines' arctic warfare exercise in Norway. The Secretary of State wrote to me to explain that he had been incorrect when he originally said that it had been cancelled due to commitments: it was because of budgetary constraints. The second was HMS Westminster's participation in the Flotex exercise. In fact, HMS Westminster found itself sitting in the Thames, waiting for the much-hyped new Labour new millennium.
I suppose it was good to have something British sitting near the dome over the new year—or at least something that worked. I do not know whether the Secretary of State had much to do with that, but congratulations are in order, even if they are not directed to those who run the dome, to the Secretary of State or to the Minister responsible.
The Select Committee said:
"Given that so many exercises had to be cancelled because of over commitment it is deeply worrying that there was insufficient money to pay for some of even the residual exercises planned. Without regular exercises for high intensity conflict, standards in our Armed Forces will plummet, whatever the quality of the people and equipment."

1409
The Committee also said that the pressures created by operations had led to the cancellation of some eight NATO exercises.
Mr. Hoon: So far, the hon. Gentleman has majored in allegations about defence cuts. He mentioned commitments. Can he say categorically which of the commitments into which British armed forces have entered since 1 May 1997 he, as a potential Defence Secretary, would not have entered into? He says that he is concerned about allegations of defence cuts. How much would he restore to the defence budget if he were elected to government—the amount as of 1 May 1997, or, for example, the amount that was in the budget before the Conservatives cut it by up to a third?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State shows just how panicky he really is. He sees Labour slipping behind the Conservatives in the polls on defence, and then the panic begins. All of a sudden, Labour is more worried about what we will do when we return to government than about what it is doing in government.
There is a simple answer to the Secretary of State. When in opposition, the Labour party had nothing to say about what it would do about any of those issues. Furthermore, under Labour the recommendations of the strategic defence review have been in operation for less than two years. Is the Secretary of State saying that he has no idea how to reduce the commitments, and no idea about whether to put in extra money or to cut the budget? If so, there is a simple solution: the right hon. Gentleman should vacate those Benches, and let us take over.
Mr. Hoon: In the unlikely event of it being necessary for us to vacate these Benches, I shall still want to know the answers to my questions. I gave a long list of the commitments that we have been able to reduce. What commitments would the hon. Gentleman have reduced had he been in my position? He is telling the country that he wants my position; he ought to be able to tell the country what he would do—and, moreover, how he would afford it, in the light of the tax guarantee given by the leader of his party.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I think the Secretary of State protests too much, although I understand why he is so worried. He is clearly very upset with his friends in the Treasury, and is trying to convey to them that he needs to know where to place his vote at the next election. He is saying, "I have to worry: if the Conservatives have a really good policy, Defence Ministers will have to vote for them."
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Answer.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State will hear the answer in good time. He will hear it after we have convinced everyone, as we are in the process of doing, that he and his colleagues have damaged the defence forces by making such a serious cut when they came to office, and that their commitment is not deliverable in the context of the strategic defence review.
Mr. Spellar: Give us an answer.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Instead of bobbing up and down like a superannuated teddy bear with supercharged
1410
batteries, the Minister should get on with running his end of the Department, so that we do not end up with cancelled exercises, broken equipment and failure. I take no lessons from him. [Interruption.] Let me now talk about the policy for people, which the Minister will want to hear about. It is another instance of the Government's falling down.
Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend mentions the policy for people. Perhaps we could make an early pledge to restore the so-called efficiency saving of the £1.5 million cut in the programme designed to return some of the 5,000 unfit service men requiring orthopaedic treatment to the front line.
Mr. Duncan Smith: That, of course, was another Labour cut. My hon. Friend is right: what was in the budget to help to deal with those priority patients was cut. I know that the Minister had a view about those in the medical services, which is probably unrepeatable here, but there is a more positive way in which to proceed. I hope that, in making changes to the medical services, the Government will reinstate the money that they took away.
The Government's flagship policy for people was subjected to scrutiny by The Daily Telegraph on 21 November. The newspaper quoted from a briefing paper drawn up by Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, which stated:
"The ambitious plans in the SDR and its supporting essays are in danger of coming to grief for want of resources … unless more resources are forthcoming we must abandon any pretence that we are putting people at the heart of our policy … The money must be found or the policy will not be delivered."
The first of the report's valid concerns was married quarters, in which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is interested. Married quarters are the Cinderella of defence spending, and are most affected by short-termism. Although the Government have spoken of extra money—I believe that the Minister of State did so yesterday—they fail to explain why they have allowed refurbishment programmes to slide by at least two years from the dates originally proposed. The upgrades that are being put on hold amount to about what the Government trim in their attempts to find short-term savings. That is important, not just in terms of total money, but because it sends a message to families who feel undervalued as a result of the slippage. I think that the slippage also undermines service men and women when they go away from home, because they too worry about their homes.
Mr. Spellar rose—
Mr. Duncan Smith: Before I give way to the Minister, let me remind him of what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said at Question Time yesterday about the further trimming of about £1 million from some budgets.
Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a danger that what is said today will become repetitious in terms of what was said yesterday. I rightly pointed out then that the move from 2003 to 2005 was due to the fact that, when a full study was made of how much would be needed to upgrade the properties to category 1, the previous Administration had underestimated the amount

1411
by some £112 million in their dash to get rid of the properties and balance the budget before the last general election.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I hear what the Minister says, but that concerns total money. My question was, why the delay? That is the key question, and he has not answered it. The truth is that good management would not have allowed the delay, although it might have affected the total involved. He stands condemned.
That element of delay creates the greatest problem for families to whom my colleagues and I have talked. [Interruption.] I also have personal experience of what happens when Government change programmes. I wish that the Minister would talk to married families more, and find out what they think.
Strategic lift is a key issue, which is at the heart of Government policy. The strategic defence review made some big statements about it, which are critical to its ability to meet its targets. As Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson said:
"New transport aircraft and ships will move our people and equipment rapidly to trouble spots."
The Government clearly approved the short-term strategic lift programme in saying that the Ministry of Defence would meet
"our strategic airlift needs in the short term with four C-17 large aircraft or their equivalent."
That was in the strategic defence review. On the Treasury's insistence, however, the short-term strategic airlift competition has been bundled together with the Hercules rolling replacement programme—as far as I can see, in order to save money.
We understand that the decision on that programme is imminent. That is what the Secretary of State tells us. We have heard the word "imminent" so often in this context that we have a case of rolling imminence: one month after another, the decision is imminent. The Treasury, however, has delayed the in-service date, at least for our heavy-lift aircraft, by a year or, perhaps, even longer. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State—I will take his intervention—were to say exactly when he intends to take the decision and, perhaps, announce what it is. It is imminent, no doubt.
Mr. Hoon: The answer is soon.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am pleased that the Secretary of State is able to shift his position slightly and move from imminent to soon. I am sure that those who study the small print will recognise a clear, major shift in policy.
I want to draw the Secretary of State's attention to an important part of strategic lift. It is not just the air side. There is the ability to move using ships. There is a clear question about the order. I gather that some of that capability in shipping was meant to be in place in October, but I should like to know at some point—I will take his intervention again—when the decision will be made; imminently soon, I dare say. He made the point that joint rapid reaction force capability requires that corresponding capability. Without that, his great statement, which I wholly applaud, that they will be able
1412
to work together and be deployed, which is exactly what should happen, will become near impossible to achieve, as we saw during the Kosovo exercise.
Again, the Select Committee shared our thoughts on the matter. It said:
"The SDR committed the UK to force projection strategy. If we lack the ability to 'project' force, many very expensive assets are wasted. We view the lack of adequate deployability, particularly with regard to strategic airlift, with grave concern".
Hear, hear.
The Secretary of State has touched on overstretch already. We have been around the houses. I will not belabour him on it.
Mr. John Bercow: Go on.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Well, all right, if my hon. Friend wants me to. Overstretch is simply about being committed to operations without the numbers necessary, or perhaps even the equipment levels to sustain them, not just in the short term, but in the medium and long terms. The Secretary of State talked about getting the level down. In fact, there was a clear statement about that in the SDR. The Government therefore have to be judged on that, just as any Government would be. It is not possible to avoid that judgment.
The problem is that the Government then and the Secretary of State just now said that the level was being brought down to below that of the previous Administration. In fact, as he admitted, it went up to nearly 50 per cent. under the Government and has now fallen, or will fall under the projection, to 28 per cent.; I think that that was the figure that he used. I have to correct the Secretary of State: 28 per cent. is the figure that he inherited. He said
"below the level that we inherited."
The real point is that, in a proper debate about the matter, we would be talking about the correct start point. We can perhaps discuss how that might come about, instead of playing games about whether the figure will be above or below. The reality is that the Secretary of State inherited a level of 28 per cent. It will not fall below that, which means, in essence, that the statement in the SDR is not being delivered.
The Secretary of State said that the Government were making progress on recruitment and retention. I am a little confused about the figure that he gave the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). The Secretary of State said that, under present circumstances and conditions, it would take five years—I think that that is what he said—to reach the right manning levels, but the adjutant-general said that, at the current net inflow rate to the Army, it would take 31 years to meet its SDR target establishment of 105,000 men.
Will the Secretary of State perhaps clarify where those differences lie? It is not a marginal difference: 31 years and five years is quite a gap.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Quite soon.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I hear what my hon. Friend says.
The point that I am making—I have tried to make it from the beginning—is that the Government must be judged on the targets that they set themselves. if they are

1413
to achieve that which they set themselves under the SDR, they will have to make certain that they have the correct amount of money, which is seriously in doubt, that they are able to deliver on the key programmes that allow them to deploy our forces, and that they have the right number of forces. In all those areas, we see no signs. There is nothing in the White Paper to answer the questions that the Select Committee asked. All that is staring at failure, rather than success.
I move to the bigger issue into which the whole SDR falls. The Secretary of State touched on it. It is worth going back to it: the strategic concept, the key issues that are likely to create, or at least to arise in the environment in which our forces may have to be deployed in the next few years.
I warned the Government some time ago that I thought—we have had exchanges about it and we will do so again—that they had taken the wrong decision over NATO and the European security and defence identity. I warned that, in late 1998, at St. Malo, the Prime Minister's rushed attempt to change policy, which then moved at an alarming pace in 1999, was a big mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is right about that.
The other day, I was checking through Hansard to find out what the Prime Minister had said on Amsterdam in the House. In response to some questions about defence and the European Union, he said:
"getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy. We therefore resisted unacceptable proposals from others."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
He had just taken over as Prime Minister.
That was a pretty clear statement. If anything, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex will remember, it ran very much in line with the policy of the previous Government, yet, by late 1998, the Prime Minister had executed an about-turn. At St. Malo, he started a process that opened the door to some of the most divisive French ambitions, while gaining us nothing concrete in return.
Instead, by the usual trick of saying one thing to one group and another to another, the Prime Minister succeeded in alarming the United States, while encouraging those who were so inclined to take that initiative even further. Now he and the Secretary of State are trying to pretend that the ESDI was always about improving capability for the European nations of NATO, but the Americans and others have spotted that the words in the series of agreements show up the ambitions to create a defence identity beyond NATO—outside NATO. Those are the lines and words that have been used from St. Malo to Helsinki. It is a reality. That is what the Government have signed up to.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not the case that the process goes back to before St. Malo? Article B of the Amsterdam treaty specifically says that the European Union
"shall set itself the following objectives:
to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy."
That is what it is all about. It is about enabling the EU to assert its identity, not about defending this country.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right, which is why the Prime Minister was asked that specific question
1414
when he was in the House. There was grave concern about what the Amsterdam treaty contained. That was why he answered in the way in which he did, trying to allay the fears. Many hon. Members would have taken him at face value over that. On that basis, it is fair to assume that what he said in the House should have greater validity than anything else. The truth is that it turns out that it did not.
Mr. Spellar: When were those words negotiated and by which Government? How did that tie in with what was agreed at Maastricht?
Mr. Duncan Smith: As the Minister would know if he checked, the concerns at Amsterdam were that what the Prime Minister and others had agreed were further—
Mr. Hoon: Which Prime Minister?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister of this country. Does the Secretary of State remember who that is? I hope that the Whips are not confused about that. A startling new problem may emerge for the Secretary of State. We will see, but the Prime Minister and others, as the Dutch showed, had agreed to extend the process. That was the concern.
The Prime Minister rebutted that through those words and said that it was not the case. I remember asking him in the Chamber that very question. He said that it had not happened and that the Dutch essentially were not correct in their interpretation. My point is that they were. We saw later how he had snuck through another change. It is important that we check what others who were party to the agreements think about them.
On 17 November 1999, Hubert Vérine, the French Foreign Minister, said that, in the ESDI, France sought to create a more autonomous defence capacity that is
"separate and apart from the NATO alliance".
At about the same time, the German Foreign Minister said:
"I can say, on behalf of the federal government, that we emphatically support this process and are glad about the St. Malo communiqué, because it means an important step"—
this is the important bit—
"for the development of the European security and defence identity. another pillar of the process of European unification."
There is nothing much there about NATO.
Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like first to finish making this point.
Even the President of France, Jacques Chirac, said that the European Union
"could not fully exist until it possessed autonomous capacity for action in the area of defence … It's an essential contribution to the emergence of a multipolar world".
All those statements on justifying the process are very different from those made by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. To top them all, on 4 February 2000, the European Commission President, Romano Prodi—I remind the Secretary of State that he and other Labour Members were very keen to have Mr. Prodi in that position—told The Independent:

1415
"When I was talking about the European army I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. You can call it `Margaret"—
I would not do that if I were him; she would not approve—
"you can call it 'Mary-Ann', you can find any name".
I suppose that one could even call it Tony.
Although Mr. Prodi's statement expresses what he and many other people think will happen, the Secretary of State refuses to accept that prediction.
Did my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wish to intervene?
Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but he has already covered the point. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that the Prime Minister not only asserts his profound opposition to the idea of a common European defence policy, but enthusiastically supports for the presidency of the European Commission a man who is utterly committed to the realisation of the goal of a common European defence policy? How does the Prime Minister expect to be taken remotely seriously on this matter, as on others, when he is manifestly at loggerheads with himself?
Mr. Duncan Smith: It is a conundrum. I have spent many a sleepless night wondering about the Prime Minister's split personality—the way in which, at one and the same time, he can be both Opposition and Government. He makes a statement, but, stepping to the other Dispatch Box, challenges himself and disapproves of his previous statement. It depends on the audience. One day, perhaps in The Guardian, the Prime Minister will make one policy statement, whereas, on another day, he will go out of his way to make a different statement, perhaps in the Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph.
Mr. Bercow: Jekyll and Hyde.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend can say that, but I would not be so unkind. On this key issue, however, we are considering not the Prime Minister's assurances, but the statements of other people.
It is no wonder that there are concerns in Washington and in NATO. The other day, some of my hon. Friends and I visited NATO. We certainly drew the conclusion that people there had serious concerns about the ESDI process, notwithstanding those people's determination to try to bind it to NATO.
There will be a problem whichever way the process goes. The process will either create a huge military structure that will operate as an alternative to NATO, or—perhaps this scenario is even more likely; it is even more dangerous—it will act as a smokescreen behind which the nations of Europe simply do not ante up in meeting their share of the NATO requirements.
Earlier, I quoted Lord Owen's comments disapproving of the process. I have also reminded the House that my former right hon. Friend—Malcolm Rifkind, who will return to the House at the next general election—has made it clear that he disapproves of the process. Like me, they believe that the European Union's involvement in the matter is part of the problem, not the solution. Everyone accepts that the European nations are not doing enough in
1416
the new millennium to keep with their obligations to NATO. They are not doing enough to provide the type of forces that are required.
The solutions to the problem lie within NATO, not outside NATO. It has always been Britain's traditional role—one that we have played very well, regardless of change of Government—to make certain that the alliance never divided into false competing halves, composed of Europe and of north America. The alliance drew its strength from the fact that it was united. Sure, there were disagreements. Equally, as we have discovered recently, there are times when not everyone will operate together. Nevertheless, by creating an artificial structural division, the Government have risked NATO's coherence. Not one country—certainly not the serious major countries—in NATO entertains increasing its defence budget significantly, if at all. I fear that, behind the screen of the proposed new structure, the defence budgets of many of those countries will decrease. We may, therefore, end up with the worst of all worlds.
As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, signals from the European nations to the United States convey the message not only that the United States' involvement is ever less welcome, but that those countries are ever less capable of mounting a serious defence posture.
The process has already begun, which is why various American diplomats and politicians are warning the nations of Europe. The Secretary of State is always very keen to quote Strobe Talbott, and, when he does, I always ask him, please, to read on a bit, to get to the rest of Mr. Talbott's speech—the part in which he describes his fears. Here is such a section. Mr. Talbott said:
"We would not want to see an ESDI that comes into being first within NATO but then grows out of NATO and finally grows away from NATO, since that would lead to an ESDI that initially duplicates NATO but that could eventually compete with NATO. That's a long-term concern, obviously, but NATO, after all, is about the long term".
Those are genuine concerns. Although the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and I may not agree on specific policy, I agree with him that the Americans are very worried about the process. It is no good simply saying, "These are the statements that they have made supporting the process", when the truth is that they have deep concerns about it.
It is also no good simply to claim that the process is an extension of the Americans' policy, or that it was initiated because of Kosovo. As I said, the process was started well before Kosovo.
The Government embarked on the process with such speed, in 1998, not because they felt that there was a military reason to do so, but because they were genuinely scared of being isolated in Europe. The single currency was about to start and Ministers found themselves outside of it. Their panic caused them to find a mechanism by which they would be able, in a big way, to reaffirm their European credentials. The Government therefore decided to play the defence card—giving us the best conceivable example of precisely what the Government are all about. They are about not serious policy making, but cynical gestures aimed at achieving their own cynical ambitions. Their position, however, is a foolish gamble that will divide NATO at a critical time.
Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and I touched on the most critical issue in this debate—the reason why, now, more than at any

1417
time since the mid-1980s, NATO needs to act together. I have long believed that there is an increasingly serious threat from the proliferation of ballistic missiles and of weapons of mass destruction. I expressed that fear in the House in 1993, and I have remained convinced of the threat ever since.
What has changed the debate is that, in 1998, the Rumsfeld commission report on ballistic missile proliferation was presented to the United States Senate, making it clear that the assessment of the threat from rogue states armed with ballistic missiles was far greater than estimated previously. The report went on to say that, within approximately five years from the date of the report's publication, the United States would be within target range of missiles stationed in North Korea and Iran. The report drew on Central Intelligence Agency sources and on other intelligence sources, and it was considered to be authoritative.
Although the report obviously accepted that there was a margin of error in the judgments made, none the less, it made a very powerful point that dramatically changed thinking on the issue in the United States. It is sad that, with full knowledge of that report, little has changed in any respect in the United Kingdom or in the rest of western Europe.
Last year, I tried to point out that I thought that the British Government should now take a lead in persuading NATO to engage the United States about its proposals for a defensive shield, rather than allowing European nations to snipe at the proposals from the sidelines. The fact is that, whether the Government like it or not—this is the crucial point—the USA will proceed with development and deployment of that shield. It would be useful for the Government to make a clear statement of their position as there is nothing in the White Paper except a subtle shift of language.
The report states that
"no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK and its interests will exist for some years".
Even the Select Committee reminded us that they thought that the attention given to theatre defence was "inadequate".
At no stage has the Ministry of Defence given us an indication of the meaning of the term "some years". If it is different from that in the Rumsfeld report in the United States and estimates that there are many more years to prepare, can the Minister please tell us why? If it is the same, why are we not stepping up activity and taking action? More particularly, the inclusion of the word "significant" in relation to ballistic missile threat indicates that the Ministry of Defence may have shifted slightly. At least it recognises that there is a threat, but I wonder what is meant by the word "significant". I would say that one missile armed with a chemical or biological warhead is a significant enough threat. We need to see off that threat one way or another.
I have described proliferation as the chain which links nations around the globe, but right hon. and hon. Members may not realise the extent to which it has been taking place right under their noses with a degree of complacency. It all starts with China and North Korea and North Korea's missile programme—from the Taep'o-dong missile launched in 1998 that splashed down in the sea of Japan and gave us a clear indication of the ranges being achieved to the later No-dong 1 and 2 programmes. They have
1418
absolutely convinced anyone who knows anything at all about this that the North Koreans now have the technology to produce three-stage rockets, which is the real key to producing ballistic missiles.
Whether or not North Korea poses a threat, it has helped to develop the technology in Iran, Iraq and, I understand, in other countries such as Pakistan. The key question is what we will be able to do about it. The ranges of such missiles are increasing every week. People are working on them and every year there are new developments which produce greater capacity.
There are significant links between China and North Korea and only 18 months ago China produced a missile capable of a range of 12,000 km. It will not be long before the technology finds its way to North Korea and the other rogue states that we are justifiably worried about.
Another issue that is not addressed in the White Paper involves the changing situation in Russia—not just what has been happening in Chechnya, but Mr. Putin's strident language in respect of his rights over nuclear weapons, the use to which he sees them being put and his involvement with others who wish to receive that technology about which he made some interesting statements recently.
I am concerned because I think—and the Conservative party believes—that the British Government should be taking a lead in NATO. Instead of taking a lead and trying to create or negotiate a NATO programme, the Government seem to be trying to play both ends of the argument. On one hand, they are aware of, and worried about, their French counterparts in ESDI, who are implacably opposed to the US defensive shield, as well as any discussion about a NATO programme. On the other hand, the US is going ahead and the Government try to make some quiet and careful concessions, fearful of reawakening their own Back Benchers who seem implacably opposed to any change in the anti-ballistic missile treaty or the development of such a shield.
As a result, Britain, instead of leading the debate within NATO, as we have traditionally done at critical moments, has nothing constructive or positive to say and we watch complacently as the tension within NATO grows and the threat from outside gets ever closer.
What is the lesson for leaders such as Milosevic? Over the past 12 months they will have learned that in conventional terms they clearly have no hope of dealing with NATO so there is no point in a confrontation. However, they will also have learned that if they happen to have a ballistic missile or other mass destruction capability, there is a chance that NATO might think again or take a different view. That is the key question that we will have to answer. The Secretary of State knows that it is not just about the threat to the United Kingdom, but perhaps even more urgently, it is about the threat to our deployed forces in theatre, to which we seem to have no answer. If the Government could put one half of the energy that they have put into rushing the creation of the ESDI into ballistic missile defence, by now we might just have the beginning of a constructive NATO response to what the Americans are engaged in and to the development of the threats from elsewhere.
The Secretary of State said that the Conservatives had no policy. Let me tell him that last year we committed to that as a policy. I hope that the Government will recognise that it is a serious policy position and that they will move

1419
to it as rapidly as they possibly can. If they did so, I would not make childish remarks; I would simply welcome it as a constructive move for the British Isles and for NATO.
The Select Committee report is probably the most critical White Paper that I have seen of Government policy. Almost from the outset it makes it clear that the delivery of the SDR is seriously in question. It makes it clear that the wheels are wobbling dangerously, but not quite falling off. I thought that the most telling paragraph was paragraph 17, which states:
"The performance report in its present form tells us very little about how the Ministry of Defence has performed over the years in question. It measures resources and activity but hardly even begins to measure outputs … the performance report is inadequate for its stated purpose."
That is a damning indictment of Government policy. It is remarkable because it is from a Labour-dominated Committee.
As we approach the second anniversary of the SDR, the Opposition take the view that the Government's defence policy is under huge pressure internally with no real strategy externally for dealing with major threats. The Government are heading towards a crisis with breathtaking complacency. Our forces need more than fine words wrapped up in glossy documents, but I am afraid that that is all that they will get.
The White Paper is simply not good enough and the Government's performance so far shows how little thought they have given to dealing with the problems that confront them. They thought little about them before entering Government and they have tried to think as little as possible about them since. There needs to be a huge change in thinking if our defence forces are to succeed. Otherwise, as I fear and the Select Committee seems to indicate, we will lurch from crisis to crisis, with all that that entails.
3.8 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: Let me start by saying that I am a member of the defence committee of the Western European Union and that other members of that committee are present in the Chamber. I should like to concentrate on chapter 2 of the White Paper under the heading, "The European Dimension", which deals with a matter that has been in the forefront of discussion at the major summit conferences that have taken place in recent months—the European security and defence identity—and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the future military role of the European Union.
Discussions on the role of the European Union go back some years. Suggestions that European nations should think more boldly and imaginatively about defence and be able to speak and act more effectively certainly have a great deal of merit. However, while the discussions have been taking place, the European defence identity, based on its role within the European Union, was supposed to have been in place this year. That most certainly will not happen. While the discussions continue, there are unanswered questions that concern many people and I shall concentrate on those questions during my short speech today.
As a member of the British delegation to the WEU, I want to know what role the WEU will have in any European defence identity. The WEU has 28 member
1420
states, many of which are not members of the European Union and will not be members for many years to come. Other countries are not NATO members. While NATO enlargement has taken place and will undoubtedly continue to take place, several countries that play a meaningful role in the WEU will not be members of the European Union or NATO for some, possibly many, years. However, they are European countries with a great concern for their security. Will their role be defined and, if so, when will that happen?
The overriding issue of the position of countries that are not members of the European Union or NATO comes up time and again in WEU meetings that I and other members of the British delegation attend. We have attended meetings in Oslo and Brussels in recent weeks and, at both, that issue figured highly in the discussions. Some of the WEU member states are deeply concerned, because they are not convinced that they will have a meaningful role in any changes that take place in European security and defence policy.
After the Oslo meeting, a statement was issued on 11 February, which read:
"The new security policy bodies of the EU should therefore function on the principles of inclusiveness and transparency as regards the contribution of the non-EU European Allies."
What will be the role, in any future European defence policy that may be developed, of countries such as Turkey, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria? Some of them—Turkey, for example—play a major role in European defence policy.
It has already been mentioned in today's debate that the recent conflicts in Europe mean that we will have to develop the two roles of crisis management and peacekeeping. Neither will be easy, as we have sadly found out. How will those roles be developed within the European defence identity? We already know that, within the existing European Union of 15 members, we have countries that do not wish to play a role in crisis management, but who participate in peacekeeping as part of the United Nations and other major organisations in various areas of the world. What policy does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State envisage the European Union following as it develops its defence and security role? Will those countries that I mentioned, which do not wish to be involved in crisis management, be involved in discussions on the European Union defence and security role or will we have a system in which, on some issues, some member states will play one role on one issue and another on other issues? That question arises repeatedly at the meetings that I and other hon. Members attend.
Mr. Syd Rapson: Crisex 2000, which will take place soon, is designed to test the different structures. The answers from that exercise will be made available if my hon. Friend is able to wait.
Mr. Cox: I welcome those comments and I shall certainly await the outcome of that exercise with interest. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I will discuss the issues again.
We do not hear much in the House or generally about the future role of elected Members of the European Parliament. I relate the European Parliament to the European Union. Will the elected Members have a decision-making role, or will the national Parliaments of

1421
the member states of the EU remain the sovereign decision makers? That question is often asked, but rarely answered.
I have three other points to make. The first centres on budgets. We know that many countries in the EU and the WEU face budget restraints. We know that the budgets of some countries mean that they could pay far more towards overall defence expenditure and their commitments as European countries. If we develop the European defence and security role, will the 15 member states of the EU be expected to increase their budgets for that purpose? I would be interested to know whether that suggestion has been made at the meetings that have already taken place.
Paragraph 17 of the White Paper states:
"Britain and the other nations of the EU also wish to play an appropriate part in the response by the wider international community to crises elsewhere. We need therefore to be able both to make a stronger and more coherent contribution to the Alliance and to improve our collective capability to undertake European crisis management operations where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged. Above all, this means strengthening European nations' armed forces. Too few have been modernised to meet today's requirements. Too few can be deployed to crises quickly, are flexible enough to meet the difficulties they will face, or are sustainable over long periods in difficult conditions."
Those comments emphasise the problems that already exist, and those of us who belong to this country's delegation to the WEU do not think that those issues are sufficiently recognised, discussed or answered.
The second issue is that of service personnel. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are overstretched, as are other countries, and I was pleased to hear his comments about the improvements that are being made in our forces. However, paragraph 19 of the White Paper talks of
"up to 50,000 or 60,000 personnel, together with appropriate air and naval elements".
Will the policy be to obtain those highly trained service personnel from the existing 15 member countries of the European Union? If so, EU countries would have to allocate much greater financial resources for collective security than they have hitherto.
My final point has to do with assets—another matter that crops up repeatedly at the meetings that I and other hon. Members interested in this matter attend. To some extent, the debate has already touched on the question of NATO-US assets. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say how those assets will be allocated? Under what terms would they be allocated to us in a crisis management role? Although support would come from NATO and the United States, any actual involvement would be undertaken by Europe. We have heard little about how assets would be allocated, or about the conditions as to use that may be imposed on assets not owned by the European Union. Discussing the allocation of assets would require the US and NATO to co-operate with the European Union in a way that has not happened before. I should certainly welcome that.
All those who belong to the WEU accept that changes will take place in Europe under the proposed European security and defence identity. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State noted in his opening remarks, ESDI has been discussed for many years, but some major European countries in NATO or the WEU have no idea what their role in that might be. Sadly, the White Paper makes no reference to that problem.
1422
Two matters need to be understood. First, the 15 members of the European Union must have equal rights and responsibility. There must be the fullest discussion and participation for WEU-associated members in the development of ESDI if the project is to succeed. It must be seen to be truly European, regardless of whether the countries involved are members of the EU, NATO, or the WEU.
Secondly, we must not allow a European Union caucus to develop, which might result in non-European Union countries being expected to play a limited role in European defence. I regularly meet representatives of those countries, and I can tell the House that they do not want such a caucus to develop. We should not allow countries that have been willing to associate with us and have been involved with us in difficult times to be frozen out of a future European defence policy.
3.24 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am not the first Member in this debate to rely on passages from the excellent report from the Select Committee on Defence in response to the White Paper. Reference has been made already to paragraph 159, in which the Committee stated:
"There is, it seems to us, a fundamental implausibility in the total efficiency claimed by the MoD over the years."
Paragraph 160 states:
"A year-on-year programme of efficiency savings can have a debilitating effect at all levels of command, and can be destructive to the quality of life that will sustain retention in the Armed Forces."
Paragraph 161 states:
"Overall, we conclude that the condition of the defence budget is sufficiently poor to give rise to serious concern. The cumulative evidence of cancelled exercises, delayed equipment programmes and of resources apparently insufficient to reverse the problems of overstretch and undermanning suggest that, if the wheels have not yet come off the SDR, they are certainly beginning to wobble alarmingly."
That is colourful language, but all the more effective for that. The paragraph concludes:
"The Department's finances should be rebalanced in their current Spending Review. Commitments and resources have to be brought back into line or we risk finding ourselves stumbling from one crisis to the next."
That is the background to this debate on the White Paper, and it is based on the analysis revealed by the notes of evidence attached to the Select Committee's report. However, before turning to purely domestic issues, I want to say a few words about Kosovo. I am not interested only in the events at Mitrovica or the reports in national newspapers today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) returned from a visit to Kosovo before Christmas with tales of the many things that had gone wrong. Those of us who supported military action in the region were deeply disturbed by what my right hon. Friend saw on his visit, and by current developments.
Neither NATO nor the United Nations can take any comfort from what is happening in Kosovo. Once again in the Balkans, we are paying the price for ambiguous political objectives supported by inadequate resources. It is frankly scandalous that fewer than half of the civilian police promised for the United Nations have been provided by UN members. Also, the conduct of some military units has been inept, provocative and lacking the

1423
necessary impartiality. We get mixed-ability teaching but—too often, it seems—we also get mixed-ability soldiering.
I believe that it was right to intervene in Kosovo, but nothing will damage the principle of intervention for humanitarian purposes more than an abject failure to invest in peace. Nothing will serve Milosevic better than a lack of will and resources to protect and promote the values of a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo. It does not strain the language—or the circumstances—to say that Kosovo may be on the brink of disaster. If that disaster happens, it may well impose additional burdens on our armed forces.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves this very serious subject, will he tell the House what exactly he would do now, apart from pouring in more policemen and troops? I opposed the intervention, but it happened: what do we do now?
Mr. Campbell: We must insist on the deployment of the number of troops and civilian policemen that were considered necessary in the first instance; we should implement the so-called Balkan stability pact as hard and fast as possible; and we should ensure that the promises of economic assistance that were made are fully implemented.
The hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the legitimacy of the right of intervention, but I share with him a sense of frustration at what has happened after that intervention took place. As a national newspaper editorial put it, somewhat tritely, we might have won the war, but we may be about to lose the peace.
As I was saying, developments in Kosovo—and even in Montenegro—might, in due course, place additional strain on our armed services. We know from answers that have been obtained from Ministers that the Army is short of tanks, that the Royal Air Force is short of planes, and that the Navy is short of fuel and medical services. Evidence from so many sources is self-corroborating and even more compelling. The difficulties that have been reported must have a debilitating effect on morale and capability.
Ministers often criticise Opposition Members for being far too quick to raise concerns about capability or the availability of resources. They say that it is damaging to morale in the armed services. I should like to put the opposite point of view: if the people in the armed services thought that there was no opposition, and that no one was holding the Government to account, the damage to morale might be very much greater.
When we ask young men and, increasingly, young women to risk their lives on our behalf, we may talk about defence but they go out and implement it. When we ask them to put their lives at risk, surely we have an overwhelming duty to ensure that we give them the best possible equipment and resources that we can manage.
The problems include the fact that major procurement programmes are subject to delay and overspend. The National Audit Office report tells us that, almost annually. We know, because senior budget holders say so off the record, that their budgets are severely stretched by the burden of the so-called annual 3 per cent. Efficiency
1424
savings. We know that the Army is undermanned. Even on the most optimistic forecast, it will be 2005 before that deficit is made up.
We know that serious questions have been raised about the reliability of the equipment used in Kosovo, in particular the SA80 rifle and Clansman radios. There is nothing new about that. In the course of the previous Parliament, the Defence Committee produced a vitriolic report about the nature of the procurement process for the SA80. Clansman radios were due to be replaced 15, even 20, years ago. There has already been considerable publicity about, and criticism of, the faults of that equipment.
I have voted with the Government in the past to support military action, but it is inexcusable for the Government and the House to make rigorous demands on the armed forces without ensuring that they are properly funded. I do not believe that we can contribute to the United Nations, play our part in NATO and influence European security—all at levels commensurate with the experience and skill of our armed services—under the present financial arrangements.
Between 1989 and 1998, United Kingdom defence spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has gone down by about 40 per cent. From 4.5 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1989, it had fallen in 1998 to 2.7 per cent. In the financial year 2001–02, it is set to drop to 2.4 per cent. Given the performance of the past 10 years, even that plateau may be difficult to hold on to. The fall in real terms between 1989 and 1998 was 22.6 per cent. We are all complicit in those reductions. When the Conservative party was on the Treasury Bench, proposing "Options for Change" and "Front Line First", I did not hear myself say, "That money should not be taken away." The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) did not say to the then Government, "Do not reduce defence expenditure." Instead, their response was a blanket—a pretty effective blanket—proposal for a full-scale defence review. The truth is that all parties in the House are responsible for these large reductions.
In his Chicago speech a year ago, the Prime Minister argued forcefully for the recognition of a moral imperative for intervention where there is a systematic abuse of human rights. He was right to do so, but those words will have a hollow ring if the Government and the country are unable or unwilling to accept that moral imperatives do not come cheap, and that if we want to act, we have to arm.
The 3 per cent. efficiency saving seems to lie at the heart of many of the day-to-day stresses and strains in the budget. If the Government want to take steps to restore morale and reduce pressure, they should abandon that measure. The Chief of the Defence Staff, when asked about the 3 per cent. efficiency saving, said that it was challenging. We all know that that is Whitehall-speak for bloody difficult. It cannot be achieved without considerable stress and strain.
The strategic defence review has proposals for two aircraft carriers, approximately double the tonnage of the Invincible class, and for four C 17s, or their equivalent. Heavy airlift and a new generation of aircraft carriers are the very underpinning of the expeditionary strategy upon which the strategic defence review was based. That is the essential prerequisite of intervention of the kind justified

1425
by the Prime Minister in Chicago. There is no logic in having an expeditionary strategy if we cannot project our forces where they are needed and cannot sustain them once they have got there.
Before the Chancellor embarks on this year's Budget—or, indeed, on the pre-election Budget of 2001, in which he is widely predicted to cut taxes—proper regard must be given to the resources, financial and military, that are necessary to meet the responsibilities inherent in the so-called Chicago declaration. On the second day of the debate, if my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has the good fortune to be called to speak, he will develop at some length some of the significant procurement issues, not many of which have featured so far in this debate.
There are two important decisions, one of which may even have been taken yesterday, if we are to believe what we read in the newspapers. The first is that of the missile to be fitted to the Eurofighter, or the Typhoon, as we must now learn to call it. I believe that the European solution in that competition is the best. Although the undertakings of the United States Government on the American proposal are no doubt given in good faith, we would do well to remember that Congress has independent rights in relation to arms exports. The Pakistani Government discovered that to their cost when they not only ordered, but paid for, 24 F16 aircraft which they never received.
I believe that the C17s are the proper solution to heavy-lift procurement. That may cause disappointment among those who favour the British Aerospace and the Airbus variant. However, the C17s are available, they are proven and can be obtained at a good price, and the Airbus variant has not yet flown. On balance, the C17s seem the appropriate choice.
Mr. Colvin: On the Eurofighter, and its beyond visual range air-to-air missile, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall the day that he, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and I spent in the Bundestag with the German defence committee when it was throwing a wobbly over the future of Eurofighter. We found that once we had put a little resolve into the committee's members they wanted to discuss more than anything not Eurofighter, but the missile with which it was going to be equipped. They were determined that if the aircraft went ahead, which it did, it should be equipped with a European missile so that the Americans could not veto its sale to third countries, therefore jeopardising the aircraft's long-term export sales prospects.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman and I are at one. I remember that occasion: we went to the Bundestag and while we were having lunch, the committee took a decision to support Eurofighter. It took a decision that we had gone there to argue for before we got round to doing so. That says something about our reputation or our lack of influence.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about which decisions he thought were right and proper. I will not follow him down that road because I am happy to go along with whatever the Ministry of Defence decides in purely military terms. Will he accept that the key problem is slightly more than that which he describes? I refer to the delay in making
1426
decisions. We have been told by the industry that if the MOD does not make its decisions soon, whatever they are, it may go beyond the point of no return.
Mr. Campbell: Like others, I was deeply disappointed that the short-term competition for the leasing of C17s was cancelled, for reasons which have never been fully explained, but which most of us understand to have been because the contract could not be entered into at a price within the MOD's budget. However, there is some evidence that to persuade the United States Pentagon to buy C17s, the manufacturers were willing to offer them at a rather lower price than would have been the case even six or nine months ago. It is possible that out of delay some advantage has been achieved.
To return to my initial argument, let me say that, if our strategy is expeditionary, we have to have the means to take our troops to the place where we think they will have to fight. Indeed, one—among other—rather depressing feature of operations in Kosovo was the fact that Europe had to rely to such an extent on American heavy lift or on leasing an Antonov aircraft, which, for political or military reasons, might not necessarily be available in all circumstances.
On European security and defence policy, the main lesson of the Gulf war, which has been reinforced ever since, is that the United States is in a different capability league from all other nations. Bosnia reinforced the view that offensive air power could provide the necessary coercion to bring obstinate leaders to the negotiating table. Europe showed itself to be good at providing political support for operations, but we showed ourselves as, frankly, incompetent at contributing in sufficient quantity and quality to the air campaign. The figures are well known. Contributions from the European NATO nations in Kosovo amounted to only 4.3 per cent. of the total sorties flown. Difficulties in raising ground forces have since demonstrated that the armies of Europe are as poorly structured as some of their air forces.
NATO is, of course, vital to our security. In some respects, NATO is probably more secure after Kosovo. If it had not stuck together during the political period in advance of air operations and during those operations themselves, its future would have been gloomy indeed. Other tests of alliance cohesion are likely in the years ahead. A curious feature of the post-cold-war situation has been that the alliance has been tested in ways that it never was previously.
I was present with other members of the Defence Committee—as the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) may remember, we were in the Pentagon—when former Secretary of State Perry said,
"NATO is more important than Bosnia."
That was a proposition of such self-evident validity that one asked oneself why he had felt it necessary to say it. The reason was that the stress and strain within NATO in the early days of Bosnia—in particular, when UNPROFOR was deployed—was such that people had begun to question whether it had the political cohesion to survive.
However, we still need to rebalance our partnership with the United States within NATO. Europe has to take far greater responsibility for its own defence. That should not be detrimental to our relationship with the US. As I said, that relationship is crucial, but we should remember

1427
that although our interests will invariably be similar to those of the US, the emphasis could be different in areas such as the middle east, for example in relation to Iran—I shall return to that so-called rogue state in due course.
We in Britain—perhaps we in this House more than anywhere else—have a responsibility to ourselves and to Europe to be willing to say so when we believe that our interests are not being properly served. European defence does not involve a European army nor, so far as I am concerned, will it ever involve the taking of majority decisions when hostilities are on the agenda. Those are the essential responsibilities of Parliaments and they should never be given up.
We must not think that insularity is sufficient to deal with the evolving political balance in NATO. The logic for Europe collectively making more effective use of the $160 billion or so that it spends annually on defence is overwhelming. We ought to get much better value for the money that we spend. However, the relationship with the United States needs to be rebalanced. I said that the presumption is that our interests will coincide, but I can list a number of areas in which the United States has taken a different position from us and our allies in Europe: on the chemical weapons convention, the comprehensive test ban treaty, the land mines treaty, the international criminal court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. In those areas, the United States is acting unilaterally: its actions do not accord with the political judgments of the rest of its allies in Europe.
As I said when I intervened on the Secretary of State, those of us who were at the Munich conference a fortnight ago could not but have been conscious of the unease on the part of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Those of us who support the ESDP must persuade these legislators that it will not prejudice NATO. I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not respond directly to my intervention. It is one reason why I think that NATO should have a right of formal first refusal when any military action is contemplated. That will deal with members of NATO who are not members of the European Union. We will require other arrangements for EU members who are not members of NATO.
Mr. Bercow: I note the significance of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about belief in the national veto on defence. Does he agree that, in those circumstances, it is—to put it mildly—unfortunate that the President of the European Commission has said that an attack an one member state of the EU should be regarded as an attack on all—apparently, deliberately seeking to ape NATO? Should he not be condemned for that?
Mr. Campbell: We should remember that the President of the Commission is not the Prime Minister of Europe, even though he may from time to time think that he is. Europe is a union of nation states, which have pooled their sovereignty in certain respects. Frankly, there is no such legal obligation. If the hon. Gentleman has followed American thinking on these matters, he will know that there was great apprehension in Washington about the notion of a security guarantee being given, as it were, by the back door. I do not support that view. If that is what Mr. Prodi said, he was wrong, and I hope that the former
1428
Secretary of State for Defence, who is now the Secretary-General of NATO, took an early opportunity to tell him just that.
Lord Hurd, the former Foreign Secretary, wrote in the Financial Times on 18 February:
"A valid Atlantic partnership cannot safely depend on a unique superpower on one side of the Atlantic, with an array of Europeans on the other side, strong in rhetoric but chronically short of coherence and muscle. Neither coherence in foreign policy nor a muscular defence will be easy to come by."
Lord Hurd gave what I would certainly understand to be intelligent and cautious support for the notion of proceeding upon the initiatives that have been launched on European security and defence policy. In that sense, he is entirely in the main stream of thinking in the United Kingdom, even though he may be slightly out of the main stream in his own party.
Dr. Julian Lewis: As Lord Hurd is now the fount of mainstream opinion and the oracle on all things, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with what he said at the time of the conflict in Bosnia—that we should not allow the Bosnian Muslims the arms to defend themselves for fear of creating a level killing field? Is that mainstream opinion, or should we consider these matters in their own terms and not according to who said them?
Mr. Campbell: At the time, Lord Hurd was the Foreign Secretary of the Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman almost certainly supported.
Dr. Lewis: I did not.
Mr. Campbell: It would almost be worth having the Conservatives back in power to see on how many occasions the hon. Gentleman would disagree with them.
Lord Hurd's remarks were roundly condemned by Lady Thatcher and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I am not arguing that Lord Hurd is infallible, but on that matter he seems to be in rather more of the main stream. They were all in the main stream when the Maastricht treaty was being considered, with the exception of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) who is now shadow Secretary of State for Defence.
Dr. Lewis: What about us?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot keep interrupting. I cannot hear what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is saying.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) does not know what stream he was in, but whatever it was, I hope that it was a stream of consciousness.
Dr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Campbell: I will not give way because I want to give the hon. Gentleman a short reminder of history. The Maastricht treaty was whipped through the House—three-line Whips, night after night. Some hon. Members resisted the Whip; for example, the hon. Member for

1429
Chingford and Woodford Green, who found that period of his political career rather uncomfortable. However, the treaty stated that the EU's external policy objective was to
"assert its identity on the international scene, in particular, through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
That is the fons et origo of the European security and defence policy.
My concluding remarks will be about the feasibility of a proposed national missile defence system—very much part of the political agenda in Washington. The first two tests of such a system have been inconclusive, but a third is expected before President Clinton makes a decision, in June, on whether to seek congressional funding to enable full-scale development and deployment to take place by 2005.
President Clinton intends to take account of four published criteria: the threat; feasibility; affordability; and the strategic environment—including arms control objectives. It is clear beyond question to anyone who spends time in Washington at present, or to anyone who was in Munich a fortnight ago, that the only test that matters is feasibility. If the system can be made to work, the United States—under the present Administration or the next—will deploy a form of national missile defence, in the face of the reservations of its European allies and even if it means breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State engaged in a certain amount of urbane dissembling when that reality was put to him. He did not really respond to the shadow Secretary of State's approach to the matter today. There will be a decision in June. The UK Government had better have a view as to their reaction to that decision. In the first instance, some effort will be made to obtain the use of Fylingdales as part of the system. That may not be entirely popular in some parts of Yorkshire.
There may well be consequences for the nuclear doctrine of minimum deterrence, or for the prospects of obtaining reductions in nuclear weapons—either through START 2 or, more optimistically, through a START 3 treaty. If the deployment of national missile defence provokes a lack of co-operation, the prospect of further multilateral nuclear disarmament may be much more remote than many of us hope.
Liberal Democrats oppose the proposal for national missile defence if it has the effect of breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty. If some arrangement can be made—if the technology can be made available to Russia, which is currently under discussion in Washington—different considerations may apply. The ABM is important because it has been a keystone in the balance of power since 1972.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked about threat assessment; he referred to rogue states. Popularly, there are four of those: Iran, Libya, North Korea and Iraq. Perhaps we should look at Iran with rather more optimism after the events of the past week or so. We have just resumed diplomatic relations with Libya, and the two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing inquiry have been made available for trial. Former Secretary of State Perry is making a long, detailed effort to negotiate with North Korea. In Iraq, we are containing the situation on the basis that if there is any effort to use—or to threaten to use—weapons of mass destructions, there
1430
would almost certainly be a proportionate response, as I think that James Baker pointed out during his negotiations with Tariq Aziz before the Gulf war.
The risk of the proposal for national minimum missile defence is that it appears to undercut the whole principle of deterrence. There is an important question for all of us: supposing that the UK were to be involved in that proposal, what would be the cost? How certain could we be that the US would be willing to transfer all the technology to us?
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
Mr. Campbell: I am about to finish my speech. Other Members want to take part in the debate, and I have delayed the House as long as is prudent.
One disappointment of the White Paper is that only one sentence deals with nuclear weapons—in paragraph 128. That is profoundly disappointing as we approach the review conference for the non-proliferation treaty, which will be held within a few weeks. Under article 6 of that treaty, the UK has obligations to pursue nuclear disarmament in good faith, by negotiation. Nothing in the White Paper sets out what the UK proposes to do at the conference, or, indeed, in the future. That is a sad and unfortunate omission.
It is conventional in these debates to express support and congratulations to all those who serve in the armed forces. As I said earlier, we talk about defence, but they risk their lives to be our defence. On these occasions, we should never forget that.
3.56 pm
Mr. Syd Rapson: It is always a privilege to be able to speak in this place. No doubt it is because so many Members are absent that I have been given that opportunity today. However, I am not sure whether it is an advantage to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), whose eloquence we try to emulate. It is a pity that his talents are wasted in the Liberal party.
I want to focus on more realistic issues, which touch me and my city, and also to talk about my experiences in the WEU. Those matters are wide ranging, but not rambling. I shall touch on four of them. The first is parochial and relates to Portsmouth and the Territorial Army. The second is the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, about which I have some worries. The third relates to Portsmouth's interests in defence contracting. Finally, I shall make some observations on the European issue.
Earlier, we heard an attack on the TA. I recently visited our TA centre in Portsmouth to find out the truth. The professionals running the TA were extremely complimentary about the restructuring, although the Royal Rifle Volunteers are still trying to establish an identity. They have moved location and are rather lost in the wilderness. They emphasised however that members of the TA are looking forward to playing a much more professional role, and, at times, to being reinjected in the proper services. They were buoyant. They were worried about employers giving TA members time off, and hope that the Government can reinforce the right of people to

1431
join the TA and to be released from work for service in it. When I was employed at the MOD, I spent a lot of time negotiating for time off for TA members. I hope that we can make things easier for them, because they play a vital role.
DARA, which was set up in April 1999, is mentioned briefly in the Select Committee report. I have sufficient experience of the agency to realise that the report's words do not clearly define its problems. I worked in the naval air repair organisation—NARO—for 39 years; it was a good experience. The organisation is mainly based in Gosport—I am sure that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) will not mind my mentioning that—and many of my constituents work there.
I did not object when NARO became part of the new agency. That was the way to go and it was to be encouraged. However, the way the change was carried out leaves much to be desired. A new chief executive was parachuted in to take out the old style of management. He was bent on trying to modernise the organisation so as to integrate it with DARA—the new agency. In his clinical and surgical way, he ripped out the social fabric of the establishment and sorted out the management in short order—frightening everyone about the future. He made promises that jobs were secure and that the rationalisation, which we predicted, would not take place. The trade unions accepted his words and encouraged the work force to go with the plan rather than resist it. I was part of the team that did that, but the latest announcement is that 90 of the most highly qualified avionics craftspeople will be sacked. Our trust has been severely undermined.
I declare an interest, as a member of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. I have long been associated with the union, and its officers normally work well and try to get on with management. However, one full-time official of the union is so incensed that he has written to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I know that my hon. Friend is capable of understanding the details, but the worrying point is that trade unions have to report that they have been misled. In fact, the official uses much stronger terms than that. That is no way to reorganise DARA.
There is a fear that the whole of the establishment in Gosport will collapse, leaving us short of 1,000 jobs. If that is so, it would be a sad reflection on the Government's well-intentioned idea of creating a defence repair agency for aviation that is second to none and of strengthening the establishments at St. Athan, Sea Land and Almondbank in Scotland, if not Fleetlands in Gosport. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened and is well aware of the issues.
The underlying point is that we can evolve, modernise and carry the unions and the hearts and minds of the workers with us only if we are honest. If there is a suspicion that honesty is being taken advantage of, we shall destroy the process and cause a reaction. That will result in all the bad things that we saw many years ago. I have invested 39 years of my life in the industry and I do not want to see that wasted by a chief executive who is building an empire for himself.
I listened to Members who referred to the necessary missile systems, such as the beyond visual range air-to-air missile, and to the importance of reaching decisions on
1432
them. I am bored silly, as no doubt many are, by mention of the A400M heavy lifter. However, we had fun yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) innovatively suggested that we might try to land it on aircraft carriers. I have been pressurised by companies to mention this heavy lifter, and I believe that it is the right solution. It is geared and designed specifically to the roles that it will play in the future. Whatever the interim arrangements, I hope that it will be the long-term solution.
A strategic air tanker is also necessary, as is SIFF—successor identification friend or foe—which is the advanced version of the current system. However, we must strike a balance. I represent Portsmouth, which is heavily dependent on defence, although more on the private contracting sector than on Government provision. My ears are therefore bent from all sides. I just hope that the jobs in the companies involved are secured and that the right decisions are ultimately taken. However, I prefer some solutions to others, because they are more of a British and a European answer than an American one.
I want to touch on the European defence initiative. As a member of the Western European Union, I attended the meeting that decided to nominate me as a rapporteur for the committee considering the European armed forces and the collective capability required for their deployment. Because I did not say no, I suddenly found that I had a new job. It has been quite an eye opener, and the research that I have seen strengthens my view that we are doing exactly the right thing. Although the White Paper deals with general issues and does not specify details, it goes hand in glove with that research.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) touched on the issues that worry the WEU. They include the roles of the European Union, the WEU and NATO. I was lucky that, as a member of the WEU's defence committee, I was able to visit Washington. We visited the Pentagon and spoke to senior military figures. We also spoke to the President's strategic defence adviser and we were flown to Florida to speak to General Zinny and his team, who make up America's rapid reaction force.
The people that we met expressed strong views and were committed to the Government's approach. At no time did anyone doubt it; in fact, they encouraged it. Many complimentary things were said about the strategic defence review, and it was said that we were ahead of the game. Many countries, including America, will have to go through that process and they congratulated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government on their role.
As I am a creep, may I say that the Government's Front-Bench team on defence are doing a great job? They have recently been enhanced by an extra Minister who will add more gravitas, if not gravity, to those on the Front Bench. Labour Members are extremely lucky to have such a powerful and secure team. That is enough creeping for now, and it will not get me any better answers. However, it is true that there is much sense and stability in that team. As a representative of a constituency with defence interests, I like and feel secure with its members.
I am writing a paper and have received information from many French sources regarding the new missions for European armed forces. That information leads me to believe that we are in an inevitable process that cannot be stopped. As a practical realist, I like to go with the flow

1433
and try to make things work rather to oppose for the sake of opposition and gain brownie points. [Interruption.] That is Tony. He says, "Syd, comb your head; you are on television."
I know that the best speeches are always the shortest speeches, and two minutes is long enough. I feel secure with the new way Europe is going. I do not have the hang-ups that I used to have in the old days. There is an inevitable process and a pride in what we have and in how we can lead Europe. The strategic defence review covers most of the things that we need to do, and I am sure that we shall have a safer future.
Mr. Bercow: My ears pricked up with alarm when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the word "inevitable" in the context of European integration. If, as part of the horse trading in the European Union, the sacrifice of the British national veto on defence becomes a precondition of British entry to the euro, will he confirm that that is a deal with which he is entirely content?
Mr. Rapson: I echo the words of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. The veto is secure. The organisation comes together for the benefit of defence in Europe. That does not mean giving up our sovereignty or handing over a veto, it means working together as a team to secure better defence in Europe.
Our experiences with NATO and in European crises show that there is much that we have to learn. There are shortfalls. For example, interoperability was shown up in such a way that we felt let down. We have not yet got interoperability to the extent that we want it; nor do we yet have the joint workings that we should have. There are several things for which we rely on America to an extent that we should not.
This country and Europe should have a heavy lift requirement and we should have the security surveillance that we need without having to rely on another nation. We should have such surveillance so that we can link in with America and NATO to make ourselves stronger. If we can put right the shortfalls in the European context, the whole system will become stronger.
I very much agree with earlier statements that we shall not give up our sovereignty. We are still a proud nation, but we are part of a team and we can work much better together. More bangs for bucks was mentioned earlier. The money that we spend on defence seems to be inefficiently used compared with what America does. If we can learn from that and become more efficient, we shall be better off all round.
I hope that the Minister has listened to my point about DARA. Although it is a parochial issue that affects me personally, it is also an issue to do with the way that we do things. I trust the actions that the Government have taken on agencies. They seem to be a lot better and are being run more realistically. Rationalisation is inevitable, but what is important is how we carry it out and how we treat people. If we are to lose many highly skilled people, that will be a sad waste for Gosport, and we will suffer. At the end of the day, however, our trade unions must be able to trust what the Government are doing.
4.10 pm
Sir Archie Hamilton: May I start by declaring my interests in defence? I am a consultant to Litton Industries and to GenCorp Aerojet, which are both
1434
American contractors, and to the consulting engineers W. S. Atkins, which play a serious role in the management of the defence of the state. I am also a director of Leafield Engineering Ltd., which is a small company involved in defence manufacture in Wiltshire.
My contacts in the Ministry of Defence tell me that they have never known a time when morale was so low and when the financial pressures were so great on everything that they are trying to do. Those problems are compounded by those of retaining our good, trained people and of meeting all our commitments.
I blame all that on the strategic defence review. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State, I do not think that there should ever have been a strategic defence review. What the Ministry of Defence needed after the election was a period of stability. We had already had two defence reviews: "Options for Change", which made a massive reduction in the number of our forces, including halving the Rhine Army, and the defence cost studies, which took an enormous amount out of the defence budget. After that, the Ministry needed a period of calm and time to get itself into order.
The strategic defence review had to happen because, foolishly, it was included in the Labour party's manifesto at the last election. The result is that further disruption has taken place. The Government say, "Ah, but this is different. This is foreign policy-led." To me, that is a pretty laughable claim. Presumably, this is the Foreign Office that did not tell us that the Falklands were going to be invaded, and at the time of the Gulf war, that Kuwait would be invaded by Saddam Hussein. I have great difficulty in understanding what expertise the Foreign Office has that enables it to tell us about our deployment of troops.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises that when he talks about modernisation, he fills many decent people with dread and apprehension. Modernisation for this Government has come to mean that whatever exists, and has done so for some time, should be thrown up in the air so that it can all be changed rapidly, but one has absolutely no idea where it will all land. I pity the Ministry of Defence if the Secretary of State's objective is to modernise it because it will almost certainly mean prolonged chaos from which it will take a long time to recover.
There is no doubt that the SDR has been driven by the Treasury because it wanted its pound of flesh, but it was important that when the SDR was launched, it should all be dressed up to suggest that the cuts would not be as dramatic as they were. The theory was that there were savings to be found, and the spin was that the 3 per cent. that was saved would be ploughed back into the defence budget. One talked not about cuts but about increases in expenditure from the savings that had been made. The trouble is that it has not worked out that way.
I commend the Select Committee on Defence on its excellent report on the SDR and defence generally. It is one of the best reports that we have seen for a long time, but it is also a damning report of the Government's running of the Ministry of Defence since the last election. It is claimed that the target of £505 million of savings in 1998–99 was exceeded; the Ministry claims that it achieved £594 million of savings. However, the Select Committee regards that figure as completely implausible.

1435
What is an efficiency saving and what is a cut in expenditure? It is too easy to confuse the two, and we have all been subjected to a complete con trick with the 3 per cent. savings. There has really been a massive reduction in defence expenditure, which has resulted—as we have been hearing all afternoon—in training being cancelled and ships being told to go at low speeds so that they do not consume too much fuel. That, in the words of the Secretary of State, is keeping within the budget, but we know that there are serious restraints on the military in carrying out the training that is necessary if it is to produce the top-class troops that we have been used to having in the British armed forces.
Mr. Spellar: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the cruising speed of ships when he was Minister for the Armed Forces?
Sir Archie Hamilton: It was certainly a lot higher than it is now.
Procurement is also a complete shambles. We have heard nothing about the delayed decisions on major procurement items and the massive cost overruns. The Government say that they are introducing smart procurement, which means that everything should come through faster, cheaper and better. I should be grateful if the Minister, when he winds up, would tell us what items of procurement have come through faster, cheaper or better. We want some examples before we accept that we are entering a new world.
The problem with smart procurement is that if it works, one must start procurement two years later than one normally would; otherwise, if it comes through faster, one finds that one has to pay for it earlier. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, in the Ministry of Defence cashflow is all, and if it is merely paying for things earlier, it is not solving any problems whatever; it is merely increasing pressure on the defence budget.
Perhaps the short-term strategic airlift is an example of smart procurement. We started off with five bids and they all proved unacceptable. Will the Minister confirm that we now seem to have a competition between the Antonov and the C17, but that the requirement for the C17 has now been reduced from four aircraft to two because that is what is likely to fit into the £500 million budget allocation for those aircraft? It strikes me that there are enormous problems with the short-term strategic airlift, and those need to be solved sooner rather than later.
Do we really need the C17, which is an all-singing, all-dancing aircraft, when in practice any lift of that sort would be escorted by other aircraft? Do we therefore need all the defensive aids on the transporting aircraft when there will be other aircraft around it to take it into any war zone?
The SDR also seemed to depend on certain lumps of capital sales, including the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which will bring in the not insignificant sum of £250 million. However, I gather that the Government are abandoning the idea of a public-private partnership for DERA, so what will happen to that £250 million, which is an essential element in the MOD's budgeting?
1436
The sale of the Duke of York's barracks was also supposed to raise more than £250 million. Is that sale going ahead? There is talk about negotiations taking place. Obviously, it is critical that the sale goes through, or there will be even greater pressures on the budget and the morale.
It is said that the cost of the Kosovo operation was some £400 million. Will all that money be funded out of the contingency reserve this year? Is that the total cost of the operation? Does it rebuild all our stocks of cruise missiles and the other weaponry that was used? If the answer to those questions is no, when will the money be produced to replenish the war stocks, which we might well need in the near future?
The strategic defence review claimed to be about matching resources to commitments; in fact, resources have been cut and commitments increased. The so-called savings have resulted from an overall reduction in available budget moneys, and Kosovo and East Timor have been added to our commitments.
The Secretary of State says that he has been able to reduce the number of troops in Northern Ireland to less than 16,000. That is extremely welcome news and we hope that that number can be maintained. The so-called ceasefire is not much of a ceasefire—49 terrorist murders have been committed since the agreement was signed and many people have been injured, mutilated and hospitalised as a result of the acts of terrorists—but let us pretend that there is a ceasefire. However, suppose that non-ceasefire broke down completely: more troops would have to be committed to Northern Ireland. It should be borne in mind that, when things are extremely difficult in Northern Ireland, we have more than 30,000 troops posted there. If things go badly wrong in Ulster, there will be a massive increase in our commitments there.
The one person I congratulate, even though he is no longer a Member of Parliament, is Lord Robertson, whose timing was brilliant—I commend him on it. Knowing when to go can be the best decision one ever takes in politics. The way in which the noble Lord managed to get out before the roof finally fell in was absolutely brilliant.
The reason why Lord Robertson was offered the job as Secretary-General of NATO was that he had been credited with having "a very good war" in Kosovo. Was it really a good war? Looking at it in the cold light of day, many people feel enormous reservations about the intervention in Kosovo. When it all began, the Prime Minister said that the objective was to stop the Serbs driving the Kosovan Albanians out of their homes. Yet, when the bombing began, what happened? There was a massive intensification of the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, and people were driven from their homes at an even faster rate than they had been before the bombing began.
We were then told that the bombing was intended to hit military targets in Serbia. Soon, military targets started to mean bridges over the Danube and car factories that might have been making vehicles used by the military. Make-up artists were killed when television stations were bombed because they might have been broadcasting propaganda for Milosevic. In the bombing, many civilians, but few members of the Serbian military, were killed.
NATO claimed on our televisions every night that the Serb military was being degraded and its capabilities seriously reduced. However, when it was all over, we

1437
watched vast armoured columns emerge from shelters where they had hidden throughout the bombing. Ultimately, what really suffered was NATO's credibility. Will we ever again believe NATO spokesmen when they tell us how much the military capability of our opponent is being degraded, given that so much of what they told us during the Kosovan crisis turned out to be completely wrong? That is a serious problem that must be addressed. We always accuse our enemies of producing misleading propaganda; we do not expect such propaganda to emerge from NATO.
Now that the Kosovans have been liberated, they are free to persecute and kill the remaining Serbs in Kosovo. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) says, the whole area is on the brink of disaster. Whatever else happens, the region will become another Cyprus: 30 years from now, there will still be a massive United Nations contingent there, trying to keep the two sides apart.
I am worried, not only by what happened in Serbia, but by the whole question of what certain countries will do if they think that they might in future become victims of the sort of assault that was launched against Serbia. If we bring to bear on a small country the massive technology and military supremacy wielded by the United States specifically and by NATO generally, what message does that send to that country? There is no way countries can arm to defend themselves against that sort of capability; no country in the world could afford to do so, especially not small countries such as Serbia. What will such countries do? They will be inclined to resort to terrorism, as the Chechens allegedly did, blowing up blocks of flats in Moscow. They will be inclined to resort to hijacking, as in the recent hijacking in Afghanistan, in the face of which the Indians completely gave way, leading to who knows what—probably to many similar hijackings demanding the release of prisoners. Much more worrying is the possibility that such countries might turn to weapons of mass destruction.
I do not believe that any small country will get involved in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein wants to do that in Iraq, probably in an effort to gain some prestige in the region. However, it is much cheaper and easier to develop chemical and biological weapons. Perhaps such weapons will be loaded on rockets, the threat carried on interballistic missiles; but it would be far cheaper to put them into suitcases, so making them man-portable. I wonder what we started with our massive use of military power against a small errant nation. Where will it all lead in the longer run?
Dr. Julian Lewis: Throughout the crisis, my right hon. Friend and I completely disagreed on the question of intervening in Kosovo. Is not one of the messages sent by the Kosovo campaign to small Balkan dictators that they should not invade their neighbours, otherwise they will be get hammered?
Sir Archie Hamilton: Yes, but one has to ask whether that will be effective in Montenegro, where a serious crisis appears to be brewing. I am not at all certain that the Serbs have learned any lessons—they could well become involved there as well. I realise that that is the message we wanted to send, but will it be received by small errant nations? The Chechens did not appear to worry too much about their previous conflict with Russia; they came back
1438
for more. Countries will not necessarily adopt the rational response and bow to the will of the super-powers, as my hon. Friend appears to believe that they will. I wish that he were right, but I am not sure that he is.
We were told that the strategic defence review was based on certain foreign policy assumptions, but we have yet to hear what those assumptions were. Perhaps the fact that the Government now have an ethical foreign policy will give us a lead. Unfortunately, with their ethical foreign policy, the Government appear to have got into the same sort of muddle that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) got into when he started to talk about "back to basics" and advocated the Government taking a moral view of people's personal behaviour. My right hon. Friend was roasted by the press every time anyone fell out of line.
Arms sales bring similar problems when the Government set themselves up as having an ethical policy. Let us face it, this country has an enormous and thriving defence industry, which, like other industries, depends heavily on exports to countries throughout the world. By being frightfully fussy, it is easy to find reasons not to sell arms to almost any nation—for example, one can decide that its human rights record is not as good as one might want it to be. There is no difficulty in finding reasons not to sell arms, but if the Government do that, a large number of people working in British Aerospace and other firms will be put out of work. That is the problem that confronts every Government. To embark on an ethical foreign policy was an extremely foolish step, because it invited criticism of any nation to which arms were sold. A balance must be struck.
It is interesting that Labour Members, who cry out for ethics in our foreign policy, a ban on the arms trade and so on, are the first to criticise the United Kingdom's shrinking industrial base. They constantly say what a disaster it is that our industrial base is shrinking while the service sector is growing, then they advocate policies that will lead to one of our most successful industries being cut because it cannot export abroad. There is no logic whatever in that.
"Ah," say Labour Members, "what about diversification?" No British Government can tell British industry about diversification. A company such as GEC was engaged in manufacturing washing machines, weighing machines and lifts, as well as in mass defence exports. It split off its defence business and sold it to British Aerospace, so there is no longer scope for diversification in that company.
What is the ethical foreign policy really about? We have an interesting attitude. We get involved in a civil war in Kosovo because, in the Prime Minister's words, it is on Europe's doorstep, but we studiously ignore other civil wars in places such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Angola. We do not seem to want to get involved in them, perhaps because those wars are taking place much further away and do not involve people with whom we readily identify. Moreover, there is no television coverage; we are not seeing what is happening there on our news programmes every night, leading everyone to say that something must be done.
Mr. Nigel Beard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he subscribe to the view that, because we cannot do everything, we should do nothing?
Sir Archie Hamilton: No, but it is illogical to claim that an ethical dimension forces us to become involved in one civil war, but not in others. I do not believe that we should get involved in any civil war. We should be very wary of becoming involved. It is an opportunity to make matters much worse, as we may have done in Kosovo.
An interesting aspect of the strategic defence review was the deal that the Royal Navy did. In return for getting rid of a large number of its surface ships, it is to be given two very large aircraft carriers at some time in the future. I have a slight problem with that, as I do not understand what the aircraft carriers are for.
We have been told that the regions in which we want to operate are the Balkans and places near Europe. As we know, aircraft carriers do not have a great role at present in the Balkans, because everyone can fly off 2,000 yd of concrete in Italy, which is infinitely preferable to trying to fly off a ship. If our areas of operation are to be in or near Europe, there does not seem to be a role for aircraft carriers.
If we are to be involved in the Gulf region, we would not have friendly countries nearby to provide landing areas for our aircraft. Perhaps the objective is that the aircraft carriers should operate much further away, as we have traditionally been used to doing.
I wondered where the idea came from, and it suddenly dawned on me that the Government must have dug up Alan Clark's defence review. I am sure that several hon. Members have read his memoirs. They are brilliant diaries, full of wonderful writing, presenting his unique view of what took place in government at the time. It is very sad that Alan has died, and I am sure that we all miss him in the House.
Alan and I were both Ministers at the Ministry of Defence at the time of "Options for Change". As he wrote in his memoirs, he produced his own defence review at the same time as a more orthodox review was being produced by the Ministry of Defence. As he tells us in his book, he succeeded in smuggling it through to the Prime Minister of the time, Margaret Thatcher, behind the back of the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
Alan never revealed in his diaries what was in his defence review, but he told me, because I was at the Ministry of Defence at the time. He saw no role at all for NATO. He envisaged the Soviet Union's rapid disintegration and thought that NATO had outlived all useful purpose. He saw no future, either, for high-intensity warfare, and thought that the quicker we wound down the Rhine Army, the better.
What Alan was really keen on was mobility. He wanted force projection, airborne troops, marines and aircraft carriers. When I asked him what he wanted those for, he said that it would be a good idea for us to get involved, rather like the French in Chad, in various African ventures where we could have a series of easy victories over small African countries. He thought that that would be extremely good for British morale.
Interestingly, the Government are following Alan Clark's defence review, almost to the letter. They are undermining NATO as fast as they can, by throwing the Atlantic Alliance into total confusion with the threat of Euro-armies and all that. The run-down of the Rhine Army continues apace. The only thing missing are the aircraft carriers, but the Government assure us that they
1440
are on order and that the procurement process is going ahead. Presumably, the force projection will take place at some stage and the Prime Minister, like some warrior king, will fight distant battles over the continent of Africa—an interesting neo-colonial approach to the future of defence.
Alan Clark is no longer with us, but he would relish the irony that his defence review, which was so substantially rejected by a Conservative Government, seems to be forming the basis of the present Labour Government's policy.
4.37 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: Although I welcome part of the Government's plans, I am concerned about procurement. Other hon. Members have spoken about the defence industry, which obviously plays an important part in the country's defence.
Last week, constituents of mine were told that their jobs at Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory were finished and that the company would close within a year. Arguments have been put forward by workers, trade unions and many others, and I have tried time and again to arrange a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the job losses in a vital industry—the last propellant factory in Great Britain.
Lord Robertson was difficult; I would probably have found it easier to track down Lord Lucan. That is an indictment. I asked the new Secretary of State for a meeting weeks ago, and I am still waiting for a reply.
I stand here proud, arguing for the work force of Royal Ordnance Bishopton. I am proud of the fact that they are not lame ducks. They are a tried, tested, unique work force. They are highly skilled and can compete with the best, but it is difficult to compete with companies abroad whose Governments are subsidising them under the counter.
I believe that the Bishopton Royal Ordnance workers face redundancy because the British Government are not facing up to their responsibilities towards a defence industry.
Let me outline the situation to the House. The quality of the product manufactured by Royal Ordnance Bishopton is second to none. The quantity is there in this country's time of need. The work force meet all time targets. More important, the material that they produce is tried, tested and does not fail. When our forces use those materials in combat, they know that they can trust the products of Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory. They know that they are not flying duds. If anyone questions what I am saying, let me remind them that, in the Falklands, materials produced by other countries failed. Belgian companies produced duds. Our soldiers and sailors said that they knew when materials were going to work, and those did not.
The Royal Ordnance factory in Bishopton is the last propellant factory in Great Britain. It is unique and it should be retained for the defence of this country. It is as important as a front-line soldier. If a front-line soldier does not have a tried and trusted weapon that works, what does he have? All he has at his back is an empty balloon, by which I mean he becomes a target. I cannot understand why a Labour Government do not support the Royal Ordnance factory workers. Quality, price, everything is right.

1441
In 1987, when I was in opposition, I argued against a Tory Government who wanted to close the Royal Ordnance factory in Bishopton. The Labour party, the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and all other parties were unanimous against the closure. The arguments that applied then apply now. To their credit, the Tory Government eventually supported us and the factory remained open. No different arguments apply now.
I am holding leaked confidential documents, which were delivered to my house at midnight at the weekend. They contain details about companies that are applying for orders to do the business for our troops. They make worrying reading. I would be worried if I was a young soldier who was putting his life and limb at risk for this country. I shall not bore the House with enormous detail because the papers are technical. However, one company states that its experience with geometrics has proved difficult and therefore offers a maximum price. That company obviously finds the work difficult; it does not want to produce materials to the same standard as Bishopton. On the paste drying process, a company cannot guarantee the combustion. It is said that combustion is basically standard, and not the same as another formulation. A company also states that it does not understand the need to prove compatibility. Yet this is supposed to be an up-to-date, bang-on-the-button defence business.
A company claims that it will supply the materials in the near future; it should all be done. It claims that in its first offer, it assumed that it would be undertaking two-part assembly, but that it subsequently learned that the assembly consisted of five parts. It concludes that it will therefore have to raise the price. Another example is that final testing and acceptance of propellant will be conducted by Royal Ordnance at Royal Ordnance expense.
I am not an expert in the manufacture and production of propellant. I am not skilful enough to go through the documents in great detail without the help of an expert. As I said earlier, the documents were parachuted through my door late at night. However, I am sensible enough to appreciate that the person who put the documents through my door knows that the companies on which we will rely to produce the necessary propellant for our forces cannot produce it to Ministry of Defence standards and quality. I ask Labour Members to join me to fight to save the Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory. It is needed. If we sit on our backsides, we will be at the mercy of a foreign nation.
My father, who is dead, was a sailor. He fought a war that he reckoned needed fighting against Hitler. With hindsight, everyone agrees that we needed to beat Hitler. I do not know whether I necessarily agreed with the Falklands war, but we backed and supported our soldiers and sailors. I did not agree with the politics of the Falklands war, but I agreed with ensuring that our troops had the best equipment available at the time. Saddam Hussein is an evil man—I do not need to bore the House and the country with that. He created a conflict, and once again, our forces needed to go to war. They were supplied by Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory. The workers worked night and day during those conflicts. They worked at the beck and call of this country. They gave up everything that they could to produce the necessary gear.
1442
The Government's arguments are flawed, fragile and fatal to the troops, whom we should look after. The defence industry is important. I have heard a lot of talk about the front-line troops today, but they need the backing of good quality products that work. Even at this stage, I press my arguments to the Minister, and ask him to do the decent thing and meet me so that I can explain at greater length the reasons why British Aerospace Systems should not be allowed to close the Royal Ordnance factory.
This country needs that propellant factory for its defence, which should not be left to private commerce. Through years of dedication, development, planning and skill, we have a work force who are second to none. They are fully trained and experienced. Once we put the key in the door, we must not believe that we can return to the Royal Ordnance workers and ask them to produce propellant if another Gulf happens. We cannot do that. Once the work force are disbanded, they are disbanded for good, and we must rely on duds. That is not the British defence that I want.
I support the Government on many of the defence industries or I would not be on this side of the House, but I do not support their proposal to stand back and allow British Aerospace to close the Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory. The work force there deserve better, but, more importantly, the British armed forces deserve better. They need their product and the MOD should get off its backside and make sure that it delivers that factory.
Mr. Russell Brown: I apologise for arriving late. The hon. Gentleman has appealed to the Minister to meet him to discuss the future of Royal Ordnance Bishopton and I hear what he says. I believe that that is very important. He also commented on the Falklands war. Our front-line troops were dependent on ammunition not only from Royal Ordnance Bishopton, but from a site where I worked, which was the only small arms propellant manufacturing operation in the United Kingdom. It was quickly swept aside by the previous Government through the Royal Ordnance privatisation. I hope that his attempt to secure a meeting with the Minister is successful, but he must be sure that the arguments he would make are correct.
Mr. Graham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but my speech is concerned solely with the Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory. I know that ships were produced in shipyards and guns were produced in other factories and I agree that all those efforts were combined for our armed forces, but that is not the point. I do not want to be sidetracked. I believe that Royal Ordnance Bishopton is a strategic part of the defence of this country. It is the last remaining propellant factory in the country and the tried and tested tradesmen there can continue production. If the factory closes, we have had it. We will have to go for the duds, the fakes and the bullets that do not work. Once again, I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision to stand aside and allow British Aerospace to close the factory.
4.51 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: The whole House will applaud the passion with which the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) fights his corner on behalf of the Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory. I very much hope

1443
that the shots he has fired today find their target on the Treasury Bench and that he at least gets the meeting with the Minister that he wants so that the work force can put its case directly to him.
There is another important factor to bear in mind—security of supply. From the minute that we begin to take supplies from overseas for military purposes, there will be a danger that some suppliers may say no. Our forces experienced that during the Gulf war when Belgian suppliers refused to give us the shells that were required. Any international contract entered into by the Ministry of Defence for the supply of any military equipment must guarantee that that supply is secure. Otherwise, we shall endanger our troops, which is wrong. It is all very well the Treasury chasing value for money—it is taxpayers' money—but quality of product and security of supply are paramount. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in the battle that lies ahead.
The defence White Paper is the first since 1996 and the first for this Government. The strategic defence review, which was promised during Labour's last two years in opposition, appeared in July 1998. It took 14 months to produce and some of us wondered why it took so long. No doubt the Government, like the opposition parties, were still hunting for the so-called ethical foreign policy on which it was supposed to rest. At least it contained one good thing: henceforth, it promised that there would be an annual defence White Paper. It has taken some time for this one to arrive, but I hope that an annual White Paper will be the norm from now on.
Many other documents have been produced by the MOD and the Defence Committee has been able to make a judgment on them, but defence White Papers are easier to compare and so achieve a clear rolling picture of how the Ministry is performing in its primary task of the defence of the realm. The Defence Committee had to move extremely fast to produce its report on this occasion. It would be entirely out of character for me to say too much about what is good about the Committee and its report; I leave that to others. There have been many congratulations on that report this afternoon and it has been quoted extensively by most speakers. That does great credit to our Chairman, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who I am sure will be present on Monday to hear the praise directly.
A great deal of the credit must also go to the Clerks who serve our Committee—there are only five; Governments and Parliaments overseas are amazed that House of Commons Select Committees can produce work of such quality with such a small staff. If ever there was an example of quality rather than quantity, that is it. I put on the record my praise for David Natzler, Andrew Kennon—the Committee Clerk when I was Chairman—and Paul Evans, who is the current Committee Clerk. Their work has been second to none. I should also like to mention Mr. Simon Fiander, one of the five, who is a secondee from the National Audit Office. As much of our work involves considering how money is spent, particularly on projects, including those that are cancelled or delayed, the presence of a national audit officer within the ranks of the Committee is an enormous help.
The strength of the Defence Committee has been its broad view, its constructive criticism and its wide consensus. I think that on the first day it met there may
1444
have been a vote on some triviality, but throughout its 20-year life, the Committee has never had to resort to a vote. That says a great deal for the consensus that we have been able to reach.
I am sorry to have left the Committee, but I now wear another hat in the Western European Union, and I could not do both jobs properly. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who took the larger part of my old seat of Romsey and Waterside, has now taken my entire seat on the Committee. If anyone were ever to query the breadth of political view on the Committee, and felt that there was a cosy consensus because we were all of the same persuasion, they should consider the vast party political gulf between my hon. Friend on the right of our party and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on the left wing of the Labour party. For a Committee with such a broad spectrum to reach a consensus says a great deal for its deliberations and for the way in which it is led.
The words in the Defence Committee report on the White Paper are singularly tough, and the message is damning. The MOD is constantly bowing to Treasury diktat. The Committee still has a great deal on its agenda—the question of overstretch will not go away. I am glad that at last Ministers at least acknowledge that overstretch exists and are using that word. Up until a couple of years ago, they would not do so. I am glad to say that recruitment is now improving somewhat, but retention is not. The net effect on our armed forces is bad.
Related to recruitment and retention are questions of morale, families, married quarters, leave, pay and working conditions, particularly for those on active service. We must somehow get out of this vicious circle. To lop 18,000 off our reserve numbers by cutting TA units was not the right thing to do. The knock-on effect is that we are beginning to lose cadet units, so it is becoming more difficult to get recruits because previously many of them served as cadets.
The picture in the RAF is not as rosy as the one that Secretary of State painted. The RAF is 95 fast jet pilots short, which is 20 per cent. of total requirement. That is not a particularly good picture. The Royal Navy is short of 15 jet pilots out of 64. The manpower situation is bad right across the board.
We all realise that budgetary problems remain and that there is still a running battle with the Treasury. I am sure that the Defence Committee will continue to look into efficiency savings and cutting wastage. I am sure that there is still room for savings to be made. We critically examined the figures supplied to us, and we questioned whether the £500 million target for savings year on year were, in fact, savings or were disguised cuts in the budget.
The figures speak for themselves. The total budget for 1999–2000 was minus 0.2 per cent.; it is minus 0.2 per cent. in real terms in 2000–01; and minus 3.8 per cent. in real terms in 2001–02, which will be only—I say only, but it is still bad—a 2.8 per cent. cut if the proposed sale of Defence Evaluation and Research Agency goes ahead. The sale of DERA is another matter that I am sure that the Committee will return to: we looked into it twice, reported on it twice, and have said clearly that the proposed part privatisation of DERA is a fundamentally flawed plan. Many of my hon. Friends have explained why, so I shall not waste the House's time on that.

1445
I hope that we shall continue to engage in our one-day debate on procurement. Many hon. Members will have specific points to make about procurement issues, and they ought to be dealt with in a special debate. Procurement now takes up 40 per cent. of the defence budget, and the percentage is constantly growing. The inflation rate as it affects defence equipment is much higher than the inflation rate outside, as equipment becomes more technical and advanced. Whether some of the difficulty can be overcome by means of smart procurement remains to be seen, but I suspect that in many cases "smart procurement" merely means pushing the product to the right and delaying delivery, but in the long run that merely increases the price.
As a farmer, I am experiencing a crisis. I have postponed the purchase of a new combine because I cannot afford it this year. Indeed, I may not be able to afford it next year. I can stomach that, but when the defence of the realm is involved, it is no use pushing things to the right because the Treasury says that the money is not available for procurement purposes.
A report has been produced by a quadripartite Select Committee consisting of those representing defence, foreign affairs, trade and industry and overseas development. The Committee studied the whole question of defence sales—exports. We look forward to debating its report here because it touches on the issue of security of supply; it also raises the matter of the free-for-all world market in which we now operate following the collapse of the iron curtain.
The market out there is much tougher than it used to be. Given the drop in defence budgets, it is now very difficult to maintain the viability of our defence industries without commercial links with overseas companies. Therein lies the danger: again, it is a question of security of supply. I am all in favour of cross-frontier mergers, many of which will take place—indeed, are already taking place—in Europe and across the Atlantic. In studying the overall question of the restructuring of our defence industries, we must not lose sight of the fact that our staunchest ally on the defence front is the United States. It always has been and always will be, and NATO must remain the basis of our security.
The Committee is almost bound to consider a number of projects. There are the delays in the Bowman contract—the successor to Clansman—the new generation frigate, the heavy airlift project mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and the aircraft carriers. Do we really need two Goliath aircraft carriers costing £1 billion each? So far, we have not even decided what sort of aircraft will fly from them. Furthermore, there is the question of anti-ballistic missile defence.
The subject of defence medical services will certainly be revisited. The last Government made a mess of that: they cut defence medical services far more than they cut the armed forces generally. "Defence Cost Studies" No. 33 was a failure. The Select Committee criticised the last Government, and has criticised the present Government. The present Government are not off the hook: defence medical services will certainly be considered again.
The one thing that I welcomed today was what the Secretary of State said about the IRA's decommissioning of arms. He said that there was no truth in the talk of a national day of reconciliation. The word "equivalence",
1446
which has been used in the press, is not on, and, according to the Secretary of State, there is no gun swap plan. I am sure that everyone will welcome that.
The fact is that there have already been substantial reductions in the military presence in Northern Ireland. They began in 1995, with the previous ceasefire under a Conservative Administration. Thirty Army bases have been closed and the troop presence is the lowest since 1970. Long may that continue—but there needs to be movement on the part of the IRA. So far it has just been "take, take, take"; there must be much more of a balance.
A number of hon. Members have referred to our alliances, both transatlantic and in Europe. Hon. Members who serve on the Western European Union with me have already put down markers for future debate, but there is already a hot debate in Europe. I was always rather disparaging about the WEU until I was in it, found out what it did and recognised the importance of the WEU members which are not full members of the EU and NATO.
One has to acknowledge that NATO, which incorporates WEU members, has preserved the peace in Europe for the past 50 years and more. The cold war was won without a shot by NATO members, but, freed from the glue of totalitarianism, many countries of central and eastern Europe face instability and strife. There is a growing number of regional conflicts. The southern flank of NATO—the north coastline of Africa, the so-called soft underbelly of Europe—is a potential flashpoint.
The peace dividend following the end of the cold war was taken by the previous Government under "Options for Change", but many people argue that the peace dividend has been taken twice, if not more times. At the same time, Europe has found itself in a much more fluid security environment. We lamentably failed as Europeans to cope with the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Success in Bosnia and Kosovo came about only once they had become NATO operations involving American military resources.
The restructuring of European national defence forces, which began in 1989, coincided with a world recession. National budgets, particularly defence, were then reduced in order for some countries to meet the convergence criteria for economic and monetary union. That cut budgets even further. Some countries, particularly Belgium and Italy, will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the convergence criteria for EMU. No one has yet laid down the rules and criteria for failure of the euro. Some of us would like to see what those might be.
I should like to put it on the record that the combined WEU countries have 60 per cent. of NATO's population and two thirds of the alliance's forces, but spend only 40 per cent. of NATO's total defence budget. The German Government have cut their defence budget in real terms and the Austrians, believe it or not, spend less on defence than on the opera.
Although the WEU needs the right to use NATO—and that means United States—assets, the Americans rightly complain about our failure to carry a fairer burden of the cost of collective security. WEU members combined spend $170 billion per annum. The United States spends $270 billion a year and Congress has just voted an increase of about 10 per cent. in the defence budget. Wherever we look on the European scene, we seem to be cutting our defence budgets. The United States defence

1447
capability has a global reach; it extends not just to Europe. It spends 3 to 4 per cent. of gross domestic product on defence, while the WEU average is only 2.2 per cent. and falling.
The Secretary of State made the point that the quality of the spend is important; it is not necessarily the quantity. To some extent he is right, so military credibility is the other related issue to defence budgets. For example, the United States provided 80 per cent. of the aircraft that were used in the recent Kosovo campaign. I was in Oslo the other day, and the Norwegians told me that they had sent six F16s to Kosovo for the campaign. Unfortunately, they were all grounded because they were inoperable—so the quality of the product is important.
The United States Defence Secretary described that fact as embarrassing. The Washington Post was even blunter, saying that it would take the Europeans two decades to catch up with the Americans in terms of credibility,
"even if they had the money—and the will to spend it".
Security and defence must remain the prime responsibility of national Governments, accountable to their own Parliaments, but in association with allies for collective strength. Although the treaty of Rome had its genesis in the desire to maintain security and peace in Europe through a common market, the 1992 Maastricht treaty was the first specifically to deal with security—in article 13, which has been quoted by many hon. Members.
Subsequently, however, in October 1997—after the Government had come to power—the Amsterdam treaty enabled the common foreign and security policy to develop by closer co-operation between the EU, WEU and NATO under the combined joint task forces concept, in which NATO-assigned assets were to be made available to the WEU for limited military operations consisting of humanitarian intervention, crisis management and peacekeeping—which are commonly known as the Petersberg tasks. It also introduced the principle of majority voting and proposed a central policy planning unit.
On 3–4 September 1998, the Anglo-French St. Malo declaration gave further impetus to the strengthening of a European defence identity. Subsequently, in April 1999, the NATO 50th anniversary summit in Washington gave still further support to a CFSP, essentially by moving the alliance to a new direct relationship with the EU that it currently holds with the WEU. After Washington, the likelihood of the WEU's role being absorbed into the EU increased significantly.
At the Cologne summit in June 1999, the CFSP took an even more tangible form with the appointment of Mr. Solana as the European Commission's first high representative for foreign and security policy. Cologne also reiterated the EU's commitment and determination to develop the capacity to undertake the Petersberg tasks, and concluded that, if progress was made, the WEU would have completed its purpose by the end of 2000. It was about then that the alarm signals really started ringing loud and we began to think not only about how that organisation could be preserved, but whether it should be preserved.
I think that there are five options for change for the WEU. The first is to reorganise and revitalise the WEU by creating a more distinct and capable European security
1448
and defence identity within NATO. The second is to merge the WEU with the EU as a fourth pillar. Giving the WEU a permanent mandate to act on behalf of the EU could enable Europe to act more efficiently.
The third option is to merge the WEU's political and security responsibilities with the EU, and its military responsibilities with NATO. The fourth is to merge the WEU with the EU, but without the article 5 mutual security obligations of the modified Brussels treaty.
The final option is to merge the WEU with the CFSP—which is the European Union's second pillar—thereby giving it defence as well as foreign policy responsibilities. The only option that is not open to us is to do absolutely nothing.
The first option seems to stand the greatest chance of success. It uses existing structures as the basis for European security and defence identity within NATO, and it is important that those structures should remain within NATO. It is also intergovernmental, so that no fourth pillar would be required. It retains the WEU Assembly, including the WEU family of 28 European non-NATO nations, bringing eastern and central European countries into a European defence institution for democratic scrutiny. As hon. Members have already said, the ability to retain within the WEU those countries that are not yet NATO members and not members of the European Union is absolutely vital. To lose that feature would be disaster.
Another feature of the first option, which I hope that the Government will follow, is that it retains article 5—the mutual security obligation—of the modified Brussels treaty. I believe that article 5 presents serious problems for those countries—Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland—that are EU members but not NATO members. If the WEU were absorbed completely within the EU, that mutual security obligation would apply to them. However, many of those countries have long histories of military neutrality and would not be able to fulfil that obligation.
There is a great deal of debate in this field and the jury is certainly out on a resolution. In addition, we are receiving very mixed signals from the Government. The previous Secretary of State for Defence, now Lord Robertson, said one thing from the Front Bench in answer to questions from me, but the Prime Minister said something different in St. Malo. The position is confused even further by the White Paper.
In conclusion, I remind the House that the defence of the realm is the paramount responsibility of any Government. Defence policy cannot be determined by Treasury diktat. The Secretary of State inherited a bad hand of cards from his predecessor, but he now has the opportunity to demonstrate whether he is a man or a mouse. Will he stand up to the Treasury and demonstrate Britain's lead in Europe by reversing the damaging cuts in the defence budget? We owe that to our armed forces, which remain the best in the world.
5.16 pm
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I start by paying tribute to British service men all over the world who deserve the praise of our citizens for their dedication, courage and professionalism. As conflicts throughout the world are now brought into people's front rooms, it must be horrific for the families of those serving in those arenas to see them almost at first hand. Having briefly taken part in operations in Spain and Norway as part of the armed

1449
forces parliamentary scheme, I stress how great that scheme is for right hon. and hon. Members who may have no military experience. It also gives us a great deal of confidence in the physical and mental capacity of our soldiers to participate in any conflict.
I also pay tribute to the workers who prepare the kit on which our armed forces rely so much in the field of battle or in any conflict. In the north-east there are a host of such industries, involved in the manufacture of everything from tanks to ammunition supplies.
Today I should like to refer specifically to the shipbuilding and ship repair sector that is based on the Tyne, as the White Paper holds so much hope for its future prosperity. The yards worked round the clock to prepare the task force that was sent to the Falklands. They also built the Cardiff, the Exeter and the York, which served so gallantly in the Gulf, and the Newcastle and the Coventry which are currently serving in Kosovo.
Chapter 3 of the White Paper, entitled "The Front Line—Maximising Capability", identifies key deployment weaknesses that limit our capability to get our forces quickly and effectively to areas of conflict. At present, we cannot deploy our forces to scenes of conflict quickly enough to accord with our new role in the changing world of defence and the requirements in the White Paper.
The White Paper also identifies the need for six roll on/roll off ships to satisfy the need for rapid deployment, in line with our role in the new world order. The MOD has accordingly decided to embark on a private finance initiative arrangement to finance those ships. As a result, tenders have been invited from yards in Europe and the far east as well as those in the UK. I have several points to make on that.
First, if it is not too late, will my hon. Friend the Minister reconsider embarking on a PFI arrangement in respect of the roll on/roll off vessels? I am not against PFIs in principle. If one is going into hospital on a stretcher, one does not ask whether it is funded under a PFI; one wants the best care available. However, in this case I believe that it would be more efficient for the UK economy if an order were placed with a UK yard and the ships were then leased to the private sector—in a similar, but not identical way to the Atlantic Conveyor.
Although the initial costs would be higher, they could be clawed back later through the leasing agreement with the private sector. In addition, the Treasury would benefit from the tax paid by the workers and by the company on its profit. The local economy would benefit from the buying power of the workers and the company and the Government would make savings on the benefit that would have to be paid to the workers if the contract went to a foreign yard.
If the PFI option is the route that Ministers choose, it is only right that they should ensure a level playing field, or as it is called now, an equal competitive environment. Several hon. Members have already voiced concerns about collusion between foreign Governments and firms at the expense of UK companies. To say the least, creative accounting is practised in Europe and the far east, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that point in mind when he considers the results of the tendering process for the roll on/roll off vessels. We need an equal competitive environment to protect the interests of British companies and British workers.
1450
My constituency contains the Cammell Laird shipyard, which is part of one of the consortiums bidding for the roll on/roll off order. If Cammell Laird is successful, the order will provide new employment for 1,500 workers. Wages alone from those workers would inject around £650,000 a week into the local economy, not to mention the knock-on effect of a further 1,500 jobs in local supporting businesses. Placing the order with Cammell Laird would not only make sound economic sense for the Ministry of Defence, but would ensure that a strategically important industry—the shipbuilding industry on Tyneside—was protected.
The White Paper specifies:
"Central to our defence vision is that we should be able to transport the Armed Forces quickly and securely to where they are needed, when they are needed."
I understand that a decision is imminent to proceed on the alternative landing ships, which play a major role in the aims of the White Paper. Those ships are required to replace ships that are now 30 years old, and they are vital to the UK's defence and to the new humanitarian role we are expected to play.
Although Swan Hunter's shipyard is not in my constituency, it plays a vital role in the Tyneside and north-east economy. Significant numbers of my constituents work at Swan Hunter, which is about to submit a bid for the alternative landing ship work. If Swan Hunter is successful, up to 2,000 manufacturing jobs would be provided for the local economy, as well as at least another 500 knock-on jobs in the Tyneside area. Possibly even more important would be the opportunity to secure training for 100 apprentices. The average age of skilled workers on the Tyne is now 48, and the training of new workers is important for the economy, and strategically, to secure a future for the industry and the work force.
I welcome the White Paper, especially its procurement aspects, because it holds out hope for many UK workers who are working all over the world and want to work in home-based domestic industries to provide goods for the British defence industry. I ask the Minister to contemplate several points. First, shipbuilding and ship repair are vital to the UK economy and to the strategic defence of our country, as we have found out on several occasions in the past. Secondly, it is important that the MOD release the orders it is sitting on. Workers are waiting for work, companies are waiting to develop orders and the troops are waiting for the results to carry out their role effectively on the new defence world stage.
Thirdly, the Government need to create an equal competitive environment for our firms to compete against foreign competition. Fourthly, the orders need to be placed more consistently. At present, it is famine or feast. Either there is no work and people are laid off for their skills to get rusty, or work comes in and wages go up because skilled workers are not available in sufficient numbers. Finally, if shipbuilding is supposed to be a sunset industry, why are the sunrise economies in the far east so determined to protect their shipbuilding industries for defence purposes?
5.25 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) ended his speech on the very important theme to which I shall devote most of my

1451
remarks. He spoke of the factors that sustain and maintain the United Kingdom's defence-industrial base. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) also touched on that matter in his excellent speech. I have enjoyed listening to my hon. Friend speak on these matters on a number of occasions, and his knowledge shines through.
My hon. Friend pointed out that 40 per cent. of our defence budget now goes on procurement. As is right and proper, I pay tribute to the work of our fighting forces, but it is equally important to pay tribute, as the hon. Member for Jarrow did, to those working in our defence-industrial base. Without their ingenuity, inventiveness and outright skills we would not be able to talk in such glowing terms about the role of our defence forces, as they would not have equipment of the necessary quality. That equipment comes from United Kingdom, European and transatlantic sources, but essentially our forces depend on British expertise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey spoke about sustaining and maintaining our alliances with the United States, but although the United States is our closest ally, in procurement terms it is one of our fiercest competitors. When developing a strategy that is right for the United Kingdom and European defence industry, we must ensure that we do not forget that our transatlantic partnership is not an antidote to American competition.
The words used in any defence White Paper are always intriguing, but so are the photographs. Opposite page 10 is a picture of the 50th NATO summit, which was held in Washington between 23 and 25 April last year. When I first looked at it I thought that the photograph was a perfect symbol of the alliance—until I noticed that it lacked a British Prime Minister. I looked very hard, but I could not find one. I began to wonder what symbolic significance the absence of our Prime Minister might have. Did it have something to do with an each-way bet between NATO and the European defence identity, about which there has been comment earlier in the debate?
However, the photograph must have passed through the scrutiny of Mr. Alastair Campbell and been sneaked into the White Paper. In any case, our Prime Minister—who represents a country that has always been at the heart of NATO—does not appear in the photograph. That is worth pondering.
The question of resources for our armed forces has been at the heart of this debate. Two telling tables appear in the Ministry of Defence's performance report for 1998–99, published in December. The first, on page 29, shows defence expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product. United Kingdom defence expenditure in 1998 is recorded at 2.6 per cent. of GDP, compared with France's 2.8 per cent. and the United States' 3.2 per cent. I am worried that we are allowing our defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP to fall too low, given the job that our armed forces are asked to do.
Some people may say that it is easy to talk about spending more money, but the United Kingdom has never been backward about taking difficult defence decisions. Someone has to be resolute, and if the United Kingdom is going to play that role, it is as well to be well resourced.
1452
Page 30 of the MOD performance report contains a graph showing per capita defence expenditure. Strangely, the table is expressed in terms of US dollars. It shows that the United Kingdom spent $617 per head in 1998. That total was exceeded by Norway, Sweden and—not surprisingly—by the United States, with Greece close behind with per capita expenditure of $571. Those figures illustrate that we are getting very near the bone when it comes to resources.
Mr. Jim Murphy: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. For the purposes of discussion and clarity, could he identify where he would like United Kingdom defence expenditure to go in terms of its proportion of gross domestic product? Is it one tenth of 1 per cent. higher, is it in line with the French model; or if not, which country's example would he like to see us commit ourselves to?
Mr. Jack: It is important to consider the overall strategic demands on our forces and the equipment that we deem that we need, and then decide whether we can afford it. It depends on budgeting. Do we start with a cake of a given size and attempt to cut it into ever smaller portions, or do we recognise that the cake needs to be expanded? The purpose of a debate such as this is not to put Back-Bench Opposition Members on the spot to answer such detailed questions, but to determine in principle whether the cake is too big or too small. Much has rightly been said about the report by the Select Committee on Defence, which I think answers the hon. Gentleman's question very clearly. According to that, the cake is too small and it is being cut into ever smaller slices, which does not enable our forces to be properly equipped for the job that they have to do.
The central theme of the Secretary of State's remarks was modernisation. While he was speaking about that, I wrote down "but on an ever-reducing budget", something that he did not have the courage to say. At the same time as making ever-increasing demands on our forces, as typified by the word "overstretch", we must recognise that there is a resourcing issue to be addressed.
I should like to say, en passant, that I wish we could get back to talking in straightforward language about defence matters. In his speech, the Secretary of State mentioned the buzz phrases "security architecture" and "strategic landscapes". I do not think that they add a great deal and they do not clarify what is in the minds of Ministers.
When the Secretary of State talked about the smart procurement exercise, he mentioned the cost savings on Eurofighter, which is under construction by BAE Systems in my constituency. The United Kingdom has led the way in the project in making it affordable for Europe's air forces. I was intrigued to know whether the savings of £1.8 billion will be redeployed as net extra capital; or has that already been written into the Secretary of State's long-term expenditure plans, so that to sustain the present position, he must make savings of that order?
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not develop in a little more detail the rather sparse paragraphs at the start of the White Paper dealing with the strategic overview of the Government's policy on defence in relation to foreign policy. Some of my hon. Friends have touched on those points and I shall not elaborate on them at length. But the world changes; the threat changes. I had

1453
hoped to have a more detailed assessment of how that threat is seen and where the priorities are so that we could judge with greater clarity whether the Government have hit the button regarding defence expenditure, and discern their strategic view.
The other point that was missing in substance from the Secretary of State's speech was anything much about procurement. It is noteworthy that it has taken contributions from Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House to tease out from the Government some key procurement issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey is right to say that he would welcome a further debate on this subject. However, as we do not have one, we must make best use of the time available to us today to discuss these matters. They are about sustaining, maintaining and developing the industrial base that is represented by companies such as BAE Systems. It employs 6,000 people in my constituency, and in the north-west some 40,000 jobs depend on the success of the aerospace industry, much of it driven by defence considerations.
Although there are proper discussions about the relationship between NATO, the European defence identity and the transatlantic alliance, an answer to a recent parliamentary question from the new Defence Minister shows that 44 collaborative projects involve European allies. They range from projects on missiles to aircraft and sea-based systems—it is almost an Aladdin's cave of projects, which illustrates clearly the crucial role of co-operation and co-operative ventures. Much as some people like to think that we can be totally self-sufficient, that answer gave a totally different view.
Some procurement projects have been touched on, but I support those who have called for—as the White Paper did—a swift resolution of what air system will be deployed for strategic lift. I am a supporter of the A400M. It seems to make eminent sense that Europe should not only develop that capability itself but should give itself the opportunity to take a share of the lucrative market that will present itself in years to come as Hercules aircraft come up for replacement. I was pleased that the Secretary of State used the word "soon" when he was talking about the decision on strategic lift.
I draw the Minister's attention to an item that appeared on the BAE Systems website with the heading, "Government doubles its money as Airbus loan repaid". That illustrates clearly that Airbus, as well as being good for Europe's technology base, is good for Government business. Giving it the contract to produce the A400M seems to play to that tune. In the Defence debate last year, I described how the A340 aircraft had been delivered on time as a design to build for delivery to airlines, which trusted Airbus's ability to produce what they wanted. The same arguments can be deployed in respect of the A400M.
We should not also have to justify the contract in terms of jobs, but about 62,000 would depend on it indirectly. The industry already provides those jobs and 10,000 United Kingdom jobs are directly attributed to that exercise.
The aircraft is eminently well specified. It meets the staff requirement for heavy lift and it would certainly give us independence with our own strategic capacity, as well as a real commercial opportunity. I hope that what the Secretary of State means by "soon" is in the next few weeks.
1454
Labour Members have pointed out that we seem to go from feast to famine with procurement exercises, which is true. There has been no mention from the Government of equipment for the Eurofighter beyond the visual range air-to-air missiles. That is another crucial question on which a decision is needed. There is no mention of the matter in the White Paper. Given the technology involved, if we are to have a weapons system that is properly defined for Europe's own fighter and is not dependent on diktat from the United States, in the event that the Government go the US route they will not only buy an inferior product but will risk the strategic opportunity of sales of the Eurofighter Typhoon to nations other than Norway outside Europe—although I am delighted that that country has shown an interest in the aircraft.
I do not knock the United States deliberately because it is playing a key part in providing the airborne avionics and radar systems for the Nimrod project. However, I visited Congress and the Senate in July, when they were playing games with the F22. Even internally, they can switch key defence projects on and off, and they could do exactly the same with the external use of that technology. We must be wary of that when we consider that missile system.
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State chose to say nothing either about Britain's role in the joint strike fighter project or the future offensive air system. The joint strike fighter offers us a major opportunity to participate in future technologies that will replace the Harrier aircraft. It will give us a chance to develop relationships with our American partners and the American industrial base. It has the potential for orders for the aircraft in the UK, but the Minister and, indeed, the White Paper remain silent on the subject.
The White Paper devotes only a few lines to the future offensive air system. However, no more important project is under consideration. Within FOAS lies the development of the solutions, the technologies and, eventually, the products that will be the seed corn for our future technological independence in Europe.
When the Minister winds up, it would be nice if he could talk about how the Government view that project. It is being run on smart procurement lines. It is a pleasure to visit Warton, to see all those companies and countries—Germany, France, Sweden and others—working under the same roof. Government and enterprise are working together. It is a tremendous project which merited more than one line in the White Paper. That did not demonstrate the importance that I and, indeed BAE Systems, attach to it.
The project illustrates the nature of the defensive threat that we face. When I asked, "Why FOAS?", I was told that we live in a world of uncertainty, where the target may be unplanned. The targets may all be different—they could be mobile. We have seen the growth of nuclear and other missile technologies. The challenge to our future systems is great. FOAS will provide us with a technological deterrent that matches NATO's organisational deterrent. Other people must fear what will be inflicted on them if they take on the western alliance. FOAS is crucial to maintaining technological deterrence.
These subjects are all important to BAE Systems and to the UK defence industry; they reflect on the comment in the White Paper that we are increasingly likely to face new and often unexpected operational challenges. Only

1455
by sustaining and maintaining that technology base can we cope in a world that requires tremendous mobility and agility, and the ability to deal, on occasion, with an uncertain threat.
5.43 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy: I am delighted to participate in this important debate. Unlike other hon. Members, I have no particular military expertise, nor do I want to champion any specific spending project in the SDR or the White Paper.
My only experience of the armed forces was as the first graduate of the 1997 intake on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, through the Royal Navy. That gave me a limited understanding of the challenges that face our men and women in the Navy and in the other armed forces.
My other experience of military service was trying to avoid it. I grew up in South Africa during the apartheid years, when it was compulsory for all white, able-bodied men, at the age of 18, to join the South African army and to do their damnedest for that regime. That was not something to which I took kindly—hence my Scottish accent. I have the South African army to thank for that.
I shall concentrate on four matters. First, the need for defence policy not to be led by constituency demands—or rather, that it should not be led by anything other than our foreign policy. Secondly, I shall refer much more briefly to the need for mobile armed forces. Thirdly, I shall mention the importance of Europe and European co-operation and, finally, I shall make a brief comment about procurement issues.
It is essential that all decisions about our armed forces and defence are based on our foreign policy. Our foreign policy should not be determined primarily by our defence capability; it should be the other way round whenever possible. This country, as a former colonial power, will I hope—I do not think that this is overly naive—enter a period in which it has considerable influence in the world. Some people may wish to make churlish party political points about that, but Britain has an opportunity, with the correct leadership, to have an influence that is way beyond our size, population and, possibly, beyond our spend on military hardware.
That is partly as a result of our historical friendship and relationship with the United States of America, and largely because we shall, hopefully, play a positive role in the military and defence debates in the European Union. I also hope that it is because of our relationship, as a former colonial power, with our Commonwealth friends. Perhaps, unlike any other nation, we are able to exert such influence throughout the world.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) alluded to the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Chicago about a year ago. My right hon. Friend said that, when dictatorships prevail, we have a moral imperative to become involved. He considered that that was important to the United Kingdom and to protect those who are vulnerable. The question for foreign policy is how we turn that moral imperative into reality. That means examining our structures, military kit and the people whom we put
1456
on the front line to see whether we can provide the correct framework and the correct decision making to put that moral imperative into action.
Many comments have been made about how our humanitarian support has worked in the past in Montserrat and elsewhere. We have also mounted peace support operations, such as that in East Timor, where HMS Glasgow and others have helped the Australian-led force, and we have engaged in conflict resolution in its widest possible sense. For example, the notes attached to the White Paper identify that a British team is helping with conflict resolution of a different sort in South Africa. It is trying to bring about national reconciliation in the armed forces by creating a national defence force that integrates the South African defence force of the apartheid era and the liberation army, Umkhonto we Sizwe, of the African National Congress. Such a defence force would represent the whole country and would remove the lack of faith towards the South African defence forces that was understandably and rightly felt by the majority of the population. I am pleased that a British defence training team is playing a role in that.
The more substantial issue about conflict resolution, however, is about our right, as members of the European Union, the Western European Union, the United Nations and NATO, to take the moral imperative and to turn it into action. I do not want to be deliberately controversial, but I wish to express a firm belief. In recent speeches, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has talked about the redefinition of state sovereignty and the globalisation of regional conflicts. The sovereignty of an individual state is not an excuse to protect a dictator or tyrant who oppresses an indigenous population. Increasingly, regional action—perhaps with a UN mandate—might be the means by which some regional conflicts can be overcome. I hope that the Minister will have time to deal with that in his wind-up.
There are conflicts throughout the world, and perhaps none is more bloody than the one in Angola. I have long argued for UN backing for a regional force, and I would be delighted if the Government used whatever weight they have to try to bring that about. The slaughter in Angola, which is almost unrestricted and is not spoken of, is a blight on that continent.
In his Ditchley speech of June 1998, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said:
"State frontiers should no longer be seen as watertight protection for war criminals or mass murderers".
That has to form part of the context in which we debate defence issues, because if we accept that there should be no hiding place for tyrants within national borders, that has an impact on our defence policy. We will have to build a defence structure, purchase and invest in the necessary kit, and train our brilliant armed forces personnel to deliver on that foreign policy objective.
Thankfully, in the main, conflicts will no longer come to our forces. They will have to travel, hopefully considerable distances, to the point of conflict or theatre. I say "hopefully" because if the trouble is not coming to our armed forces, equally it is not coming to our civilian population. The White Paper makes much of that point, but there is always more that can and should be done to increase the agility, adaptability and mobility of our armed forces.
Much is said in the White Paper about power projection and investment in the two new aircraft carriers, but I should like there to be an even greater emphasis, if

1457
possible, on rapid reaction. Once a decision is taken in an international forum, sometimes after consensus has laboriously been achieved, we find that the international military hardware is unable to be deployed and the process of delivering a threat and projecting power is delayed.
There must also be a projection of humanitarian support. I do not think that it is uncharitable of me to say that I was disappointed that, in his almost hour-long speech, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, made very little mention of the British armed forces' role in providing humanitarian aid. That is a fair criticism.
I am not a specialist on European issues. The hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) eloquently listed the different options for the methods and mechanics of achieving synergy between NATO, the EU and the WEU, and I listened to his comments with great interest. I believe that, as a matter of principle, it is absolutely Europe's responsibility to take control of more of its own destiny. There are no circumstances in which we should rely extensively on the United States. America is often criticised, sometimes with reason.
We should not underestimate the role that the US has played, but we should try where possible to achieve a European solution to problems that are European in the wider sense of the continent, and not rely on the US to the extent that we did in Kosovo and other conflicts. That means having a joint rapid reaction force and the political and military structures to back that up.
Finally, I turn to defence procurement. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) talked about six roll on-roll off ferries, and I do not want to compete with him. He made a powerful case for the building to take place in or near his constituency. However, the River Clyde area contains excellent shipbuilding facilities and talented personnel; my own father has worked there for several years. The River Clyde has a proud history of shipbuilding and it could have a bright future if the contract for the six ro-ro ferries were awarded in the area.
With those comments, I broadly endorse the contents of the defence White Paper.
5.55 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: I shall pursue several of the points raised by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), but first I should like to put on the record my support for his congratulating our armed forces on their work in humanitarian aid projects throughout the world. The House and the country can rightly take a degree of pride in the quality of our armed forces' work, which is internationally recognised.
In a debate as important as this, about the national security of the United Kingdom, the starting point must be the threat assessment. The Secretary of State was relatively silent on that matter, but the White Paper is, for this Government, fairly clear. One of the first questions we must ask is whether Her Majesty's Government believe that the world is becoming safer or more dangerous. Paragraph 7 mentions the Government's attention focusing, as long as two years ago at the time of the strategic defence review, on
"the consequences of the break-up of states, and on ethnic and religious conflict, population and environmental pressures, competition for scarce resources, on the effects of illegal drugs, terrorism and crime. Nothing in the past two years has changed that assessment."
1458
The Government add that recent events have, if anything,
"reinforced some of our concerns".
That would lead the House to the belief that the Government take the view that the world in which we live is becoming, if not more dangerous, at least no safer.
We then have to ask what that means in terms of the strength of our armed forces. The Government set out explicitly their views on what Europe as a whole should be doing. In paragraph 17 of the White Paper, they talk about the need for burden sharing in terms similar to those employed by the hon. Member for Eastwood, adding that
"Above all, this means strengthening European nations' armed forces."
Logically, one would conclude that we are debating a White Paper issued by a Government who are increasing defence spending in the light of their threat assessment and of the homily they have delivered to other European nations. However, that is not what the Government are doing. On the contrary, since they came to power in 1997, they have set in train a sequence of defence reductions. The details have been supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) and I do not intend to repeat them.
There appears to be a degree of inconsistency in the Government's approach. There is something rather charming about the way in which the Prime Minister lectures our fellow members of the European Union on the need to reduce bureaucracy when he is increasing it at home, to cut taxes when he is putting those up, and to reduce trade union power when he is doing the opposite in the United Kingdom. Now, on defence matters, he is telling everyone else in Europe that they should strengthen their armed forces when he is weakening those of the UK. The best one can say of that strategy is that it is inconsistent.
We then focus our attention on the Government's assessment of some of the fundamental questions facing our country. It is notable that in the debate so far, not a single reference has been made to the independent British nuclear deterrent. That would appear curious to anyone whose memory stretches back to the 1980s, when that was a central issue. One wonders whether the reason for its absence from the debate is that Her Majesty's Government think that there are no nuclear issues to address. In paragraph 8 of the White Paper, they say that they conclude, as they did at the time of the strategic defence review, that
"no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK and its interests will exist for some years."
I imagine that some Labour Members will find that assessment exciting, because they believe that it means that an independent British nuclear deterrent is no longer needed. However, Her Majesty's Government—I give them credit for this—appear to believe that we should retain Trident, in case such a threat should emerge in the future.
However, the context of paragraph 8 is the debate about active defence against ballistic missiles. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, spoke eloquently about that. He put to the Government—we await a response, and I hope that the Minister will respond in some detail—the assessment made to the United States Senate two years ago that proliferation of ballistic missile technology is likely to

1459
evolve by 2003 to the point where intercontinental ballistic missiles could threaten the continental United States.
If rogue states can threaten the continental United States, one does not have to be a master of geography to work out that probably at least by that date, if not earlier, some of those rogue states, which are geographically much closer to the United Kingdom than to the continental United States, could threaten the UK. We need to know the Government's view on ballistic missile defence. If it is the Government's policy—I very much hope that it is—to maintain an independent British nuclear deterrent, on the basis that although there may not be a ballistic missile threat to the UK now, one may evolve, what is their position on ballistic missile defence?
Will the Government take the same view as the United States that if that technology is available, it should be deployed? Will they take the view, which seems to be the majority view among our European partners, that for some reason such a ballistic missile defence would be undesirable? Will they take the worst of all positions, which was accurately described in an excellent speech by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and pretend that the issue simply will not arise, hoping that it will go away?
I can tell Ministers on the Treasury Bench that the problem will not go away. Anyone watching the presidential debates on either side of the political divide in the US will see that it is a live issue there. All four front-running presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican, have made it clear that they must address the issue. It is highly likely to arise, whoever succeeds President Clinton and whichever party controls Congress after the November elections this year.
We need to hear the Government's view. Has it moved on in the past couple of months? When do they expect to announce their conclusions? When can we begin to hear the UK Government's view on the matter?
I refer again to the excellent speech from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. If I may say so in his absence, it was a speech of such fine quality that it underlines how fortunate all other parties are that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not leader of his party, and instead it is the pale shadow of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) who holds the leadership.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife went through the list of rogue states and seemed to conclude that, because there had been some positive political developments in the case of some—he referred to the recent Iranian elections and the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Libya, for example—we need not concern ourselves with the threat.
One of the central tenets of sensible strategic thinking is that capabilities may take years to build, but intentions can change overnight. A regime that is friendly at present may rapidly turn into one that is unfriendly. It is the duty of any Government of this country to put in place capabilities to deal not only with the expected, but with the unexpected threat.
1460
Our fear is that the Government's defence policy is so constrained by the Treasury that they run the risk of repeating the fundamental mistake of the 1920s, when the Treasury imposed the so-called 10-year rule—
Mr. Spellar: Which party was in government?
Mr. Collins: A Labour Government were in power at various times during the 1920s. If the Minister wants to review history, may I point out that it was not the Conservative party whose conference celebrated the entry to power of Chancellor Adolf Hitler by passing a resolution calling for the unilateral abolition of the Royal Air Force? The Labour party did that. Perhaps the Minister would prefer not to go through history.
The mistake to which I referred was the assessment imposed by the Treasury on Governments of different political colours in the 1920s that there would be no conflict for 10 years. That rule was not abolished until 1934, only five years before conflict returned to Europe. We must guard against Treasury-driven defence policy. It is a recipe for disaster, and it would not be sensible to proceed down that road.
We must be clear about the Government's view of the European defence initiative. Paragraph 20 of the White Paper states:
"This is not a European Army."
That is a clear statement. Unfortunately, as we heard earlier in the debate, it is not endorsed by the President of the Commission, who makes it clear that we are considering a European army. It is also clear that other—although not all—member states support the concept of a European army. Will the Government make it clear that they will veto the establishment of a European army?
Some Labour Back Benchers claim that the Prime Minister has made that clear. The Prime Minister said many things on the subject. As we heard earlier, in 1997, he said that he opposed any integration of the Western European Union into the European Union. An assurance from the Prime Minister is therefore not good enough. The Government should make repeated, regular policy statements because they are likely to change their policies when the House's back is turned.
Mr. Robert Key: I entreat my hon. Friend not to forget that the Labour party is capable of simultaneously expressing one policy in Downing street and another in the House. That happened when the Prime Minister was briefing in Downing street while the former Secretary of State, Lord Robertson, said something completely different in the Chamber.
Mr. Collins: Absolutely. My hon. Friend reminds us of yet another instance of this Administration's unreliability. That is why we would welcome some clear assurances from the Minister.
We need to know whether the Government agree with the view of the President of France, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green quoted earlier, that we are creating a multi-polar world and that the European dimension means creating such a world. We might as well be candid and explicit: NATO is founded on the assumption of United States strategic leadership, and on the basis that European nations benefit from active US involvement in their affairs. It is clear from the lessons

1461
of history that when the US, through its own impetus or being pushed out, is not active in European affairs, as happened in the 1920s and 1930s, we all suffer tremendously.
We cannot have a multi-polar world, with the clear implication that the US forms one pole and Europe another, and claim that we are simply considering the evolution of different forms of co-operation. We are considering moving towards a position in which the US is on the same footing as Russia, as a different pole, and possibly a future rival. At best, the US would be a strategic partner, but it would not be the ally and a strategic leader that it is in NATO.
A Labour Government created NATO; it was probably the finest creation of that Administration, who had an outstanding Foreign Secretary in Ernest Bevin. Labour Members should therefore not find it difficult to appreciate the importance of Ernest Bevin's achievement in bringing the US into Europe on a basis that gave it clear and unequivocal strategic leadership. The Americans will not be involved in Europe on any other basis, which is why they insist on providing the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. We have a choice between American leadership or American rivalry. We must avoid the idea that we can reach a compromise. The French do not want to do that. Since 1966, the objective of the French has been to move themselves and much of the rest of Europe further away from America.
In 1998 and 1999, the Prime Minister may have believed that he would be the first British political leader in 33 years to bring the French closer into NATO. However, as matters have evolved, it is clear that the British are not driving the French into the welcoming arms of NATO, but that, if we are not careful, the French will drive the British from close partnership and American leadership in NATO to a different, far less reliable and less safe position.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly points out that penetrating the darker recesses of the Prime Minister's mind is a difficult task. Does he agree that the nub of the problem is the Prime Minister's hubris in supposing that he can play along with the philosophy of common European defence in the hope and expectation that he will be able to avoid its worst excesses?
Mr. Collins: I bow to my hon. Friend in his knowledge of the Prime Minister's hubris, which I am sure is very great.
I have a final, constituency point to make. In response to my intervention, I was delighted to receive from the Secretary of State the categoric assurance that safety relating to low-flying aircraft over my constituency in Cumbria and elsewhere would not be compromised in any circumstances. I hope that all my parliamentary questions on the quantity and quality of spending on RAF maintenance of aircraft, which were tabled a few weeks ago, will be answered soon. Some have been, but others were dealt with by an undertaking to write to me. I have yet to receive a letter on that point and look forward to doing so.
I would like the Minister—either in correspondence or during the debate—to tackle the key points that my constituents have put to me. First, why do the Germans undertake a great deal of low-flying training in the United
1462
States, while British pilots train in their own country? Secondly, given that the RAF has tended to fly high in operational circumstances in recent military operations—particularly, but not exclusively, over Kosovo—is it necessary to undertake as much low-flying training? The amount seems to have been dictated by the assumptions of the 1980s and 1990s.
6.11 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall make a truncated speech to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr Corbyn), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), which appears on the Order Paper. It represents a strand of opinion, at any rate. My request is that, before Monday, Madam Speaker seriously reflects on whether she can select an amendment that represents the views of many people, right or wrong.
My first point relates to Iraq. There is bombing day after day. Denis Halliday, Hans van Sponeck and now Jutta Burghardt—the United Nations representatives in Iraq—have resigned on matters of principle. I cannot help noticing that there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State finds it more important to do other things than attend the House of Commons on the first day of the defence debate. When I was first elected, Peter Thorneycroft and others regarded it as their top priority, whatever Cabinet Committees they were involved in, to attend the House for the two-day defence debate. What has become of the importance of Parliament? One would have thought that Defence Ministers could be present.
I referred to Iraq. How are those continual flights meant to find chemical weapons, if the Iraqis have them? As the amendment says, there have been attacks on shepherd civilians. That is a matter of fact. It might be argued that the flights are being undertaken to protect the Marsh Arabs or the Shi'a, but I saw the marshes with my own eyes and they did not correspond with the aerial pictures produced by the Ministry of Defence.
Secondly, the amendment refers to Yugoslavia. The fact of the matter is that anyone who goes to Belgrade or Novi Sad, let alone Zastava, knows that people are determined to carry on fighting. That means that Bosnia, and certainly Kosovo, have become United Nations protectorates possibly for the lifetime not of the more senior of us, but of the youngest among us. That must be taken into account in any military deployment. I was against intervention in the first place, but now that we are there we cannot up and leave. There must also be the presence of heavy armour. I for one would not sit on green Benches and allow British troops to be in that position without heavy armour to protect them from becoming hostages of people who have certainly not forgotten the fight.
The third part of the amendment refers to the UN charter. Someone must answer Mark Littman QC, who argued powerfully that what was done was illegal.
The fourth point concerns the House of Commons. If there had been the usual parliamentary debate that was obligatory in yesteryear—I am no admirer of Mrs. Thatcher, but at least Parliament was reassembled

1463
to discuss the Falklands—there would not have been the mess that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) described, and that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) may well describe next Monday, having just returned from the area.
The amendment reads:
"declines to approve a defence policy which has been used to make war upon innocent civilians in Iraq and Yugoslavia under NATO command, contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, without any explicit authorisation by the House of Commons elected to exercise democratic control over the Government of the day, which involves the use of cluster bombs, and which is based upon the possession of, and threat to use, nuclear weapons, which have been declared illegal by both the International Court of Justice and a Scottish court."
The Government rightly took great credit for banning land mines under the Montreal convention. What is the generic difference between cluster bombs and land mines?
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have had questions and many letters about depleted uranium. Anyone who heard Professor Douglas Rokke from the southern United States—an American patriot if ever there was one, who served in Vietnam and is suffering from the effects of depleted uranium—will know that this is a desperately important matter.
Finally—because I undertook to speak for five minutes and no more—I ask about Mitrovica. If we are to send any British regiments—let alone the regiment whose tie I wear and with which I did national service—into Mitrovica, there must be a clear idea of exactly what we are trying to achieve. If we are simply to keep Serbs and Albanians apart, that should be made explicit. The truth of the matter is that it is a cauldron, and the House of Commons should have a full report on what is involved.
I shall sit down with a plea to the Speaker that whether people agree with it or not, at least the view that is encapsulated in the amendment should be put to the test by vote.
6.19 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: In his introduction to the Defence White Paper, the Secretary of State quotes Lord Robertson, his predecessor, praising the strategic defence review as
"providing a structure to deal with tomorrow's threats not yesterday's enemies."
The Secretary of State evidently likes that turn of phrase. In opening today's debate, he referred to the need for what he called security architecture to meet the threats that will face us in what he called this century, not the last.
In the time available, I should like to focus on three issues: predictability, the strategic deterrent and the Government's attitude to it, and the European security and defence identity.
Attention has already been drawn to paragraph 8 of the White Paper, which states:
"Although we still conclude, as did the SDR, that no significant ballistic threat to the UK and its interests will exist for some years, the US are consulting closely with us on their plans to improve their defences against a projected limited inter-continental ballistic missile threat from proliferators, and on their discussions with the Russians on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty."
1464
In my maiden speech, and in the first speech that I ever made on a defence White Paper, in October 1997, I—like my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), whose brilliant speech touched on most of my main points, which makes my task much easier—mentioned the unpredictability of future crises, and the dreadful effects of the 10-year rule. This forecast that no war would begin for the decade ahead, and was rolled forward from 1919 until it was eventually abandoned in 1933. I also mentioned the fact that, throughout that period, each of the armed forces had entirely different countries in mind as its most likely potential enemy.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the 10-year "no war" rule. Recently, while doing some historical research, I had occasion to look at the Cabinet Office's file on the rule. In it, I found the following quotation from a memorandum from Sir Maurice Hankey, dated 9 January 1931. He argued that the rule was crippling our defences. What he said is worth listening to all these years later:
"As a nation we have been prone in the past to assume that the international outlook is in accordance with our desires rather than with the facts of the situation … We are also apt to forget how suddenly war breaks out. In 1870, a fortnight before the event, we were not in the least expecting the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. The same was true in 1914. A fortnight after the murder of the Austrian Archduke, a debate took place in the House of Commons on foreign affairs. The European situation was hardly referred to at all. More attention was given to the preparations for the next Peace Conference!.. There was no statement made on the subject of the European crisis in Parliament until July 27".
Sir Maurice concluded:
"We really had, at the outside, not more than ten days' warning of the outbreak of the first world war."
I am worried about the Government's view of the future of the strategic nuclear deterrent. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said about the strange omission of any mention of it in the White Paper. In a report that has been quoted several times today, the Select Committee, just before I joined it recently, referred to the eight defence missions mentioned in the strategic defence review. It is significant that the mission to protect Britain against a strategic attack on NATO is listed last. In paragraph 55, the Committee notes:
"Not all of these eight missions carry equal weight. The threat of a strategic attack on NATO is deemed at present to be remote and a lengthy warning period is assumed in which forces may be built up."
One might well say, "Here we go again."
I have been concerned about the Government's sliding away from their commitment to preserve the nuclear deterrent for as long as other countries have nuclear weapons. My concern was first prompted in January by a statement in Westminster Hall, when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said in an Adjournment debate:
"Work is in hand to develop expertise at Aldermaston in verifying the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons and we have made it clear that, when we are satisfied with progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in those negotiations."— [Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 173WH.]

1465
Because I was anxious about what the hon. Gentleman might be getting at in the long term, I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 20 January. I asked whether,
"pursuant to the oral statement made by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 18 January 2000 … it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to retain a strategic nuclear deterrent as long as other countries possess nuclear weapons."
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), replied:
"We pledged in our election manifesto to retain Trident as the ultimate guarantee of the United Kingdom's security while pressing for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons."
However, he added:
"When we are satisfied with progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in negotiations."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 36W.]
I was still not happy because it is one thing to say that we will keep a nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have some nuclear weapons with which they could attack us in unforeseen circumstances at some unspecified time in the future, and another to say that, when we are satisfied that other countries have made progress towards disarmament, we will put ours into the negotiations. As we all know, ours is a strategic minimum nuclear deterrent. If we ever negotiated any of it away, we would negotiate it all away.
Therefore, only yesterday, I raised the matter in Defence questions with the Secretary of State himself. He said again:
"When we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made to allow us to include British nuclear weapons in negotiations without endangering our security interests, we shall do so."—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1222.]
The weasel words
"without endangering our security interests"
are not worth the paper that they are now printed on. One can never know whether one will endanger one's security interests if one gives up a weapons system, unless one has infallibility in looking to the future. One manifestly does not have that.
We have been there before, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale pointed out. I quote from a famous American columnist and commentator, Walter Lippman, who in 1943 wrote the following about disarmament:
"In the interval between the two great wars the United States sought to promote peace by denouncing war, even by 'outlawing' it and by disarming itself, Great Britain, and France. The movement to limit armaments was, no doubt, inspired in considerable measure by sheer war-weariness and by the desire to save money. But the disinterested and idealistic theory of disarmament was that if everyone had less capacity to wage war, there would be a smaller likelihood of war. Big warships meant big wars. Smaller warships meant smaller wars. No warships might eventually mean no wars."
We know what dangerous nonsense that theory was. As Lippman noted:
"The net effect was to dissolve the alliance among the victors of the first World War, and to reduce them to almost disastrous impotence on the eve of the second World War."
Let us turn then to ESDI, which in its way may mirror the disastrous mistakes that were made then in undermining the potential security system that could have
1466
kept the peace. ESDI does not stand, as is commonly thought, for the European strategic defence initiative but for European security and defence identity. The word "identity" gives the game away, as I said in an earlier intervention. I drew attention to article B of the Amsterdam treaty, which states that the European Union
"shall set itself the following objectives".
Top of the list is the following:
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy."
Asserting the identity of the EU is no sound basis for tampering with tried and tested military structures. ESDI is a retrograde step in the direction of the inadequate balance of power politics that existed prior to each of the two world wars.
Time has almost run out, so I shall move briefly to a warning and a conclusion. The warning is this: we ignore at our peril the words of those people who are trying to construct a politically unified Europe, just as we ignored at our peril the words of the dictators when they set out their stalls in the interwar years.
Last October, Romano Prodi was quoted—quite accurately, I am sure—in The Times as describing the European Commission as the "government of Europe". Asked by The Times to justify the term "government of Europe", Signor Prodi said:
"But what is the Commission? We are here to take binding decisions as an executive power. If you don't like the term government for this, what other term do you suggest? Consultative commission? I speak of a European Government because we take government decisions."
I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will deal with some of these matters. Will the United Kingdom continue to possess, and appropriately replace or upgrade, its strategic nuclear deterrent as long as other countries possess weapons of mass destruction?
Will the Government take to heart the lessons that disarmament and peace are not synonymous, that nuclear deterrence has played a key role in preserving the peace of Europe, and that a nuclear-free world will be a world made safe for conventional warfare for the largest powers, as it already is for the smaller ones?
Do the Government accept the unpredictability of future crises, and the risk that so-called crisis management—which is what the ESDI is supposed to be concerned with—could easily escalate into general war?
Above all, will the Government think again about the risks of creating alongside NATO another security system—one which lacks the deterrent effect of having American involvement right at the outset?
6.31 pm
Mr. Robert Key: This has been a lively debate. Opposition Members were delighted when we realised that, unlike last Thursday, Government Whips were not forbidding their Back Benchers to speak in the debate. That has been a great improvement. I do hope that they will have learned their lesson on such restrictions, because we have had some very good speeches by Labour Members—as well as excellent speeches by Opposition Members.
I wonder how the story of the White Paper is being spun. The first aspect of that matter, of course, is that the White Paper is being completely overshadowed by the

1467
Government's defeat in the other place on the Greater London Authority order. I fear that that issue, rather than our debate, will be grabbing the headlines. Nevertheless, that is the Government's problem, not the Opposition's—[Interruption.] I do not think that the Minister likes the defeat in the House of Lord. However, it happened in the Government's reformed, Blairite House of Lords, which was supposed to be a legitimate House of Lords. Perhaps the defeat confirms that.
The story is being spun that this White Paper is a great one. It is supposed to be about reporting to Parliament on the activities of the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal)—who was in the Chamber for most of the debate, but has just left it—was spinning that line at about 3.15 this afternoon, when she, with her minder—I am not sure whether it was a Millbank minder or a Ministry of Defence press officer—appeared with me on television. However, this is not a great White Paper at all, but a complete cop-out. It is the first White Paper that the House has been asked to consider since 1996.
Earlier, the Secretary of State told us—[Interruption.] What good timing; he has just entered the Chamber so I can remind him in person. We are delighted to see him. Earlier, he told the House that there was no need for an annual statement of policy. However, as we know, in its report, the Select Committee on Defence disagreed with his assessment. Indeed, its report is rightly entitled "Ministry of Defence Annual Reporting Cycle". The Ministry should have a reporting cycle, and I hope that there will continue to be one. None the less, let us not mince our words about this document—it is a shabby little White Paper.
I noticed that the Secretary of State was unable to be with us for most of today's debate, as was remarked upon by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who reminded us how seriously defence used to be taken. I fear that it is part of the dumbing down of defence that we have seen since 1997.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not the dumbing down of defence, but the dumbing down of Parliament and the House of Commons.
Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who does not hesitate to speak his mind on these issues. We should not laugh at him for making those comments, any more than we should laugh at the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who reminds us what Parliament should be.
I have the honour and privilege to represent the constituency of Salisbury, which is one of the most military of constituencies. I shall not make a constituency speech, but put on the record the fact that I have not forgotten the military importance of my own constituency.
Her Majesty's forces deserve to know how we, both Government and Opposition, see their role in the country's overarching defence strategy. Many issues have been left out of the debate and the White Paper due to constraints on time, publication and printing. One cannot include everything when dealing with such a hugely complex matter as defence, but I want to flag up for future discussion the subject of NATO's southern flank.
1468
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) spoke of the need to discuss defence diplomacy and other important issues, including conflict resolution. We must return to that, but we have a problem in that northern European members of NATO tend to take an Atlanticist view or to concentrate on issues that affect the north of our continent, while southern Europeans concentrate on issues affecting them. Inevitably, the new eastern members concentrate on their particular perspective. It will be dangerous if we in the northern states do not take seriously the different threats that face the southern states of NATO.
Nor should we forget the eastern end of that great area of conflict and instability that starts at the western Sahara and goes right round to the Caucasus. I refer of course to Turkey and its pivotal importance to the security of Europe, which should never be forgotten. Our thanks should go to Turkey for its contribution to NATO, which we sometimes take too much for granted.
The Secretary of State talked about deploying forces with real punch anywhere in the world. We say hooray to that; of course it should be the objective. I only wish that the defence White Paper was all about that. Instead, it is much more about how on earth the Government are going to manage over the next hand-wringing few months to cobble together policies that can be sustained in the light of their budget cuts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) mentioned that Salisbury plain was being overrun with tanks. That is not the case as there is quite a lot else there too, not to mention AS90 guns—[Interruption.] As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) points out, there are not enough tanks to overrun it anyway.
Let me point out, however, that the Ministry of Defence's stewardship of the Salisbury plain training area is remarkable and it should be complimented and congratulated on it. It has managed to take on board the tremendously conflicting aims of military efficiency and training as well as the environmental issues. The recreational use of MOD land has also improved dramatically in recent years despite the grossly misleading press reports of the past few months.
If we are talking about training, we need to mention Otterburn. As there is such pressure on the Salisbury plain training area and other training areas, the outcome of the Otterburn inquiry is crucial. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), in whose constituency lies the Otterburn ranges, for his persistence in pursuing the interests of his constituents who want that range to continue to be used, just as I want Salisbury plain to continue to be used by the military. It is time that we knocked on the head the nonsense that the Petersberg tasks related to the Government's current mania for pursuing European dimensions at all costs. It was never envisaged that the Petersberg tasks would in any way decouple us from NATO. That is the great danger that was referred to by so many right hon. and hon. Members today.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is in his place, raised the dangers of a European caucus in NATO. We recognise that. It is a bit of the argument that appears to be lost in the new architecture of European defence. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife made a remarkable speech, not least

1469
because he appeared to agree with us that it really will not do to play the old gramophone record that all the defence cuts were the fault of the wicked Tory Government and that all parties in the House agreed that the end of the cold war must result in a reduction in the defence budget. I was grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that clear statement. As he sits on a Cabinet Committee, I hope that he will regularly remind the Government of that.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) made an excellent speech—and how well he represents Portsmouth. For 39 years he worked in the defence industry, and I have never heard him whine or carp. He has always given the House sound and solid advice. It is a pity that his party politics are so misguided and I look forward to the return of a Conservative Member of Parliament for Portsmouth, North—but not for a year or two, because the hon. Gentleman's contribution is valuable and his constituents in Portsmouth can be proud of him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), in a remarkable speech, covered the gamut of defence issues. We are at one on the failure of the defence review, but perhaps we come at it from different directions. He is right that it was a Treasury-driven exercise and the defence debate should be about not money but capability. He raised the issue of whether it is worth spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar by trying to privatise the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency for the sake of £250 million in the grand scale of the defence budget, when there is so much to lose.
I was intrigued that my right hon. Friend talked about defence sales and I remind him of the extraordinary, but welcome, press release from the Department for International Development on 17 February, in which the Secretary of State for International Development was quoted as saying:
"military expenditure not only needs to be properly managed, thereby promoting transparency and accountability, but needs to take account of the 'legitimate security concerns' of developing countries.
In the early part of this decade, some of the debate around military expenditure appeared to ignore or deny this … Military expenditure was seen as bad per se—something to be cut ruthlessly without regard for the very real security threats that countries might face. This is wrong-headed and dangerous."
And so say all of us, but that is something of a conversion for the Secretary of State.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey for all the work that he has done on the Defence Committee over the years. His contribution is much appreciated by those who, like me, served under his chairmanship on that excellent Committee, and by its staff.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) did not allow us to forget the aerospace industry in the north-west, especially at Wharton and Salmesbury, both of which I have visited on several occasions. The hon. Member for Eastwood raised some important issues in his thoughtful speech. I have already mentioned his reference to conflict resolution, and we will return to that point in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) raised the issue of low flying and also helped us to appreciate the importance of the nuclear
1470
deterrent that this country possesses and of ballistic missile defence. I have already mentioned the hon. Member for Linlithgow, and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) reminded us of the hon. Gentleman's expertise on nuclear issues. We look forward to the hon. Gentleman taking the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey on the Defence Committee.
We shall shortly hear the views of the Minister of State when he winds up this debate. I am sure that he will have one or two messages for us and that he will manage to make one or two references to issues such as the defence cuts brought about by the Tory Government. However, if he is going to play that old record, why do the cuts continue? If he thinks we were wrong, he must reveal his plans to turn the situation around. We will listen carefully and patiently to what he says, but he is in danger of sounding like a scratchy, heavily worn, 78-rpm bakelite disc. He is also in danger of sounding too much like his master's voice in the Treasury.
This little White Paper is a tawdry affair. It is a pale shadow of its predecessors. I look forward to the second half of this debate next week, and I end by asking the Government not to arrange future debates when the House is going away for half-term and when they know that there will be hardly anybody around. I also ask them not to split the debate over two days nearly a week apart, because that does not do defence the honour it deserves in the House, as has been shown by the contributions from both sides today.
6.45 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for his balanced response to the debate. It was so balanced that I fear for his future, but I hope that we see him when we resume the debate next Monday.
Other contributions were interesting, too. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) revealed himself as a conspiracy theorist, and his careful examination of a photograph suggested an early flirtation with the communist party. He also revealed his previous incarnation as Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he skilfully evaded the direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy).
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—or does he represent Epping Forest?—managed to avoid the fact that the vast majority of those who supported Chamberlain in that famous debate belonged to the Conservative party.
At one stage, the contribution from the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) was making me extremely angry, but he started to expound on delivery mechanisms for weapons of mass destruction. I thought that that amounted to friendly fire that he was pouring on his colleagues on the Front Bench.
Many valuable points were made in the debate, and I shall deal with them later. First, however, I should like to look briefly at the achievements of our armed forces over the past year.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My question does not relate directly to the Minister's winding-up speech, but rather to something that the Secretary of State said earlier when he was asked about the arrangements for Northern Ireland that were discussed in today's press. Since he made his

1471
comments, I have heard that No. 10 Downing street is claiming that what the Secretary of State said did not absolutely rule out our armed forces being involved in a token disarmament.
Will the Minister for the Armed Forces, in consultation with the Secretary of State, rule out any token destruction of weapons—whether or not it is part of a special ceremony—by our armed forces in Northern Ireland? If he does not do so, the ambiguity will continue.
Mr. Spellar: Like the hon. Gentleman, I heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. It seemed to me completely unambiguous. I have been in the Chamber listening to the debate, so I have not seen any press reports. I heard very clearly what my right hon. Friend said, and I think that the House did as well.
In Bosnia, we continue to make a major contribution as part of the NATO force helping to create the safe environment needed to rebuild the country.
In Sierra Leone, we have worked closely, and in a truly joined-up way, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with the Department for International Development to help bring peace and rebuild society after the bloody civil war in that country.
In East Timor, all three services were part of the Australian-led international forces that restored peace and order after violent militias had terrorised local people. Our forces did a splendid job. Indeed, our intervention in East Timor was a classic example of how our forces should be used—going in early and using their particular skills to make a real difference, but withdrawing when the situation stabilises and others are in a position to take over.
In the Gulf, the Royal Air Force continues to patrol the southern and northern no-fly zones to make it harder for Saddam Hussein to persecute the minorities who live there. Royal Navy Sea Harriers based on HMS Illustrious also take part in work that is important and dangerous. I should like to pay special tribute to the RAF crews who place themselves at risk every day to stop Saddam repressing people who cannot help themselves.
I regret that, on many occasions, we have had to take military action against the Iraqi forces that try to shoot down our aircraft conducting those humanitarian patrols. If Saddam stopped trying to kill our pilots, we would stop responding to his aggression—it is as simple as that. However, our response is always careful, precise and proportionate.
As the House knows, Northern Ireland remains our biggest operational deployment. Our armed forces remain ready to support the police for as long as they need to. I repeat to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that I thought that the answer given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was utterly unambiguous.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I have a simple request for the Minister, and I do not mind if he confers with the Secretary of State before he answers. It is clear that Downing street appears to be briefing that what is happening in Northern Ireland is different from what the Secretary of State claimed earlier. Will the Minister confirm that the Government rule out any token
1472
destruction of British Army weapons, whether or not a special ceremony is involved, in accordance with the discussions that have been going on?
Mr. Spellar: I repeat that the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely clear on that point, and I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. I am sure that he will have a clear understanding of what was said earlier in the debate when he reads Hansard tomorrow.
Then there is Kosovo. We are still in the process of analysing the results of the crisis, and we will publish a report later this year. There are two key points to stress against the revisionist theory of history, as epitomised by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. He commented on the credibility of NATO, but given his contribution, his credibility suffered more than NATO's.
First, let us not forget that our operation was successful. We achieved our objective of ridding Kosovo of Milosevic's brutality. Indeed, had we not done so, many of those who are carping would be damning us for inaction. Nevertheless, we accept that we have very hard work to do to make Kosovo a truly peaceful, tolerant and European land. That will take time.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) talked about being on the brink of disaster in Kosovo. I think that that is exaggerating the position somewhat, even looking at yesterday's pictures. Yes, there was civil disorder, but it was well short of a breakdown of order—thanks, in many cases, to the magnificent contribution of our troops.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: My judgment is based not on what happened yesterday, which appeared to be capable of being contained, but on the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who visited Kosovo before Christmas. I think that the Minister should have a conversation with my right hon. Friend; he may then modify his view.
Mr. Spellar: I am always pleased to have conversations with any Members who have been visiting our troops and getting first-hand experience. I went to Bosnia myself just a couple of weeks ago.
Our forces there and our forces throughout the campaign performed magnificently. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force played an important part in the air campaign that defeated Milosevic, and the British Army has been at the centre of the NATO force that entered Kosovo to restore peace last June, and has been keeping the peace with great professionalism ever since.
I should like to turn to some of the detailed points that have been raised during the debate, although I suspect that I will not cover them all tonight and may return to some others next week, or in correspondence. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about smart procurement and tried to claim that it was part of a long-term plan in which the Conservatives had already been engaged. It is true that some elements of it had been in a number of reports over a number of years. The problem is that the previous Government did not implement them. We blew the dust off those reports; we took elements out of them and incorporated them. We worked with our advisers, with the Department and with industry in a constructive way that had not been possible

1473
under the previous Administration to achieve a smart procurement system. In both the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation we are changing the way in which we obtain our equipment.
The right hon. Member for Fylde demonstrated this with regard to the future offensive air system, and I thank him for his comments. The integrated project teams are working together and hope, through their work, to reduce the time from the main gate to in-service date by up to five years. It is not just about money but about shortening the product cycle time. That is a key part of the changes in procurement in industry that we have now brought into government.
On frigates, the IPT has identified the type-23 support cost savings of more than £300 million. On Challenger 2, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, cost improvements were identified that could yield some £400 million over the life of the tank. They have already gone firm on half of those. On air-to-air refuelling, the 113T has increased VC 10 availability, another key component of smart procurement, as well as the financial savings. There have also been cost gains of 20 per cent. That is due to working with industry, harnessing the skills and expertise aptly described by the right hon. Member for Fylde.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), a member of both the WEU and the AEEU, drew attention to the work in Europe, as did the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), particularly identifying the role for non-members of the European Union within NATO. We have made very clear our strong support for the principle of non-discrimination in that case.
We were also asked about the role of the European Parliament; we do not see a role for it in European defence. The hon. Member for Romsey rightly asked whether we see NATO as the cornerstone of our defence. Not only do we see it continuing as the cornerstone, but article 5 is, and will continue to be, the basis of our security.
With all the focus on the European security and defence identity, we should really be considering the defence capabilities initiative. That is the work instigated at Washington to ensure that we have not merely institutions and architectures but the capability to deliver, so that Europe does not spend two thirds of the sum that the United States spends on defence but get nowhere near the capability that it has; and equally, so that—as a number of hon. Members said—the US does not have to contribute 75 or 80 per cent. of the necessary air power, as it did during Kosovo.
That policy is not merely right from the European side: it is also critical to sustaining and maintaining the United States' engagement in NATO. Long term, we will not be able to persuade the US Congress to continue its substantial expenditure and commitment overseas, if it believes that Europe is not bearing its fair share of the burden. ESDI is not in contradiction to NATO; it is critical to the long-term sustainability of NATO and to maintaining political support for it.
On Europe, Lord Hurd now seems to be a non-person in the Conservative lexicon—joining a long list of distinguished suspects. I say to Conservative Members—in the firm expectation that they will take no notice—that I have observed that process before from the inside. I
1474
assure them that the mutual self-destruction of a party can take a long time and it guarantees a long period on the Opposition Benches. I complain not—I merely observe in the sure expectation that nothing will be done about it.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife mentioned equipment shortages. He should get away from questions put by his researcher and intended to dramatise a situation. They do not bear any resemblance to the reality. Many of the planes that he described as being not available were available at one or two hours' notice and with some minor work. The RAF's definition of planes that are ready is: those that are ready to go there and then.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about tanks. Challenger 2 will be going out to the Balkans shortly and it is a magnificent tank. He also mentioned SA80 and Clansman. The report in question received such dramatic presentation, but the cameraman who filmed me when I described the situation said, "I see. There's no other news today then." In both cases, the report from Colonel Gibson of the Parachute Regiment stated that, overall, the operation was an outstanding success. The media chose to ignore that.
In the Balkans, the issue was not the SA80 rifle, but the light machine gun version. We recognise the difficulties. We also recognise that, in certain extreme temperatures, the SA80 has some difficulties, although it is a capable and accurate weapon. That is why we have been conducting tests and why I will receive a report shortly to show how we should advance.
We inherited Clansman. There was a six-year delay in the Bowman project, and we had an industrial system that would have been incapable of replacing it. We have had to direct the turn-round of that programme.
I stress that we were not taking any risks with the lives of our service men and women in any of those operations. People say that the Territorial Army did not have the signals equipment because it had gone to operations. Yes, operations are at the forefront; no, we do not take risks. General Jackson made that extremely clear in his media interviews at Christmas.
The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) requested a meeting on Bishopton. I understand that the Department of the Minister for Defence Procurement is dealing with that matter and that, as the Minister responsible, she will be glad to see him. Even with the order that he mentioned, jobs at Bishopton would have halved. He has to accept that there has been a reduction in munitions purchase throughout Europe. Rationalisation is taking place. Indeed, that is why we have entered a long-term partnership with Royal Ordnance plc to sustain its business for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson)—
It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Monday.

Finance and Services Committee
Ordered,
That Dr. Lewis Moonie be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr. Stuart Bell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Drug misuse
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
7 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate. The background comes from my constituent, who wants to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons. She wrote to me about her two sons, who had both become heroin addicts and who, through sheer strength of personality, have overcome their drug dependency. She wrote:
"In January I felt as if I had stepped on a land mine and my entire life was blown apart, I was left in such unspeakable pain that only another person who has endured it could understand the full horror of it. What made it unique was that there was no relief to the agony; no pain killer, operation or treatment could heal the wounds left by the knowledge that my 19 and 16 year old sons were both addicted to heroin!"
My constituent went on to point out that Gloucestershire
"isn't an area of social deprivation on an inner city housing estate in Manchester, Bristol or Glasgow. This isn't a single parent family with no positive role model to give guidance to these boys in their formative years. These are not bored disaffected youngsters with no hope and nothing to do, left to wander the streets from an early age. And yet, they became entangled in the pernicious web of evil that surrounds heroin and those who profit from it."
When I met her, she informed me how easy it is for youngsters to slip into addiction. The pernicious dealers offer free fixes to start with, until the youngsters become well and truly hooked.
After I met my constituent, I started to research the problem in detail. I found an alarming growth in the number of registered drug addicts in rural areas. In Cirencester and the east Cotswolds area which includes Cheltenham and Tewkesbury, there are more than eight new cases a week. In west Gloucestershire, there are more than 12 new cases a week. That is a staggering 1,000 new cases a year in Gloucestershire alone. The Cheltenham drugs clinic currently has 400 cases on its books.
The official statistics show that the number of registered addicts in rural areas has trebled over the past three years. I welcome the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to the debate. On 28 January, he sent me some regional drug misuse data, which showed that the figures for registered new users in Gloucestershire were 28 a year in 1997 and 63 in 1998. In the first six months of 1999, there were 96 cases. That is a huge and tragic increase.
Those figures demonstrate, in the most graphic possible way, that although the drug problem in the urban areas is well known, the mushrooming problem in rural areas is not. There is no room for complacency among the Government, the police or any of the agencies involved.
I wholly applaud the many initiatives taken by the Gloucestershire police to tackle the problem, although there is a long way to go. After all, they are the lowest funded force of any shire county. I welcome their education initiative. They have seconded four officers to liaise with the local education authority to teach citizenship, including the dangers of drug addiction.
Education is the key to alerting our children and parents in rural areas, who may not be as aware as their urban counterparts of the real danger of hard drugs. We need to
1476
demonstrate graphically that there is an enormous difference between so-called soft drugs and addiction to hard drugs, such as opiate derivatives like heroin and crack cocaine. They cause real physical damage and are far more addictive than soft drugs. However, such education must be correctly undertaken by trained teachers and officers. My constituent told me that she had recently been told by a teacher that nicotine was more addictive than heroin.
The link between drugs and crime has been well documented. It is estimated that a half of all crime is drugs related and that a third of the proceeds of crime goes to fund the drugs habit. As I have said, my constituent described the horrific experience that she went through with her sons. She had to have locks fitted on the windows and the doors to keep her own sons in while they were being treated in the withdrawal stage and to keep other addicts out who were desperate to get into her house to share needles and other facilities with her sons. Her sons stole her credit cards, stereo, cash and anything else that they could lay their hands on to fund further raps, as they are known.
At one point, there was even the possibility that my constituent would have to go to court to testify against her own son for theft, and the police were also going to charge him with possession. Fortunately, common sense prevailed and a private arrangement was made with her son to repay the money and a course of drug replacement therapy was agreed on rather than charges being pursued.
My constituent says that credit card fraud was among the worst sources of money for her son. Within an hour of stealing her credit card, he went to four local supermarkets and obtained £50 cash back from each. She therefore has some useful suggestions to make in that respect. She suggests that the banks should insist on photographs on all credit cards and on the use of personal PIN numbers when the cards are used in the shops.
Each case of drug addiction not only wrecks individual lives, but those of families, communities and the rest of us, because of the crime that is generated as a result. Gloucestershire police are involved in excellent initiatives, some of which are pilots for the rest of the country. They include a drugs arrest referral scheme with funding of £30,000 to make a trainer available to advise all those arrested. Gloucestershire police issued 92 drug treatment testing orders in 1999 and claimed a 25 per cent. success rate. They have a drugs referral scheme to ensure that those who are under arrest, on bail or probation or in custody are properly surveilled and can be counselled in the correct manner. Finally, a drugs and alcohol team will bring together all the agencies.
As the anti-drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, recently said at a conference in Gloucestershire:
"Drugs misuse is a complex issue which can only be tackled by a partnership approach between statutory and voluntary agencies, at both local and Government levels."
I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I am sure that everyone in the House, including the Minister, will also agree.
As I have already said, Gloucestershire's police force is the lowest-funded shire police force in any county. Our schools, through the standard spending assessment system, are among the lowest-funded primary and secondary schools in the country. If we are to tackle the problem, we must have proper funding.

1477
Gloucestershire police have informed me today that in the Stroud and Cotswold division in the past six months, there have been 46 warrants for seizure of drugs and 37 for the supply of controlled drugs, while 226 arrests for possession have been made. Although that is excellent news, it shows that the police are prioritising the addicts, who are easy targets, rather than the dealers who are much better organised and altogether more difficult to catch.
Addicts must be encouraged to seek treatment. It is estimated that for every £1 spent on treatment, £3 is saved on crime. My constituent told me that the drug replacement therapy was extremely effective for her two sons. The drug Naltrexone costs £5 per tablet and the course involves one tablet a day for three to six months. Although the initial dose can be funded by the Gloucestershire drugs clinic in Cheltenham, it can fund only that. The rest of the course has to be funded by general practitioners. Again, we come up against the funding problem, because Gloucestershire GPs, particularly in the Cotswolds, have had their budgets hit harder than almost anywhere in the country and we are losing GPs as a result. It would be a tragedy and a scandal if the funding were not always available for such drugs replacement therapy.
A far greater effort needs to be applied on a national basis by all the agencies involved, including Customs and Excise, the police and the armed forces, to stop pernicious hard drugs entering the country.
I propose a four-point plan to help stem the huge, increasing tide of drugs in rural areas. First, we need improved co-ordination to produce better education in schools, colleges and the media in rural areas. Secondly, we should re-target police priorities towards pursuing the drug dealers rather than the soft drug addicts. Thirdly, there should be an increased effort by all the agencies involved, so preventing many hard drugs from entering the country. Fourthly, there must be better funding for the treatment of hard drug addicts.
This is a huge and increasing problem in rural areas. If we do not nip it in the bud now, it will become so big that it will be much more difficult to treat later. I know that this is the second Adjournment debate on drugs that the Minister has had to attend today, but if he and the Government's drugs co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, can bring together all Departments and agencies so that the biggest threat faced by society in rural areas can be tackled head-on and effectively reduced, this debate will have been worth while. I look forward with interest to his reply.
7.11 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I thank the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) both for what he said and for the manner in which he said it. I can honestly say that this is the first time that I shall have been able to have a dialogue on this issue across the Dispatch Box with someone who has been non-partisan and who has put forward proposals—which I hope, as I respond, the hon. Gentleman will realise are part of the central Government strategy.
First, let me make the hon. Gentleman an offer. I know what his constituent's family are going through. Every day, and certainly after every speech that I make in the House, I get significant numbers of letters from desperate
1478
people whose children have died or who fear that their children will die or that they are involved in drugs, and who do not know how to cope with the problem. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me, along with his constituents, in confidence and in private, he is welcome to do so. I also invite the hon. Gentleman to meet me and the drugs team at the Department, and let me go through the points that he has made to satisfy him that we are already dealing with them in our strategy. I genuinely want an all-party consensus on this issue. Everybody in this country, irrespective of their political views, is in danger of this evil touching them, their family or their community. We desperately need a consensus about the way forward.
I hope that the Government's 10-year strategy is a consensus about the way forward on a whole range of issues. We need to create a healthy, confident society, increasingly free from the harm caused by the misuse of drugs. We will best achieve that by encouraging young people to resist taking drugs in the first place so that they can realise their full potential; by helping communities to protect themselves from drug-related, anti-social and criminal behaviour; and by providing treatment to help everyone involved to overcome their drug addiction.
That is a difficult process because addiction is a recurring, chronic illness. Many people go forward and reach the second or third phase, but some just cannot make it despite their efforts. Love is not always enough. We need to try to ensure that we have a co-ordinated approach in each and every community where people are suffering. They should be able to come forward with confidence, and we should ensure that when they do, services are available to assist them and meet their individual needs.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about stifling the availability of drugs in Britain. One in 12 12-year-olds, one in three 14-year olds and nearly half of all 16-year-olds have tried drugs at least once. That is the age group into which the hon. Gentleman's constituents' children fall. It is estimated that a third of all property crime is related to drugs. In some areas, a quarter of all offenders arrested have tested positive for heroin, and one in 10 have tested positive for crack cocaine. More than half of the homeless are regular drug users.
The problems that we face are therefore extremely difficult, and we must face them as a society together. No single organisation, party, person or view has the answer. We need to co-operate with each other. That is why I am pleased that, up till now, all the political parties have given their support to the Government's strategy, along with the voluntary sector, the business community, community groups throughout the country and the police. I hope that we can return to that position of consensus.
We have allocated to Gloucestershire £105,000 under the arrest referral scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That will help the police to identify and help drug misusers to gain access to treatment. It is vital to deliver new treatment services and to support schemes to reduce drugs-related offending; drugs education schemes; and preventive strategies. We must also put money into research to find solutions that work—there are many ideas, but we need ones that work and that relate to the individuals and the communities concerned. That is why I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned drug action teams and the drug treatment and testing order pilots that the Government have introduced.

1479
We need to have a drugs education strategy in schools and throughout communities. Every child has to develop an awareness of drugs and acquire the skills needed to handle a drugs-ridden society. Children must develop a sense of their own self-worth to be able to deal with peer pressure. They should know where to go if there is a problem in their family or their community, or among their friends. Teachers, educationists, parents, students and children must all acquire that awareness and understanding.
The Government's strategy contains many measures—I could speak for 20 minutes if you would allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it is more useful if I write to the hon. Gentleman and send a copy to those hon. Members who have stayed for this debate. Then, in discussions with the hon. Gentleman, we can go though each point of the strategy, so that he can satisfy himself as to whether we are getting it right. I believe that we are getting it right by working with people.
It is important that the Government set themselves tough targets. Targets are not set for their own sake, but to enable us to judge whether our strategy is achieving what we intend it to achieve. Setting targets on tackling drugs misuse is difficult, but we should not shy away from the task. We have set ourselves targets such as reducing the number of young people using heroin and cocaine by a quarter by 2005, and by 50 per cent. by 2008; and reducing the rate of reoffending by drugs-misusing offenders by 50 per cent. by 2008.
We want to increase the number of people accessing treatment services by two thirds by 2005 and by 100 per cent. by 2008, thereby building up the capacity and the professional knowledge and skills of those who work in the community, taking referrals for drugs treatment. We want to reduce the availability of heroin and cocaine among young people by one quarter by 2005, and by 50 per cent. by 2008. We want to achieve all that against the background of addiction being a chronic, recurring illness.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of seizing assets. I am the sponsor of a performance and innovation unit project dealing with the pursuit and seizure of criminals' assets. I shall report to the Prime Minister in the spring. We are absolutely determined to ensure that crime does not pay, to reduce crime and the fear of crime, and to raise morale among the public and law enforcement agencies.
We are also absolutely determined to equip ourselves to do irreparable damage to criminals' business activities and their businesses. Catching and jailing them is not enough; we have to damage the whole network, or it will continue after we put them in jail. We have to get to the heart of the structure. We can make our message clear to dealers by targeting both big-time and small-time dealers. We must catch, prosecute and jail the big dealers in particular, but we must also ensure that we have the weapons at our disposal to smash their business empires. If we do not, the machine will continue with others at its head.
All of those vital measures are interrelated in the overall strategy. The strategy has been running for only two years; we have another eight years to go. There is no
1480
complacency—absolutely none. We must make sure that each year significant improvements are made, step by step.
Drug education in schools is a crucial element. That is why it is so important that in the national curriculum, at key stage 1, five to seven-year-olds know about the role of drugs as medicines. At key stage 2, seven to 11-year-olds are taught that tobacco, alcohol and other drugs have harmful effects. At key stage 3, 11 to 14-year-olds learn that the abuse of alcohol, solvents, tobacco and other drugs affects health, that the body's natural defence may be enhanced by immunisation and medicines, and how smoking affects lung structure and gas exchange. At key stage 4, youngsters of 14 to 16—the age of the hon. Gentleman's constituents' children—learn about the effects of solvents, tobacco, alcohol and other drugs on their body's functions.
Throughout the long-term strategy and at each stage in the development of our children, we must give them the knowledge and skills necessary to cope with drug-related issues in their society.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. His response has been positive and helpful, and I welcome the invitation that he extended to me.
I read the education initiative that the right hon. Gentleman has just outlined, and I was slightly concerned, as it seems to equate heroin addiction with alcohol, smoking and solvents, which are in an entirely different league of addiction and physical damage. That is not helpful. Will he examine the education programme, speak to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and see whether it can be modified?
Mr. McCartney: For 10 years as a volunteer, I went into schools to do classroom work with young people on self-esteem and issues related to abuse. It is crucial that they have an understanding of all the factors that can cause them harm. Young people must understand the dangers, be able to assess the risks, and have the knowledge to make a choice not to become involved. Simply saying to them, "Don't do it" does not work. We must provide them with skills, knowledge and access to information. As a volunteer involved in such issues over a long period, I can say that the results are positive.
The Government are embarking on a major research programme in schools. I will send the hon. Gentleman a note about the programme and what we hope to achieve. He is right to say that education must play a major part in tackling the drugs problem. Drugs misuse is as much an education issue as it is a social evil. At each stage of the curriculum, we must get right the content and the training of teachers, so that those who are responsible for the delivery of the curriculum have a clear understanding.
A few years ago we did a survey among primary schoolchildren in my area, in Wigan. It was amazing that nine and 10-year-olds had more knowledge than the adults in the school about the drugs that were available on the streets. That is because of peers talking to brothers, sisters and cousins, and listening to the networks in the communities where they live. In one sense, that is frightening, but strategies can be put in place to deal with it.

1481
Young people are aware, but sometimes they are not sufficiently aware of the dangers. It is therefore important that the curriculum presents a balanced approach to all the dangers that children and young people face in their development.
In trying to defend communities against the activities of drug barons, we must encourage the community to become involved with the police and others. In that way we will help the community to rid itself of the scourge of drugs. I was pleased to attend a meeting a few days ago with the Prime Minister, Mr. Keith Hellawell and the Metropolitan police, who have started the "Rat on a Rat" campaign.
During the first two weeks of the campaign, the hotline took 2,000 calls and more than 700 drug dealers and users have been arrested. A single anonymous call from an elderly lady led to a bust taking place and the discovery of a £1 million drugs factory. That was the result of one woman watching and thinking, "Something isn't right. I'll use the 'Rat on a Rat' hotline." the consequence was a massive victory for the police and the community. It is important to involve the community, empower people and show them that they are not alone in a community where drugs have become a normal part of life. It does not have to be that way; it should not be that way. People should not be isolated in their communities. We owe each community the support of getting drug dealers off people's backs and away from their families.
We are also discussing with Childline the management of a potential schools hotline. We appreciate that that needs sensitive handling, but the possibility exists of providing an additional boost to schoolchildren's understanding about the issues that surround drugs.
We are currently recruiting 300 new drug treatment workers. That will help to expand the capacity of the treatment sector. I do not have the figures for Gloucestershire tonight, but when we talk, I shall tell the hon. Member for Cotswold whether any of the new recruits will work in his area. Gloucestershire is part of the programme, and it is receiving resources.
Early evidence from the pilot drug treatment and testing orders showed that the average number of crimes committed by offenders had fallen by 90 per cent. Getting offenders tested and into treatment has a significant effect. We must maintain the effect so that they do not go backwards. They must have support mechanisms in their communities. Housing, jobs and social care can all present problems. Sometimes those young people have split from their families; sometimes they are isolated and have lost their friends through their habit. We are considering complex issues and complicated young people, who have difficult problems. However, getting them into treatment
1482
assists matters greatly. It helps their self-esteem and reduces the harmful activities of taking drugs and committing crimes to feed their habit.
We are the first Government to have an agreed comprehensive strategy. There are good signs, but we are in a war. Three thousand young people die a year; each death is a personal family loss.
Five months ago today, I had to go to Glasgow city mortuary to identify my son. When I did that, I knew that all hope was lost. During all the years of problems in the family when we tried to support my son, there was always hope while he was alive. While young people are alive, there is always a chance that the support can help them. I believe that that is wonderful, and I hope that the constituents of the hon. Member for Cotswold can sustain the progress and they have made and see their children mature into adults and fulfil their dreams and aspirations.
Hugh left us some words, which I would like to read:

"From someone who knows:

The damage the needle does

It wrecks lives and

Families, so think

Before you stick it

Into that vein of

Yours, just think."

Tragically, we cannot relive or save Hugh's life, but we can save many other victims in this dirty, sordid drugs war.
It is up to all of us to unite and win this war. I hope that the discussion tonight contributes to achieving that. We owe it to the families whose lives have been blighted and will never be put together again. There is no way of putting lives together when that happens. We owe it to the children who are no longer with them. We must sometimes think of every one of them—their faces and voices, their hopes and aspirations. In the end, the drugs war is about protecting children, and letting all of them have the opportunity to grow up in a society that respects, supports, loves and protects them, and where they can grow into adulthood and see their dreams and aspirations come true.
There is nothing more difficult to deal with than a child dying, and dying in the circumstances that we have discussed. I hope that our debate will convince people that the Government are absolutely committed to trying to ensure that we can, over time, overcome the difficulties and win the battle. If we do not, many other young people's lives will be destroyed. We must not allow that to happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Rural Poverty
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
2.30 pm
Mr. David Heath: I welcome the opportunity to open this important debate about rural poverty—a subject that the House does not discuss sufficiently often.
It is a debate about perception. There is a fundamental dissonance between the perception of life in rural areas, which so many commentators and those who look on it from a distance seem to share—the cliché is the picture on the chocolate box that shows roses around the door—and the incidence of poverty that many hon. Members know to be the reality of life in many villages. There is also a dissonance between the prosperity that is claimed for many rural regions—regions with a high preponderance of rural areas whose prosperity is on the surface—and the poverty that underlies it. It is that mismatch between perception and reality that I want to address.
Today's debate was prompted by the fact that that perception might be shared by senior members of the Government—including the Prime Minister, judging by the comments that he made when he recently toured the west country. I realise that his remarks may have been taken out of context, and that that may not be his position; but if it is, I believe that it is our duty as Members of Parliament to make sure that the reality is made known.
I do not want to discuss whether we are dealing with absolute poverty or relative poverty. To a large extent, it is an artificial distinction. No one in this country shares the absolute poverty of many in the third world. However, people's lives are made immeasurably more difficult by a lack of disposable income in a society that assumes a reasonable affluence.
I am sure that the invisibility of the poor in rural areas is recognised by those hon. Members who are here today. Those who represent rural constituencies have it brought home to them at their surgeries that many people lead desperate lives.
Poverty is exemplified by the way that people have to live their lives and in the day-to-day difficulties they face. It is exemplified by difficulties of access—access to the sort of services that people in urban areas take for granted and sometimes even to those services that are specifically designed to make their lives easier. It is exemplified by the cost of living, which is often higher in rural areas. It is often more expensive because people do not have access to public transport and therefore have to use their cars, and because people often have to use smaller shops instead of supermarkets. Because those shops cannot share in the economies of scale offered by supermarkets the unit costs are inevitably higher.
314WH
People suffer from the fact that services cannot react to their position, and they also suffer from isolation. The latter is an important aspect of the problem. Someone who is relatively poor but who lives in a centre of relative affluence is isolated in a way that the poor who live among their peers are not. The one family in a small village who do not have a regular income or a reasonable pension will have a pretty miserable life, as will people who live on their own and who cannot share many of the things that other people take for granted.
This is a genuine cross-Government theme, and any of five or six Ministers could have responded to the debate. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley). In the previous such debate, which was instigated by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), a Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions represented the Government. They could just as easily have been represented by a Minister from the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health or a number of other Departments. Joined-up government—the phrase that we hear so often—must apply if it is to be addressed effectively.
I see no point in trading statistics with the Minister. We could spend the rest of the afternoon discussing numbers without getting to grips with the problem. How many people are living in poverty? Let us be honest—we do not know. In a document published two weeks ago, the New Policy Institute made the very conservative estimate of one in 10. That is a generous view of the number of people who are living below the poverty line, and it is probably an understatement. We know that people in rural areas are under-claiming and that the number of dependents upon people who are claiming is probably greater than is stated. We know that many people are not claimants because they exist on low pay or on seasonal employment that provides money for only part of the year. We know also that there is much migration from rural to urban areas and that people categorised as resident in urban areas of poverty are often from country areas but could not exist any longer with the privations that they suffered there.
Some indicators are simply unhelpful. For example, the incidence of car ownership could be used as an indicator of relative deprivation, but people in rural areas must have cars. I have quoted the following statistic before: people in Somerset have a high number of cars, but they are the oldest in the country. People keep their bangers together in one way or another because without them they simply cannot operate in modern society.
There is statistical evidence on poverty levels. Let us consider gross domestic product per head. It is not Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyneside or other such areas that have the lowest GDP per head, but places such as those represented here by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). However, even if statistics are as accurate as possible, they do not inform policy as they should. That is so partly because of aggregation and because policy formulation does not have a fine enough grain. That means that the south-west is considered to be relatively prosperous without taking into account that what makes it prosperous is the M4 corridor and Plymouth. Apart from that, the area is one of relative poverty.

315WH
Unhelpful definitions mean that the traditional small market town falls through the gap between the rural area that might benefit from rural development area status and the urban area that benefits from urban support. Somehow, the market town does not exist between those categories, and yet it is to such towns that people in rural areas look for the provision of the services that they need. The Liberal Democrats have argued many times that mortality and sparsity factors do not inform the formulae that allow for distribution of funds, whether for education, policing or elsewhere. Whichever service one considers, the unit costs are often higher in rural areas, yet that is not recognised in the formulae.
How are we to identify those who are most affected by what I have described? To paraphrase a famous passage, I would tell people, if they live in a rural area, "Do not be old and poor, do not be young and poor, do not be a family with young children and poor and do not have a long-term illness or disability and be poor." Such people will suffer more than someone in the same condition in an urban area. If I had to pick one category of people who particularly concerned me it would be the older ones, perhaps with low occupational pensions, who do not qualify for many of the social security benefits that would otherwise kick in. They would probably have to keep a car running, as the only way of getting to the shops, and would probably suffer from extreme isolation in the village, trying to keep up appearances, which is desperately difficult.
The people that I am concerned about would probably live in detached houses, which, in a rural area, is not a sign of affluence—just of the way we build our houses. Many hon. Members who represent such areas will be familiar with what may be found behind the front door. Sometimes, if we make a house call on, say, an elderly lady, we might see that the roof is falling in, that no maintenance has been carried out and that the occupant cannot heat the place. It is perhaps in a damp area—in the sort of fenland that we have in Somerset. We know that that person is living a pretty squalid life, finding life extremely difficult, and is probably not claiming. A stigma still attaches to claiming benefits, possibly because of ignorance of entitlements, and because there is no one to give guidance and support in claiming.
What difficulties need to be tackled by Government? The most important in many ways, is access, including physical access. We talk a great deal about the public transport needs of rural areas, but they are extreme. My village has one bus a week. Anyone without transport can catch that bus, spend a week in Frome and come back again, but anyone who wants to use it for any other purpose is lost. Over a long period the services available in villages have been reduced. Shops and banks are no longer there. I could divert my argument here on to the future of the sub-post office, but I shall not do so because we have aleady debated that and the Minister knows perfectly well of hon. Members' concerns about that. The post office is a crucial element in the provision of support to people on low incomes in rural areas. It is the one thing to which they have access in a village. Losing that means losing a crucial connection between society in the wider sense and the individual.
316WH
Other problems of access relate more to the workings of the system. I have already mentioned the inequalities of funding. It cannot be right, as I pointed out to Education Ministers the other day, that schools in Somerset receive £1,500 a child a year less than equivalent schools in a leafy London suburb. Although we do relatively well with the money provided, the people who are disadvantaged by the discrepancy are those who need the most help. Because the local education authority, and the children affected, are not entitled to a basic level of funding, there are inequalities in what schools can provide. That may not affect the bulk of people, who are relatively well off and relatively high academic achievers, but there are those who miss out in the process.
What I have described also applies in the health service. If there were the same distances between accident and emergency services in the conurbations as there are in the west country, people in the conurbations would be up in arms, because it can be 25 or 30 miles to the nearest hospital. That makes it very difficult for people who do not have access to transport to go to hospital, even for a regular out-patient appointment. In Somerset, the hospital car service has recently been withdrawn, so unless a person is an acute case, no transport will be available. What do you do? There is no answer to that question at present. It is also more difficult to get a general practitioner to visit.
Then there are economic problems. We could discuss the present crisis in agriculture, but we have had many opportunities to debate that, so let us just recognise that there is a significant crisis in agriculture. Agriculture is not the be-all and end-all of rural life; not everyone is employed in agriculture. However, it worried me that the Prime Minister's response to the National Farmers Union the other day did not seem to recognise that a crisis in agriculture is not confined to agriculture; it filters down through the entire rural economy. Many industries, trades and professions depend on agriculture and the people who work in them are currently finding life extremely difficult. For example, agriculture engineers and book-keepers who maintain farm accounts are going out of business and a whole range of people in downstream industries are experiencing financial difficulties. I recognise that the Government have helped the rural economy by introducing the minimum wage, which is a bonus, but can the Minister tell us what the Government's position on the Agricultural Wages Board is likely to be, as it would be interesting to know whether it will be maintained or abolished? If it is abolished, my concern is that the minimum wage will become the standard wage for many people in agricultural industries.
We need to encourage diversification in order to provide new business opportunities in rural areas and to move away from seasonal employment. It is no help to an unskilled manual worker to be moved from shovelling muck to hoovering a chalet, if it means that he continues to receive dirt wages, unable to feed his family and in employment that may be terminated at any stage.
It is important that we revivify the economies of market towns. Anyone who travels across the country will see that regional centres with big shopping centres are prospering, but the story in smaller market towns is boarded up windows and a complete lack of economic

317WH
activity. The Government must tackle that problem urgently. What are the barriers to employment? There are many arguments about that. There tends to be less long-term youth unemployment in rural areas, and much policy is aimed at long-term youth unemployment. Young people move into towns because they eventually realise that no jobs will appear, and that they cannot travel to them if they do, because they have no means of transport. Also, they have no access to training because there is no local higher or further education college, so their opportunities are restricted.
Then there is social support. Affordable housing is a recurrent theme. Many young people are sent into internal exile because they cannot find affordable housing. That is because the housing is bought by people on higher incomes who come to rural areas from elsewhere, and the whole housing market is artificially inflated as a result. Many old people who are trying to keep a roof over their heads do not have the support to enable them to do that successfully. I would like the Government to be much more active in their support for care-and-repair schemes, which are probably the way forward. We should use the voluntary sector and the funds that are available to maintain people in their own homes. The Government should also encourage the take-up of benefits in rural areas in a more proactive way. That is directly within the Minister's area of responsibility.
I discussed with the Minister some months ago the number of appeals against refusal of disability living allowance. I learnt that nearly 50 per cent. of appeals were upheld, which means that something is wrong with the system. That is causing a great deal of misery to disabled people in rural areas, who feel very isolated when their support is removed.
We must do something about long-term care, which is a great concern for many people. A relatively young man, in his forties, came to see me recently. His mother is in long-term care, and he is trying to run a pitifully small farm of 40 acres, which is barely viable. His problem was that his father had left the farm jointly to him and his mother. When his mother went into long-term care, the farm was considered to be a usable asset. The man's livelihood was being eroded because of his mother's care costs. I am sure that that is not how the rules were intended to work.
We have discussed socialisation and lack of community support. Many people retire to villages because they are taken by the idea of village life, only to find that they do not fit in because they have no connections and no family there. They are on low incomes, and the support that they took for granted in London or Birmingham is simply not available. Young people have no access to leisure facilities, so they hang around the bus stop, get bored and get into trouble, because that is all that they can afford to do.
What can the Government do? I do not pretend that there are any easy solutions; the Minister will be the first to recognise that. We do not want our countryside to be suburbanised or the differences between urban and rural areas to go unrecognised. We need to consider how the indicators are framed, to ensure that we recognise the problems in rural areas. Then we must adapt policies to fit the needs. That means a shift from policies to assist the efficient operation of the system to those that deal
318WH
with individual objectives. It is a shift of position from centralisation to diversification in policy, so that individual needs are properly assessed.
It is crucial to extend outreach in terms of benefit take-up, but it is not easy to decide how to do that. We cannot have a Benefits Agency office in every village, but we must reach those people who cannot be reached by any other means. There should be a policy premium on accessibility, and every Government policy should be assessed on whether it improves accessibility for people in rural areas.
We also need a rural White Paper to deal with the issues. The White Paper has been delayed repeatedly, but I hope that it will be published soon and that it will encompass many of the points made today. It will be crucial to the Government's success in tackling issues in rural areas. Public perception is that the Government do not take those issues seriously, and they will have to work hard to overcome that and to understand the reality of life in rural areas.
I do not want to paint too black a picture of rural areas. They are still good places to live. I have lived in East India Dock road and Witham Friary, and I know which I prefer. However, let us not forget that some people do not share in the prosperity, or, because they have no private transport, the easy availability of services. Life for them is becoming not easier but more difficult every year, as those services are withdrawn. All service providers, commercial and non-commercial, appear to be retreating from rural areas. My plea is that the Government should reverse that process, make things available in rural areas to the people who need them and ensure that their needs are recognised every bit as much as those of people in our large towns and conurbations.
2.55 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to be called in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on bringing the issue before the Chamber. There was a debate some two years ago, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), in which many of the same questions were considered.
We have an almost cartoon-like picture of poverty. We are brought up with the urban paintings of Hogarth, with the reports in William Booth's "In Darkest England"—if we are learned enough—and with the novels of Charles Dickens, all of which create the impression that poverty is an urban phenomenon. The opposite of that is the golden-glow picture that people who live in towns have of the countryside—if it is not all "Cider with Rosie", there is at least pleasure, sunlight, health and vigour, and plenty. They think, "Countryside good, town bad."
Of course, the reality is far from that. People may want to commute from the country, holiday there, or spend weekends there: it is not quite the same for people born into modest circumstances in the country who do not have the resources to cope with changed times. The countryside has never been the idyll that many think. Most people lived in tied cottages, many of them would have been hired at annual fairs or markets, and their tenure of their cottage or home would last only as long as their employment, which might not have been for

319WH
very long. If they lost their job and their home, there was no benefit system upon which they could fall back—they were destitute, save for the union workhouse.
We should say that things have moved on a long way. In particular, from the 1940s onwards, rural Britain enjoyed a renaissance. There was support for agricultural prices, regulation of agricultural wages, a national health service and a welfare state and the expansion of council housing in rural areas, all of which added greatly to the quality of life for people who lived in the country. Unfortunately, new threats have now appeared. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had to deal with them in a panoramic sweep, because there is insufficient time to dwell on each of them.
Employment levels in the country have fallen drastically since 1945, when almost one million people were employed in agriculture. Two or three years ago, the figure stood at 250,000, and it is still falling fast. The real figure is certain to go lower still. It is a common feature that agriculture's ancillary industries—for example, sugar beet factories, such as that which closed recently in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is adjacent to mine—are no longer present in the same way. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned, the agricultural engineers will not be there to service the farms if the farms are not there on the scale that they once were.
That is not the whole picture. The countryside is also losing many facilities, because of the changing nature of the population. The village shop and the village post office—we have debated the issues twice, once in the main Chamber and once here—are under threat and have been for some time. It is not only a question of the proposals the Benefits Agency might make with regard to payments, although it has not been entirely helpful in some respects. The main question relates to the population now living in villages. Many people commute to work in a large town and some of them may be in the village only at weekends. Such people do not shop in the village shop, but in major supermarkets, sometimes in the nearest market town, but more often in the nearest major town or city, where they work. That takes away a margin of trade from village shops and post offices with the result that they cannot compete and have to close. The same argument applies to public houses, schools and social organisations. People no longer keep villages alive by spending all their active life in them and they may become places in which people occasionally sleep or stay.
It is easy to paint a black picture. I could paint an even blacker one, but we must consider the way forward. Progress must be based on realistic employment in rural areas. We must ensure that we do not create a benefit culture by adapting a working society to the 21st century. Farms should diversify as appropriate and new businesses and industries—which may be attached to farms—should serve appropriate callings and needs.
I emphasise the importance of such action being appropriate to circumstances. Putting many unusual businesses into the middle of the countryside changes the area into one more suburb. However, in certain circumstances, there may be a case for relaxation of planning controls and conditions. Government and local authorities, however, should certainly encourage new industries into such areas.
320WH
Local authorities should tackle matters that they have recently been unable to deal with, including housing. We all talk about affordable housing, but that is difficult to achieve in country areas. Country people do not live in terribly picturesque cottages. In the main, they live in ex-council houses: many council houses have now been sold. If one wants to hear the local Essex accent, one should go to the council houses in which most local people now live. Farm workers' cottages have been knocked together so that two or three become a single dwelling which, almost certainly, only someone from outside can afford. The Government, local authorities and housing associations must devise effective schemes to provide houses for rent or sale at prices that can be contained at a certain level so that local people can remain in the villages in which they were born.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude by touching on the provision of facilities. The Government have taken steps to encourage that by tackling rural transport and expressing a desire to integrate buses and trains. There is nothing more absurd than a train arriving 10 minutes after the last bus has gone: that breaks down the whole network essential to a rural area. We should extend taxation relief and business rate relief to shops and post offices so that it is worth their while remaining in rural areas. They should not have to shoulder yet another burden which may force them to close down and go elsewhere.
We must accept that the motor car is essential to rural life. Those who do not have cars are stuck in villages that they cannot leave. The Government have made progress by ending the fuel escalator, which bore down especially hard on rural communities. The ending of the scheme is welcomed in places in which the car is a necessity. Other schemes that recognise how essential a car is to people in rural areas may be of benefit. For example, we could encourage dial-a-ride schemes, community bus schemes and any scheme that facilitates travel between villages and between villages and towns.
We are analysing and understanding those interrelated problems. We must create employment in villages, so that people living in them are on the same level as those living in towns. We must ensure that services are appropriate for the community. There are encouraging signs. We have identified the problem and I hope that we shall have a constructive debate today on how we might move forward.
3.5 pm
Mr. William Ross: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for initiating the debate which has developed, not as some outside thought, on a farming basis, but rather on the basis of rural poverty. As it happens, I live on and own a farm. That is no secret to hon. Members who know me. A major debate on the Floor of the House on the farming industry and the rural poverty that has arisen in the past few years is long overdue.
I am well aware of all the issues that have been raised so far. The facts of rural poverty are well known to me. The local government ward in which I live has a high level of deprivation, even by Northern Ireland standards. I have always wondered just how those tables

321WH
are drawn up. As the hon. Member for Somerset and Frome pointed out, people with cars are considered better off than those without. The fact that it is an old banger is not taken into account. Another factor is whether one's house is tied to a main sewer or septic tank. Those connected to a main sewer are considered to be better off than those with septic tanks. But the interior of the house has nothing to do with the sewerage. Someone needs to go back to basics and look at what constitutes deprivation and poverty in that sense. I am not happy with the measurements that are used.
We have already touched on the fact that many people in rural areas work outside agriculture. They are divorced from agriculture, which is the basic industry in rural areas, and divorced from the rural community in which they live at weekends but of which they are not in any real terms a part. I shall consider briefly the new poverty, which is apparent in rural areas and relates entirely to the crisis in farming. When I asked:
"How many claims for working families tax credit come from farming families? Would not that number of claims be reduced if the Chancellor and his right hon. Friends drew down the compensatory funds that are available for farming from Europe, owing to the changes in the value of the pound?"
the Chancellor replied:
"I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I know that substantial numbers of claims have come in the past and still come from farming families. Self-employed people are also eligible for the working families tax credit and there has been a distinct increase in the number of applicants."—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1195.]
That answer points directly to the consequences of the present crisis in farming. It also shows that that level of poverty, which forces people to apply for working families tax credit, as it did its predecessors in social security benefit, is not a new phenomenon. There has always been far more poverty out there in the countryside than is generally realised. I am well aware of it. I am also well aware that many of those people in the countryside—the older generation especially have a great pride and will do almost anything before they are prepared to admit that they cannot live at a reasonable standard. They refuse, point blank sometimes, to apply for the benefits to which they are entitled. The consequence is that they live frugally. We should have great sympathy for them.
With regard to farm incomes, it might be interesting to consider the situation in Northern Ireland with which I am most familiar. From 1995 to 1999 there was a fall of 79 per cent. in farm incomes. In the same period hill farming income fell by 95 per cent. If that does not constitute new poverty, I do not know what does and yet 10 per cent. of our work force in Northern Ireland still depend on agriculture and the agri-industry and ancillary industries.
That situation did not arise overnight. To some extent it was a consequence of BSE. The strength of sterling in the past few years has had a major effect. The power of the purchaser from the primary producer in the market place has increased enormously in recent years as a result of such changes as the abolition of the Milk Marketing Board, which, it must be remembered, was created to give support and strength to the primary producer. The board was much criticised in its time but it put a welcome bottom on farm prices upon which
322WH
huge chunks of the farming industry were built. I was one of those who expressed deep concern about the consequences of sweeping it away and I am sorry to say that they have come to pass. All the power in the marketplace has shifted from the primary producer to the purchaser. The real problem with farming has always been that farmers buy retail and sell at low wholesale prices so they are in a weak position unless there is a food shortage, and then we know what happens.
There has also been a constant increase in the standards demanded for the production of animals—pigs, sheep, poultry, cows and so on. The costs of the various sprays, medical treatment, feed and other things have increased. Also, urban dwellers and the Government forget that, because of our position on the globe, we suffer certain constraints of climate and soil that more favoured regions of the world do not have to contend with. I remember being in Minnesota some years ago on what was, by our standards, a very large farm. The farm was in a black soil area but the amount of fertiliser used was at least equal to that used in this country. I was astonished to find that the crops that that farmer grew could not be grown here, but he was doing well from them. We live in a wet and windy climate which means that there are certain basic constraints on production and on what can be produced at reasonable cost. Governments sometimes forget that. Hitherto in this farming crisis, the Government's action has not been effective because the fall in farm prices continues and the problems of farming are not getting any better.
I have not been my party's spokesman on agriculture for some time but it seems to me that the only way in which farming—only some sectors of it—could be helped in the near future would be by drawing down the agrimoney compensatory sums, which this year could amount to more than £300 million. The Treasury will argue, as it always does, that that will cost it money, but it is costing someone else money in social security payments, which quickly add up. In those circumstances, the Government should act.
Of course, that will not help the poultry and pig problems. In November 1998, I visited a farm in Northern Ireland that had a fairly large pig production unit. Anyone who talked to the group across the road last week would have had a clear picture of the problems of the pig industry in Great Britain. The farmer in Northern Ireland had more than 200 sows. He had carried on until the beginning of the year making a loss of £30 per pig produced. His losses were enormous. The farm was floating only on a large milk herd which he also owned and on the profits accumulated over many years. It has all gone. It decreased steadily until his last sow pigged three weeks ago. It was not just that the productive capacity of a herd of 200 or more sows had gone; 14 full and part-time jobs went too, which does not help the rural economy. There was simply no other work for them to do, so they are all on unemployment benefit—an aspect too often forgotten.
The age profile of farmers and the farming community is important. It is far too high with far too many grey heads and not enough young men and women going into it. I had a farm for many years before I entered the House of Commons and I have always been aware of the difficulties faced by the farming industry. It has always been bedevilled by a lack of

323WH
clarity in Government intentions. Had farming communities known sooner that the Government were not going to take realistic steps to help them through the present crisis, we would not be in the current mess because folk would have taken evasive action much sooner. As it is, many people face ruin.
It is possible to attempt to diverisfy, but there are limits to it. Not every farm can be turned into a golf course; not every farmet's son can start welding gates; not every farmer can start bed and breakfast—they may not live in a tourist area. Farms exist to produce food for human beings. My concern is that the Government are treating farming in the same way as any other industry. We could get by without home-produced coal—and we are aware of the enormous difficulties, pain and misery suffered by mining communities—because electricity can be produced through gas or other means: there are alternatives, but no one has yet found an alternative to food.
We need to grow food and we will be extremely foolish if we allow the farming industry to deteriorate because of the paucity of men and women entering it. In a moment of crisis, we could find ourselves without the capacity to increase food production or to maintain a safe reserve for our people. That is what makes the farming industry different from all others. It needs to be supported by whatever means. We simply cannot continue raising our own standards of production, but buying food from the ends of the earth knowing that it was produced at lower cost than anyone here could match under systems that would be regarded as unacceptable in this country.
Our debate is so important, and if I have trodden too deeply into the farming community, it is because I believe that improving the farming industry is basic to combating and eradicating poverty in the rural communities of this nation.
3.17 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. My constituency of High Peak in many ways mirrors the wider English community in its social, urban-rural and industrial mix. In one respect—its levels of income—it does not reflect the whole of England. It is partly because we are in a rural area and partly because not just farming, but catering and tourism—traditionally low income industries—dominate the local economy.
I have lived all my life in rural areas or market towns. Before High Peak, I lived in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) earlier referred to areas that have a chocolate box appearance, but hide real problems of social deprivation and poverty—and High Peak is a classic example of such an area.
The community of Yorkshire Bridge has around 50 houses and used to be owned entirely by the water board for its workers on the Ladybower dam. It has a letter box, a telephone box and a pub, but nothing else. It is two miles from the nearest village school, two miles from the nearest village shop and post office and six miles from the nearest train station. Its bus service
324WH
is very infrequent. Going to the cinema, supermarket or hospital means a journey of 12 or 15 miles in whatever direction. I would not claim that people living there are necessarily living in dire poverty, but it is certainly an area of rural deprivation which, combined with low income and poor access to services, makes it that much worse for people who live there.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has just spoken about the agricultural industry. In my constituency, the main agricultural industry is sheep farming. A couple of years ago, the typical sheep farmer on an upland Pennine farm had an annual income of about £10,000. Comparing that net income with a subsidy of about £12,000 shows that such a farmer would have been working at an operating loss during the year to which I refer. If one is faced with a 40-mile round trip to take one's sheep to an abattoir or maket to sell them for pennies, one will not relish the idea of staying in the industry. There are huge structural problems in parts of the agricultural eonomy, and they cannot be solved overnight. There is a degree of over-production and some of the solutions will take a lot of hard biting to ensure that we get that part of the economy back on its feet.
As other hon. Members have said, however, all is not doom and gloom in rural areas, even where poverty can be found. Indeed, one does not have to look far to see it. A former Conservative local councillor for the Yorkshire Bridge area is on record as having said back in about 1994 that if poverty existed in his ward he would know about it. In view of that ignorance, he was duly removed in the 1995 local government elections. There are many ways in which the tide is turning. In my constituency of High Peak, some 2,000 people benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. The current level of £3.60—soon to be £3.70—is more than such people would have received without the minimum wage. In just a few weeks' time, they will be a further £1 a week better off because of the change in the national insurance contributions threshold, which will apply in addition to the reduction in the basic rate of income tax that is also in the cards.
Hundreds of families across High Peak are now benefiting from the working families tax credit. The incomes of some of the people in those families were raised to £3.60 an hour by the national minimum wage. Some of them now earn £5 a week or more extra, as they pay very little tax because of the working families tax credit, which gets more help to people who are most in need. Record increases in child benefit have assisted 14,000 families in my constituency. Following local press coverage over the past few days of my call for pensioners to take up their right to the pensioners minimum income guarantee, my office has received several calls from people who will clearly benefit from it. We are doing everything that we can to encourage such people. I take the point made earlier that people must see the minimum income guarantee as a right and entitlement, and not as a benefit, charity or handout.
I represent 16,000 pensioners in the High Peak constituency. The minimum income guarantee will help 2,000 of those pensioners, all of whom will be benefiting from reduced taxation on their savings, from free eye tests, which will be introduced in April, and from help with heating, insulation and home security. Indeed, from 1 November, people aged over 75 will benefit from

325WH
free television licences. In what must be the coldest constituency in England—if you look at Buxton on the weather forecast, you will find that it is the coldest town in England—the £100 winter fuel payment is very welcome.
Other measures are assisting people who are suffering from deprivation and poverty. Derbyshire has a good record on keeping small schools open and on allowing old people to continue to live in their homes through the use of the home help service when otherwise they may have had to move away. In rural areas, if you move away to live in a care home, you invariably have to move out of your community, which can be upsetting for some people.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I know that this is a debate on rural matters, but there are too many "yous" in it. When the hon. Gentleman uses the word "you", he is referring to me, and I agree that Buxton can be quite bracing.
Mr. Levitt: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would be impressed to see the work being done by Derby university and others to bring new technology to rural areas to allow investment in remote learning so that people can benefit by increasing their skills, which will allow them to increase their earning power and, in many cases, to set up their own businesses. Teleworking and home working are also taking off in that area.
I welcome the fact that, as I understand it, about £15,000 per rural post office will be invested over the next few years, to allow post offices not only to thrive but to diversify and introduce more services, thereby allowing people to cut their transport costs. Derbyshire has benefited from the money for rural buses. We also have thriving community transport and car share schemes in our rural areas. Indeed, the ethos of self-help is very much at work, and making life better for people in such communities.
One especially interesting project underway is the prospect of the Hope Valley college becoming a technology college. Hope Valley college is an 11–16 school, 10 or 12 miles away from the nearest secondary school, and it hopes to build a network between itself and its feeder primary schools. As a community college, it has always encouraged people to use its facilities in the evening in order to benefit from increased skills and improved earning power.
In Derbyshire, unemployment is fairly low—about 3.8 per cent. according to the International Labour Organisation figures—and vacancies continue to be high. Many good things are happening, some inspired by the Government, some coming directly from local communities, and some from self-help schemes. That is all within the framework of tackling poverty and eliminating child poverty over 20 years, which is the Government's aim. There is, therefore, a bright future for people in the most deprived areas of those rural communities. Poverty is a real problem, but it is being tackled in a sustainable way. People are not looking for the quick fix, but are building over a generation after years of neglect.
3.27 pm
Mr. David Drew: I will be brief, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) wants to speak. I shall raise two issues. First, what have the Government done in response to the poverty agenda? Secondly, how can we ensure that that has an effect on the rural poverty that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described? The hon. Gentleman gave us a panoramic view, and an insight into what is really happening.
The Government have identified the issue of poverty and signed up to the poverty agenda. We must congratulate them on that. In a speech on 18 February 1999, the Secretary of State introduced the Government's agenda and published the first annual report, "Opportunity for all—tackling poverty and social exclusion", a document that, although it largely considers the macro issue of poverty, relates just as much to the rural domain as it does to our urban problem areas. We must bear that in mind.
A series of documents published recently have shown that the Government are serious about tackling poverty. Just before Christmas, we had the document on rural economies. Since then, we have had "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity". Both those documents make it clear that tackling poverty, whether one describes it as deprivation or social exclusion, is part of the Government's agenda. It is essential that the Government understand that there is rural poverty as well as poverty in the urban setting which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, we know from various works of fiction. That debate should be taken up. We have failed to deal with poverty in rural areas for so long because it was unidentifiable. Either people chose not to identify rural poverty because of the stigma associated with it, or the statistical analyses to show that it truly existed were not available. We all knew that it existed, we all talked about it, but finding evidence for it was difficult.
The increasing amount of information on the subject has allowed the Government to set targets for rural as well as urban areas. I will concentrate on one particular area to highlight how we can take that further, drawing on the review of the index of deprivation carried out by the university of Oxford's department of applied social studies and social research. What the review is trying to achieve is highly laudable. It is aimed at identifying not only rural poverty, but deprivation in all its forms, but because of the way in which it deals with the complexities of the issue in different domains, it is worth inquiring into. I hope that in reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that the document and the research that backs it up are being taken forward, because they not only identify, poverty in all its forms, but allow us to put in place the policies that are needed.
What does the review allow us to do? It moves the debate towards a more concentrated effort in understanding what can be measured. It suggests analysis that is ward-based rather than by enumeration district, an examination of the indices to make them finer-grained and more finely tuned, and disaggregating the information so that it can be dealt with at local level. We could devise a series of principles that we can pick out and understand, and which can relate to all aspects of poverty across our countryside.

327WH
If nothing else, I hope that the Minister will be able to say some encouraging things. Those of us who represent rural or semi-rural areas are not trying to capture that particular mechanism, but we believe that it is an important way to take the debate forward, and will allow us to come to some conclusions about how the Government should attack poverty and deal with difficult conditions. The debate will, I am sure, suggest an important direction for the Government, and the Minister may have some good things to say to us on that basis.
3.33 pm
Dr. George Turner: Other Members have painted in much of the analysis, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has emphasised the importance of certain documents. The rural group of Labour Members produced our audit a year ago, and we have seen some documents from the policy innovation unit. There has been a fair amount of analysis, and I could add to that from the experience of my constituency.
My constituency is a vast rural one, which has suffered from agricultural decline and from some of the other ills that rural communities have experienced in the past 20 or 30 years. We need to take two points from the analysis into account. First, the problems that we are discussing are not new. During the lifetime of the previous Government, 100 village schools closed in Norfolk, and we have witnessed the decline in the numbers of those who work on the land. Agricultural workers have needed to move to market towns to take up low-paid employment, because they cannot afford the transport costs—and there is no public transport anyway. Empty homes have been bought by incomers for use by holidaymakers. That helps the economy, but the problems with which the Government are dealing have been left to fester for a long time. There are financial problems about low pay and incomes and problems of isolation related to transport and access to services, be it the doctor's surgery or the shop.
We must look for structural solutions as well as the band-aid measures that the Government provided in their first year or two. The minimum wage has provided first aid for many of my constituents, and the minimum income guarantee has helped many of the 22,000 pensioners in my constituency. The working families tax credit is helping large numbers of people as well. However, those measures are meant to deal immediately with the problems of poverty while time is taken to work out what must be done to change the structures. We must change the long-term future so that people no longer need to rely on the minimum wage, because they are paid more. They must have the ability to create their pensions, so that they do not need the minimum income guarantee. We will not succeed in government unless we put a medium and long-term programme in place at the same time as the crisis measures.
I hope that the analysis will result in a rural White Paper, which I presume has been delayed only because it has been coupled with the spending review. If we do not balance our policy on resources with the issues that must be faced, we will not solve the problems in the right way. That was the failure of the previous Government's rural White Paper.
328WH
My background is in electronic engineering, and modern technologies and computers will be important. Post Office modernisation could bring the ability to access Government services from the village post office, which would be of enormous significance. One of my ex-colleagues is working on a project that, if available in a post office, would mean that voice recognition technology would project on to a screen in sign language the speech of the person behind the counter. The scope for technology in rural areas is great, so we must ensure that it is exploited.
I have only a short time available, but I shall outline what I think the other key issues must be. We have to deal with low aspirations. For decades, the aspiration in too many of my constituents' families has been to get through school years and go into easily accessible but low-paid employment. Historically, unemployment in my constituency has never been great, but wage levels have been far too low. Educational opportunities will be taken only when we raise aspirations. We must consider education and training, which must be accompanied by other reforms to the rural economy.
I welcome the modest reforms of the common agricultural policy, and the modulations that the Government are trying to make to the development plan. That is a much better way to support the rural economy. We must ensure that our planners do not have a rulebook mentality about what should be prevented. The mood in local government must be such that planners consider how to help the economy and protect the environment. That balance has not always been struck.
The importance of transport and access has generally been recognised. I welcome 200 per cent. the abandonment of the fuel escalator, but I do not want another measure to replace it. The increases in fuel costs over the past year as a result of the rising price of oil have hurt poor workers in my constitutency who have to use a car to get to work. Whatever transport measures the Government introduce to help such people, they will never have bus services. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I hope that the Minister can assure me that we can expect long-term solutions.
3.40 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on having initiated an interesting and informative debate. Most of our anti-poverty mechanisms relate almost entirely to urban areas, as that is where poverty has been most manifest. Rural poverty is largely hidden, and, because of the nature of the countryside, spread over a large geographical area. Nevertheless, the way in which we should approach rural poverty has many similarities to strategies, some of which have been successful, in urban areas.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) is absolutely right. The problem relates to aspirations. A single anti-poverty measure is not appropriate. The problem requires a combination of education, employment opportunities, housing, transportation and benefit incentives. The way in which those elements work together will determine whether the Government successfully tackle rural poverty.
I hope that the Government will tackle the problem of wilful blindness. I do not know what came over the Prime Minister on his recent visit to the west country. If

329WH
he intended to persuade the countryside that he was on its side, he singularly failed. His "Crisis? What crisis?" attitude has hindered initiatives to restore the confidence of the countryside. Against the background of wilful blindness, we seem incapable of reversing a worsening trend.
In discussing countryside employment, we are not dealing only with farming, but farming is the mortar that holds together a lot of the countryside. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said, farming has a knock-on effect on the rest of the rural economy. In the past two years, farm incomes have fallen by 75 per cent. Local government spending per head in rural areas is 60 per cent. of that in urban areas. Rural post offices face closure. We are aware of the effects of high fuel duty and we understand the lack of rural jobs and the high cost of housing. It is not surprising that the New Policy Institute found that one in 10 people in rural areas live below the poverty line.
The accountancy firm Deloitte and Touche, which has been investigating farming incomes over the past 10 years, recently reported that last year farming profits dropped by more than 50 per cent.—the greatest fall that it has recorded. It is perhaps not surprising that, according to a recent National Farmers Union survey, two third of farmers' children do not want to follow their father or mother into the family firm.
There is a time lag in the appreciation of the prosperity of the countryside. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give a clear answer to his parliamentary question about the number of people who would qualify for the working families tax credit. The National Farmers Union has said that 46 per cent. of farmers are on incomes that would qualify them for the working families tax credit.
We have some of the highest petrol prices in Europe, which means that the poor must spend a disproportionate amount on the running of their cars. Hon. Members may recall that in January a geographers conference was held in Brighton. It examined the problem and said that a new class of poor was being created in rural areas because of the rise in petrol costs. There was a debate in another place on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's recent report on urban poverty. Research was also undertaken at the university of Aberdeen, which found that the cost of running a car often prevents young people from buying their own home. Most young people need their own transport to hold down work. Public transport is regarded as unreliable and often timetables do not match the work schedule. Such research puts a question mark over rural transport and the cost of running a car and it is no surprise that the Countryside Alliance found that the £50 million road transport package made little or no difference.
The Minister will have to reply to many questions for which he has no direct responsibility. However, he does have responsibility for rural post offices. The Government's plans to have benefits paid directly into bank accounts will put at risk a third of the country's sub-post offices, many of which are in rural areas. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters said that the plans were a
"disaster for sub-postmasters, disaster for those people who are drawing their benefits and pensions (and for) people who want their post offices that are closed".
330WH
We all know from our postbags about the difficulty that the closure of sub-post offices will cause. I have received several letters from the constituents and, to save time, I shall quote from just one. Mr. Johnson from Hook End, a rural area in my constituency, is a full-time carer for his wife, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. He wrote that, if the local post office were to close,
"I will have to request the assistance of a neighbour to sit with my wife while I have to journey into Brentwood for the total sum of £39.90, minus the expense of petrol and parking fees and the total inconvenience of doing so and all that it entails."
I am sure that the Minister is sympathetic to such a complaint, because, when in opposition, he was most diligent in writing to sub-postmasters. On 17 May 1993, he wrote:
"I am writing to you in response to widespread concern about the impact of Government proposals to change the method of the payment of pensions and other benefits…I can see no reason why people should not have a choice in the way they receive their payments."
He enclosed a petition with the letter and ended it by stating:
"If you have any points you would like to make to me on this issue please don't hesitate to get in touch."
I suppose that this debate provides the opportunity to contact him and I look forward to hearing how he intends to safeguard not only the post offices in York, but those in Somerton and Frome, High Peak, Brentwood and Ongar, East Londonderry and the constituencies of others who have spoken today.
In conclusion, the problem is that the Government mistakenly view the countryside as prosperous suburbs. It is important that we recognise that rural poverty is slightly different from urban poverty. To do that, we have to put together a package that takes into consideration the special characteristics of the countryside. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
3.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate. It has been a wide-ranging and extremely well-informed discussion, with contributions by hon. Members from the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
There are real differences between urban and rural areas, but many elements draw together town and country, such as shared services and economic interdependence. Refreshingly, no hon. Member tried to play off the interests of rural areas against those of urban areas. As a Government who seek to represent all people in all communities in all parts of the United Kingdom, we need to respond to needs and to poverty, whether in rural or urban areas. Trying to set two areas against each other does a disservice to people in both.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the Prime Minister said on his recent visit to the west country. The Prime Minister acknowledges the depth of poverty in the countryside and we have responded to that—through our rural development plans, for example, which will provide an extra £1.6 billion over the next seven years for development in rural areas. The Prime Minister's

331WH
personal intervention meant that Cornwall received objective 1 status, which will provide the assistance that it needs.
There are problems in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman raised that of bus services. He said that there was just one bus a week to his own village. Twenty-two per cent. of villages have no bus services. The Conservative policy of bus deregulation was a disaster for rural areas, as I know only too well. Somerset is a rural area, as is mine, but the population density of North Yorkshire is 70 per sq km, which is half that of Somerset.
The hon. Gentleman also welcomed the impact of the minimum wage on the countryside. Sadly, the Conservative party voted against that measure. I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats have abandoned their proposal for regional variations in the minimum wage. That policy would have led to many rural areas with lower wages having a lower rate of wage protection than that introduced by the Government through the national minimum wage.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised the important issue of improving the accessibility of benefits to people in rural areas. We have seen the value of NHS Direct in improving health advice to people in rural areas and we must learn the lessons from that for other national Government services such as benefits, and local government services such as social services.
Mr. David Heath rose—
Mr. Bayley: I have so many hon. Members to respond to that in fairness to them I shall press on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned the lack of information on rural deprivation. The Government's review of the index of local deprivation addresses that. We propose to introduce elements in the index, including that of access to services. Increasing the weighting will benefit rural communities and their local authorities. It will also allow the data to be disaggregated at ward, rather than just district, level and help to pinpoint the pockets of poverty and deprivation in rural areas that so many hon. Members have been at pains to emphasise. Indeed, during the past two years the increase in standard spending assessments for shire counties has been higher than for England as a whole, which reflects the fact that the Government recognise the need for additional resources in shire areas—we are putting our money where our mouth is. In Plymouth, many local authorities have developed their own local strategies for combating poverty. That is important in dealing with the issues that we have discussed today, and I hope that more authorities, shire counties and urban authorities, will do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) referred to the huge fall in the number of people working in agriculture during the past 50 years or so. However, there has been growth in other employment areas, and although I accept that averages mask many differences, unemployment is extremely low in many
332WH
rural areas. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, unemployment is 2 per cent. In Plymouth, Sutton, it is 7.5 per cent. In Great Yarmouth, a very rural area, it is more than 10 per cent., so there is variation. There is a heavy burden of unemployment in many rural areas, as well as areas in which the burden is much less.
Since May 1997, there has been a significant fall in long-term unemployment of about one-third in all parts of the country, but interestingly, it has fallen by 36 per cent. in accessible rural areas, by 37.5 per cent. in remote rural areas and by only 30.9 per cent in urban areas. There has been a significant fall in long-term unemployment everywhere, but the largest fall has been in rural areas.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred to the working families tax credit. He said that there had been a good take-up of the tax credit, which reflects the problem of poverty and low income in rural areas. The Labour party supported the introduction of the working families tax credit—sadly, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats opposed it—and it is making a big difference to the issue of poverty in rural areas. The same goes for the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that 2,000 people in his constituency had benefited from that. Again, that measure was introduced in the face of stiff opposition from the Conservatives, who said that it would destroy jobs, yet jobs are being created in rural areas, unemployment is falling, and the wages of people on low incomes are rising as a result of the Government's policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak also raised the important issue of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, which boosts the incomes of the poorest pensioners in rural and urban areas. In the House last week, we agreed to increase the value of the minimum income guarantee in line not with prices, but with earnings. That increase was supported by all parties except, of course, the Liberal Democrats.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk asked when the rural White Paper would appear. It will be published later this year, in tandem with the urban White Paper, because the interdependence between the two is important.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made several important points but, given the time, I can respond to only one of them. I must respond to his challenge about post offices. Like me, he might have received a document from the House of Commons Library, which lists the number of post offices that have been closed in recent years. The number of Crown post offices—directly controlled by the Government—that closed while the Conservatives were in power was 974. The number closed by the Labour Government is six. Of course, we do not directly control sub-post offices as they are private businesses, but 3,435 closed while the Conservatives were in power and closures continue at much the same rate. Something must be done about that. The Government propose to rectify the problem by modernising the Post Office. We shall allow it to provide a wider range of services in order to seek new business. When the Conservatives were in government, they wanted to use automated credit transfer, which would mean that people would not have the right to collect benefits in cash from the local post

333WH
office. People should have choice. I argued for choice then, and I am pleased to say that the Labour Government are introducing choice.
Those who complain about the threat to post offices should do what I have done for many years. I have always supported my local post office, so I opened a Girobank account and went to the post office rather than the bank to withdraw cash.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up. Would those hon. Members who do not want to stay for the next debate please leave quickly and quietly?

Rail Traffic (Lincoln)
4 pm
Gillian Merron: The debate is a tremendous opportunity to raise the real concerns of my constituents and of businesses, the local authority and community representatives in my constituency.
Our deep-rooted concerns result from Railtrack's commercial intention significantly to increase the number of freight trains passing through Lincoln without considering how that change might be managed to ensure that the city is not brought to a standstill. I share the fears of my constituents that, with the present road and rail layout, a further increase in rail traffic will be a burden rather than a bonus to the city.
I was determined to secure this parliamentary time to raise local issues because they highlight principles of wider significance, most notably the shortcomings of the Railways Act 1993 and of the fact that Railtrack is singularly and in my view unreasonably focused only on its part of the picture. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be able to assist in keeping the whole picture in our collective sight.
In using this opportunity to speak up for Lincoln, I wish to thank and pay tribute to those who have worked with me, some of whom are in the Chamber today. The rail forum includes representatives from Lincoln city council, Lincolnshire county council, the local chamber of commerce, Lincolnshire training and enterprise council and the university. I also thank the many individuals, including Mr. Carter, a retired railway man, who have taken the time to write, as well as the emergency services, including the fire service, and community groups such as the soroptomists society and the local media. That cross-section of opinion provides a measure of the overwhelming feeling of people in Lincoln. Everyone concerned has given the subject a good and open airing, which has informed the many aspects of the debate. It has been an important means of sending the message to Railtrack that it needs to work with us all to find a long-term solution that satisfies all parties.
The problem to which a solution must be found arises from Railtrack's intention to upgrade the east coast main line and develop the route to carry more passenger trains, faster trains and more freight services. To deliver those services, Railtrack intends to separate high-speed trains from slower trains by creating a four-track railway for much of the route. That will include a second parallel railway to the east coast main line, which will serve as a freight route.
What will that mean for Lincoln? In essence, there will be two extra freight trains an hour in each direction, and an increase in passenger services. Why does that present Lincoln with a problem? Lincoln has the rare distinction of having a railway line cut through the centre of the city, which necessitates a level crossing. When the barriers are closed, the railway cuts the high street in half for traffic and pedestrians alike. That now happens for 12 minutes in every hour, and it already causes congestion and inconvenience. It is estimated that the four extra rail freight journeys each hour will result in the barriers being closed for between 24 and 28 minutes an hour.

335WH
In January, I invited Railtrack executives to Lincoln to meet representatives from the rail forum. When asked at what point they would consider having to make alternative arrangements, they stated that the barriers would need to be down for about 40 minutes in every hour before they would feel compelled to act. Letting the high street of a vibrant city become impassable for 40 minutes in every hour is not good enough. If the increased freight traffic results in a down-time of 28 minutes, it will not take many passenger trains to cut the city in two for 40 minutes an hour.
To shed some light on the way forward, I refer to the joint statement from the rail forum. It states:
"Railtrack's intention to invest in Lincolnshire railways as part of its east coast main line investment is, in principle, welcomed.
Strong reservations are held in respect of the detailed proposals presently under active consideration due to their severe adverse effects on the city of Lincoln. Railtrack must ensure that full and proper consideration be given to finding a long-term strategic solution that avoids or minimises the unacceptable severance consequential with the present proposals."
I, too, am a great advocate of investment and development. I should very much like Lincoln to be at the heart of an improved road and rail network. We have already made considerable progress with the Government's much welcomed agreement to dual the A46 road between Newark and Lincoln. Railtrack's plans could bring even greater improvements, but not if it fails to accept its responsibilities to the people of Lincoln. The issue has generated much heat and, on Railtrack's part, little light. I have used every opportunity to raise the matter in Parliament, with Ministers and with Railtrack executives. Next month, at my request, I shall meet the chief executive of Railtrack, Mr. Corbett. I want to impress on him the need for Railtrack to consult and inform in a more meaningful way than it has done to date. Furthermore, Railtrack needs to be committed to finding a properly managed and funded solution to a fundamental change that will literally cut deeper into the heart of Lincoln.
The difficulties of congestion and severance caused by the location of the railway line have so far been undesirable, yet manageable to some extent as the area round the railway has been underutilised. However, that area is now a major focus of development as Lincoln goes from strength to strength as a tourist, shopping, education and employment centre, securing millions of pounds of Government money for regeneration.
In recent months, confidence in the city has been reflected in announcements that we are to have a new multiplex cinema and a new BT call centre with 900 jobs, and the confirmation, only last month, of the acquisition by Dynex Semiconductor, a Canadian company, of the Mitel factory on Doddington road, securing 350 jobs. The new university—the first in 25 years to be purpose-built in this country—goes from strength to strength while the associated housing, cultural and social developments also make their contribution to the economy.
My constituents identify strongly with their city. They are proud of it and the list I have given shows how justified that pride is. Lincoln has a rich heritage and an exciting future. The most commonly asked question
336WH
about the unbelievable state of affairs that I have described is, "Can Railtrack really do this?" I regret that I am advised the answer is yes. We were let down by the previous Government, who, in pasing the Railways Act 1993, which gave Railtrack its powers, took no account of the impact that proposals to increase rail traffic would have on a constituency such as Lincoln.
Last week we suffered an extra transport setback as the Conservative county council passed a budget that did not include the requisite £1 million to secure the potential route of the eastern relief road. That would have helped to alleviate our difficulties. Lincoln county council's financial approach disadvantages and thwarts my constituents at every turn by failing to obtain funds at very low interest rates for such long-term projects—the opposite of the approach of most authorities.
Certain suggested diversions of traffic to avoid the railway line bring their own problems. It is fair to say that the matter is not new. Railway crossings in Lincoln have been a thorny issue across the centuries. The existence of a railway crossing in the centre of the city has always been the most contentious aspect of an unresolved debate. In May 1860, a headline in the Lincolnshire Chronicle asked "Who is to blame?" because of rail safety worries. Almost a century and a half later, in October 1999, the Lincolnshire Echo headline reading "Rail battle on track" shows that rail matters are still a cause for well-articulated outrage in my constituency. Pressure must be brought to bear on Railtrack to develop and execute the proper solution for my constituents.
On an environmental note, I have read the figures for the amount of pollution caused by traffic emissions. They measure nitrogen dioxide in parts per billion. Areas that are of potential concern are those in which traffic is expected to exceed 20,000 vehicles per day by 2005. The A15 at Pelham bridge and Broadgate has a permanent monitoring site at the drill hall which last year registered an average 34-plus parts per billion. The national guidelines set a target for the average, which should not exceed 21 parts per billion by the end of 2005. Lincoln has a potential pollution problem on its hands. It must not be worsened by the impact of rail developments on road traffic.
There are additional problems for the economy and the emergency services. Common sense tells us that if a city cannot be passed through at the High street for up to 40 minutes in any one hour, the ability of the emergency services to get where they need to be in the expected time will be greatly threatened. That is disturbing for my constituents. Likewise, increased traffic and pedestrian congestion is not conducive to businesses along and around the High Street doing well. I was staggered to read in a letter that Railtrack's chief executive sent to me on 9 August 1999 that
"the issue of level crossing closures, including high street level crossings, has been made worse by the significant retail developments that have generated extra pedestrian and vehicular movements."
Is the success of Lincoln's commercial activity to be blamed for the limitations of the railway line?"
In the mid-19th century it seemed certain for a while that the main railway from London to the north would pass through Lincoln. It is often thought that this failed to materialise because of the attitude and influence of

337WH
one of its two Members of Parliament, Colonel Sibthorpe, a Conservative with a reputation as a colourful character who first represented Lincoln in 1826. He was against the whole idea of railways, and enjoyed being a reactionary. I give the Chamber my assurance that, by contrast, the current Member of Parliament for Lincoln is greatly in favour of rail transport, and is keen for there to be an improved service to Lincoln. I ask my hon Friend the Minister to take full account of the comments that I have made on behalf of my constituents, including my reference to the lack of legislative protection for cities such as Lincoln. I hope that she will assist in bringing pressure to bear on Railtrack to get it to work with representatives in Lincoln to bring benefits rather than burdens to the city.
4.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate. She set out with characteristic clarity the issues that she sees facing Lincoln as a result of the impact of the proposed increase in rail movements through the city.
Lincoln is a renowned history city. It is an important sub-regional centre for the east midlands and it provides significant employment and local services to a growing urban population. My hon. Friend realises that good transport access will play a vital part in its future prosperity. I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in transport issues as well as the considerable amount of work that she has done in the Lincoln area. She has been successful in addressing road issues. She mentioned lobbying for the A46 Newark to Lincoln road dualling scheme, which is now due to start. The knowledge and understanding of rail issues that she has demonstrated today shows that, like the Government, she is multi-modal in addressing transport issues.
The level crossing in Lincoln high street has been a local feature since the 19th century and it causes delays for pedestrians and local traffic. Over many years development close to the railway has exacerbated the problem. Unlike the extract from the letter to which she referred, we must welcome that development. I know that my hon. Friend recognises the continued and considerable investment in the centre of Lincoln in recent years. The opening of the new Brayford bridge in 1997 provided some relief for the high street and an alternative route across the railway line. However, the continued increase in both rail and road traffic has seen congestion in the high street approach previous levels.
My hon. Friend's concern relates to Railtrack's proposals for the increased use of the railway for rail freight and the potential for even greater delays, as she graphically outlined, in the high street area. Irrespective of Railtrack's current proposals, the railway line through Lincoln provides an important link to the rest of Lincolnshire. The number of passenger trains is likely to grow. The high street level crossing and the effect that the resulting congestion has on business need to be considered. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns and those of the people of Lincoln about the issue.
It is Government policy, as set out in the transport White Paper, to support initiatives to carry more freight
338WH
by rail. As my hon. Friend has made clear, the increased use of the Lincoln route by freight trains is part of Railtrack's wider plans to increase the passenger capacity of the east coast main line. In 1998, the Government set up the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to oversee and regulate the operations of the rail industry. The establishment of that authority means that developing rail freight will finally be part of the strategic management of the whole network and the whole rail sector. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority is now fully engaged in steering the future development of the network and integrating it with other forms of transport.
The transport White Paper announced the move from a mainly road-based assessment by highways authorities in their bids for local transport funding, to a more widely focused approach through the development of local transport plans, which need to address all forms of transport. Local transport plans are important in this context. The part that rail plays in transport provision must be seen as part of the Government's integrated transport policy, as set out in the transport White Paper.
There needs to be a partnership between transport operators, local authorities, business, local interest groups and users to ensure that all modes of transport are properly integrated and transport networks are operated effectively across all forms of transport. We also recognise the need for local involvement in seeking solutions to transport problems. We have asked local highway authorities to produce five-year local transport plans covering all transport provision within their area. The local transport plans were introduced last year as the basis for Government funding for local transport policy and priority. The extra £700 million provided over three years through those transport plans enabled the Government to begin to address the underfunding of transport that the previous Government permitted.
Local authorities, including Lincolnshire county council, submitted provisional plans in July 1999 and decisions on those were announced in December. We were pleased to see the amount of effort that local authorities put into developing plans in line with Government guidance. As part of the development of a local transport plan, we expect wide consultation with all transport users, operators and businessess, so that all relevant issues can be brought into the picture. That will help to develop a strategy to address local transport needs and it will apply in Lincoln, as elsewhere.
My hon. Friend will know that the development of Lincoln's local transport plan is the responsibility of the county council, which attempted in its preparation of the full plan to consult a wide section of interests, including the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack, local authorities and others. The county council has the opportunity to continue the integrated transport approach that it outlined in its provisional plan. The wider focus that it adopts over transport issues should help to develop a longer-term transport strategy.
The provisional plan included a section on a potential candidate for a major tranport scheme close to Lincoln city centre, costing in excess of £5 million. The Lincoln railway corridor scheme was one of four major schemes throughout Lincolnshire identified in the provisional plan for which further clarification is expected in the full

339WH
plans to be published later this year. Early indications from the county council suggest that the Lincoln railway corridor may not feature as a major scheme—"major" accords with a specific definition in the guidelines based on cost. However, subject to further investigation, it could emerge as one of several related measures for Lincoln that will be identified in the full plan. It is important for my hon. Friend and other interested local people to grasp and pursue that point and I can tell her and her constituents that tackling congestion is central to the transport priorities of this historic city. We expect such priorities to be addressed as a pivotal feature of the full plan.
The county council and the city council are anxious that any future regeneration in the city centre should be sustainable. That led the county council to commission a central Lincoln development and transportation study. I understand that Railtrack is contributing towards the costs. A key element in the study will be an examination of the scope for alternative infrastructure options in the High street area in the light of the possible increase in the number of level crossing closures. I welcome that initiative, on which Railtrack, rail users and local businesses will be consulted. The study is expected to be completed in early July and its result should help to develop a strategy to address future needs and to indicate the scope of specific measures. I must tell my hon. Friend and the county council that if the main results of the study are to inform the content of the full local transport plan, which has to be produced for June, those time scales will have to be adapted. My hon. Friend will want to take that point back with her. The study offers potential, but its results must be known in time if they are to inform the full local transport plan.
Railtrack has issued a consultation document about its proposals for using the Lincoln line for re-routing freight trains off the east coast main line. Railtrack's current consultation and the transport study being undertaken by the county council have some common objectives. Railtrack has held a meeting with local councils and the chamber of commerce. It accepts that communication between all the parties needs to be improved.
340WH
I publicly take my hon. Friend's point that consultation by Railtrack must be meaningful and genuinely directed at achieving a long-term strategic solution. I expect close co-operation between the key partners so that the issues may be understood. The Government support local partnerships and consultations as the way forward on agreeing solutions to transport problems. Close dialogue and wider interest are needed to develop a workable strategy, which puts a responsibility on all partners, including operators, to engage in such a process and find local solutions.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is in regular contact with the county council via the Government office for the east midlands, and provides advice and assistance about the local transport plan. I have asked the Government office to assist in any way that it can the meetings between key partners that aim to secure agreement on the appropriate way forward for Lincoln.
The local issues identified by my hon. Friend must first be considered by the partners, including Railtrack, rail operators, Lincoln city council and Lincolnshire county council. Other interest groups must then be involved in the consultation on the local plan. I am pleased that my hon. Friend and local partners welcome the principle of an increase in investment on lines throughout Lincolnshire.
Increased investment in Lincoln is especially important to my hon. Friend although, as she pointed out, the consequences of that must be tackled. There is no alternative to a locally agreed solution. I encourage and expect all partners, including Railtrack, to work together to find one. Local solutions must recognise the needs of all rail users and take into account pedestrians, essential traffic access and legitimate business that has developed in the city centre.
I am sure that all partners subscribe to those goals and I wish them every success in pursuing them. Under the auspices of the Government office, the Department stands ready to play a full, constructive part in those discussions. I shall watch those discussions carefully and look forward to the partners working out a long-term strategic solution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The next debate will start three minutes early as all participants are now present. Those who do not wish to stay may leave quietly.

Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
4.27 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I am sure that those extra three minutes will be put to good use.
At the election, I assured the people of Christchurch that a parliamentary priority would be responding to the scourge of drugs, which is every parent's nightmare and the cause of so much crime. I was not alone in highlighting that issue. In its manifesto, the Labour party stated:
"The vicious circle of drugs and crime wrecks lives and threatens communities. We will appoint an anti-drugs supremo to co-ordinate our battle against drugs across all government departments. The 'drugs czar' will be a symbol of our commitment to tackle the modern menace of drugs in our communities."
In January 1998, Keith Hellawell was appointed for a three-year period at an annual salary that is now reported to be £106,000. His first action was to review the position and, in April 1998, the Government produced a strategy document entitled "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain". When progress was debated in the House, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Jack Cunningham), then Minister for the Cabinet Office, spoke of the Government having a
"strategic vision in place and resources allocated to support it."
He concluded:
"the targets have been set. It is time for us to start delivering."—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 545–49.]
We are debating the matter today because the Government are not delivering. The use of illegal drugs is increasing from a base point at which drug abuse in the United Kingdom was already up to five times higher than that in other European countries and by far the worst in Europe. The British people now realise that that is yet another policy area in which the Government's comfortable words have not been translated into action. Whitehall is alert to the hunt for scapegoats. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has complained to the press about a whispering campaign against her from No. 10. Mr. Hellawell has complained that he is also a victim of a whispering campaign. For example, on 31 January, The Guardian reported Mr. Hellawell as challenging his critics at Westminster to
"put up or shut up".
He feared that the "negative spinning" directed at him was undermining his strategy. A similar story appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 1 February.
Meanwhile—no doubt in desperation—the Prime Minister responded by preaching to us through the internet last Friday. Perhaps he used the script that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, will use in response to this debate. I hope not, because the right hon. Gentleman has a better record of using words of substance than the Prime Minister. I take issue with the empty expressions used by the Prime Minister in that broadcast. I wish to focus on one matter, in particular. He proposed to extend the "rat on a rat" scheme, so that children could telephone the police if they saw someone peddling drugs "near their school".
342WH
What about schoolchildren using or passing drugs to each other at school? What action should schools take? Some have requested the use of random searches and/or random testing. As a lawyer, the Prime Minister must know that there is no purpose in having a command without a sanction and that a sanction will be of no effect unless there is a likelihood of detection. Although the expressions "discipline" and "self-discipline" do not feature in the Government's drug strategy, teachers realise that firm boundaries have to be set in schools. The certain knowledge that anyone committing a drugs offence on school premises will be automatically excluded concentrates the minds of pupils and reinforces the behaviour of the law-abiding majority.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment undermined the ability of individual schools to maintain such a zero tolerance policy against pupils using or being in possession of drugs. I have heard of the despair of head teachers in my constituency and elsewhere at the obstacles placed in their way. Mr. Hellawell said that he wanted a reduction in the number of young people excluded from schools because of drugs-related incidents, and he has made that a specific objective of his strategy. People assumed—wrongly, it turns out—that that would be achieved by reducing the incidence of drug activity inside schools rather than going soft on those who break the rules.
By concentrating on what is happening outside schools, the Prime Minister is again avoiding one of the key aspects of the problem. The problem is wider, because fundamental ambiguity and confusion lie at the heart of the Government's policy towards cannabis. That is well illustrated by a short quotation from Mr. Hellawell that was reported in The Times on 17 February this year. He said:
"We are concentrating on the drugs that cause most harm though this does not mean we are going soft on cannabis."
What does that mean? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
The Government's confusion over cannabis is also reflected in Dorset. On 15 February, our local paper, the Daily Echo, reported that cannabis smokers are more likely to be convicted in Dorset than in any other county in Britain and that 37 per cent. of people arrested for possession in 1997 were cautioned, while 63 per cent. were charged and found guilty. Although the number of arrests is still very low, the police seemed to be sending out a clear message that cannabis was not to be tolerated. However, the bad news is that the newly appointed assistant chief constable for Dorset has announced that a different and less strict approach has been adopted to bring Dorset more into line with other areas of the county where cautioning for cannabis is the norm. It is none other than the Government's drug tsar who is held up as the person responsible for that softer line.
Last week, the Daily Echo's editorial under the heading Softer line? Go to Pot!" reflected the views of my constituents, when it stated:
"The area has a real problem and a softer line will only make it grow."

343WH
The chance of a young person being arrested for possession of cannabis is very remote. When that is coupled with a feeble system of penalties for those who are arrested, a clear message comes across that the police cannot be bothered about enforcing the law against cannabis. More seriously, young people's respect for the law is being undermined. The law seems to be enforced on only a random, spasmodic, arbitrary and inconsistent basis. That is given credence by announcements such as the recent one by the Cleveland constabulary—the police force in the area represented by the Minister for the Cabinet Office—that it would like cannabis to be legalised. We have also received persistent leaks to the effect that the Police Foundation will recommend a softer line on cannabis. The Government have said that they would never agree to that, but in the absence of firm leadership, the policy vacuum is being filled by conflict and counterclaim.
A further contradiction comes from the national crime squad, which warns that easing or ignoring the laws on cannabis possession for personal use would free up the drugs market and might make matters worse. At the root of the problem is the omission of any Government target for reducing cannabis use. That has sent the signal that cannabis has been degraded and, because there is no national target, local police forces are abandoning local targets for reducing cannabis use.
Cannabis use is not only unlawful, but anti-social, and those who still regard it as victimless are deluding themselves. The use of cannabis by motorists and motorcyclists contributes to a rising and significant number of deaths and injuries on our roads. Dorset experienced a graphic example of that when five young people were killed in a car crash near Puddletown after the driver had used cannabis. Road accidents are still the largest cause of premature death among young people, and drug use may already be the largest single contributor to that avoidable carnage.
What is the response of the Government's drug tsar? On 21 October 1998, The Times reported that he had spoken in favour of drug-drive tests on motorists to match spot checks on pilots and train drivers, yet the law has not been changed. We know the response of our magistracy. At October's annual general meeting of the Magistrates Association, the 700 representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution to the effect that there should be a new, specific offence of driving with prohibited drugs in the body, leading to mandatory disqualification. Such an offence would be analogous to that of driving with excess alcohol. The motion was proposed by Hilda Brownlow JP, the chairman of the Dorset Police Partnership Trust and the Dorset youth court. She spoke in the presence of the Lord Chancellor and the resolution was circulated to Ministers, but nothing has happened since October, so far as I can ascertain.
Although a reliable roadside test for the presence of illegal drugs in the body is not yet possible, that is not a valid excuse for inaction. A simple roadside screening test is already available and could be used as a basis for establishing suspicion, which could lead to arrest and the obtaining of further evidence by blood or urine sample.
344WH
We need an urgent response to the statistics, which show a sixfold increase in the numbers of drivers and passengers killed in road accidents after taking drugs. The Royal Automobile Club reports that the figure has now reached 18 per cent. Breathtakingly, more than 750,000 passengers in cars in the past year have been driven by someone under the influence of drugs. That is an alarming statistic, to which there has been no response from a Government who, to judge from their words, should be eager to do something about it.
The subject is relevant to the issue of young people and drugs, because young people have a good record of compliance with drinking and driving laws. When I was Minister for Roads and Traffic, it was apparent that young people took the laws much more seriously than many middle-aged people did. I do not think that young people comply with the law because they are inherently more law-abiding, but because they realise that there is a high chance of detection if they offend and the certainty of a painful penalty if they are caught. No young people want to be disqualified from driving and subject to financial penalties on their insurance as well as court fines. If a similar regime were applied to driving with illegal drugs in the body, there is every reason to believe that young people would respond similarly. Would it not be better if the Government legislated to remove driving licences from those who drive with illegal drugs in their bloodstream rather than extending that penalty to those who do not meet their Child Support Agency payments? That is another example of the Government getting their priorities totally wrong.
We often hear the refrain from the police that it is difficult to prove evidence of possession of drugs because people discard substances before being searched by the police. Fundamental to that problem is a weakness in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. As interpreted by the courts, if someone has drugs in his pocket, he can be convicted of possession, but if he has them in his bloodstream or urine, he cannot. Possession needs to be redefined in law so that the presence of illicit drugs in the body would become prima facie evidence of the offence of their possession. That principle already applies to drugs in athletics and to the detection of drugs in prisoners. That simple reform could revolutionise the ease with which possession of drugs could be detected and offenders prosecuted.
It is not only the Magistrates Association that wants such changes in the law. RoadPeace, the national charity for road traffic victims, reports that a number of their members have the impression that drugs played a significant part in the crashes in which their relatives were killed or injured. It draws attention to the problem of obtaining sufficient evidence to ensure that those involved in accidents that cause fatalities as a result of drug-taking are penalised to the same extent as those in similar circumstances with an excess of alcohol in their bloodstream.
The No. 10 performance and innovation unit recently chided the Government for putting emphasis on processes rather than outcomes. The Government's drug policy is another example of that. I believe that the time has come for action. We all know about the way in

345WH
which the use of illicit drugs has brought personal tragedy into the Minister's life—no one is better qualified to get a grip on the subject—but it is clear, even from the Government's internal memorandum, that action has not happened. I wish the drugs tsar well—I know that he does not like that title, but that is what he was announced as in the Labour manifesto. He is fast becoming a symbol of the Government's failure in that all-important policy area.
The subject touches all of us, particularly parents. The Prime Minister referred to that in his internet broadcast last Friday, but the time has come for him to deliver something more than easy words. He said:
"So not just as a Prime Minister, as a parent too, we want to support hard working families and make sure that we engage in a real battle to combat the scourge of drugs in our society."
That is almost a mirror-image of what I said in my election manifesto. He went on to say:
"If we hold our nerve, we carry on with the strategy, tougher punishment"—
yet all the evidence shows that at what is for many people the point of entry into the illegal drugs trade there is weaker, less effective punishment and less enforcement. That must change if we are to get a grip on that worrying aspect of Government policy.
4.44 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I welcome the opportunity to debate these matters with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I was hoping that we would have a serious debate about an issue that has been a growing menace in society for many years. The problems that exist in every town, village and city in Britain have the potential to affect every family in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned my personal circumstances. It is five months to the day since I had to go to a mortuary to identify my son's body. It is not only because of that or because of my having been involved for 10 years with young people with substantial problems relating to abuse, that I do not approach or debate the subject lightly. Nor does anyone in the Government. Nor was I given my portfolio because of my personal family problems. I received it last July, as a measure of the Government's committing additional resources to the ministerial team to support my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Mr. Hellawell, the drugs tsar. I hoped that we would debate how to create a healthy and confident society through activities in the community involving young people and their families. I hope that in the remaining minutes I shall be able to discuss that.
The hon Gentleman raised several issues. I shall write to him with a full explanation on some of them because I doubt that we have the time left for the intricate discussions that I should like to have on some legitimate issues that relate to all circumstances in which difficult decisions must be made about personal liberty, available resources and attitudes towards dealing with young people in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned cannabis, and tried to imply that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Mr. Hellawell have gone soft. I reject that imputation entirely. The Government have absolutely no intention of relaxing the legal status of cannabis, or any other
346WH
controlled drug, and nor do we recognise a need for a royal commission to review the law. All drugs are harmful. The strong evidence available on the toxic effects of cannabis justifies maintaining the ban on recreational use. The risks involved include impairment of concentration, short-term memory and manual dexterity, and respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and lung cancer, which are associated with smoking the drug, and are all too prevalent. The potential value of cannabis-based medicinal products does not support the argument for legalising cannabis. It is a medical issue that can be settled only through proper scientific research, and the Government have licensed projects to assess any benefits of medicines derived from cannabis.
The co-ordinator's annual report sets targets for the Government in supporting police trials for drug recognition training and for field impairment testing in respect of drug driving. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the progress of that work.
The hon. Gentleman became rather political. If that is his approach, perhaps he will talk to his colleagues on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) wrote a book entitled "Saturn's Children" in which he said:
"The only completely effective way to ameliorate the drug problem, and especially the crime which results from it, is to bring the industry into the open by legalising the distribution and consumption of all dangerous drugs".
He went on to say that drug use is not an especially threatening health problem and that there is no reason to suppose that the number of consumers would increase if dangerous drugs were legalised. That is not merely soft on drugs, but irresponsible. That person is now on the Front Bench, and that is an open encouragement. Young people are being offered not Smarties and sweets but dangerous drugs. He says that drugs present no health threat, but the first time could be the last—as it is for many young people. People in public life should be more careful about what they say and write in influencing young people. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will withdraw what are perceived as scandalous remarks, especially by bereaved parents who have lost a child through drug abuse.
Mr. Chope: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will complete the record by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has omitted from the latest edition of his book the references to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. That may reflect a change of view, and should be placed on record.
Mr. McCartney: It should never have been written in the first place. People do not distinguish between version one and version two. The book is widely available, and was promoted to be read. As a result, information is available that tells young people that taking drugs does not constitute a danger to health. But drugs kill, and the Tory party should take action when someone like that, on the Front Bench—a man of influence—makes such comments.
The recent Home Office drugs seizure and drug offender statistics show that Customs and Excise and other enforcement agencies play a vital role in preventing drugs from reaching United Kingdom streets. In 1998, we seized drugs with a total value of £710 million and dealt with 127,900 drug offenders—an

347WH
increase of 13 per cent. on the previous year. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are not true; the Government have not gone soft on dealing seriously with drug offenders and those who peddle drugs to young people.
Keith Hellawell was appointed in January 1999. His remit was to review existing Government policies and make recommendations for their development, to ensure a coherent national and international strategy, and to explain Government actions to the widest possible audience. Since then, we have launched a new
10-year strategy, in which our aims are to help young people resist drug taking, have a positive life style and realise their full potential; to protect communities from drug activities and anti-social or criminal behaviour; to provide treatment to overcome addiction; and to reduce drug availability by the pursuit and seizure of drugs.
The 10-year strategy represents a shift from a reactive to a preventative strategy and involves new, shared objectives across Government. All Departments with responsibility for such matters will effectively coordinate their response to the menace of drugs. Until recently, the strategy had had the full support of all political parties, but I am not sure whether the Conservative party still supports it. I hope that it does, because it is absolutely shameful when we are fighting a war against drugs, drug criminals and the effects of their activities that a major political party is not on side or all square with the strategy—a non-partisan, non-political approach to one of the most difficult issues facing the country.
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McCartney: No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for about 20 minutes.
An extra £217 million has been pledged for action against drugs. That money is delivering new treatment services, supporting schemes to reduce drug-related offending and helping education and prevention work—an issue raised by the hon. Gentlemen. Some £6 million has been committed to research so that we adopt effective policies and find solutions. Drug action teams and drug treatment and testing pilot schemes have begun, and we are working with business. The Government have put in place a range of effective measures.
The Government want to work with every hon. Member to ensure that our 10-year strategy is effective. For every part of the strategy that is successful, a young person will not die, a young person will not be injured, or a young person's family will be able to see a child grow up and realise his or her dreams. When someone is lost, the hole can never be filled, and to lose someone because of drugs makes that hole deeper, wider and blacker. We politicians can debate such matters, score points and say, "We are stronger on drugs than you were", but the truth is that none of us has got the answer right. If we had, 3,000 young people in Britain would not die every year and we would not have inherited from the previous government a lack of strategy, and drugs and drug dealers out of control, communities across Britain living in fear of drug-related crime and a generation of young people being affected by drug abuse.
348WH
We have a long way to go. Drug addicts are human beings with a recurrent chronic illness and strategies are therefore difficult to implement, but the Government and all those involved in the strategy are absolutely committed to succeeding because when we do we shall have saved the lives of many young people. I just wish my son's could be one of them.
Mr. Chope: As there are six minutes remaining—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make another speech but he can intervene.
Mr. Chope: I hoped that the Minister would accept an intervention that I sought to make earlier.
Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman make his intervention?
Mr. Chope: It relates to what the Minister said about the previous Government not having a strategy. Does not the Government's own document state:
"The last Government's strategy for England, "Tackling Drugs Together" was an important step in the right direction. It has been implemented with some success. For the first time, Drug Action Teams set up partnerships to tackle the problem. We will build on that valuable work."?
Does not that quote from his own Government's new strategy document bear out that the Minister was slightly over the top in what he said about the previous Government?
Mr. McCartney: I am not over the top, for the following reason. Individual actions were indeed taken but there was no comprehensive UK-wide strategy. I will give a classic example of that. The Home Office was presided over by a Home Secretary who would do nothing about the industry, which operated protection rackets and had the most effective sales and distribution supply chain in Europe. After 10 years, that led to every club, pub or any other place to which a young person in Britain would go being utilised by these organisations for the distribution of all sorts of drugs, including ecstacy. The previous Government did nothing about it because they favoured deregulation instead of concentrating on crime prevention. Consequently, Britain now has an industry and a supply chain that are pumping out drugs worth millions of pounds designed for one simple reason—to attract our young people, make them addicts and commit them to a life of of drug-related criminal activity which, for so many of them, ends in the loss of their life. The Conservative Government had 10 years to do something about it, but they did nothing, even though people were crying out for help. The Tories did nothing because they took a partisan view of what was happening out there. My Government do not do that. For the first time a comprehensive plan is in place. I beg Opposition Members to get behind the plan because when it succeeds it will stop the carnage of 3,000 young people dying each year in Britain.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Drug action teams involve local police, probation services, social workers and all

349WH
Departments of Government. Can the Minister explain how Cleveland constabulary, which forms an important part of the Cleveland drug action team, is able to publicise its wish to see cannabis decriminalised?
Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has moved his ground again. I cannot stop individuals giving their views about cannabis. Drug action teams take a coordinated approach, working with every organisation in the community to deal not only with offending but to stop young people offending and to take them into rehabilitation and treatment. That is the important aspect of the new proposals. For the first time, people are being diverted into treatment and rehabilitation, not only in prison but out in the community. If we do not do this, young people will become abusers of drugs and there will be no way back for them from a criminal life style and—equally important—towards a healthy life style. The drug action teams offer a fundamental
350WH
improvement on what went before. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse the comments of individuals, with which I disagree fundamentally, with the Government's policy. The hon. Gentleman has heard what I and the Government have had to say. Those comments do not alter the requirement on all of us to ensure that there is an co-ordinated, effective plan through which we work in the community with young people to prevent their becoming involved in drug abuse and, where they have abused drugs, to put treatment and other systems in place to assist them in ending the abuse and to deal with some of the criminal activity that arises in the community from their abuse of drugs. If we can achieve that, surely even the hon. Member for Christchurch must agree that it is a fundamental step forward and an improvement on what we inherited two and a half short years ago.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Lobby Members
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received from members of the Lobby about the facilities available to them in the House. [109661]

  Mr. Tipping
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Chairman of the Lobby in her capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.

  Modernisation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress in modernisation of the House of Commons. [109662]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Forty seven of the 54 recommendations of the Modernisation Committee directed at Government have already been implemented. The House has adopted a range of measures to improve the scrutiny of legislation; Thursday sittings have been brought forward; the scrutiny of European business has been reformed and sittings in Westminster Hall have begun.

  Westminster Hall
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the experiment with sittings in Westminster Hall. [109663]

  Mr. Tipping
  Early indications suggest that Westminster Hall is providing a useful and popular forum for debate.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the President of the Council if the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons will assess the impact of sittings in Westminster Hall. [109665]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Modernisation Committee has already undertaken to do so.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council when she will assess the experiment of sittings in Westminster Hall. [109666]

  Mrs. Beckett
  It is for the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to assess the experiment of sittings in Westminster Hall and it has undertaken to do so before the end of the session.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make an assessment of the clarity of information provided to hon. Members in written parliamentary answers. [109664]
  844W
  Mrs. Beckett
  Parliamentary answers are the responsibility of the Ministers who give them who will bear in mind the Resolution of 19 March 1997, and give accurate and truthful information to Parliament.

  Hereditary Peers
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if the Committee has considered the matter of membership of All-Party Parliamentary Groups and of Associate Parliamentary Groups by those hereditary peers excluded from the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999; and if she will make a statement. [111911]

  Mrs. Roe
  Over the past few months, the Committee has been considering a number of matters in connection with All-Party Parliamentary and Associate Parliamentary Groups, including membership of the groups by "excluded" hereditary peers. I am now able to announce a number of measures, which I am sure the hon. Member will find of interest.

  With respect to those hereditary peers excluded from the House of Lords Act, the Committee has agreed that:

  (i) for prospective groups, while excluded hereditary peers may be ordinary members of such groups, they may not be officers, nor should they be counted as one of the 20 "qualifying" Members of either House; and

  (ii) for existing approved groups, which may have excluded hereditary peers as officers or qualifying members:

  (a) if the peers concerned are retained as ordinary members of a group, and are allowed voting rights, then it should amend its title immediately to Associate Parliamentary Group, if not already so termed;

  (b) groups should elect new officers to replace excluded hereditary peers by 31 July 2000; and

  (c) groups should recruit replacement qualifying members, also by 31 July 2000.

  The Committee has also agreed:
  that the definition of "full member" of an All-Party Parliamentary or of an Associate Parliamentary Group means a member of a group who has voting rights;
  that before it can be accepted onto the Approved List, a prospective group must hold an inaugural meeting to elect its officers, and that the meeting must be advertised as such on the All-Party Notices; in addition, the Committee agreed that any elections of officers of an approved group must be advertised on the All-Party Notices; and that therefore the relevant point of the declaration, which prospective groups have to sign, will be amended to read "the group elects its honorary officers, who are all Members of either House, every 12 months; this, and any other election of officers, must be announced in advance on the All-Party Notices.";
  that a group must advise the Registry of Members' Interests of any change in the information contained in its Information Sheet and its Register entry within 28 days of such a change occurring; and an additional declaration will therefore be added to the application form, namely, "the group undertakes to notify the Registry of Members' Interests of any change that is required to its records (ie, its Register entry and its Information Sheet) within 28 days of such a change occurring; where there is no change to its records following an AGM, the group will sign and return its records as correct.";
  that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards may authorise checks to establish whether or not a group's records are correct, and may authorise the removal of a group from the Approved List if the group fails to comply with the rules; and

  845W
  that groups will be required to keep a record of their meetings and those attending so that, if challenged, they can demonstrate that they have met at least three times per year and that there were never less than five Members of the Commons present at each meeting; the declaration will be changed accordingly to state "the group undertakes to keep a record of every meeting so that, if challenged, it can demonstrate that it has met at least three times a year (a year starts on the date of the group's last registered AGM, and ends exactly 12 months later; AGMs cannot be included in the total of three); and also that there are present at every meeting a minimum of five Commons members of the group, including at least one Commons officer".

  Finally, the Committee expressed concern over the proliferation of groups dealing with similar matters; it has therefore agreed, later in this Parliament, to re-examine the question of overlap between groups, and in particular to consider whether a formal policy on this matter should be adopted, in order to ease pressure on House facilities caused by such a proliferation.

  PDVN/Internet (Parliamentary Access)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what progress has been made in modernising parliamentary access to the PDVN and the Internet. [109656]

  Mr. Allan
  Considerable progress has been made over recent years in providing Members and their staff with networked information services in Parliament. There is an ongoing process of modernising and improving the Parliamentary Data and Video Network and Parliament's access to the Internet. That modernisation process is an operational matter falling within the remit of the Head of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate. I have therefore asked him to reply directly to the hon. Member.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the President of the Council (1) what steps she has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by her Department come from a sustainable source; [110190]

  (2) 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. [110191]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The stationery products used in my Department are purchased from suppliers who use recycled paper for everything except specialist use. My Department purchases few timber products (mainly furniture) but, when it does, the policy is that the timber concerned should have been sustainably harvested.

  As to the certification process provided by the Forest Stewardship Council, I refer to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) on 14 February 2000, Official Report, column 357W.

WALES

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions are made available to Departmental staff 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 contracts, (1) child care allowances, (m) careers leave and (n) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [108840]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Civil Service as a whole is striving for an improved balance between work and family life. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 519W.

  Provision for these matters is set out in the Terms and Conditions of Service Code, which for my Department are the same as the Terms and Conditions of Service for the National Assembly for Wales. A copy of this Code has been placed in the Library of the House.

  There are some exceptions. Annualised hours and term time working are not currently operated in my Department, and parental leave is not explicitly covered but falls within current special leave provision. The Code is currently being amended to take account of the provisions under the Employment Relations Act 1998.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what childcare provision was made available in the financial year 1998–99 for use by his departmental staff; what was the cost to parents of this childcare; and how many parents used the facilities. [108857]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 518W.

  The table shows the type of childcare provision in my Department; the number of parents who used it; and the cost to parents, for 1998–99.

  Type of childcare provision

  Nursery

  Holiday playscheme

  Number of places

  130

  250

  Cost to Welsh Office parents per day

  £19.00

  £8.00

  Cost of private places per day

  £22.00

  £12.00

  1All 30 places at the nursery were occupied.

  2The 50 places represent those occupied by a consortium including the Welsh Office and others, for example Employment Services. The playscheme operated in both the Easter and Summer holidays during which time 33 and 17 places were occupied respectively by children of Welsh Office staff.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in 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

  847W
  the average hours worked and (d) returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours. [109233]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  From July 1994 to June 1999, 89 per cent. of those staff in the Welsh Office who took maternity leave had returned to work by the end of their provision within the Department's maternity scheme. From July 1999 to date, 100 per cent. of staff who have been on maternity leave in the Wales Office have returned to work

  The current provision is set out in the Leave and Attendance section of the National Assembly Terms and Conditions of Service Code, Chapter 5, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The remaining information is not held centrally and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many senior civil servants from an ethnic minority background are employed in his Department; and how many of them are(a) men and (b) women. [110683]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As at 1 April 1999, 55 members of the senior civil service were from ethnic minority background (1.7 per cent.).

  Information on ethnic origin in the Civil Service is collected on the understanding that it will be treated on a confidential basis. To protect the privacy of individual members of staff we do not disclose data relating to fewer than five people.

  My Department has fewer than five senior civil servants in total.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [110217]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) on 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 357W. It is not practicable to require that all paper and timber products purchased by my Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council because this might discriminate against any equally valid schemes and therefore be against public procurement rules.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110216]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  All potential suppliers are issued with "Selling to the Welsh Office—A Green Guide for Suppliers of Goods and Services to the Welsh Office". Following devolution, this guide now applies to my Department, the Wales Office.
  848W
  The guide sets out what is expected from contractors who supply paper and timber products, among other things, and ensures that we operate a purchasing policy which gives full weight to environmental considerations in the procurement of all goods and services.

  The guide specifies that timber products should be supplied only from wood produced from sustainably managed forests. The current paper contract provides paper that is at least 80 per cent. post consumer waste, produced using Environmentally Chlorine Free pulp from sustainable forests.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [110716]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department does not own or tend any gardens.

  However, my Department has a Green Guide for suppliers of goods and services, to operate a purchasing policy which gives full weight to environmental considerations in the procurement of all goods and services. The horticultural policy is to use alternatives to peat such as bark chippings, coir, composts, green manuring, leaf mould, manures and seaweed based products.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  World Cup 2006
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when he expects to receive the full accounts of the FA (FIFA) World Cup 2006 bid for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 from the FA; and if he will make a statement; [104167]

  (2) if there is an upper limit on the amount of money Sport England has contributed and will contribute to the FA (FIFA) World Cup 2006 bid; [104166]

  (3) when he expects to publish the accounts of the Government's contribution to the FA (FIFA) World Cup 2006 bid. [104168]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: The bid to host the World Cup in 2006 is a bid by the Football Association, with the full backing of the Government and Sport England, who have allocated £3 million of Lottery funding for the bid. It is not a Lottery condition to require published accounts. However, Sport England monitors how the Lottery grant is spent.

  The remainder of the estimated £9 million which the bid will cost is being provided by the FA, the FA Premier League and by commercial sponsors. Reference to the bid is made in the FA' s 1998 general annual report and accounts, but any decision to publish detailed accounts for the 2006 bid is for the FA to make.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the monetary value of
  849W
  National Lottery awards made in (a) rural and (b) urban areas in each of the years since the National Lottery was established. [110508]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions classifies rural areas as those local authorities where there is no settlement greater than 35,000. The table shows the monetary value of National Lottery awards made to local authorities in Great Britain in rural and other areas (that is Small Towns, Large Towns, Free Standing Cities, Conurbations and London) in each of the years since the National Lottery was established. This information is taken from the National Lottery Awards database which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributing bodies. The totals exclude Lottery awards not attributed by the distributing bodies to a particular local authority.

  £

  Amount awarded to rural areas

  Amount awarded to non-rural areas

  1995

  131,759,797

  822,929,475

  1996

  272,702,182

  1,352,526,177

  1997

  204,161,295

  2,116,096,616

  1998

  164,005,639

  1,045,100,364

  1999

  162,866,596

  703,373,321

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the number of grants made from the National Lottery was in(a) urban areas and (b) rural areas between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1999. [110642]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions classifies rural areas as those local authorities where there is no settlement greater than 35,000. The total number of awards to local authorities in rural areas in Great Britain between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1999, was 11,571. The number of awards to local authorities in other areas in Great Britain, (that is Small Towns, Large Towns, Free Standing Cities, Conurbations and London) between 1 May 1997 and 31 December

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  UK Sport—World Class1 Performance Programme

  21,839,545

  17,129,000

  218,000,000

  Sport England—World Class Performance Programme

  27,366,285

  17,330,962

  3—

  Sport Scotland—Talented Athlete Programme

  1,694,338

  887,703

  3—

  Sport Scotland—Scotland Junior Groups

  150,349

  383,151

  3—

  Sports Council for Wales—Elite Cymru4

  634,781

  570,764

  2750,000

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland—Development Of Talented Individuals Programme

  422,584

  348,306

  3—

  1 UK Sport became a Lottery distributor in its own right from 1 July 1999. Before this time the Home Country Sports Councils were jointly responsible for funding World Class Performance on the basis of recommendations and advice of the UK Sports Council.

  2 Provisional figure.

  3 Information unavailable.

  4 The figure from Elite Cymru includes funding towards hosting major events.

  The following activities have received support to date under the world class performance programme which is administered by sport England and uk sport:

  Athletics

  Disability Athlctics

  Badminton

  Wheelchair Basketball

  850W
  1999, was 26,198. This information is taken from the National Lottery Awards database which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributing bodies.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average size of grant was from the National Lottery in(a) urban areas and (b) rural areas between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1999. [110643]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions classifies rural areas as those local authorities where there is no settlement greater than 35,000. The average size of award to local authorities in rural areas in Great Britain between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1999, was £43,059. The average size of award to local authorities in other areas in Great Britain, (that is Small Towns, Large Towns, Free Standing Cities, Conurbations and London), between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1999, was £115,406. This information is taken from the National Lottery Awards database which uses information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  Sport (Funding)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the amount of(a) World Class Performance, (b) World Class Potential and (c) World Class Start funding distributed by (i) UK Sport, (ii) Sport England, (iii) Sport Scotland, (iv) the Sports Council for Wales and (v) the Northern Ireland Sports Council in (x) 1998–99 and (y) 1999–2000, and the provisional figures for 2000–01; and if he will list the sports in receipt of World Class lottery funding and how much they received from each of the above bodies. [110028]

  Kate Hoey
  The World Class Performance Programme is administered by Sport England and UK Sport. World Class Potential and Start Programmes are administered solely by Sport England. A number of sports have submitted applications to Sport England under the Start and Potential Programmes which have been approved or approved in principle, but to date no payments have been made. Alternative programmes for the elite level sport are in place in the Home Countries. The sums awarded to elite sport appear in the following table:

  Bobsleigh

  Boccia

  Boxing

  Cycling

  Women's Cricket

  Canoeing

  Diving

  851W

  Equestrian

  Goalball

  Gymnastics

  Ladies Golf

  Hockey

  Ice Skating

  Judo

  Karate

  Modern Pentathlon

  Netball

  Orienteering

  Rowing

  Rugby Football League

  Women's Rugby

  Wheelchair Rugby

  Skiing

  Sailing

  Speed Skating

  Squash

  Swimming

  Disability Swimming

  Paraplegic Shooting

  Disability Table Tennis

  Wheelchair Tennis

  Table Tennis

  Target Shooting

  Ten Pin Bowling

  Triathlon

  Trampolining

  Water Skiing

  Weightlifting.

  The information required for the latter part of the question is not held within my Department.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 29W, on asset sales, if he will list the individual land and buildings sold by the Tate Gallery and the amount realised by each item. [111266]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The amount of £1,200,000 given in my previous answer derived from the sale of the Tate's former Gorst Road site in London. The land and the buildings were not sold individually, but as a single package. The buildings were subsequently demolished by the purchaser.

PRIME MINISTER

  Operation Horseshoe
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was first informed that Operation Horseshoe might be implemented in 1999; and by whom he was so informed. [108655]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the Foreign
  852W
  Affairs Committee on 14 April 1999, we were aware that a spring offensive against the KLA had been planned before the start of the NATO airstrikes, and we knew from previous experience that it was likely to be accompanied by ethnic cleansing. Throughout the crisis, we received information from a variety of sources, some of them sensitive. Details of a plan called Operation Horseshoe were made public in a statement by the German Defence Minister on 9 April 1999.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what restrictions apply to the undertaking of private business by Lord Levy while acting as his personal envoy on visits overseas. [110242]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: Lord Levy does not conduct private business while travelling as my personal envoy. Lord Levy paid his own travel expenses. The FCO and Embassies provided practical support, the cost of which is not separately itemised.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the visits undertaken by Lord Levy as his personal envoy, indicating in each case the(a) dates, (b) destinations, (c) cost to public funds and (d) purpose of the visits. [110240]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: Lord Levy has made the following visits as my personal envoy:

  1999

  9–10 April: Syria

  5–7 June: Jordan

  7–10 June: Syria

  9–11 October: Oman

  11–2 October: Qatar

  12–14 October: Bahrain

  29 November-1 December: Syria

  2000

  2–3 February: Syria

  3 February: Lebanon.

  Lord Levy made calls in Egypt on 8 October 1999 en route for Oman, and on 3 February 2000 while returning from Lebanon.

  Lord Levy also frequently visits Israel in a personal capacity and has on occasions had discussions there in the furtherance of my support for the peace process.

  The purpose of Lord Levy's visits was to develop the United Kingdom's bilateral relationships with the countries visited, and to exchange views on key regional issues, including the Middle East Peace Process.

  Lord Levy paid his own travel expenses. The FCO and Embassies provided practical support, the cost of which is not separately itemised.

  PPS Guidelines
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines there are for Parliamentary Private Secretaries on discussing Government policy in public within their own constituencies. [111310]
  853W
  The Prime Minister
  Guidance to Parliamentary Private Secretaries on their role and responsibilities is set out in paragraphs 44–46 of the Ministerial Code.

  Police (West Midlands)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when(a) his officials and (b) staff at 10 Downing Street were first informed that the matter of Transfer Technology grants was being referred to the West Midlands Police; [111628]

  (2) when he was first informed that the matter of Transfer Technology grants was being referred to the West Midlands Police. [111626]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with normal procedure, the No. 10 Press Office was informed on Thursday 3 February after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had made his decision.

  I was informed after the Secretary of State had made his announcement.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide the basis for his oral statement of 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 947, that the Immigration Department is close to achieving 4,000 asylum decisions a month. [111522]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to him today by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), the Minister of State, Home Office,Official Report, column 815W.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many senior civil servants from an ethnic minority background are employed in the Law Officers' Department; and how many of them are(a) men and (b) women. [110690]

  The Solicitor-General
  As at 1 April 1999, 55 members of the Senior Civil Service were from ethnic minority background (1.7 per cent.).

  Information on ethnic origin in the Civil Service is collected on the understanding that it will be treated on a confidential basis. To protect the privacy of individual members of staff, we do not disclose data relating to fewer than five people.

  The Law Officers' Departments (The Crown Prosecution Service, Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office) have four members of the SCS declared to be of ethnic minority background as at 1 April 1999.

  Racism (CPS)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action has been taken by the Crown Prosecution Service to identify institutional racism in its employment of staff and in the carrying out of prosecution functions; and what action has been taken or proposed as a result. [111283]
  854W
  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS is strongly committed to equality for all staff and has agreed a programme of action with the Commission for Racial Equality. As a result of this agreement, the CRE has suspended its decision to carry out an investigation of the CPS under the Race Relations Act 1976. As well as implementing action on training, development and selection, the CPS has commissioned Sylvia Denman CBE, a leading academic with a distinguished background in equality issues, to carry out a review of the Service.

  The terms of reference of the review will include investigating the processes, behaviour and attitudes present in the CPS to determine the extent to which race discrimination and institutional racism may exist in the Service nationally. Mrs. Denman will present her preliminary report towards the end of April 2000.

  The CPS last year set up an Equality Committee, chaired by the Chief Executive, with sub-groups on race and women. The Committee is responsible for driving through policy and action on equality in the CPS. It includes representatives from the Equal Opportunities Commission and NACRO. The CPS is implementing an Immediate action plan on race, which has been agreed with the CRE. An action plan for implementation of longer term initiatives drawn up by the sub-group on race will be presented to the Director's Board at the end of February.

  The CPS participated in a major research project on the ethnic monitoring of young offenders, conducted by Dr. Bonny Mhlanga of the University of Hull. Dr. Mhlanga's report was published in October 1999. The research project found no evidence of unfair discrimination by the CPS in its casework decisions against defendants from ethnic minorities, indicating that decision the CPS is performing its role as an independent prosecuting authority properly and effectively.

  Fast-tracking (Merseyside)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the fast tracking project in Merseyside. [111246]

  The Solicitor-General
  When I visited CPS Merseyside in September last year, I observed at first hand the efforts made by the CPS and other local agencies to reduce delay in the criminal justice system.

  The fast-tracking project at Knowsley Magistrates Court has been a great success, reducing the time from arrest to disposal in all youth cases. As a result, fast-tracking arrangements based on the pilot were implemented throughout Merseyside on 28 June 1999.

  In addition the CPS Area and its criminal justice partners on 1 November 1999 implemented the Narey measures to speed up justice in the magistrates courts for both youth and adult defendants. These and other changes that the criminal justice agencies are making should further reduce delay in the criminal justice system.

  The local inter-agency Trials Issue Group discussed the impact of Narey at its meeting on 21 January 2000. It was too early to make a proper assessment while some

  855W
  pre-Narey cases remain in the court system. A full evaluation of Narey will take place at the Group's next meeting in April.

CABINET OFFICE

  Advertising Budgets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the average cost of issuing a media release from her Department in 1999. [110270]

  Mr. Stringer
  The average cost of issuing a media release by this Department in 1999 was £131.00. Media releases are distributed electronically on the Department's behalf by the Central Office of Information.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to phase out the use of peat compost in gardens(a) owned and (b) tended by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [110729]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Cabinet Office does not use peat compost in its gardens.

  Draft Equality Bill
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will prepare a draft equality bill for consideration by Parliament. [111100]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  A number of Bills were announced for advanced drafting in the Queen's speech last year. The Government's legislative proposals for the 4th session will be announced in the Queen's speech later this year.

SCOTLAND

  Post Office
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to improve postal services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [109611]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are committed to the modernisation of the postal service. Scotland, like the rest of the UK will benefit from the £480 million investment in the HORIZON project to computerise all post offices by 2001.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the effects which transferring pension payments from post offices to bank accounts will have on small post offices. [109625]

  Dr. Reid
  I am in contact with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer over a range of issues.

  This Government are committed to making a major investment in the Post Office and the maintenance of a nation-wide network of post offices. All people in receipt
  856W
  of benefits, including pensions, will continue to have the choice of receiving payments in cash at their local post office.

  Higher Education
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding higher education issues. [109613]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend meets the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  Oil
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of oil fabrication in the highlands and islands. [109615]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am a member of Pilot, the successor body to the Oil and Gas Industries Task Force. It has set up a support group for the oil fabrication sector, involving government agencies and the industry. The group is charged with identifying the way forward, and ensuring that the skills base is maintained.

  Block Grant
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the mechanisms used for calculating the size of the block grant. [109616]

  Dr. Reid
  I have regular discussions with the Chancellor about a range of matters. The arrangements in place continue to provide a fair deal for Scotland within a United Kingdom framework and I have no plans to revise the underlying principles.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many enforcement cases there have been in Scotland in respect of the national minimum wage. [109618]

  Mr. Wilson
  As at the end of January 2000, the National Minimum Wage helpline had received 293 complaints about underpayment of the National Minimum Wage in Scotland. All complaints are followed up.

  Economy
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the state of the Scottish economy in the context of the forthcoming Budget. [109619]

  Dr. Reid
  I meet the Chancellor from time to time to discuss a range of issues about the Scottish economy.

  Scotland has benefited greatly from the Government's macroeconomic framework, which has achieved sound public finances while guaranteeing additional resources for priority areas such as health and education.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the Scottish economy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [109621]
  857W
  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend meets the Chancellor from time to time to discuss a range of issues about the Scottish economy.

  The Scottish economy continues to perform strongly. Output is expanding across all main sectors, and unemployment is low by historical and international standards.

  Scottish MPs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussion he has had with the Prime Minister about reducing the number of hon. Members sitting in the House for Scottish constituencies. [109622]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Prime Minister on a wide range of matters. However, the position on the number of Members sitting in this House for Scottish seats is set out in Section 86 of the Scotland Act 1998. This will be implemented by the Boundary Commission for Scotland in its next review, which is due to be submitted between December 2002 and December 2006.

  Media Officers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many media officers are employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [109623]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department does not employ any media officers. It employs five Information Officers to advise Ministers on the presentation of Government policy and to explain Government policy to the media. Some of these officers have other duties within the Department.

  Export Promotion Services
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that Scottish companies continue to receive the full range of export promotion services. [109624]

  Mr. Wilson
  We work very closely with the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scottish companies are aware of the full range of UK wide support available from the Government as well as the support, tailored to the specific needs of Scottish business, from Scottish Trade International

  Last week I was in the Far East. This was part of my cabinet committee responsibilities but I was also spending time promoting Scottish companies and Scottish goods and services. Two weeks ago I led an 18 strong trade mission to Egypt organised by Scottish Trade International. Every week I am speaking to Scottish companies about how we can help them increase their exporting effort.

  I am very pleased that Scottish companies are continuing to increase their competitiveness in the international market place. Recent figures showed that Scottish manufactured exports had increased by 7.8 per cent. in real terms during the third quarter of 1999.

  Devolution
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the devolution settlement in Scotland. [109626]
  858W
  Dr. Reid
  The Memorandum of Understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved administrations which was published on 1 October 1999 provides for the operation of the devolution settlements to be kept under review by the Joint Ministerial Committee.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the Scottish pig industry. [109627]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have received a number of representations about the Scottish pig industry's difficulties. Most of the issues raised are now the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and are being pursued by the appropriate Ministers.

  Shipyards
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last visited shipyards on the River Clyde; and if he met both managers and trade union representatives to discuss matters relating to Her Majesty's Government's contracts for the construction of vessels. [109628]

  Dr. Reid
  My last visit to a shipyard on the River Clyde was on 14 January when I visited the Govan shipyard. I met both managers and trade-union representatives and we discussed a range of issues including Ministry of Defence contracts for the construction of vessels.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the First Minister on co-ordination of the Government's anti-drugs strategy in Scottish schools. [109629]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend discussed generally the co-ordination of the Government's anti-drugs strategy, a central component of which is education, at a meeting with the First Minister on 14 January. Both he and the First Minister have also recently had separate meetings with the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Mr. Keith Hellawell.

  New Deal
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the New Deal in Scotland. [109630]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am very pleased to say that the operation of New Deal in Scotland is proving very successful. We have reached the significant milestones of 20,000 young people now having gained jobs through the programme in Scotland, and the 10,000th employer signing up to participate in the programme.

  The latest published figures provide further hard evidence of the significant impact the New Deal is having in Scotland. Over 43,000 young people have benefited from the New Deal. By the end of November 1999, a total of 28,000 young people had entered jobs, work experience or training.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the number of Special Advisers employed by his Department. [109620]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department employs three Special Advisers to advise me on the development of government policy. One of the Special Advisers is unpaid and works part-time.

  Air Traffic Control, Prestwick
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the future of the Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick. [109609]

  Dr. Reid
  I welcome the announcement made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport on 14 February 2000. The agreement between National Air Traffic Services Ltd. and Lockheed Martin for the provision of air traffic control systems for the New Scottish Centre ends any uncertainty about its future. The 530 jobs at Prestwick will be secured and the construction phase for the new centre will create about 700 jobs during the three-year construction phase, which will begin next year.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the impact of a single European currency on the Scottish economy. [109614]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend meets the Chancellor from time to time to discuss a range of issues about the Scottish economy.

  The policy on membership of the single currency was set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House of Commons in October 1997. The determining factor underpinning any UK Government decision on membership of the single currency is whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous. The interests of the Scottish Economy will be an integral part of that process.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Legislation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Advocate-General, pursuant to her oral answer of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 137, if she will list the Bills introduced by the Scottish Parliament which she has considered to be (a) within and (b) outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. [109631]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Thus far, two Bills have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and I have not considered it necessary to refer either to the Judicial Committee. They are now the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000.
  860W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what Bills introduced by the Scottish Parliament she has considered to be(a) within and (b) outwith its legislative competence. [109635]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998, when a Bill has been passed by the Scottish Parliament I have the power to refer it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for a decision on whether it is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

  Thus far, two Bills have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, and I have not considered it necessary to refer either to the Judicial Committee. They are now the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000.

  Devolution
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Advocate-General what subjects have been raised with her as devolution issues in the context of applications to Scottish criminal courts. [109634]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Devolution issues raised by the defence in criminal cases have mainly focused on the right to a fair trial which is set out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Some of the principal matters raised include: the admissibility of evidence; delays in trials; the right to an "independent and impartial tribunal"; prejudicial pre-trial publicity; access to a solicitor; cases under the Road Traffic Acts; and legal aid questions. Devolution issues focusing on other Convention articles have also been raised but less frequently.

  Departmental Staff
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland what plans she has to increase the staffing of her Department. [109636]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Staffing levels in the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General and my Legal Secretariat are presently under review.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Charities
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the Charity (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 1995. [111907]

  Mr. Boateng
  A clear framework for charity accounting is important for the public's confidence in the integrity of charity. In general, the 1995 regulations have worked well. I am today publishing a consultation document about how to keep the regulations up to date. The proposed changes reflect the new exposure draft of the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) for accounting by charities, as well as proposals for some charities that follow other SORPs. I would welcome views by 30 April.

  I have arranged for copies of the consultation document to be placed in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of support will be provided under the new asylum seeker support arrangements. [111908]

  Mrs. Roche
  Subject to assessment on a case by case basis, the weekly levels of voucher support for asylum seekers under the new arrangements is given in the table:

  £

  Amount of voucher support

  Person aged 18–24

  28.95

  Person aged 25 or over

  36.54

  Couple

  57.37

  Lone parent

  36.54

  Child under 16

  26.60

  Child 16 or 17

  31.75

  These amounts will be given in the form of vouchers, £10 of which will be redeemable for cash per person per week.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the first annual report of progress on the implementation of the Action Plan he published in March 1999 as the Government's response to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report; and if he will make a statement. [111909]

  Mr. Straw
  I will publish the first annual report tomorrow. It will set out details of progress made on each of the areas covered by the recommendations of the Inquiry and will identify action still to be taken. It will show that there has been substantial progress across the criminal justice and education systems. But there is much more to be done and it is vital that all the public services covered by the Inquiry's report maintain their determination to deliver the highest standards of service to all members of society regardless of their race.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the measures police forces are taking to ensure that policies and practices formed in response to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report are being effectively implemented across all ranks. [111318]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will publish tomorrow the first Annual Report on progress on implementation of the Action Plan he published in March 1999 in response to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report. This will give details of progress made within the police service to give effect to the Inquiry's recommendations. A key element in ensuring that forces turn policies into action on the ground is the new Ministerial Priority to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities which will provide clear measurement of forces' performance on race equality.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police forces in England and Wales that are undertaking an examination 862W
  of their policies and practices to identify institutional racism as recommended by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report; and if he will make a statement. [111317]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will publish tomorrow the first Annual Report on progress on implementation of the Action Plan he published in March 1999 in response to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report. The Action Plan amounts to a comprehensive programme to tackle institutional racism and the annual report will give a detailed picture of the steps which the police service is taking to implement it.

  Under the "Dismantling the Barriers" Action Plan he launched in July 1999 to help forces meet the targets my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set for the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers, all forces are required to conduct full race relations/cultural audits which will include surveys across all staff to assess the perception of the treatment of ethnic minority officers and other diversity issues. The aim will be to identify all the elements of the organisational culture and their likely impact on policing a diverse society; and to assess the impact on the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority staff.

  Youth Justice
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement nationally the youth justice provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which have been piloted; and if he will make a statement. [111906]

  Mr. Straw
  Pilots of most of the youth justice provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been operating in 10 areas since September 1998. They cover the operation of the multi-agency youth offending teams; the final warning scheme, which will replace cautioning for young offenders; and the reparation order, action plan order, child safety order and parenting order. The pilots have helped to identify good practice in delivering these measures and are being evaluated by a team from Sheffield, Hull and Swansea Universities. A copy of their most recent report, published in December, is in the Library. Building on the experience of the pilots, the Government have decided to implement the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provisions for youth offending teams on 1 April 2000 and for the final warning scheme and four community-based orders on 1 June 2000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of issue 2 of the Youth Justice Board's newsletter, "Preventing Youth Offending"; and how many copies have been(a) printed and (b) distributed. [111523]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The cost to the public funds of issue 2 of the Youth Justice Board's newsletter "Preventing Youth Offending' was £10,000. 11,000 copies were printed and 10,000 have so far been distributed. One of the Board's tasks is to provide information to professions and the public about the changes being made to the youth justice system. The newsletter is one means of providing that information.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about requests for additional funding for the Global Cultural Diversity Congress. [111905]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 11 January 2000, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) asked the Home Office for authority to provide funding to enable the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, in Cardiff on 20-23 March to go ahead as planned and subsequently asked for additional funding from the Home Office Vote. This international conference was being organised under the auspices of the CRE following decisions they made in 1998 but by a separate company limited by guarantee, Global Cultural Diversity Congress (GCDC) 2000 Ltd. At the time they first decided to proceed in 1998, it was made clear that the Government could not offer substantial financial support for the Conference.

  The Government have supported the aims of the Congress, which was a potentially important forum for serious debate about issues of race and diversity, and was widely welcomed by many with an interest in these issues both in this country and worldwide.

  In the light of the CRE request in January this year for Government funding, the Government thought it right to seek advice from independent consultants on the viability of the conference at this late stage, including from forensic accountants who examined the affairs of GCDC 2000 Ltd.

  The conclusions of the accountants' report raised serious questions about the quality of the management and financial controls in GCDC 2000 Ltd. as well as confirming that very significant additional funds, in the order of £1.5 million, would be required to enable the Congress to go ahead, not least because less than 500 tickets had been sold for a congress initially planned to attract 2,000.

  Given the report's findings, it would not be justifiable to use substantial public funds to support this event. Yesterday, the Directors of the company were advised of the report's findings and our decision. I understand that the Directors of GCDC 2000 Ltd. decided late yesterday to put the company into liquidation.

  The decision to set up GCDC 2000 Ltd. was a collective one of the Commissioners for Racial Equality, taken in September 1998. I have asked the incoming Chair of the CRE, Gurbux Singh, to consider urgently the lessons to be learned from all of this and to provide us with a report.

  Community Sentences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate(a) the number of community sentences, (b) the number returned to court as a result of breach proceedings and (c) the number of breach proceedings (i) that were not proven and (ii) where the community sentence was revoked and the offender re-sentenced. [111491]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is given in the table.864W

  England and Wales: 1998

  000s

  Number

  Offenders given a community sentence1 for all offences

  149,400

  Proceedings for a breach of a community sentence1,2

  28,500

  of which:

  Sentence given for breach2

  28,100

  1 Includes probation, supervision, attendance centre, community service, combination and curfew orders.

  2 Statistics as to the proportion found not proven; and the proportion where the breached order is revoked and the offender resentenced are not recorded centrally.

  Hendon Police College
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the size of the training intake at Hendon Police College(a) for each of the last three months and (b) in January (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [111525]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the table, provided by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police:

  Intake

  (a)

  November 1999

  94

  December 1999

  0

  January 2000

  101

  (b)

  83

  (i) January 1997

  83

  (ii) January 1998

  95

  (iii) January 1999

  147

  Note:

  Intakes are five weekly, so some months have no intake

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications of the Government's proposals to abolish the right to elect trial by jury. [109646]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Giving the courts rather than defendants the power to decide whether either-way offences should be heard in the Crown Court would reduce delays and secure a more efficient system of justice. Our proposals would be to the benefit of the public, victims and witnesses, but would nevertheless protect the interests of the accused.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the experience of the trial without jury system in Scotland. [109649]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The main difference with the Scottish jury system is that there is no right for the accused to choose trial by jury. The decision on mode of trial is made by Crown Counsel on the recommendation of the procurator fiscal, who has a wide discretion. I am not aware that this has led to any unfairness to defendants in Scotland.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 20 most common triable either way offences in the past year; and if he will make a statement. [111321]

  Mr. Straw
  The information is given in the table.
  865W

  Most common triable either way offences 1

  Offence description

  Prosecutions

  1. Stealing from shops and stalls

  77,914

  2. Absconding by person released on bail

  45,495

  3. Assaults occasioning actual bodily harm

  38,020

  4. Ad hoc offences under the Theft Act 1968, section 1

  26,525

  5. Non-aggravated burglary in a dwelling

  25,512

  6. Having possession of cannabis

  24,395

  7. False statements by company directors

  21,184

  8. Non-aggravated burglary other than in a dwelling

  20,459

  9. Affray

  17,600

  10. Obtaining property by deception

  16,018

  11. Criminal damage excluding arson, endangering life and racial aggravation

  14,148

  12. Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon)

  7,158

  13. Possession of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse

  7,141

  14. Stealing from motor vehicles

  6,728

  15. Stealing from the person of another

  6,256

  16. Where the vehicle was driven dangerously, where injury to any person or damage to any property was caused or damage was caused to the vehicle

  6,161

  17. Dangerous driving

  5,820

  18. Undertaking or assisting in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods or arranging to do so

  5,653

  19. Violent disorder

  5,337

  20. Having an article with a blade or point in a public place

  4,867

  1 Defined by number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts in 1998

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any criminal offences related to arson are triable either-way; and if he will make a statement. [111323]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, destruction or damage by fire is charged as arson and is triable either-way. If there is intent to endanger life or recklessness as to whether life would be endangered, the offence must be tried in the Crown Court.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to bring the exercise of the Royal Prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny. [109655]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. With very few exceptions, the Royal Prerogative is exercised only on the advice of Ministers. This provides accountability to Parliament for its exercise.

  Freepost Election Mailings
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of the freepost election mailing in(a) the 1997 General Election, (b) the Scottish Parliament elections, (c) the Welsh Assembly elections and (d) the Northern Ireland Assembly elections; and what estimate he has made of cost of the freepost mailing he has authorised in the Watford local authority area election. [111521]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The costs to public funds of the free election mailings were as follows:

  Election

  Cost (£)

  1997 General Election

  117,770,103.80

  Scottish Parliament Elections

  24,629,603.05

  Welsh Assembly Elections

  22,243,929.14

  Northern Ireland Assembly Elections

  1,083,427.95

  1 At 1997 value

  2 Year at 1999 value

  866W
  The cost of any freepost facility offered to candidates standing for election to Watford Council would be met by the Council itself. The Council estimate that this would be in the region of £6,500.

  European Crime Convention
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the situation concerning negotiations on the draft European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. [111488]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The European Union Mutual Legal Assistance Convention has been under negotiation since 1996, and is intended to enhance existing arrangements for co-operation between member states' judicial and prosecuting authorities for the purposes of criminal investigations and proceedings. The negotiations have been complicated, and, throughout, the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses have been kept fully informed of progress. Although a number of specific provisions have cleared scrutiny, the Convention itself remains subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

  Work has continued to agree outstanding matters, and I understand that the opinion of the European Parliament on the draft text has now been issued, and is to be considered.

  At the meeting of Council on 2–3 December 1999, Ministers agreed that at the Council meeting on 27 March 2000, an attempt should be made to complete work on the Convention. My officials will remain in contact with the scrutiny committees.

  Secure Training Centres
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list incidents that have occurred and been reported at(a) Medway, (b) Rainsbrook and (c) Hassockfield secure training centres since each facility opened; on what occasions contract failures have occurred at each facility; and what financial penalties have been incurred by the operators. [110455]
  867W
  Mr. Boateng
  The secure training centre at Medway opened on 17 April 1998, Rainsbrook opened on 1 July 1999 and Hassockfield opened on 17 September 1999.

  The total number of incidents which have occurred and been reported since each facility opened are 1,513 at Medway; 497 at Rainsbrook and 612 at Hassockfield. These reportable incidents cover any occurrence which disturbs the normal operation of any part of the centre and range from a trainee refusing to go to his bedroom or do his chores, to acts of concerted indiscipline.

  The contracts set out the performance measurements applying to specified services to be delivered by the Contractor, and the performance penalty points to be incurred for failure to deliver each of these services. If the Contractor reaches a specified level of performance penalty points, further points result in reductions in the payments made to the Contractor up to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the contract price in any year. The number of occasions on which performance points have been awarded for each contract is as follows:

  Medway—175;

  Rainsbrook—8; and

  Hassockfield—29.

  A full list of reported incidents and of contract failures can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The contracts additionally provide for financial penalties to be imposed for failure by the Contractor to meet the scheduled opening date and for any subsequent non-availability of trainee places. To date, financial penalties of £663,240 have been incurred by the operator at Medway, £155,152 at Rainsbrook and £44,890 at Hassockfield.

  Mr. Ben James
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated(a) total legal cost to the Government and (b) cost of administration by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, to date, for proceedings related to the immigration case of Mr. Ben James; and if he will make a statement. [111322]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information that the hon. Member requires is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Racism
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been for racially aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; what percentage of these prosecutions involved defendants who were not white; and if he will make a statement. [111320]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information available centrally indicates that 745 persons were prosecuted in magistrates courts in England and Wales for racially aggravated offences between October 1998 and June 1999. It is not possible centrally to identify those defendants that were not white.
  868W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken in the Metropolitan Police Service to ensure proper communication between uniform and CID officers in relation to serious racist crime. [111103]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that his principal specialist organisations in the systems for the investigation of racist crime are the Racial and Violent Crime Task Force and Borough-based Community Safety Units. All are staffed by both uniform and Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officers. In addition, a range of measures are in place throughout the Metropolitan police to ensure that all officers, both CID and uniform, involved in the investigation of racist crime work together using corporate documentation and methods.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers of each rank have received anti-racism training; and how many of these have achieved minimum effective training levels. [111105]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office manages a three year contract with a specialist consultant to deliver community and race relations training to the police, and it is expected that 1,760 officers will have been trained under the terms of this contract by the end of February. A breakdown of these officers in terms of rank is not available. This training incorporates the applicable Minimum Effective Training Level. Other anti-racism training is carried out in forces and by National Police Training, particularly for probationer constables: the total number of officers who have received such training during their careers is not recorded centrally.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training has been provided to Victim Support volunteer visitors on providing appropriate support for ethnic minority victims of racist crime. [110282]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Victim Support is an independent national charity which receives a substantial Home Office grant each year for its work in supporting victims of, and witnesses to, crime. Current grant conditions require Victim Support to continue to review how their work affects ethnic minorities, taking into account the recommendations of the Macpherson Report.

  Responsibility for the operational implementation of these requirements rests with Victim Support.

  I understand from the Chief Executive that Victim Support issued guidance to volunteers on racist crime in 1991 and 1996. And, following the Macpherson Inquiry, specialist training for volunteers dealing with racist incidents is to be developed and the general training for all volunteers is to be updated to include training on cultural diversity.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been disciplined for using racist words or behaviour; how many have been dismissed following disciplinary action for such offences; and how many such disciplinary cases have been dismissed, since 1 April 1999. [110369]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The statistics of police misconduct cases in England and Wales for the 12 months from 1 April 1999 are not yet available.

  Rowe and Davis Case
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Rowe and Davis. [111495]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The powers of the Home Secretary to refer alleged miscarriages of justice to the Court of Appeal were replaced in 1997 by new powers vested in the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is now responsible for the investigation of cases of alleged wrongful conviction. The Commission referred the cases of Rowe and Davis to the Court of Appeal on 7 April 1999, in the exercise of its powers under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It will be for the Court to decide in due course whether their convictions should be quashed.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take following the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Rowe and Davis. [111494]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Michael Davis and Raphael Rowe were convicted, on 26 February 1990, of murder, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three counts of robbery. Their appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 29 July 1993, and an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused on 30 September 1993. However, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred their cases to the Court of Appeal on 7 April 1999, in the exercise of its powers under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It will be for the Court to decide in due course whether their convictions should be quashed.

  Coroners
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference and timetable of his review of coroners. [111524]

  Mr. Boateng
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 1 February 2000,Official Report, columns 907–919, one of the actions being taken in the light of the Shipman trial is an urgent review of death certification procedures and the checks undertaken before cremation and burial. The work of this review is to be made available to the Inquiry chaired by Lord Laming of Tewin which is due to report in the autumn.

  The death certification review will also consider whether there should be a role for coroners in monitoring the proper procedures after death. Coroner arrangements may consequently need to be considered more widely in due course.

  Mr. Hector Harvey
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2000,Official Report, Column 49W, how many and which crimes Mr. Hector Harvey has pleaded guilty to that were committed since 5 August 1998 and which of these were committed (a) while in police custody and (b) whilst temporarily released from police custody; and if he will make a statement. [111648]
  870W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that Mr. Hector Harvey was arrested on 3 August 1998 for armed robbery. He has remained in custody from that date and has committed no offences in the intervening period.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 49W, (a) under what powers, (b) for what duration and (c) for what purpose Hector Harvey was given temporary release from the custody of the CIB and Metropolitan Police; and if he will make a statement. [111647]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that since he was arrested on 3 August 1998 for armed robbery, Mr. Hector Harvey has not been released from police custody.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department takes to keep magistrates informed of legislative changes proposed by the Government. [109647]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Both the lay and professional branches of the magistracy are consulted by this department in relation to changes to the criminal justice system which would affect the work of the magistrates' courts.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent he intends that the Welsh Assembly will be empowered(a) to make decisions and (b) to implement regulations in respect of the release of information by local authorities that is at variance with guidance provided to English local authorities on information disclosure. [110646]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Freedom of Information Bill would apply to public authorities, including local authorities, in Wales in the same way as to those in England.

  There are no provisions under the Bill for the Welsh Assembly to make regulations or issue guidance. There are no plans at present for regulations under, or guidance relating to the Freedom of Information Bill to be varied for different parts of the United Kingdom.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile remand prisoners and young adult remand prisoners are held in doubled-up cells in(a) Feltham Young Offenders Institution and (b) other young offenders institutions in England; and what were the numbers during 1999. [110958]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service does not collect centrally information to show the level of overcrowding separately for the remand population or for juveniles.
  871W
  Information in the table gives the average monthly number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one in Feltham and all other young offenders institutions in England during 1999.

  Young offender institutions: Average monthly numbers of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one—1999

  Prison name

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Feltham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  78

  86

  82

  82

  78

  72

  34

  0

  Ashfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Aylesbury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Castington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Deerbolt

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dover

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glen Parva

  140

  191

  200

  212

  208

  206

  440

  448

  444

  246

  426

  218

  Guys Marsh

  50

  22

  32

  32

  60

  40

  62

  70

  62

  70

  70

  70

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Huntercombe

  16

  16

  12

  12

  12

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Onley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Portland

  90

  90

  90

  90

  90

  150

  150

  150

  150

  150

  150

  150

  Reading

  154

  154

  143

  146

  134

  134

  160

  152

  134

  148

  148

  120

  Stoke Heath

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swinfen Hall

  84

  72

  68

  70

  76

  64

  66

  66

  70

  64

  0

  0

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of young offenders in Staffordshire who have committed(a) five offences or more, (b) 10 offences or more, (c) 20 offences or more and (d) 50 offences or more; and if he will make a statement. [110732]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The exact information requested is not held centrally.

  However, we do have the total number of convictions for recordable offences relating to persistent young offenders convicted of one or more recordable offences in 1998. 239 were sentenced on one or more occasions following apprehension by Staffordshire Police. Of these, 69 had been sentenced for a total of between five and nine recordable offences, 107 had been sentenced for between 10 and 19 recordable offences, 49 had been sentenced for between 20 and 49 recordable offences, and six had been sentenced for 50 or more recordable offences. The remaining eight individuals had been sentenced for four recordable offences each.

  Special Constables (Staffordshire)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) civilians and (b) special constables have been employed by the Staffordshire Police in each of the last five years. [110734]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The strength of the civilians and special constables employed by Staffordshire Police in each of the last five years is recorded in the table.

  Year1

  Civilians2

  Special constables

  1995

  750.0

  725

  1996

  753.5

  702

  1997

  792.5

  685

  1998

  865.5

  595

  1999

  1,004.0

  468

  1 As at 31 March

  2 The civilian figures are full time equivalents, and do not include traffic wardens

  Source:

  Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
  872W
  Establishments are categorised by their main function only and the most recent data for December are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers transferred from the Metropolitan Police to other forces in 1999. [110905]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that 225 officers transferred from the Metropolitan Police to other forces in 1999.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations in the Metropolitan Police area reduced the hours which they are open to the public in 1997, 1998 and 1999. [111489]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me this information is not recorded centrally, and could not be obtained from local records because of the extensive reorganisation in the period concerned.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications by officers in the Metropolitan Police to retire on medical grounds were approved in 1999. [110971]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that 316 officers retired from the Metropolitan Police due to ill health during 1999.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of service of police officers in the Metropolitan Police in 1999. [110904]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that the average length of service of police officers in the Metropolitan Police, as at July 1999, was 14.5 years.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) length of service and (b) age profile of police officers serving in the Metropolitan Police. [110970]
  873W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the tables, provided by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and represents the position as at 31 January 2000.

  Length of service

  Number of officers

  Less than 1 year

  1,114

  1 year

  1,148

  2 years

  972

  3 years

  689

  4 years

  926

  5 years

  1,042

  6 years

  923

  7 years

  719

  8 years

  843

  9 years

  754

  10 years

  1,070

  11 years

  1,356

  12 years

  1,222

  13 years

  984

  14 years

  807

  15 years

  698

  16 years

  760

  17 years

  1,210

  18 years

  1,237

  19 years

  1,066

  20 years

  922

  21 years

  679

  22 years

  648

  23 years

  1,049

  24 years

  778

  25 years

  483

  26 years

  487

  27 years

  448

  28 years

  391

  29 years

  372

  30 years

  172

  31 years

  107

  32 years

  110

  33 years

  59

  34 years

  58

  35 years

  24

  36 years

  20

  37 years

  7

  38 years

  3

  39 years

  4

  40 years

  2

  26,363

  Age

  Number of officers

  18

  4

  19

  61

  20

  142

  21

  174

  22

  271

  23

  381

  24

  467

  25

  562

  26

  699

  27

  739

  28

  747

  29

  841

  30

  945

  31

  1,115

  32

  1,196

  33

  1,357

  34

  1,353

  35

  1,226

  36

  1,214

  37

  1,365

  38

  1,357

  874W

  Age

  Number of officers

  39

  1,196

  40

  1,103

  41

  1,049

  42

  1,048

  43

  859

  44

  760

  45

  664

  46

  618

  47

  520

  48

  522

  49

  395

  50

  322

  51

  292

  52

  251

  53

  214

  54

  133

  55

  82

  56

  50

  57

  35

  58

  20

  59

  14

  26,363

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the Metropolitan Police have applications to retire on the grounds of ill health outstanding; and how many such officers are(a) on full pay, (b) on half pay and (c) off pay. [110954]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that a total of 47 officers are currently awaiting ill health retirement. Thirty-nine are on full pay, six are on half pay and two are off pay.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers resigned from the Metropolitan Police in 1999. [110978]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informs me that 347 officers resigned from the Metropolitan Police in 1999.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the percentage of revenue budget apportioned to the payment of police pensions for each police authority in England and Wales for 1999–2000. [110903]

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

  1999–2000

  Local authority

  Net expenditure (£000)

  Net pensions expenditure (£000)

  Percentage of expenditure apportioned to police pensions

  Avon and Somerset

  174,424

  28,419

  16.29

  Bedfordshire

  64,027

  8,155

  12.74

  Cambridgeshire

  75,363

  9,854

  13.08

  Cheshire

  111,094

  13,423

  12.08

  City of London

  58,719

  8,220

  14.00

  Cleveland

  85,397

  14,434

  16.90

  Cumbria

  64,693

  9,344

  14.44

  Derbyshire

  107,035

  14,789

  13.82

  Devon and Cornwall

  173,649

  24,502

  14.11

  Dorset

  77,749

  11,144

  14.33

  Durham

  80,712

  8,659

  10.73

  875W

  1999–2000

  Local authority

  Net expenditure (£000)

  Net pensions expenditure (£000)

  Percentage of expenditure apportioned to police pensions

  Dyfed Powys

  56,143

  7,406

  13.19

  Essex

  171,590

  19,605

  11.43

  Gloucestershire

  65,933

  8,884

  13.47

  Greater Manchester

  387,256

  63,349

  16.36

  Gwent

  71,414

  7,735

  10.83

  Hampshire

  196,955

  21,542

  10.94

  Hertfordshire

  102,361

  12,339

  12.05

  Humberside

  114,306

  15,379

  13.45

  Kent

  186,225

  23,509

  12.62

  Lancashire

  182,679

  25,206

  13.80

  Leicestershire

  106,279

  12,776

  12.02

  Lincolnshire

  69,970

  11,121

  15.89

  Merseyside

  249,522

  37,889

  15.18

  Metropolitan Police

  1,840,245

  230,449

  12.52

  Norfolk

  86,870

  11,211

  12.91

  North Wales

  80,505

  11,628

  14.44

  North Yorkshire

  78,085

  11,724

  15.01

  Northamptonshire

  70,432

  8,226

  11.68

  Northumbria

  213,010

  32,500

  15.26

  Nottinghamshire

  130,173

  17,414

  13.38

  South Wales

  169,968

  23,874

  14.05

  South Yorkshire

  173,933

  18,542

  10.66

  Staffordshire

  127,472

  21,016

  16.49

  Suffolk

  70,538

  9,340

  13.24

  Surrey

  100,375

  10,748

  10.71

  Sussex

  165,804

  26,105

  15.74

  Thames Valley Police

  232,729

  22,691

  9.75

  Warwickshire

  56,157

  8,000

  14.25

  West Mercia

  116,490

  13,813

  11.86

  West Midlands

  380,971

  44,728

  11.74

  West Yorkshire

  288,865

  40,770

  14.11

  Wiltshire

  69,715

  7,794

  11.18

  Total

  7,485,832

  988,256

  13.20

  Note:

  Estimated net expenditure and estimated pension costs taken from CIPFA Estimates for 2999–2000

  Prisoners (Tariff Date)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many current prisoners have(a) reached and (b) exceeded their tariff date; and if he will make a statement. [110847]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 31 January, 2000, a total of 4,407 life sentence prisoners and detainees at Her Majesty's pleasure were held in custody. Of these, approximately 1,400 had reached or exceeded their tariff expiry date.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [110723]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office Greening Operations Policy includes a statement that slow renewables such as peat should be replaced by organic wastes such as coir, manure, leaf mould and bark. The Home Office Procurement Manual also states that peat free composts should be used.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to attract more recruits to the police force. [111033]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon), on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 172–74W.

  Casino Staff
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff working in casinos were consulted in the preparation of the draft regulatory impact assessment on the proposal to extend casino opening hours; what their responses were; and if he will place in the Library a summary of their views. [111312]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Before publishing the draft regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in November 1999, we did not ourselves consult casino staff directly, but the draft did take account of the British Casino Association's forecast of likely staff reaction. The publication of the draft has provided an opportunity for staff themselves to comment, and a number have done so. We have received about 3,000 representations opposing the change, mostly from staff and interested unions, and are now considering them. If we decide to proceed with the deregulation order proposal, we shall publish with it a final RIA, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who applied for licences PPL 170 04972 and PPL 170 04956 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; [110987]

  (2) in respect of Paragraph 5.13 of the Minutes of the Animal Procedures Committee of 13 October 1999, for what reasons animals suffering from convulsions are treated as not requiring intervention; [111048]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the use of animals in procedures aimed at identifying people who could be targeted for smoking cessation programmes; [110989]

  (4) for what reason it was concluded that animal experimentation is justified under licences PPL 70/04972 and PPL 70/04956; [111015]

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, column 258W, if he will make a statement on paragraph 5:11 of the Minutes of the Animal Procedures Committee of 13 October 1999; [111083]

  (6) in respect of paragraph 5:7 of the Minutes of the Animal Procedures Committee of 13 October 1999, what information beyond that gained over the past 30 years is expected to be realised by licences PPL 70/04972 and PPL 70/04956; [111013]

  (7) what weight he gave to the views of members of the Animal Procedures Committee opposed to the granting of applications PPL 170 04972 and PPL 170 04956 before deciding to authorise these. [110988]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257–58W.
  877W
  Project licences are only issued for legitimate purposes under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 after the likely benefits (to man, animals or the environment) have been weighed against the costs to the animals involved. Any alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the experimental design to minimise suffering must be employed. In the cases of these two project licences, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate and the Animal Procedures Committee have both advised that the use of animals can be fully justified.

  The Animal Procedures Committee gave careful consideration to these applications, most recently on 13 October. The views of all members as well as its overall advice was taken into account in reaching my conclusion.

  The minutes of this meeting show at paragraph 5:7 that the issue of smoking research during the last 30 years was raised. The Government have a firm policy of not granting applications to research tobacco products. Such research is an entirely different matter from research into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The benefits of the information gained through the use of newly available molecular biology will be a better understanding of the resulting condition, the ability to identify those most at risk of developing these conditions, and the development of new and improved treatments. The identification of people for possible smoking cessation programmes was given as only one possible example of the likely benefits of the work. It did not feature as a major reason for approving either of the applications and is considered to
  878W
  be nothing more than an incidental benefit which, if it were to be considered in isolation, would not have justified the issue of licenses.

  Paragraphs 5:11 and 5:13 of the minutes discuss some aspects of the applications. My previous statement that the animals are not expected to suffer convulsive spasms is correct. Reference to "convulsions" was made as this adverse effect is routinely included on the standard scoring system for assessing distress levels at the establishment where the work is to be performed. Such adverse effects seldom occur in isolation from other signs of distress and I am assured that they are not expected to occur at all in the context of these projects. The reference to scoring "normal" is, therefore, misleading. The Committee minutes make reference to the administration of spasmogens which are substances that may induce bronchospasm (wheezing). I am told that these will not cause convulsions or seizures mediated through the central nervous system and the reference to "convulsions" was subsequently removed from the application.

  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits me from naming the applicants.

  Court Transcripts
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make court transcripts available via the Internet. [111223]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently no plans for making court transcripts available via the internet. Current court reporting equipment does not allow for automatic production of authorised transcripts and the cost of placing this information on the internet would outweight any benefits gained from doing so.

DEFENCE

  Army Trade Training
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the(a) contractual and (b) funding difficulties limiting the Army Training and Recruiting Agency's ability to provide trade training for vehicle mechanics; [109739]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the contracts let for trade training by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency contain sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in demand within the contract period. [109740]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The Army Training and Recruiting Agency has had no specific contractual difficulties that have limited its ability to provide trade training for vehicle mechanics. The contracts in place for this and other trade training are sufficiently flexible to allow for changes to the requirement to be made within the contract period, subject, of course, to appropriate negotiations between the contractor and the customer. There have been some difficulties in aligning available funding with the required outputs in time to produce the necessary changes to throughput in any one year. However, changes to the budget structure from this year will give the Agency greater control over this process.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers based at Bordon were waiting for trade training on(a) 1 February 2000, (b) 1 October 1999, (c) 1 April 1999, (d) 1 October 1998, (e) 1 April 1998, (f) 1 October 1997, (g) 1 April 1997, (h) 1 October 1996 and (i) 1 April 1995. [109736]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The information is not available prior to 30 April 1997. The figures requested, since that date, are as follows:

  Date

  Soldiers awaiting trade training

  1 February 2000

  154

  1 October 1999

  234

  1 April 1999

  140

  1 October 1998

  259

  1 April 1998

  189

  1 October 1997

  283

  30 April 1997

  207

  These numbers represent a "snap shot" on the date in question. Numbers will vary throughout the year, but tend to be particularly high in October when students passing out from the Army Apprentice College the previous month are awaiting allocation to courses.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the(a) financial provision and (b) expenditure by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency on trade training for the School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering at Bordon in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [109735]
  880W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The information requested is as follows:

  £000

  Financial year

  Financial provision at current (1999–2000) prices

  Actual expenditure at current (1999–2000) prices

  1994–95

  17,497

  17,298

  1995–96

  15,489

  15,755

  1996–97

  17,649

  18,106

  1997–98

  15,579

  15,991

  1998–99

  14,681

  15,248

  The downward trend over the last three years is as a result of efficiencies introduced by the ATRA, which was formed in 1996. The slight overspends against provision were accommodated within the Agency's overall provision.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what increases in funding for the Army Training and Recruiting Agency to cover trade training have been requested; and what was the response. [109737]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: All training conducted by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency is subject to review and the outcome is taken into account in the annual planning rounds. This process is being undertaken at present and no decisions have been made.

  Defence Export Services Organisation (Jakarta)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed at the Defence Export Sales Organisation's branch office in Jakarta; and if the office closed during the period of the EU arms embargo on Indonesia. [109853]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Export Services Organisation currently employs one UK-based civil servant in the British Embassy in Jakarta as the First Secretary (Defence Supply). There is also one locally engaged driver. The First Secretary post was filled during the period of the EU embargo, but had no role in the support of marketing and sales by British defence companies in Indonesia during that period.

  Armed Forces (Morale)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has in place to increase morale in the armed forces. [110593]

  Mr. Spellar
  We know that morale on operations, where personnel are doing what they joined up to do, is generally good. Our 'Policy for People' has introduced a series of measures designed to aid morale in the armed forces. We have reduced commitments where possible, thereby easing overstretch. We have made it easier for personnel deployed on operations to keep in touch with their families back home. The Service Families Task Force is addressing problems caused by the mobility of Service families. The 'Learning Forces' initiative is ensuring that personnel have access to modern learning
  881W
  facilities—both at home and when they are on operations. And we have again accepted in full the recommendations of the Pay Review Bodies on pay for the armed forces.

  Aircraft Crashes
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF aircraft and helicopters have crashed during(a) operational flying and (b) non-operational flying in each year from 1989 to date, stating in each case (i) the aircraft involved, (ii) the flight task being undertaken, (iii) the reason for loss of the aircraft and (iv) how many crew members (x) died and (y) sustained serious injury, and (v) what compensation was paid; and if he will make a statement. [111349]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dangerous Substances
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the (i) explosives and (ii) other substances currently licensed under the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 at Loch Straven in Argyll and (b) applications for explosives and substances licences currently under consideration for this area stating which substances or explosives they relate to. [111529]

  Mr. Spellar
  A single licence is held by the NATO Oil Fuel Depot Loch Striven under the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987. This licence sets the limit for the quantity of explosives or munitions that can be held on board a vessel while alongside the jetty. One of the terms of this licence is that explosives or munitions shall not be loaded, unloaded or otherwise handled and shall remain on board the vessel for the duration of the time that the vessel is at the Depot.

  The licence is granted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and to meet operational requirements, an application was made on 12 July 1999 to the HSE to increase the limit granted under the licence from 80,000 kilograms to 160,000 kilograms. Following a preliminary survey by the HSE, it has been agreed that the limit of the licence will be increased to 110,000 kilograms.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the(a) types and (b) quantities of cluster bombs used during the trials at Luce Bay in 1999; [111074]

  (2) on what dates in 1999 were live cluster bombs used in trials at Luce Bay; [111075]

  (3) what was the purpose of the trials using live cluster bombs at Luce Bay in 1999. [111076]

  Mr. Spellar
  The type of cluster bomb used during the trials at Luce Bay in 1999 was the 600lb RBL 755 version. A total of 52 bombs were used of which 40 were inert and 12 were live. The live bombs were dropped on 6 and 7 April 1999. The purpose of the trials was to evaluate the performance of the bombs in response to an Urgent Operational Requirement, in direct support of UK 882W
  participation in the NATO action in Kosovo. To evaluate the performance of this weapon it was necessary to release them under a range of conditions, e.g. height, speed, altitude and from different aircraft types. This required a number of weapons to achieve all these parameters. While most of these conditions could be met using the available supply of inert bombs it was necessary to use some live variants to complete the series of trials. Although these weapons contained live bomblets, they were configured so that they were not deployed during flight and entered the water intact.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to the Exchequer of the military operations against Iraq (i) in Operation Desert Fox and (ii) since the end of Operation Desert Fox. [110697]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information required on the total cost of Operation Desert Fox cannot be reliably differentiated from the overall costs of military operations in the Gulf which for the financial year 1998–99 were £35 million. Costs for the current financial year are estimated to be in the region of £33 million.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many precision-guided weapons have been used by the UK in Iraq(a) in Operation Desert Fox and (b) since the end of Operation Desert Fox; and what was their total cost in each case. [110698]

  Mr. Hoon
  During Operation Desert Fox the RAF dropped 52 precision-guided weapons at a total cost of £2.12 million. Since then and up to 9 February 2000 the RAF have dropped 136 precision-guided weapons at a total cost of £5.464 million.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the Governments of the overseas territories provide(a) equipment and (b) funding for their own defence. [110673]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  We are committed to guaranteeing the defence of our Overseas Territories. This was reiterated in the Strategic Defence Review of July 1998 and is reflected in the deployments of HM Forces. Four Territories also make provision from their own budget for a locally-recruited defence force:

  (i) The Bermuda Defence Force has sufficient equipment for a battalion-sized group. Its budget for 1999–2000 is $4.2 Bermuda million (£1 = $1.60 Bermuda).

  (ii) The Falkland Islands Defence Force is equipped to provide an infantry company and has a defined operational role. Provisional outturn for the year 1998–99 was £405,000. In addition the Falkland Islands Government provide some support services to the British garrison free of charge.

  (iii) The Gibraltar Government contributed £35,500 towards the pay of the territorial element of the Gibraltar Defence Force for 1999–2000.

  (iv) The Montserrat Government contributed £38,000 to the budget of the Royal Montserrat Defence Force for 1998–99.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes will be made to his Department's budget, departmental expenditure and Operating Cost limits for 1999–2000. [108701]

  Mr. Hoon
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 February 2000, c. 677]: I regret that there was an error in the information given. A technical error of £0.479 million was made in calculating the MOD's supplementary requirements and, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VI Vote 1 Defence for 1999–2000, the figures are now as follows:

  (a) The overall limit increase will be increased by £583.803 million, from £22,283.085 million to £22,866.888 million.

  (b) The Ministry of Defence Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £582.421 million from £22,280.341 million to £22,862.762 million.

  (c) The Ministry of Defence Operating Cost limit increase remains at £778.972 million from £15,918.341 million to £16,697.313 million.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Qualifications
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of children in LEA and LEA-supported schools achieved(a) five GCSE A to C grades, (b) level 2 or above at Key Stage 1, (c) level 4 or above at Key Stage 2, (d) levels 5, 6 or above at Key Stage 3 in each of the three years (i) in the city of Newcastle, and (ii) in England; and what the average figure was in each category in each of these years for metropolitan authorities outside London. [111051]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is given in the five tables:

  (a) The percentage of 16 year olds who achieved 5 or more GCSE grades A *-C in LEA and LEA-supported schools in England in the last three years were:

  Percentage

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  (i) City of Newcastle

  31.6

  31.0

  33.6

  (ii) England

  42.5

  43.8

  45.7

  (iii) Metropolitan authorities

  37.0

  37.6

  39.6

  (b) The percentage of pupils who achieved Level 2 or above in Key Stage 1 task/tests in LEA and LEA-supported schools in England in the last three years were:

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (i) City of Newcastle:

  Reading task/test

  75

  78

  81

  Writing

  77

  81

  81

  Spelling

  62

  68

  71

  Mathematics

  81

  86

  87

  (ii) England:

  Reading task/test

  80

  80

  82

  Writing

  80

  81

  83

  Spelling

  62

  66

  71

  Mathematics

  84

  84

  87

  884W

  (b) The percentage of pupils who achieved Level 2 or above in Key Stage 1 task/tests in LEA and LEA-supported schools in England in the last three years were:

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (iii) Metropolitan authorities:

  Reading task/test

  79

  79

  80

  Writing

  79

  80

  81

  Spelling

  62

  66

  71

  Mathematics

  82

  83

  85

  (c) The percentage of pupils who achieved Level 4 or above in Key Stage 2 tests in LEA and LEA-supported schools in England in the last three years were:

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (i) City of Newcastle:

  English

  51

  55

  61

  Mathematics

  51

  49

  60

  Science

  60

  61

  72

  (ii) England:

  English

  63

  64

  70

  Mathematics

  61

  58

  68

  Science

  68

  69

  78

  (iii) Metropolitan authorities:

  English

  59

  61

  67

  Mathematics

  59

  55

  67

  Science

  66

  65

  76

  (d.i) The percentage of pupils who achieved Level 5 or above in Key Stage 3 tests in LEA and LEA-supported schools in England in the last three years were:

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (i) City of Newcastle:

  English

  41

  49

  52

  Mathematics

  48

  50

  52

  Science

  47

  45

  43

  (ii) England:

  English

  56

  64

  63

  Mathematics

  60

  59

  62

  Science

  60

  56

  55

  (iii) Metropolitan authorities:

  English

  53

  60

  59

  Mathematics

  53

  54

  56

  Science

  54

  50

  49

  (d.ii) The percentage of pupils who achieved Level 6 or above in Key Stage 3 tests in LEA and LEA-supported schools in England in the last three years were:

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (i) City of Newcastle:

  English

  18

  23

  22

  Mathematics

  26

  27

  29

  Science

  20

  19

  18

  (ii) England:

  English

  24

  34

  27

  Mathematics

  36

  35

  37

  Science

  29

  27

  24

  885W

  (d.ii) The percentage of pupils who achieved Level 6 or above in Key Stage 3 tests in LEA and LEA-supported schools in England in the last three years were:

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (iii) Metropolitan authorities

  English

  21

  31

  24

  Mathematics

  30

  30

  32

  Science

  24

  22

  19

  Numbers and percentage of pupils who receive, or are known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained schools 1 in the local education authority area of Newcastle upon Tyne: 1995–2000a

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  21995

  Number on roll

  40,473

  40,745

  41,064

  41,182

  41,221

  Number of pupils who took a free school meal

  10,140

  10,448

  11,075

  11,508

  11,577

  Percentage of pupils who took a free school meal

  25

  26

  27

  28

  28

  Number of pupils who are known to be eligible for free school meals

  13,034

  13,604

  14,343

  14,670

  14,784

  Percentage of pupils who are known to be eligible for free meals

  32

  33

  35

  36

  36

  1 Includes maintained nursery, primary, middle, secondary, pupil referral units and maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  2 Excludes dually registered pupils educated in special schools who are otherwise included in the January 1996–99 figures.

  Employment Zones
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he has made to appoint contractors to run the remaining four employment zones. [111904]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Further to my announcement on 23 November 1999 of the previous 11 Zones, I am pleased to inform the House that the following organisations have been successful, subject to post-tender negotiations in their bids to run the four remaining Employment Zones. In Doncaster, Reed in Partnership has been successful, in North West Wales the North West Wales Partnership has been successful, in Nottingham City the Nottingham Employment Zone Partnership has been successful and in Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, Working Links have been successful.

  GCSE Syllabus
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) subjects and (b) syllabuses he intends to remove from the approved list for examinational GCSE giving the reasons for each decision. [111144]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is working with the awarding bodies to develop advice to the Department on the list of titles to be offered at GCSE in 2001. No decisions have been reached at this stage. If proposals are made to remove titles from the approved list, QCA will seek the views of teacher organisations, schools and colleges and appropriate subject organisations before submitting final recommendations.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on action he is taking to encourage equal opportunities in further and higher education. [110370]

  Free School Meals (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Mr. cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of children received free school meals in LEA and LEA-supported schools in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne from 1995 to 2000. [111058]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: If we are to improve our international competitiveness and create a truly inclusive society, it is important that we ensure equality of opportunity in all sectors of education and training.

  We made clear in the Learning and Skills Council Prospectus that we want the Council to ensure that high quality opportunities are available to meet the needs of all learners across the range of abilities and aptitudes, including the very able. We will expect the Council to build equality of opportunity into all its policies, programmes and actions, working closely with key equality organisations including the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission which is being set up in April 2000.

  In November, we asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to ensure that all higher education institutions have equal opportunities statements and they are accountable for their full and proper implementation. We placed particular emphasis on seeing that institutions make progress on racial equality for staff.

  We are determined to make increased participation by people who have been traditionally under-represented a priority for the expansion of post-secondary education, which is receiving record levels of funding.

  Higher Education (Disabled Persons)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he will put in place for the resolution of disputes over issues concerned with the provision of educational services to disabled persons in further and higher education. [110400]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: We have said that we will respond positively to the recommendations in the report of the Disability Rights Task force for legislation to secure civil rights for disabled people in further and higher education and in LEA—secured adult education. We will consult shortly on the contents of legislation and on implementation issues, including rights of redress.

  New Deal
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many long-term unemployed people living within the Greater London area have benefited from the New Deal measures since their introduction. [107290]

  Ms Jowell
  Up to November 1999, 59,700 young people and 42,850 long-term unemployed adults have benefited from entry to the New Deals in the Greater London area since these initiatives started in 1998. It is a measure of the success of the Government's Welfare to Work policies that 22,300 young people and 6,320 adults in London have found jobs through the New Deals. The remainder are benefiting from the help that the Personal Adviser can offer. This includes help with barriers to employment, access to specialist help and, training, education and work experience opportunities.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown by destination of those who have left each New Deal scheme in Cumbria between the start of each scheme and up to the latest date for which figures are available. [109287]

  Ms Jowell
  Between January 1998 and November 1999, 2,702 people left the New Deal for Young People in Cumbria. Of these

  1,281 left for unsubsidised employment

  380 transferred to another benefit

  514 left for another known reason

  527 left for an unknown destination.

  A recent survey showed that 57 per cent. of young people leaving the New Deal gateway for unknown destinations, had found a job.

  Between July 1998 and November 1999, 1,514 people left the New Deal for long-term unemployed people aged 25+ in Cumbria. Of these

  238 left for unsubsidised employment

  206 transferred to another benefit

  50 left for another known reason

  116 left for an unknown destination

  903 continued their normal jobseeking activity.

  Between October 1998 and November 1999, 325 people left the New Deal for Lone Parents in Cumbria. Of these

  149 went into employment

  8 transferred to another benefit

  39 were no longer eligible for income support

  17 declined to join the caseload

  106 withdrew for other reasons

  6 left for an unknown destination.

  Exclusions
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total number of pupils excluded from schools in England in each of the last three years; and what is the total number of ethnic minority pupils excluded from schools. [111104]
  888W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of permanent exclusion, by ethnic group from schools in England1: 1995–96 to 1997–98

  Year

  Number of permanent exclusions 2

  Number of ethnic minority permanent exclusions

  1995–96

  12,476

  2,196

  1996–97

  12,668

  2,113

  1997–98

  12,298

  1,995

  1 Includes Maintained Primary, Secondary, Special and Non Maintained Special Schools

  2 Includes some pupils who were unclassified according to ethnic group

  Further Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage young people to stay in further education. [110591]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government want to see all young people staying in learning until 18 and beyond as part of its lifelong strategy. We have injected the biggest ever investment into Further Education to support the expansion of places. We recently announced the Connexions Strategy and Connexions Service to bring together a number of initiatives to secure greater participation by young people. We are also piloting Education Maintenance Allowances for young people in 15 areas, and we will consider extending them nationally if they are successful.

  Primary and Secondary Pupils (SSAs)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state(a) the primary school per pupil Standard Spending Assessment and (b) the secondary school per pupil Standard Spending Assessment for each English local education authority in 1999–2000 and 2000–01; and how many pupils (i) attract such Standard Spending Assessment and (ii) receive free school meals in each school sector and local education authority for the same years. [111352]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I will place a table in the Library that shows the Standard Spending Assessment per primary pupil and per secondary pupil for each English local education authority in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The number of primary pupils and secondary pupils used in calculating the Standard Spending Assessment for each local education authority for the same years is also given in the table. We are unable to provide for each sector the number of primary and secondary pupils who receive free school meals: the table therefore lists the proportion of children under 18 who are entitled to free school meals.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24-year-olds have started the New Deal scheme in Shrewsbury and Atcham, broken down into(a) New Deal Options and (b) other destinations. [110128]
  889W
  Ms Jowell
  In the period to the end of November 1999, 321 young people had joined New Deal in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency. The following shows the breakdown requested:

  Number

  People joining a New Deal option:

  Employment

  14

  Full-time education/training

  46

  Voluntary sector

  46

  Environment task force

  50

  Total

  156

  People leaving from New Deal:

  Unsubsidised employment

  96

  Other destinations:

  Other benefits

  9

  Other known destination

  31

  Not known

  67

  Total

  213

  We know from a recent survey that many of those who left for unknown destinations will have found work.

  Ofsted Reports
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities in respect of which Ofsted has expressed serious concern. [111575]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  School Meals
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority the average price of school meals in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [110702]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. Under education legislation, it is up to local education authorities, and schools with delegated budgets for school meals, to decide what price to charge.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in his Department. [102736]

  Mr. Wills
  The percentage of the work force in my Department who, at 1 April 1999, declared themselves to be of ethnic minority origin is 8.3 per cent.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office set out in her reply of 16 December 1999, Official Report, column 264W, corporate action that we are taking to encourage the employment of people from ethnic minority communities. We are developing a comprehensive outreach strategy which, for example
  890W
  includes contacting all organisations that help people from ethnic minorities into employment and establishing what further steps we should be taking to attract and retain people from ethnic minority backgrounds, this includes:
  Marketing the Department to applicants from ethnic minority communities by placing adverts in ethnic press; taking part in recruitment fairs aimed at ethnic minority graduates and undergraduates; and also making contact with over 100 ethnic minority organisations to research the barriers that prevent people from ethnic minority backgrounds joining the civil service.

  In June 1998 the Department appointed a Senior Equal Opportunities Adviser from outside the Department to work with staff and advise the Board on how to take forward equal opportunities in the Department.

  Moreover, in July 1999, we published a Race Equality Action Plan—"Race Equality in DfEE: Our Targets for the Future". This sets out targets for representation at senior management level (Grade 7 and above) grades in the Department. It includes action to improve the recruitment, career progression and retention of ethnic minority staff.

  The launch of a unique and high profile secondment/exchange initiative—aimed to encourage experienced, senior ethnic minority managers from other organisations to join us on secondments or exchanges. The initial response to this national exercise was high. We will currently be shortlisting the names of successful candidates from the first tranche of applicants and the first successful candidate will start his post on 10 January 2000.

  By providing opportunities for students to work with us on short term placement, for example we have increased the number of Windsor Fellowship graduates that we sponsor. The Department will continue to take measures which increase the numbers of people from ethnic minorities who are recruited, retained and promoted in the organisation.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is registered as disabled; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people in his Department. [102047]

  Ms Hodge
  The percentage of the work force in my Department who have identified themselves as having a disability under the definition contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is 6 per cent.

  Our recruitment strategy includes contacting all organisations that help people with disabilities into employment. We are examining what other steps we should take to attract people with disabilities in recruitment exercises.

  My Department has for a number of years used the Disability Symbol on all recruitment exercises. This employment initiative guarantees a person with a disability an interview as long as they meet the minimum criteria for that particular recruitment exercise. We are also members of the SCOPE fast track programme which provides personal development training and work placements for graduate level people with disabilities.

  In addition, as part of the Department's Equal Opportunities Strategy, an Advisory Group for People with Disabilities was established in 1996. This group

  891W
  advises the DfEE Board on any issue which affects people with disabilities including recruitment, retention and awareness raising.

  My Department will continue to take measures to increase the numbers of people with disabilities who are recruited and to ensure that the retention of people with disabilities is a priority within the organisation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the tax regime for stakeholder pensions. [111928]

  Mr. Darling
  Our proposals for the stakeholder pension tax regime were well received when we announced these in September 1999. We are grateful for all of the constructive responses, which we have considered carefully.

  I am placing in the Library a copy of a document: "Stakeholder Pensions: Details of The Tax Regime And Draft Finance Bill Clauses". This outlines a number of key decisions on the tax regime and draft Finance Bill clauses to implement these.

  Stakeholder pensions are intended to fill the gap for many people who can afford to save for their retirement but do not currently have a suitable means of doing so. From April 2001 there will be a new single tax regime for stakeholder and personal pensions. Retirement savers currently excluded from taking out personal pensions will then be able to do so, enabling:
  people taking career breaks, for example mature students and carers, to take out a stakeholder pension and benefit from the tax relief it attracts;
  self employed people on low earnings to receive more tax relief on their pension contributions;
  costs to be kept down so that pension savers can be offered low cost, good value stakeholder products.

  The main aspects of the tax regime for stakeholder pensions confirmed today are:
  stakeholder pensions will be part of a radically reformed and much simplified tax regime for all defined contributions pensions;
  contributions up to £3,600 each tax year can be made irrespective of earnings. Higher level contributions can be made under the existing personal pension age and earnings related limits and can continue for up to five years after earnings have ceased or reduced;
  all contributions from individuals will be paid net of basis rate tax with the pension provider reclaiming that tax from the Inland Revenue;
  employers' money purchase schemes may opt onto this new tax regime;
  new and simpler rules will replace the existing personal pension "carry forward/carry back" rules;
  10 per cent. of the pension contribution can be used for life assurance;
  tax relief for waiver of pension contributions insurance will be simplified and broadened to circumstances other than ill-health, such as unemployment;
  shares from an approved employee share scheme can, within the contribution limits, be put into the pension and attract tax relief;
  892W
  contributors must be resident in UK unless serving or the spouse or someone serving, abroad and undertaking "Crown duties";
  simplification will be introduced into the administrative arrangements for DC pensions—for example, electronic and telephone applications will be permitted and various information requirements relaxed;
  the rules regarding benefits are being altered to allow phased vesting from within a single arrangement. This technical change will ease administration for new and existing PP providers.

  We have decided that stakeholder contributions should not be made if an individual is also contributing to a defined occupational scheme—ie so called "full concurrency" will not be allowed. We are however inviting employers representatives and bodies representing the pensions industry to bring forward any ideas they have which will, through some limited form of concurrency, help moderate earners to increase their pension provision.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what measures his Department uses to gauge the effectiveness of moneys spent in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK on (i) reducing benefit fraud and (ii) increasing the uptake of benefit entitlements; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness in each year between 1992–93 and 1998–99; [111165]

  (2) how much was spent on (a) reducing benefit fraud and (b) increasing the uptake of benefits in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK for each financial year between 1992–93 and 1998–99. [111168]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the past each agency and local authority was responsible for its own operational plans for countering fraud. Apart from Fraud investigations, the costs of most anti-fraud activities were not separately identified. However, the Benefits Agency has had a national security and control programme since 1995. The figures in the table show the funding for the Security Control programme since its introduction.

  £ million

  Actual security control programme funding

  Total funding including benefit fraud investigation service and benefit agency security investigation service

  1995–96

  106.5

  182.6

  1996–97

  164

  263.7

  1997–98

  246

  336

  1998–99

  264

  379.5

  Total

  780

  1,161.8

  However, this system had numerous flaws. In particular instead of a single goal, there was a series of centrally set targets, which failed to give staff a clear view of the overall outcome wanted. We have now replaced this with a single target. Our Public Service Agreement commits us to reduce by 30 per cent. benefit losses from fraud and errors in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by March 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction

  893W
  by March 2002. Customer fraud and error in these two benefits has been reduced by six per cent. for the 12 months ending March 1999, compared to the period ending September 1998.

  Figures for earlier years could not be given without incurring a disproportionate cost. Research on why pensioners do not take-up their entitlement to Income Support was published on 15 October 1999. The evaluation of the pilot initiatives will be published later this year. The cost of the qualitative and quantitative research was £316,000. The pilot evaluation and the contextual survey that will be published with it will cost £279,000.

  Pensions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of up-rating in line with inflation the basic state pension of those pensioners living abroad on frozen pensions, for each of the next 10 years. [111108]

  Mr. Rooker
  The precise information requested is not available.

  Benefit

  Disregard (£)

  Weekly hours at £3.60

  Weekly hours at £3.20

  Weekly hours at £3.00

  Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance

  15.00

  1.39

  1.56

  1.67

  110.00

  2.78

  3.13

  3.33

  115.00

  4.17

  4.69

  5.00

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit3

  15.00

  1.39

  1.56

  1.67

  110.00

  2.78

  3.13

  3.33

  115.00

  4.17

  4.69

  5.00

  121.05

  5.85

  6.58

  7.02

  125.00

  6.94

  7.81

  8.33

  126.05

  7.24

  8.14

  8.68

  136.05

  10.01

  11.27

  12.02

  Severe Disablement Allowance4

  158.00

  16.11

  18.13

  19.33

  Invalid Care Allowance

  150.00

  13.89

  15.63

  16.67

  Incapacity Benefit4

  158.00

  16.11

  18.13

  19.33

  War Pension Unemployability Supplement

  23,016.00

  16.11

  18.13

  19.33

  Industrial Injuries Benefit Unemployability Supplement

  23,016.00

  16.11

  18.13

  19.33

  1 Per week

  2 Per annum

  3 A child care earnings disregard of up to £70 per week for families who pay for child care for one child of qualifying age, and £105 for families who pay for child care for more than one child of qualifying age is also available in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. It is available to two earner couples, lone parents and couples where the non-working partner is incapacitated and is in addition to the standard earnings disregards.

  4 Earnings from work which their doctor has advised will be beneficial and would help recovery (known as therapeutic work).

  Benefit

  Disregard (£)

  Weekly hours at £3.60

  Weekly hours at £3.20

  Weekly hours at £3.00

  Adult dependency increases affected by partner's earnings

  Short-term incapacity benefit where claimant is:

  (a) under pension age

  31.15

  8.65

  9.73

  10.38

  (b) over pension age

  38.40

  10.67

  12.00

  12.80

  Maternity Allowance

  31.15

  8.65

  9.73

  12.80

  Retirement pension, long-term incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, Unemployability supplement where dependent:

  (a) is living with claimant

  51.40

  14.28

  16.06

  17.13

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45.09

  12.53

  14.09

  15.00

  Retirement pension, long-term incapacity benefit and Unemployability supplement where dependent is not living with claimant

  39.95

  11.10

  12.48

  13.32

  Severe disablement allowance where dependent is not living with claimant

  23.95

  6.65

  7.48

  7.97

  Invalid care allowance

  23.90

  6.64

  7.47

  7.97

  Child dependency increases

  Level at which increase is affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner:

  For the first child

  145.00

  40.28

  45.31

  48.33

  For each subsequent child

  19.00

  5.28

  5.94

  6.33

  894W
  The cost of paying the 1990–2000 uprating of the State Retirement Pension to pensioners in frozen rate countries is estimated to be £25 million.

  The cost of increasing all of these pensions to the rate paid to pensioners resident in the UK is currently estimated to be £300 million.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners living in the UK have state pensions from countries without reciprocal pension uprating agreements with the UK; and how many of them are claiming income support. [111107]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Earnings Disregards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the earnings disregards in those benefits for which he is responsible expressed in(a) cash terms and (b) terms of hours of permitted work at present minimum wage rates. [111362]

  Angela Eagle
  The information for those benefits which are affected by earnings is in the following tables.

  Capital Limits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the capital limits in those benefits for which he is responsible expressed in(a) cash terms and (b) terms of years of maximum ISA allowances at (i) the first year rate and (ii) subsequent yearly rates. [111363]

  Mr. Bayley
  (a) The capital limits for the income-related benefits are given in the table.

  £

  Benefit

  Lower capital limit

  Upper capital limit

  Income Support

  3,000

  8,000

  110,000

  116,000

  Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance

  3,000

  8,000

  110,000

  116,000

  Housing Benefit

  3,000

  16,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  3,000

  16,000

  1 For residential care and nursing home cases

  (b) (i) Expressed as years of maximum ISA allowances, for accounts opened in the period April 1999-March 2000, a person making the maximum investment of £7,000 would reach the £8,000 benefit upper limit during the second year, and the £16,000 limit during the third year. (ii) For investments started in subsequent years where the maximum ISA allowance is £5,000, a person would reach the £8,000 benefit upper limit during the second year, and the £16,000 limit during the fourth year.

  Savings (Income)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the tariff incomes schedule of attributed income from savings was last revised; what rate of return is assumed by the schedule; and what changes in the schedule would result if current bank rate plus 1 per cent. was used to determine the base for the Schedule. [111361]

  Mr. Bayley
  The tariff income rule has remained unchanged since its introduction in 1988. However, in 1990 the upper capital limit for Income Support was increased from £6,000 to £8,000. In 1996 higher capital limits for people living permanently in a residential care or a nursing home were introduced. The capital limits are kept under regular review but are not increased annually.

  The basis for the Department's calculation of tariff income in the income-related benefits, with a system of graduated deductions between lower and higher limits, is not intended to represent any return that could be obtained from investing capital and hence is not based on the current bank rate or any other rate of return. A tariff income of £1 per week is assumed for each £250, or part thereof, held between the appropriate lower and upper limits1. This system provides a straightforward method of
  896W
  calculating the weekly contribution which people with capital in excess of the lower limit are expected to make from those resources to help meet their normal living expenses.

  Notes:

  1. £3,000 and £8,000 in Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance; except in residential care home and nursing home cases where the limits are £10,000 and £16,000; and Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit where the limits are £3,000 and 16,000.

  2. Based on Quoted (nominal) sterling interest rates—households sectors—Bank Timed Deposits—December 1999.

  3. Applying the notional interest rate to the band midpoint.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people have benefited from(a) the New Deal for disabled people and (b) the disabled person's tax credit in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [111446]

  Mr. Bayley
  Three of the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) innovative Schemes provide national coverage, so are available to disabled people in Shropshire. By the end of January 2000 the NDDP had helped 2,180 people into work out of over 8,000 participants. Separate figures for Shropshire are not available.

  The Inland Revenue has responsibility for Disabled Person's Tax Credit. By the end of January 2000 there have been 27 awards of the Disabled Person's Tax Credit in Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency and 88 awards in the county of Shropshire.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each month since January 1998, the number of counter applicants at the Benefits Agency offices at Finsbury Park and Highgate; and what is the Agency's estimate of the adequacy of staff numbers to deal with them. [110487]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 21 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list, for each month since January 1998, the number of counter applicants at the Benefits Agency (BA) offices at Finsbury Park and Highgate; and what is the Agency's estimate of the adequacy of staff numbers to deal with them.
  The number of counter applicants at Finsbury Park and Highgate Branch Offices is shown in the attached tables.
  I am aware of the staffing position in both of these Branch Offices as well as the other Branch Offices in the Chilterns South district. I am satisfied that the current staffing levels are sufficient to meet BA service standards for customers who attend these offices. In addition, arrangements are in place to deal with any disruptions to services in the local office network.

  897W
  The estimate of staff required to deal with callers is termed as Highgate branch office complement, and is based on workload. It is detailed in the attached table. The actual staffing levels in the period are also included as "staff in post" figure.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Finsbury Park branch office counter applicants

  Month

  1998

  1998

  2000

  January

  5,426

  5,273

  5,556

  February

  5,131

  4,929

  March

  5,376

  6,038

  April

  5,377

  5,384

  May

  4,463

  4,775

  June

  5,317

  5,835

  July

  5,947

  5,692

  August

  4,730

  5,686

  September

  5,514

  6,363

  October

  5,410

  5,620

  November

  5,045

  6,264

  December

  3,841

  5,022

  Total

  61,577

  66,881

  Highgate branch office counter applicants

  Month

  1998

  1998

  2000

  January

  4,698

  4,280

  5,300

  February

  4,620

  4,225

  March

  4,668

  5,363

  April

  4,666

  4,608

  May

  4,402

  4,126

  June

  4,880

  5,066

  July

  5,090

  5,029

  August

  4,335

  5,154

  September

  4,955

  5,655

  October

  4,565

  5,097

  November

  4,635

  5,231

  December

  4,193

  4,420

  Total

  55,707

  58,254

  Finsbury Park branch office

  Staff in post

  Complement

  January 1998:

  C3

  —

  —

  B3

  6

  4

  A4

  16

  15

  A1

  2

  1

  Total

  24

  20

  January 1999:

  C3

  1

  1

  B3

  5

  5

  A4

  16.8

  17

  A1

  2

  3

  Total

  24.8

  26

  January 2000:

  C3

  1

  1

  B3

  8

  6

  A4

  16.5

  17

  A1

  2

  2

  Total

  27.5

  26

  898W

  Highgate branch office

  Staff in post

  Complement

  January 1998:

  C3

  —

  —

  B3

  7

  4

  A4

  20

  15

  A1

  1

  1

  Total

  28

  20

  January 1999:

  C3

  1

  1

  B3

  7

  5

  A4

  16

  15

  A1

  1

  1

  Total

  25

  22

  January 2000:

  C3

  1

  1

  B3

  7

  6

  A4

  16.8

  17

  A1

  1.8

  2

  Total

  26.6

  26

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number of people over the age of 60 years who are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled in(a) the UK and (b) Sefton. [110364]

  Mr. Rooker
  Latest estimates of take-up of income related benefits covering the year 1997–98 for Great Britain were placed in the Library on 24 September 1999.

  It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of numbers not claiming their entitlement at local level.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his policy on inclusion of invalid care allowance in a person's income when assessing eligibility for housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [110774]

  Mr. Bayley
  Most income is taken into consideration when assessing income related benefits. There is no disregard of payments of Invalid Care Allowance when assessing eligibility for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. To do so would duplicate payments from public funds for the same purpose. There are no plans to change this policy.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the claim process for the winter fuel allowance for men between the ages of 60 and 65. [110808]

  Angela Eagle
  We are currently considering the options for the secure and accurate delivery of Winter Fuel payments. An announcement on this and the claim process will be made soon.

HEALTH

  Health Services (Hull)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for combating long-term illnesses in impoverished areas in(a) West Hull primary care group, (b) East Hull primary care group and (c) East Riding Primary care group. [110355]

  Yvette Cooper
  East Riding Health Authority has indicated that it plans to combat long-term illness in impoverished areas in the East Riding Health Authority Primary Care Groups through the following initiatives:

  Strategic review of continuing care services.

  Mental health promotion and prevention.

  Establishment of a Centre for Independent Living.

  Development of an integrated care scheme to provide social and nursing care.

  Primary care group name

  Primary care group unique reference number

  Total health authority allocation split to primary care groups (£000)

  Allocation devolved to primary care group responsibility (£000)

  percentage of allocating devolved to primary care groups

  Primary care group registered population1 (Thousand)

  Eastern Hull

  4XC94

  81,752

  41,032

  50.19

  126

  West Hull

  4LP07

  106,025

  53,432

  50.40

  166

  East Yorkshire

  4TG10

  83,377

  43,819

  52.56

  146

  Yorkshire Wolds and Coast

  4RV24

  89,934

  48,091

  53.47

  141

  HA total

  —

  361,088

  186,374

  —

  579

  1 Registered population represents:

  The resident population of East Riding Health Authority less those East Riding Health residents registered with a Primary Care Group outside the Health Authority boundary plus those residents of adjacent health authorities who are registered with a Primary Care Group within East Riding health authority boundary.

  Source:

  East Riding Health Authority

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the budget for the health authority encompassing the areas of(a) West Hull, (b) East Hull and (c) the East Riding. [110354]

  Mr. Denham
  For 2000–01 the unified allocation for East Riding health authority is £387.7 million.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Government initiatives to address inequalities in the National Health System in(a) West Hull primary care group, (b) East Hull primary care group and (c) East Riding primary care group. [110356]

  Yvette Cooper
  East Riding health authority has indicated the following initiatives in:West Hull Primary Care Group

  Sure Start Programme in Orchard Park.

  Sexual Health Resource Centre.

  Establishment of smoking prevention and smoking cessation programme.

  Introduction of stroke prevention worker.

  Support and prevention project for domestic violence.

  Development of Prison Healthy Living Centre.

  Establishment of primary care centre in central Hull focusing on the provision of medical care for socially excluded groups.

  Development of a Dental Access Centre.

  Development of a mental health strategy.

  Intermediate Care Scheme.

  900W

  Expansion of renal dialysis services.

  Establishment of smoking prevention and smoking cessation programmes.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average level of public funding per ward for cancer services in(a) West Hull primary care group, (b) the East Hull primary care group, (c) the East Riding primary care group and (d) the United Kingdom. [110310]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not held at ward level.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the funding is for the primary care groups of(a) West Hull, (b) East Hull and (c) the East Riding in the current financial year. [110358]

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

  Review of substance misuse services.

  Established community based outpatient clinics.

  Eastern Hull Primary Care Group

  Sure Start Programme in Marfleet.

  Sexual Health Resource Centre.

  Establishment of smoking prevention and smoking cessation programme.

  Introduction of stroke prevention worker.

  Support and prevention project for domestic violence.

  Development of Prison Healthy Living Centre.

  Establishment of primary care centre in central Hull focusing on the provision of medical care for socially excluded groups.

  Development of a Dental Access Centre.

  Development of a mental health strategy.

  Intermediate Care Scheme.

  Review of substance misuse services.

  Established community based outpatient clinics.

  East Riding Primary Care Groups (East Yorkshire Primary Care Group and Yorkshire Wolds and Coast Primary Care Group

  Introduction of a multi-agency programme to tackle rural stress.

  Introduction of Personal Dental Services Pilot.

  Sexual Health Resource Centre.

  Establishment of smoking prevention and smoking cessation programme.

  Introduction of stroke prevention worker.

  901W

  Support and prevention project for domestic violence.

  Development of Prison Healthy Living Centre.

  Undertakers (Southampton)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the undertakers who were invited to tender for the contract for the removal of bodies out of hours at Milford-on-Sea Community Hospital; [106390]

  (2) what is the price paid by Southampton University NHS Trust to undertakers for the removal of each cadaver under the existing out of hours contractual arrangements; [106392]

  (3) if he will list the hospitals which share the same contract for out of hours removal of bodies at Milford-on-Sea Community Hospital. [106391]

  Ms Stuart
  The undertakers invited to tender for the contract for the removal of bodies out of hours for the Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority area were:

  Beastons

  J. Bevois and Son

  Co-op Funeral Services

  Diamond and Sons

  B. Matthews

  Simplicity Funerals

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust is forecasting payment of between £20,000 to £23,000 this year as part of their contracts with local undertakers. The price paid by Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust for the removal of each cadaver under the existing out of hours contractual arrangements is not held centrally.

  Milford-on-Sea Hospital shares the same contract for out of hours removal of bodies with Lymington Hospital, both managed by Southampton Community Health Services NHS Trust.

  Table 1: Number of calls to NHS Direct sites, in thousands, since November

  NHS Direct site

  November 1999

  December 1999

  20–26 December

  27 December-2 January

  3–9 January

  10–16 January

  17–23 January

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  —

  7

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  East Midlands

  11

  22

  6

  10

  6

  6

  5

  East Yorkshire

  4

  8

  2

  3

  2

  2

  1

  Essex

  8

  16

  4

  6

  4

  4

  3

  Hampshire

  6

  11

  3

  4

  3

  3

  3

  Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  —

  1

  2

  5

  2

  2

  1

  Lancashire

  7

  14

  4

  6

  4

  4

  3

  Manchester

  10

  19

  4

  7

  5

  5

  4

  North East

  14

  18

  5

  7

  6

  5

  4

  South East London

  5

  10

  2

  3

  3

  3

  2

  South West London

  —

  1

  2

  4

  2

  2

  2

  South Yorkshire/South Humber

  —

  4

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Thames Valley

  7

  10

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  West Country

  11

  22

  6

  8

  7

  7

  6

  West London

  15

  25

  7

  10

  7

  6

  5

  West Midlands

  10

  20

  6

  8

  5

  5

  4

  West Yorkshire

  11

  24

  5

  9

  6

  6

  5

  England

  120

  234

  65

  97

  68

  66

  55

  1 Sites unable to provide validated statistics for December.

  Notes:

  1. Kent, Surrey and Sussex; South West London; and South Yorkshire/South Humberside became operational at third wave at the end of November, while Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire became operational mid-November. These sites did not produce November activity statistics.

  2. Prior to December 1999 this information was collected only on a monthly basis.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the unit cost to his Department of handling a telephone inquiry at each call centre of NHS Direct. [107083]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: We envisage the cost of NHS Direct to be approximately £8 per telephone call. This compares favourably to the cost per accident and emergency attendance £42 (1997–98) and cost per general practitioner contact £10.55 (1996–97).

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state in respect of each call centre of NHS Direct(a) how many telephone calls were received from members of the public, (b) how many calls were answered by an answerphone or other courtesy message service, giving in each case the time and duration of the calls, (c) the average duration of a call and (d) how many callers were advised to contact their general practitioner in each week from the week beginning 1 November 1999 to date. [107079]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: The number of telephone calls answered by NHS Direct at each call centre is shown in the table for November and December and for each week since 20 December.

  The number of calls answered by a message or an answerphone is not collected. Over the Christmas and new year holiday period, the standard call-centre practice of using messages to inform the public about the service was incorporated into NHS Direct.

  As with any new telephone-based service, call lengths reduce over time as operators become more familiar with their system. Call lengths for nurse triage calls in December averaged about 12 minutes.

  The proportion of callers advised by NHS Direct to contact their general practitioner averages about 40 per cent. each month.

  903W

  Breakdown of calls per call centre

  Site

  Total calls

  Average call duration

  North East

  64,517

  453.33

  East Yorkshire

  16,222

  554.50

  West Yorkshire

  54,049

  302.73

  South Yorkshire

  12,542

  464.69

  Lancashire

  54,266

  361.02

  Manchester

  54,469

  433.27

  East Midlands

  51,903

  353.33

  West Midlands

  82,860

  466.95

  Beds and Herts

  18,732

  469.55

  Callers advised to contact their general practitioner

  site

  November

  December

  20–26 December

  27 December-2 January

  3–9 January

  10–16 January

  17–23 January

  North East

  2,553

  3,420

  783

  1,114

  947

  964

  858

  East Yorkshire

  1,434

  2,428

  354

  1,223

  739

  592

  491

  West Yorkshire

  2,489

  9,533

  1,848

  4,031

  2,759

  2,350

  2,040

  South Yorkshire

  —

  1,373

  123

  233

  153

  138

  112

  Lancashire

  2,143

  4,298

  1,031

  1,702

  1,247

  1,126

  1,023

  Manchester

  3,065

  5,225

  1,243

  1,934

  1,523

  1,668

  1,025

  East Midlands

  1,916

  4,031

  1,600

  3,596

  1,570

  1,420

  1,175

  West Midlands

  3,828

  7,026

  1,672

  2,425

  1,825

  1,585

  1,318

  Beds and Herts

  420

  2,540

  779

  1,087

  601

  677

  654

  Thames Valley

  2,045

  3,407

  813

  1,168

  964

  962

  792

  Essex

  2,750

  4,804

  960

  1,508

  1,122

  1,071

  937

  West London

  6,612

  10,559

  2,433

  4,153

  2,748

  2,019

  1,838

  South East London

  1,164

  202

  373

  716

  588

  508

  413

  South West London

  —

  4,900

  485

  734

  542

  382

  483

  South East Counties

  —

  —

  574

  751

  629

  548

  430

  West Country

  3,395

  10,802

  808

  2,465

  1,957

  1,889

  1,778

  Hampshire

  1,586

  3,504

  888

  1,346

  956

  987

  905

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the report his Department has received from Sheffield University on NHS Direct. [111121]

  Ms Stuart
  Sheffield University's interim report is in the Library. This was published in March 1999. Sheffield University's final report on NHS Direct is expected shortly. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls have been made to NHS Direct over the last six months; and what proportion of those calls were made by carers. [110735]

  Ms Stuart
  Between July and December 1999 NHS Direct received more than 750,000 calls. NHS Direct nurses ascertain the relationship between the caller and the patient for every call. Details for these relationships are shown in the table for December 1999.

  Percentage

  Self

  53

  Child

  25

  Parent

  6

  Spouse/Partner

  8

  Other relative

  4

  Friend/associate

  1

  In my professional care

  1

  other

  2

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the additional funding that 904W

  Breakdown of calls per call center

  Site

  Total calls

  Average call duration

  Thames Valley

  41,232

  392.91

  Essex

  51,313

  267.54

  West London

  79,005

  327.57

  South East London

  16,053

  299.91

  South West London

  15,046

  326.67

  South West Counties

  16,053

  445.99

  West Country

  63,464

  466.73

  Hampshire

  32,943

  355.01

  will be made available to Wakefield health authority in each of the next five years, following the Prime Minister's recent announcement on NHS spending. [107607]

  Mr. Denham
  2000–01 health authority allocations were announced on 21 December 1999. The allocation for Wakefield health authority for 2000–01 is £227.89 million. This represents an increase of £14.80 million (6.95 per cent.). Decisions on expenditure plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04 will be taken in due course as part of the current spending review.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what socio-economic factors and indices are included as part of the weighted capitation formula used when determining funding for health authorities and whether the formula is under review. [110942]

  Mr. Denham
  The weighted capitation formula used to inform allocations to English health authorities includes a wide range of socio-economic variables associated with the need for healthcare. These are described in "Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formulas". Copies are available in the Library.

  There is currently a wide-ranging review of the formula.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on plans to employ social workers from South Africa; and what plans he has to encourage more people into the profession in Britain. [107598]

  Mr. Hutton
  Although vacancy rates for social workers are among some of the lowest for a decade, we are concerned that social workers must be available in the
  905W
  right numbers if we are to deliver the higher quality of services that users and their carers deserve, and if we are to make a success of vital new initiatives such as Quality Protects.

  It is the responsibility of local authorities, as employers, to ensure that they have sufficient social workers who are competent and safe to practise. It is a matter for each local authority to consider whether a possible answer to an immediate recruitment difficulty is to recruit social workers from abroad.

  We are maintaining the traditional professional social work courses in higher education. In addition we have funded the development of open and distant learning routes in social work to maintain a wide access gate to these professional qualifications. We also believe that the employers should be doing more to develop the skills and commitment of the nearly 900,000 staff they employ in social care and provide more of these staff with access to professional social work training.

  Without wishing to take away from the employers their responsibility for their own workforce, the Government can act positively to stimulate debate among employment interests as to how best to tackle problems of recruitment and retention and to give a boost to the morale and standing of staff in the social services.

  We therefore propose to host a summit meeting of all the key employment interests including employers, staff and professional associations across all sectors of social care. We intend to see employment interests put in place a positive campaign of action on the recruitment and retention issues of the whole social care workforce, not just those of professional social workers.

  Drugs Purchases (North Essex)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cost to the National Health Service of the purchase of drugs within the area of the North Essex Health Authority for each year since 1995. [109437]

  Ms Stuart
  The information available is in the table.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  NHS Trust expenditure

  10,589,000

  12,514,000

  14,491,000

  Prescription pricing authority (PPA)1

  65,340,000

  70,898,000

  75,354,000

  Total

  75,929,000

  83,412,000

  89,845,000

  1estimates

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1995–96 are not on a comparable basis, as although there was a North Essex District Health Authority, the Family Health Services Authority covered the whole of Essex.

  2. Trust expenditure on drugs and gases is from the Trust Financial Returns for the eight National Health Service Trusts where North Essex Health Authority is the major commissioner. This is not audited information and will include some expenditure incurred for other commissioners.

  3. An estimate of drugs expenditure is available by individual health authority from the Prescription Pricing Authority's EPACT system. The national estimated total expenditure for all health authorities supplied by the Prescription Pricing Authority does not equal the total included in their audited accounts of health authorities.

  Nurses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses left the NHS for retirement in each of the last 10 years. [108222]

  Mr. Denham
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase spending on NHS dentistry. [109854]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have accepted in full the recommendations of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' remuneration. These include an increase of 3.3 per cent. in general dental practitioners' (GDPs') remuneration and awards totalling about £17 million per year in England to reward GDPs' commitment to the National Health Service. The Review Body's recommendations will increase expenditure by over £50 million a year. The other principal factor determining expenditure on the General Dental Service will be the number of patients registered and treated by individual GDPs. As they work within a non cash limited service, their activity is not constrained to a fixed, pre-set budget. Expenditure levels on the Community and Hospital Dental Services are set by individual health authorities in the light of their local operational needs and priorities. We are considering currently what, if any, further expenditure is needed.

  CCTV
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will install close circuit television in units for patients with mental or learning disabilities. [109675]

  Mr. Hutton
  The safety of both patients and staff is best protected by adequate staffing levels, appropriate training, clear operational policies, and proper supervision and monitoring. Use of CCTV would be a matter for local decision, and in cases of secure accommodation would be used to monitor public and secure perimeter areas.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those previously planned meetings, and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109894]

  Ms Stuart
  No previously planned meetings have been cancelled since the new Austrian government was formed.

  Dental Laboratories
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to improve the quality of work produced by dental laboratories since May 1997. [109945]
  907W
  Mr. Hutton
  All dental materials used to manufacture dental appliances must be safe and fit for their purpose and must meet the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations. Dental appliances must be manufactured in accordance with a dentist's instructions.

  Regulations provide that in providing general dental services a dentist shall employ a proper degree of skill and attention, and use only materials suitable for the purpose for which they are used.

  Clinical governance is being implemented in the general dental services which will improve the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dental treatment There is a system by which restorations which are claimed to have been placed can be inspected by a Dental Reference Officer of the Dental Practice Board.

  Mind Report
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will assess the report, "Counting the Cost", published on 9 February by Mind. [109957]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are already making use of Mind's report, which we funded, in a series of events around the country designed to engage the media in constructive dialogue about the way they report mental health issues. The report, together with an evaluation of these events, will also help us to plan future initiatives.

  Drugs Supply
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drug companies supply the NHS; and if he will list the major suppliers. [110555]

  Ms Stuart
  In 1998 approximately 700 companies supplied the National Health Service with proprietary medicines. This figure for all prescriptions dispensed in the community in England is based on statistics from the Prescription Cost Analysis system.

  The 40 major companies supplying the NHS with branded medicines (defined as those with NHS sales of £20 million or more in 1998) are listed.

  3M Health Care Ltd.

  Abbott Laboratories Ltd.

  Astra Pharmaceuticals

  Baxter Healthcare Ltd.

  Bayer plc

  Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd.

  Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Du Pont Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Eli Lilly and Company Ltd.

  Glaxo Wellcome

  Hoechst Marion Roussel

  Janssen Cilag Ltd.

  Knoll Ltd.

  Leo Laboratories Ltd.

  Lorex Synthelabo Ltd.

  Lundbeck Ltd.

  Medeva Pharma Ltd.

  Merck Sharpe & Dohme Ltd

  908W

  Napp Pharmaceuticals Group

  Norton Healthcare

  Novartis Pharmaceuticals Group

  Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Organon Laboratories Ltd.

  Pasteur Merieux Ltd.

  Pfizer Ltd.

  Pharmacia and Upjohn Ltd.

  Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals

  Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd.

  Rhone Poulenc Rorer Ltd.

  Roche Products Ltd.

  Sanofi Winthrop Ltd.

  Schering Health Care Ltd.

  Schering-Plough Ltd.

  Searle

  Servier Laboratories Ltd.

  SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals

  Solvay Healthcare Ltd.

  Warner Lambert

  Wyeth

  Zeneca Pharmaceuticals.

  We do not hold central information on suppliers of generic medicines in the UK in the same way as for branded medicines. Based on published accounts, the major suppliers of generic medicines in the UK (defined as those with sales in the UK of £20 million or more in 1998 (unless otherwise stated) are listed.

  Norton Healthcare (based on sales figures for 1997)

  Generics (UK) Ltd.

  Cox Pharmaceuticals

  APS Berk Pharmaceutical

  CP Pharmaceuticals (based on 12 month sales to end June 1998)

  Lagap Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pre-training courses exist for people interested in taking up nursing as a profession; what steps he is taking to extend such courses; and if he will make a statement. [110559]

  Mr. Denham
  A number of steps are being taken to extend the accepted entry routes into nurse training. The new model of nurse education that was announced in "Making a Difference" will deliver more flexible career pathways into and through nursing and midwifery education. Initiatives include:Developing more access courses.
  The introduction of nurse 'cadet' schemes which lead to individuals being able to achieve the qualifications sufficient to meet the entry requirements to a pre-registration nursing or midwifery course, eg NVQ level 3.
  Stronger links between vocational training and pre-registration education allowing people to take up a career as a qualified nurse later in life.
  Expansion of part time and more flexible pre-registration nursing diploma programmes including the development of 'stepping on and off' points on nurse education programmes.
  Expansion of secondment opportunities for National Health Service employees to access pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma programmes.
  909W
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that trainee nurses undergo practical experience with patients at an early stage of their training; and if he will make a statement. [110560]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the new model of nurse education that was announced in 'Making a Difference: Strengthening the nursing, midwifery and health visiting contribution to health and healthcare', steps are now being taken to ensure that nursing students have higher quality and longer placements and the opportunity to start to acquire the necessary clinical skills for practice from the beginning of their programme.

  Drugs Bill
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the total cost of drugs to the NHS in(a) gross and (b) net terms for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [110557]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Gross NHS drugs bill

  Net NHS drugs bill

  1989–90

  1,951

  1,942

  1990–91

  2,092

  2,080

  1991–92

  2,335

  2,317

  1992–93

  2,651

  2,641

  1993–94

  2,979

  2,951

  1994–95

  3,252

  3,230

  1995–96

  3,505

  3,498

  1996–97

  3,808

  3,774

  1997–98

  4,107

  4,085

  1998–99

  4,356

  4,339

  Note:

  1.The gross figure represents FHS and HCHS costs

  2. The net figure has PPRS receipts deducted

  Drugs Recycling
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage the recycling of drugs not taken by patients; and if he will make a statement. [110554]

  Ms Stuart
  We are taking no such steps. Recycling of drugs is unsafe.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued in respect of access to intensive care beds for elderly patients. [110433]

  Ms Stuart
  Guidelines on admissions to and discharge from intensive care and high dependency units were issued in March 1996. The guidelines provide advice according to severity of illness and not according to age. Copies of the guidelines are available in the Library.

  Stoma Services
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stoma nurses working in the NHS are sponsored by dispensing appliance contractors; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of sponsored clinical personnel. [110929]
  910W
  Ms Stuart
  Sponsorship of Stoma nurses is by local arrangement.

  The Department expects all staff to adhere to high standards of business conduct, as set out in existing guidelines published in January 1993—Standards of business conduct for National Health Service staff (HSG(93)5).

  Consultation has recently taken place on updated guidance, which we expect to be available shortly, which will specifically address stoma care nurses.

  Hospital Outpatient Appointments
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of first appointments not attended by patients at hospital outpatient departments; and if he will make a statement. [110896]

  Ms Stuart
  There are a number of examples of good practice already introduced by National Health Service trusts to reduce the number of patients that fail to turn up for appointments. These include issuing reminder letters and installing dedicated 24 hour answerphones so that patients can call to cancel their appointments at a time that suits them.

  The recent report "Variations in NHS Outpatient Performance" recommends the introduction of partial booking systems as a step towards total booking systems. In a partial booking system, patients are informed upon receipt of the general practitioner's referral letter of the waiting time for that particular clinic, and the patient is asked to telephone the hospital a few weeks before that time to arrange a convenient date. Evidence suggests that this process reduces the number of occasions where patients fail to attend appointments.

  The introduction of booking systems—so that patients can pre-book an appointment/admission date that is convenient to them—is a key part of the modernisation agenda. 24 pilots began to introduce these systems in September 1998. Most of these booked admissions pilots have significantly reduced the "Did Not Attend" (DNA) rates, with some eliminating them altogether. In September 1999, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a further 60 pilots to take forward this part of the modernisation agenda, increasing the coverage to around 2 million patients.

  Devonshire Royal Hospital Site, Buxton
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the final plans for the disposal of the Devonshire Royal Hospital site, Buxton. [110843]

  Ms Stuart
  The process of selecting a preferred purchaser is not yet finalised, however, the National Health Service is planning to vacate the site in July this year and decommissioning should be completed by September 2000.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of hyperbaic oxygen therapy for MS; and if he will make a statement. [110707]
  911W
  Mr. Denham
  There are no current United Kingdom marketing authorisations for hyperbaic oxygen indicated for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. Therefore, it is not licensed in the UK as a medicinal product for this purpose and the Medicines Control Agency cannot comment as to its safety, quality and efficacy for this kind of treatment.

  Mrs. Hilary Pearce
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a public inquiry into the events and procedures surrounding the death of Mrs. Hilary Pearce at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge; and if he will make a statement. [110842]

  Ms Stuart
  Addenbrooke's Hospital National Health Service Trust has offered its sincerest apologies to the family of Mrs. Pearce following this dreadful mistake which caused her tragic death. The trust has conducted an internal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding this incident and Mrs. Pearce' s family has been given the full report of the findings. The trust has taken this matter seriously and has already put in place action in response to the recommendations of the inquiry.

  Too often we hear of incidents occurring in the NHS which should have been avoidable if the lessons of past experience had been properly learned. That is why last year we asked the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, to convene an expert group to examine the mechanisms by which the NHS currently analyses and learns from adverse health care events and to make recommendations for improvements. The group will report to Health Ministers shortly and we will be looking very carefully indeed at what it has to say.

  Premature Deaths (Somerset)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the principal causes of premature death in Somerset in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [110800]

  Ms Stuart
  The 10 most common causes of death in 1998 for residents of Somerset aged under 75-years-old is given in the tables:

  Females

  Total deaths—all causes

  721

  ICD1

  ICD9 410–414 Ischaemic heart disease

  100

  ICD9 174 Malignant neoplasm of female breast

  66

  ICD9 430–438 Cerebrovascular disease

  52

  ICD9 162 Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung,

  39

  ICD9 490–496 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and allied conditions

  35

  ICD9 480–186 Pneumonia

  28

  ICD9 153 Malignant neoplasm of colon

  26

  ICD9 183 Malignant neoplasm of ovary and other uterine adnexa

  25

  ICD9 199 Malignant neoplasm without specification of site

  25

  ICD9 150 Malignant neoplasm of oesophagus

  14

  ICD 157 Malignant neoplasm of pancreas

  14

  ICD9 571 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis

  14

  438

  1 Interational classification of diseases,ninth revision

  912W

  Males

  Total deaths—all causes

  1,132

  ICD1

  ICD9 410–414 Ischaemic heart disease

  294

  ICD9 162 Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung

  88

  ICD9 430–438 Cerebrovascular disease

  54

  ICD9 490–496 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and allied conditions

  45

  ICD9 480–486 Pneumonia

  41

  ICD9 185 Malignant neoplasm of prostate

  40

  ICD9 441 Aortic aneurysm

  37

  ICD9 E950–E959 Suicide and ICD E980-E989 exc. E988.8 Self inflicted injury where it is undetermined whether injury accidentally or purposely inflicted

  32

  ICD9 199 Malignant neoplasm without specification of site

  30

  ICD9 153 Malignant neoplasm of colon

  29

  690

  1 International classification of diseases, ninth revision

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics database.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), of 2 February to the hon. Member for Lewes, on xenotransplantation, what disposal methods are authorised for meat from pigs subject to xenotransplantation procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if such meat is deemed suitable for human consumption. [111049]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The Home Office Code of Practice for the Humane Killing of Animals under Schedule 1 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 lists appropriate methods for the killing of animals regulated by the Act and advice on disposal of carcases.

  Meat from genetically modified animals, such as those used in some xenotransplantation procedures, cannot enter the food chain without approval under the Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulations (258/7). Genetically modified animals would fall within the category of
  "foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms within the meaning of Directive 90/220/EEC".

  Before approval could be granted an application would have to be made within the European Union seeking clearance for meat from such animals to be placed on the market. Any application would have to demonstrate that the meat was safe for human consumption. No applications under the Novel Food Regulations have been made relating to meat from animals used in xenotransplantation procedures.

  Midwives
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified midwives were employed in the NHS(a) in 1979, (b) in 1997 and (c) at the latest available dates. [111316]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Information about numbers of midwives employed by the National Health Service is collected as at 30 September each year. Latest figures are as at 30 September 1998. The information is shown in the table.
  913W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Midwives, in England, as at 30 September each year

  Number (headcount)

  19791

  14,620

  1997

  22,380

  1998

  22,840

  1 State certified midwives in hospital and at area and district. Figures exclude learners and agency staff. 1979 figure not directly comparable with later years.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England (HPSSS)

  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances he renews a core grant to a voluntary organisation beyond the normal period for which such grants are payable. [110920]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The Section 64 General Scheme of grants is the Department's main channel of support to the voluntary sector. Core grants, as well as project grants, are awarded for up to three years to national voluntary organisations. There is no bar to any voluntary organisation applying for renewal core funding, but a renewal application should concentrate on showing why and how continued funding would help the Department to achieve its aims, and the outputs and achievements that a grant would produce.

  Electro-convulsive Treatment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients(a) under and (b) over the age of 18 years were given electro-convulsive treatment in England and Wales (i) with and (ii) without their consent for each of the last two years. [111416]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the form requested. A one-off survey covering the period from January 1999 to March 1999, England only, was undertaken to provide an up to date and accurate snapshot picture of the use of electro-convulsive treatment (ECT). Prior to this information previously recorded on ECT did not provide an accurate picture on the use of ECT. Any data collected in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  The results of the survey are contained in the Department of Health Statistical bulletin "Electro Convulsive Therapy: Survey covering the period from January 1999 to March 1999, England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Naloxone/Nacran
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake a consultation exercise on extending the categories of health professionals qualified to administer the drug Naloxone/Nacran, to include ambulance technicians. [111166]

  Ms Stuart
  Any extension to the groups of professionals who may administer injectable medicines such as Naloxone without a doctor's directions and on their own initiative, would require an amendment to the Prescription Only Medicine (Human Use) Order 1997.914W
  There is an established process whereby advice is sought from the Committee on Safety of Medicines on an application prior to public consultation. Currently there is no application under consideration and I have no plans to undertake a consultation exercise. Naloxone may be administered by ambulance paramedics as they are one of the groups mentioned above.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Government initiatives in the primary care system to address coronary heart disease. [110353]

  Yvette Cooper
  Primary care initiatives have an important role to play in health promotion and in preventing coronary heart disease (CHD). The main risk factors are smoking, physical inactivity, obesity and poor diet. Since 1990, the terms of services for general practitioners has obliged them to provide opportunistic health promotion services to patients, including advice about the significance of diet, exercise and the use of tobacco. A locally based health promotion programme for GPs was also introduced from October 1996.

  The National Priorities Guidance (NPG), which sets the Government's aim and objectives for the National Health Service, highlights CHD and smoking as key priorities for modernisation. The NPG directs health authorities and primary care groups to develop services for smoking cessation. Both primary care groups and individual practices should be working closely with these specialist services.

  On 2 February, my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced the launch of the National Primary Care Development Team, a major initiative to enable primary care to cut unnecessary deaths, improve patient access and tackle waiting lists and times. The primary care groups and trusts in this scheme will commit themselves to tackling CHD. In addition, the Government will publish shortly a National Service Framework for CHD, the first ever comprehensive plan to deal with all aspects of this disease. It is an ambitious 10 year strategy that will address both prevention and treatment of CHD, in which primary care teams will be playing a major part.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to increase access to specialists for suspected cancers, with particular reference to the most disadvantaged patients. [110362]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have introduced a two week waiting time standard, which will be in place for all cases of suspected cancer by the end of this year, whereby all patients with suspected cancer referred urgently by their general practitioners for a specialist investigation should be seen within two weeks.

  We are also developing cancer referral guidelines to help GPs and other members of primary care identify more easily those symptoms that could be cancer and require an urgent appointment with a specialist within two weeks. The final guidelines will be published by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in April 2000.
  915W
  We are also increasing the number of cancer specialists. There are currently 400 higher specialist trainees for main cancer specialties—oncology and palliative care. We expect these will emerge from training over the next five years increasing the number of specialists by 60 per cent. Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, is developing a work force strategy and will work with professional bodies and local cancer networks to identify future work force demands and ways in which they could be met.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the outcome was of his consultation on road user charging and the workplace parking levy. [111713]

  Mr. Hill
  Our consultation paper "Breaking the Logjam, the Government's consultation paper on fighting traffic congestion and pollution through road user and workplace parking charges" was published on 8 December 1998. It confirmed our intention to legislate on road user charging and on the workplace parking levy and invited comments by 31 March last year on a wide range on mainly practical issues.

  Some 8,000 copies of "Breaking the Logjam" were distributed, and we received 665 responses. 75 per cent. of the responses which gave an opinion supported or accepted the need for the new charges. The Transport Bill currently before Parliament implements these policies.

  Following our consultation, we are proposing an exemption or concession from the workplace parking levy for National Health Service hospitals.

  We have today published a report analysing the responses we received, and placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office. We are grateful to everyone who responded.

  Antibiotic Marker Genes
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the antibiotic marker genes, and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, that have been used in the genetic modification of plant crops, listing the crops that have been released for research purposes in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the EU, in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [108623]

  Mr. Meacher
  Antibiotic resistance genes are included in some (but not all) GM plants to help identify them in the research and development phase of their production. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has considered the risks posed to the environment by antibiotic resistance genes. It was the Committee's view that, of the ones approved for release, there is little or no evidence that antibiotic resistance genes can escape from crop plants under field conditions, but even if it did happen it would not cause environmental harm, or add 916W
  significantly to the total amount of resistance already widespread in the environment, compared to other uses in medicine and agriculture.

  The table lists the antibiotic marker genes, and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, used in genetic modification of crops for research releases in the United Kingdom during the past five years.

  Gene

  Antibiotic

  nptll or neo

  Aminoglycoside antibiotics including kanamycin, and neomycin

  Aad

  Streptomycin and spectinomycin

  Bla

  Narrow spectrum lactam antibiotics such as ampicillin and amoxycillin

  Hpt

  Hygromycin

  I have today placed in the House Library details of the specification of modified crops including antibiotic marker genes that have been released in the UK for research purposes over the last five years.

  The Joint Research Centre (JRC), through its Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, collate and distribute to member states, Norway and Iceland a summary of each part B (research and development) application received in the EU. In excess of 1,000 (approx.) crops containing antibiotic marker genes have been released for research purposes in the EU in the last five years. To provide information on each crop through this PQ would involve a disproportionate cost because member states have direct control over the licensing the release of GM crops in their own territory. Each member state would therefore need to be contacted individually to clarify the information.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the average time taken between a planning inspector submitting his report to ministers and a decision being taken by ministers in each of the last three years. [110229]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:

  Weeks

  Call ins

  Recovered Appeals

  1997

  21

  19

  1998

  20

  20

  1999

  21

  21

  Called-in and recovered appeal cases, by their nature, tend to raise issues which often need further consideration within the Department before decisions can be taken.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications he called in for decision in each of the last 10 years. [111526]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The figures are as follows:

  Number

  1989–90

  103

  1990–91

  132

  1991–92

  140

  1992–93

  101

  917W

  Number

  1993–94

  99

  1994–95

  167

  1995–96

  144

  1996–97

  139

  1997–98

  147

  1998–99

  138

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the outstanding planning applications which he has called in for decision. [111527]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is as follows:

  288 High Street, Enfield

  Allied London, Bracknell Forest

  Amberswood, Wigan

  Arena Central redevelopment, Birmingham City

  ASDA Old Kent Road, Southwark

  ASDA Park Royal, Ealing

  Auberges des Foultanes, Barnsley

  BAA Logistics Facility, Berkshire

  Barkby Thorpe Lane, Thurmaston, Leics

  Barleycastle, Warrington

  Bietigheim Way, Surrey Heath

  Bietigheim Way, Main Square, Surrey Heath

  Bowden Derra, North Cornwall

  Brent Cross Shopping Centre, Barnet

  Brewery Road, Broxboume

  Broadoaks, Parvis Road, Surrey

  Brockham Park, Gadbrook Road, Mole Valley

  Burntwood Sports, Barnsley

  Bursting Stone Quarry, Lake District National Park Authority

  Bushcliff Farm, Wakefield

  Carina Road, Kettering, Northants

  Chesford Grange, Leek Wootton, Warwick

  Chilwell Dam Farm, Nottingham

  Clearview Tennis Centre, Brentwood

  Cobridge Road, Stoke on Trent

  Coghurst Wood, Rother

  Coghurst Wood, Rother

  Congleton Business Park

  Cottesmore Hunt Kennels, Rutland

  Crockford Bridge Farm, Runnymede

  Crownhill Water Treatment, Plymouth

  Cutacre Opencast Coal Site, Wigan

  Dawley II Opencast Coal Site, Telford and Wrekin

  Diamond Way, Irthlingborough Exeter City Centre, Exeter

  Fen Road, Fenland

  Five Acres Country Club, St. Albans

  Five Oaks Lane, Redbridge

  Flowers Brewery Site, Cheltenham

  Former Bus Depot, Haughton Road, Darlington

  Former Chantry Industrial Estate, Guildford

  Former London Rubber Co, Waltham Forest

  Former Quinton Bus depot, Birmingham City

  Former RAF buildings, Cotswold

  Former South London Hospital for Women, Lambeth

  918W

  Gatliff Road, Westminster

  George Washington County Hotel, Washington, Sunderland

  Glaxo-Wellcome, Bromley

  Goldings, East Hertfordshire

  Grain Silo Park and Ride, Oxford

  Grain Silo Park and Ride, Oxford

  Greenwich University, Greenwich

  Gunton Park, Waveney

  Hamer Ford Site, Tamworth

  Hanbury manor, East Hertfordshire

  Haslingden Road, Blackburn

  Highlands Farm, Rother

  Holborough cement works, Snodland

  Homebase retail, Basingstoke and Deane

  Honeypot Farm, Honeypot Lane, Tandridge

  Hornsey High Street, Haringey

  Hotel at Wotton House, Mole Valley

  Hotel at Wotton House, Mole Valley

  Ingleby Barwick, Stockton-on-Tees

  Iver South Sewage Works (Linked to Terminal 5, Heathrow), Bucks

  Iver South Sewage Works (Linked to Terminal 5, Heathrow), Bucks

  Jaguar Land bounded by A46, Coventry City

  John Dickinson Site, Warrington

  Kenly and Anson Close and Gauntlet Crescent, Tandridge

  Kenyon Station, Warrington

  Key Site 1, Hounslow

  Lakeside Auto Park, Essex

  Land adjacent to Blossom Hill, East Devon

  Land at Coombe Farm, Plymouth

  Land at Lawley Middleway, Birmingham City

  Land North of Obelisk Way, Surrey Heath

  Land West of Park Street, Surrey Heath

  Land West of Park Street, Surrey Heath

  Leas Cliff Hall, Folkestone

  Legal and General, Bracknell Civic Centre, Bracknell Forest

  Legal and General, Bracknell Forest

  Leighton Buzzard Rugby Club, South Bedfordshire

  Lowestoft Road, Waveney

  Medway Valley Leisure Park, Strood

  Middleton Technology School, Middleton

  Multiplex, Kirkby-in-Ashfield

  Newdigate Brickworks, Mole Valley

  Newtown Service Station, South Staffordshire

  Norheads Farm, Bromley

  North Cornwall, Bowden Derra Park

  North Hertfordshire College, Stevenage

  North Wiltshire, Showell Farm

  Northern Gateway Access Road, Enfield

  Northern Gateway Access Road, Epping Forest

  Norton Canes Greyhound, Cannock Chase

  Octavia Road/Unwin Road, Hounslow

  Orbital Park, Wigan

  Portland Sidings, Mansfield, Nottingham

  Proposed new settlement at Corazely, Wokingham

  Proposed new settlement at Spencers Wood and three Mile Cross, Wokingham

  RAF Hendon East Camp, Camden

  919W

  Rawnsley Road (A), Cannock Chase

  Rawnsley Road (B), Cannock Chase

  Rawnsley Road (c), Cannock Chase

  Red Quadrant, Metrocentre, Gateshead

  Restormel, Victoria Business Park

  Restormel, Victoria Business Park

  Roaring Meg Retail Park South, Stevenage

  Roebuck Retail Park, Stevenage

  Rossfield Road, Ellesmere Port

  Rossmore Road, Ellesmere Port

  Safeway, Plough Lane, Merton

  Sandown Hall, Liverpool

  Scarisbrick, West Lancs

  Showell Farm, North Wiltshire

  South Church, Bishop Auckland, Wear Valley

  Spath, East Staffordshire

  Sports Village, Wakefield

  Stone Lodge, Dartford

  Strayfield Works, Enfield

  Sunny Dale, Newcastle under Lyme

  Tarporley Road, North Shropshire

  Tesco Stores Ltd, North Lincolnshire

  Tesco/Former Lorry Park, Enfield

  The Chapel, East Herefordshire

  The Gardens of the Rose, St Albans

  The Linkway, Bolton

  The Oaklands, North Shropshire

  The Valley, Bolton

  Town Square and Cambridge Walk, Surrey Heath

  Trentham Gardens, Stafford

  Year-on-year Council Tax1 changes in somerset 1994–95 to 1999–2000

  percentage

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  (a) Real change

  Mendip

  7.1

  -1.9

  4.3

  4.4

  2.5

  4.9

  Sedgemoor

  4.8

  0.6

  1.3

  5.4

  1.5

  4.8

  Taunton Deane

  2.9

  0.9

  8.5

  5.5

  4.1

  4.8

  West Somerset

  12.0

  0.7

  1.6

  4.1

  3.4

  4.4

  South Somerset

  3.7

  2.5

  -0.0

  4.8

  2.5

  4.7

  (b) Actual change

  Mendip

  8.6

  1.0

  7.7

  7.3

  5.8

  7.3

  Sedgemoor

  6.3

  3.5

  4.5

  8.3

  4.8

  7.2

  Taunton Deane

  4.3

  3.8

  12.0

  8.5

  7.5

  7.2

  West Somerset

  13.6

  3.7

  4.9

  7.1

  6.8

  6.7

  South Somerset

  5.2

  5.5

  3.2

  7.7

  5.8

  7.0

  1 The percentage changes are calculated from the headline Council Tax (Band D, 2 adults) amounts, before transitional relief and Council Tax benefit. These amounts cover the authority's own Council Tax plus the Council Tax of Somerset County Council and Avon and Somerset Police Authority.

  London Transport
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 337W, on London Transport, on what date he will report on London Transport's expenditure on external consultants up to the end of the first half of the current financial year. [110894]
  920W

  Upper beach adjacent to Crangon Cottages, Wealden

  Vic Hallam site, Langley Mill, Derbys

  Warnborough College, Vale of White Horse

  Warnborough College, Vale of White Horse

  Waste Transfer Station and Concrete Crushing Station, West Sussex

  Waste Transfer Station and Concrete Crushing Station, West Sussex

  Waterside Park, Tameside

  Weedon Depot, Northants

  Widnes Town Centre, Widnes

  Willow Farm, Havering

  Wilson Bowden Properties, Wakefield

  Woodbine Cottage, Vale Royal

  Xanadu Complex, Wigan

  Ye Olde Pounde Café, Stratford upon Avon

  The total number of applications listed above is 145. These are at different stages of the process. For instance, some have just been called in, or are at inquiry, or the inspectors' reports have been received following inquiry. Where applications are mentioned more than once this is because a called-in scheme comprises two or more separate applications.

  Council Tax (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the(a) real terms and (b) cash terms rise in the Council Tax in Somerset for each year since 1983–84; and if he will make a statement. [110801]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information for each year since the introduction of Council Tax in 1993–94 is as follows:

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 525W.

  Housing Development
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has
  921W
  to facilitate the building of more homes in villages of fewer than 3,000 people, through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme. [110787]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have asked the Housing Corporation to continue to ensure in the year 2000–01 that 3.4 per cent. of new approvals through the Approved Development Programme are in settlements with a population of 3,000 people or fewer. This will generate 750 new homes.

  The number of new homes produced through the Approved Development Programme in subsequent years will depend on the outcome of this year's Spending Review.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the public inquiry into the Thameslink 2000 project will commence. [111006]

  Mr. Hill
  The inquiry arrangements have not yet been finalised. I hope to make an announcement about this shortly.

  Packaging Recovery
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total revenue raised by the Packaging Recovery Note system in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [110641]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: In 1998, my Department estimates that revenue raised by the Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) System was some £78,000,000. A final outturn for 1999 is not yet available but on the basis of the first three quarters' outtum, our preliminary estimate is that revenue from the PRN system in 1999 will have been in the region of £62,000,000.

  Hedgerow Regulations 1997
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to scrutinise the operation of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. [110907]

  Mr. Mullin
  The report of a review of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 was published in June 1998. This included information from a Local Government Association survey of its members on the operation of the Regulations. We are currently evaluating the results of research into the review proposals and in the light of that expect to publish draft regulations for consultation later this year.

  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of installations to be affected by the introduction of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, specifying(a) pig installations and (b) poultry installations. [110738]

  Mr. Meacher
  Only farms with more than 2,000 places for pigs over 30 kilos or 750 places for sows, or 40,000 places for poultry, will be regulated under IPPC. The Environment Agency estimates that in England and Wales 922W
  this will encompass up to 435 pig installations and about 1,200 broiler installations, and 200 laying hen installations; for poultry, the great majority of installations will not come into IPPC until 2003, and for pigs until 2004.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the charges to be levied by other EU countries and by Scotland consequent upon the introduction of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive; and if he will make a statement. [110737]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency is gathering information on charging practices associated with IPPC in other EU countries. This will inform the development of a long-term charging scheme. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency proposes to apply its existing charging schemes relating to discharges to air, land and water to IPPC as an interim measure, with an increase in tariff of 10 per cent. to reflect the extra regulatory activities associated with IPPC.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government will take with its counterparts in the European Union to ensure that the Montreal Protocol of 1987 is implemented; and if he will make a statement. [110773]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Montreal Protocol is implemented within the European Union by EC Regulation 3093/94 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The current Regulation enables the EU to meet its commitments under the Protocol as agreed by Parties at the Copenhagen Meeting in 1992. A new EC Regulation is currently being agreed which will implement subsequent revisions to the Protocol.

  Conservation
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to protect(a) vascular plants, (b) fungi, (c) lichens, (d) bryophytes and (e) stoneworts; and if he will make a statement. [110706]

  Mr. Mullin
  All wild plants are protected from picking, uprooting and destruction by unauthorised persons under section 13 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  The highest level of protection is given to wild plants of species listed in schedule 8 to the Act. All intentional picking, uprooting and destruction of wild plants of these species is prohibited. Sale of plant species listed in schedule 8 is also prohibited.

  Additionally, there are a number of Biodiversity Action Plans being implemented for many species of vascular plants, fungi, lichens, bryophytes and stoneworts.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of(a) wild flower meadows, (b) open heaths, (c) open peat bogs and (d) hedgerows were (i) destroyed and (ii) seriously damaged between 1979 and 1997 in (x) England and (y) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [110705]
  923W
  Mr. Mullin
  Comprehensive information on loss and damage to wildflower meadows, open heaths, open peat bogs and hedgerows for England for the full period between 1979 and 1997 is not currently available. However, it is estimated that 18 per cent. of non-agriculturally improved grasslands and calcareous grasslands, 2 per cent. of open heaths and 2 per cent. of open peat bogs were converted for agriculture or forestry in Great Britain in the period between 1984 and 1990. It is estimated that 12 per cent. of hedgerows were removed in England and Wales in the period between 1984 and 1993. These losses were partly compensated for by creation and natural regeneration of habitats and planting of new hedges. No separate estimates of damage are currently available for any of these features.

  In Shropshire, the Shropshire Wildlife Trust have estimated that 20 per cent. of wildflower meadows, 6.1 per cent. of open heaths, and 3.5 per cent. of open peat bogs were lost between 1979 and 1989.

  The Department is currently funding Countryside Survey 2000, which will provide up-to-date estimates of change in broad habitat types for Great Britain.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the amount of housing benefit paid to each local authority in respect of council housing for the years 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, and 1999–2000, indicating the average number of recipients for each authority. [110952]

  Mr. Mullin
  A table showing the available information has been placed in the Library. The table shows the Rent Rebate Subsidy Element of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy, which represents eligible expenditure by authorities on rent rebates offset by any assumed surplus on their Housing Element. For some authorities, no Rent Rebate Element is paid because the assumed surplus on the Housing Element exceeds their eligible spending on rent rebates.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which(a) have completed and (b) are in the process of transferring their housing stock by means of a large scale voluntary transfer, indicating the number of units involved for each authority. [110951]

  Mr. Mullin
  The local authorities which have transferred all or part of their housing stock to a new landlord are in the table:

  Local authority

  Number of units

  Chiltern DC

  4,650

  Sevenoaks DC

  6,526

  Newbury DC

  7,053

  Swale DC

  7,352

  Broadland DC

  3,721

  Bedford BC

  7,472

  Medina DC

  2,825

  Rochester CC

  8,029

  S. Wight DC

  2,119

  Mid Sussex DC

  4,466

  E. Dorset DC

  2,245

  Tonbridge and Mailing BC

  6,382

  924W

  Local authority

  Number of units

  Ryedale DC

  3,353

  South Buckinghamshire DC

  3,319

  Christchurch BC

  1,621

  Suffolk Coastal DC

  5,272

  Tunbridge Wells BC

  5,519

  LB Bromley

  12,393

  Surrey Heath BC

  2,885

  Brecklands DC

  6,781

  East Cambridgeshire DC

  4,266

  Hambleton DC

  4,268

  West Dorset DC

  5,279

  Havant BC

  3,561

  Espom and Ewell BC

  1,740

  Hart DC

  2,408

  S. Shropshire DC

  1,500

  Leominster DC

  1,832

  South Ribble BC

  3,445

  Hertsmere BC

  6,070

  Penwith DC

  3,354

  N. Dorset DC

  2,881

  Wychavon DC

  6,563

  Mid Bedfordshire DC

  2,971

  Thanet DC

  2,658

  Vale of White Horse DC

  5,028

  Cherwell DC

  1,322

  Basingstoke and Deane BC

  8,910

  Malvern Hills DC

  4,817

  Maldon DC

  2,006

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  6,217

  Kennet DC

  4,915

  Rushmoor BC

  5,102

  N. Wiltshire DC

  6,100

  Spelthorne BC

  3,645

  E. Hampshire DC

  4,059

  Hastings BC

  4,560

  Eastleigh BC

  4,332

  Wyre BC

  2,951

  Walsall MBC

  1,485

  Manchester City Council

  9,706

  Stratford DC

  6,003

  West Wiltshire DC

  1,769

  Cotswold DC

  4,282

  South Staffs DC

  5,273

  Lichfield DC

  4,921

  South Oxfordshire DC

  5,018

  Eden DC

  1,510

  LB Lambeth

  4,587

  LB Bexley

  8,215

  Congleton DC

  4,061

  Oldham DC

  642

  Liverpool City Council

  5,521

  LB Merton

  1,018

  LB Tower Hamlets

  4,283

  Kerrier DC

  3,732

  LB Hackney

  3,696

  LB Brent

  1,481

  Basildon DC

  708

  West Somerset DC

  1,869

  Stoke-on-Trent CC

  917

  Tewkesbury DC

  3,066

  Rother DC

  3,058

  Wirral DC

  1,082

  Tameside MBC

  901

  West Devon BC

  1,446

  South Somerset DC

  8,883

  East Lindsey DC

  5,102

  South Hams DC

  3,096

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham

  668

  Telford and Wrekin DC

  13,081

  LB Enfield

  1,194

  Worthing DC

  2,525

  Bath and North East Somerset

  9,887

  LB Greenwich

  1,280

  AllerdaleDC

  4,431

  925W

  Local authority

  Number of units

  Preston BC

  1,121

  Birmingham CC

  2,813

  LB Islington

  1,386

  West Lindsey DC

  3,929

  Boston BC

  4,871

  Tynedale DC

  3,564

  Newcastle under Lyme BC

  9,887

  Restormel BC

  3,577

  The following authorities are in the process of transferring their stock:

  Local authority

  Number of units

  Burnley BC

  5,354

  Coventry CC

  20,479

  Elmbridge BC

  5,022

  Huntingdonshire DC

  7,134

  Manchester CC

  2,690

  North Devon DC

  3,382

  LB Richmond

  8,780

  Tameside MBC

  16,959

  Test Valley BC

  5,789

  Weymouth and Portland BC

  3,526

  Wyre Forest DC

  6,440

  LB Hackney

  2,394

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the amount of council house subsidy paid to each local authority in the years 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, and 1999–2000, indicating the number of council houses in each authority in those years. [110950]

  Mr. Mullin
  A table showing the available information has been placed in the Library. For many authorities no housing subsidy was paid because they were in assumed surplus on their Housing Element subsidy and this assumed surplus was offset against payments of Rent Rebate subsidy.

  Care Leavers and Orphans
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of his plans to house care leavers and orphans between the ages 16 and 17 years; and by what amount these proposals will reduce the number of rough sleepers.[110955]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to assist care leavers or orphans between the ages of 16 to 17 with housing unless they are homeless and vulnerable. Local authorities already have a duty to accommodate homeless young people whom they consider to be vulnerable, and therefore in priority need, under the provisions of the Housing Act 1996. We recognise that young people who are leaving care may face particular difficulties in making the transition to independent living, as a consequence of institutionalisation and perhaps having limited back-up support. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' revised draft Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation and Homelessness, due to be published later this year, will therefore recommend that local authorities treat young care leavers, and 16 and 17-year-olds with little or no back-up support, as being vulnerable under the homelessness legislation. This 926W
  clarifies existing local authority duties in order to ensure a greater consistency of approach. As such, it should require no additional cost to public funds. Our Housing Green Paper, also due to be published later this year, will include further measures to improve the protection for unintentionally homeless people.

  The Government have set up the Rough Sleepers Unit, with a budget of almost £200 million, to reduce rough sleeping in England by at least two thirds by 2002. A commitment to focusing on the most vulnerable people on the streets is at the heart of the Unit's approach, and young rough sleepers are among the most vulnerable of all. The revised guidance on housing allocation is one of the ways in which we will prevent future rough sleeping among vulnerable young people. This will complement the provisions of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, and the "Quality Protects" programme, which makes available £375 million to local authorities over three years to increase the support offered to care leavers.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the number of post offices which receive(a) 25 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 75 per cent. and (d) 100 per cent rate relief, for the latest year for which statistics are available; what plans he has to change the funding of, and guidelines for, such rate relief; and if he will make a statement. [110791]

  Ms Armstrong
  The number of post offices receiving rate relief is not held centrally. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  We have no plans to change the funding or extent to which rural post offices can qualify for rate relief under the village shop rate relief scheme.

  The Prime Minister announced on 21 October 1999, Official Report, column 630W, the Post Office Network Project, to identify the contribution made by post offices to the vitality of local communities, consider how the Post Office Network can best contribute to the Government's objectives in the future and in the process formulate objectives for the Post Office Network.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if a public sector comparator was used as a benchmark against which the judgment to proceed with a public/private partnership option for NATS was made in line with the recommendations in technical note 5-The Objectives of a PPP; [110551]

  (2) how he will ensure that an appropriate level of risk will be transferred in the proposed NATS public/private partnership to guarantee value for money for public funds; [110550]

  (3) what economic appraisal techniques were used fully to evaluate the key commercial risks of the public/private partnership for NATS to ensure value for money for public funds. [110549]

  Mr. Mullin
  As set out on page 3 of the Treasury Taskforce Private Finance Guidance (Technical Note No. 5), the Government will ensure a proper competition is
  927W
  held to identify a private sector strategic partner. The Government, along with their financial advisers, have also carried out a proper assessment of the economic and commercial risks, including on proceeds and for major projects such as the New En-Route Centre and the New Scottish Centre. This assessment included both qualitative and quantitative techniques such as risk-adjusted discounted cash flow analysis.

  The Government have also undertaken a comprehensive assessment of benefits offered to NATS, its customers and the public sector compared to retention of NATS in the public sector. In making this assessment, the Government considered a wide range of factors, including qualitative factors such as its objectives for the PPP to improve NATS efficiency and project management abilities. The Government concluded that only a private sector solution, by providing commercial disciplines and access to private sector project management skills, would offer the right combination of benefits to NATS, its customers and the public sector.

  A full analysis was made of how the risks could be best allocated between public and private sectors to ensure that the risks are borne where they are best managed and also to deliver value for money. In the case of the NATS PPP, the risk transfer will be commensurate with the transfer of control to the private sector. Following receipt of tenders from bidders, a final assessment will be made to ensure value for money and a proper transfer of risk.

  Racist Incidents
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many local authorities in England (1) have established schemes for co-operation with(a) the police and (b) other agencies for the purposes of sharing information concerning racist incidents; [111289]

  (2) how many local authorities in England have adopted the definition of racist incident given in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report. [111290]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities in England(a) are and (b) are not participating in multi-agency panels to tackle racial harassment. [110297]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities in England(a) provide and (b) support the provision of facilities for the reporting of racist incidents. [110367]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally. However, following my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's Action Plan, my right hon. Friend will be announcing tomorrow the publication of the first annual report. It will set out the details of progress made and identify action still to be taken across public services.

  In addition, for 2000–01 the Audit Commission has required that local authorities publish annually the number of racial incidents recorded by the authority per 100,000 population and the percentage of such incidents that result in further action by the authority. For this purpose, racial incidents are
  "any incidents regarded as such by the victim or anyone else"
  928W
  which reflects the definition given in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report. The indicators cover all an authority's services.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to(a) require and (b) request councils to sell off council housing. [111114]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have no plans to force local authorities to sell off their council housing. Housing transfers to registered social landlords will remain voluntary and require the approval of tenants before they can take place. However, we are keen for local authorities to pursue transfer where it is clearly part of their housing strategy and will improve the living conditions of tenants and the service which they receive.

  Driving Test Centres
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost of running the(a) Llandrindod Wells-Powys, (b) Newtown-Powys, (c) Brecon-Powys, (d) KingtonHerefordshire and (e) Hereford driving test centres for each of the last three years, indicating the total property rental costs in each case. [111101]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driving Standards Agency does not have a driving test centre in Kington, Herefordshire. The annual property costs, including rates, service charges, maintenance and utilities, for the other four locations are shown, with the rental shown separately.

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Rent

  Llandrindod Wells

  2,895

  3,256

  1,458

  379

  Newtown

  5,530

  6,342

  5,687

  3,408

  Brecon

  11,107

  4,234

  4,582

  1,000

  Hereford

  9,563

  5,530

  4,258

  2,450

  Land Use (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate on the basis of the provisional national land use database the area of(a) vacant and (b) derelict land in each local authority in Tyne and Wear together with the area available for (i) conversion, (ii) reuse and (iii) redevelopment. [111358]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The available information for the local authority districts is in "Government Statistics Supplementary Table" on the NLUD website (www.nlud.org.uk); the table provides an extract for Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland and Gateshead. It shows the total amounts of previously developed vacant land, derelict land and land occupied by vacant buildings reported by each local authority. It is important to note that not all of this land will be available for redevelopment. The table shows the portions allocated
  929W
  for housing use in the local plan or with planning permission for housing. The table additionally shows amounts of land in use with allocation for redevelopment

  Supplementary table—Previously developed land that is unused or may be available for redevelopment1 by land type and planning Authority: England 1998

  hectares

  Previously developed vacant land

  Derelict land and buildings

  Land occupied by vacant buildings

  Land currently in use with planning allocation for any use or planning permission for housing

  Government Office Region2/Planning Authority and National Parks

  Area

  Of which proposed for housing

  Area

  Of which proposed for housing

  Area

  Of which proposed for housing

  Area

  Of which proposed for housing

  North East

  Gateshead

  93

  2

  93

  31

  4

  32

  68

  14

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  73

  46

  91

  1

  5

  1

  51

  9

  North Tyneside

  44

  34

  50

  16

  2

  5—

  3

  3

  South Tyneside

  30

  410

  29

  4,5—

  5—

  5—

  7

  2

  Sunderland

  97

  28

  148

  7

  40

  39

  66

  19

  1 Ungrossed totals as reported by the authority. Comprises previously developed vacant and derelict land: vacant buildings (excluding single dwellings except where they could be developed into 10 or more dwellings); land or buildings currently in use, which are allocated in the local plan for any developed use or have planning permission for housing.

  2 Excludes National Parks, which are given at the end of the table.

  3 Completion is less than 85 per cent.

  4 Figures have been revised against the May 1999 Supplementary Table because of duplicate sites; amendments made by the Local Authority; data resubmitted by the Local Authority after the May 1999 Supplementary Table; changes to assumptions used by the DETR.

  5 Nil or less than half the final digit shown.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many press officers were employed in his Department; and what was the total expenditure on press officers by his Department, at(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000. [111620]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial year 1997–98 were provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on the Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. The number of press officers in post and their cost in January 1999 was 34.3 staff costing £109,000 and in January 2000 was 40.8 staff costing £131,000.

  Macpherson Report
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities in England which have adopted action plans for tackling institutional racism following the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report. [110296]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally. However the "Local Authorities Race Relations Information Exchange" (LARRIE) is preparing a report for publication next month which will set out this information.

  Taxis
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to allow licensed private hire vehicles to be
  930W
  or with planning permission for housing. The figures refer to the time of the survey in 1998, and have not been adjusted for some cases where the coverage was partial.

  driven by the spouses of licensed private hire vehicle drivers for non-hire purposes; and if he will make a statement. [110830]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 521W.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which water companies(a) have and (b) have not accepted responsibility for a free leak repair service for domestic supply pipes. [111275]

  Mr. Mullin
  All water companies currently offer some degree of free repair to all domestic customers' supply pipes, with the exception of Mid Kent Water. Most companies have some restrictions, for example up to a maximum cost for each repair, although many companies offer free or subsidised pipe replacement. Mid Kent Water will undertake free repairs only in areas where it considers water resources to be tight, but has not currently designated any such areas.

  Full details for each company are provided in Appendix 2 of the Director General of Water Services' 1998–99 Report on Leakage and Water Efficiency.

  Pollution (Falmouth Harbour)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent directions he has given to the Environment Agency regarding pollution in Falmouth Harbour; and if he will make a statement. [111129]
  931W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Section 40 of the Environment Act 1995 provides for the Secretary of State to make directions to the Environment Agency in respect of the carrying out of any of its functions. No such directions have been made to the Environment Agency in respect of pollution in Falmouth Harbour.

  In July last year I announced the designation of an additional 76 new shellfish waters, and the extension of 17 existing designations in England, including the Fal Estuary. In addition, My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a number of designations of Sensitive Areas pursuant to implementation of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. The most recent, made on 30 July 1998, included designation of the upper reaches of the Truro, Tresillian and Fal estuaries. In such areas, the Environment Agency is required to ensure through its discharge consenting powers that appropriate nutrient removal requirements are imposed through sewage discharge.

  Pedestrians
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to publish a daughter document on facilities for pedestrians and strategies for promoting walking. [110746]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Guidance to local authorities on encouraging walking will be published shortly.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received about producing guidance for local authorities on a strategy for pedestrians. [110748]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The Secretary of State has received a letter from the Chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport about publishing guidance on encouraging walking. This is being considered by Ministers.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what planning guidance he will produce to encourage facilities for pedestrians and to promote walking. [110747]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The Government published for consultation last year a draft revision to Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 on Transport, which encourages local authorities to promote walking by a range of measures including the creation of safe and secure walking routes, improved design and access to new developments, pedestrianisation schemes, traffic calming and pedestrian-friendly road crossings. We intend to publish the final version of PPG13 later this year.

  In September 1998, the Government published a good practice guide "Places, Streets and Movement: A companion guide to Design Bulletin 32. Residential roads and footpaths", which explains how the layout of residential areas can contribute to the promotion of walking.

  Rough Sleeper Deaths
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people sleeping rough died, broken down by cause of death, in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [111070]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government do not collect this information. Research has, however, shown that the mortality rate of rough sleepers is higher than that of the general population; that rough sleepers are more likely than the general population to die of unnatural causes; and that they are much more likely to commit suicide.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities that exceeded the council tax increase guideline set under the Council Tax Benefit subsidy limitation scheme in 1999–2000; what amount of subsidy is to be withdrawn from these local authorities in an individual basis; and on what date any withdrawal of subsidy will take effect. [111236]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Contributions to the cost of council tax benefit are required by 156 authorities in 1999–2000. Their contributions total £31.222 million. I have placed a table showing the individual figures for the 156 authorities in the Library.

  Council tax benefit subsidy is paid in 12 monthly instalments during the year based on estimates submitted by the authority before the start of the financial year, and adjusted at mid year when authorities submit updated estimates. At the end of the financial year authorities submit final subsidy claims to DSS on actual expenditure when adjustments are made against previous estimates. The first subsidy instalments taking account of local contributions under the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme were made in October 1999 after authorities had submitted mid year estimates based on their contribution to council tax benefit.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Helsinki Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 1999,Official Report, columns 59–60W, concerning parliamentary scrutiny of policy decisions or agreements on matters placed before the European Council at Helsinki on 10 to 11 December 1999, if he will list (a) the decisions approved there together with the title and reference numbers of related public documents; and (b) when they and related Government memoranda were placed in the Vote Office of the House. [105129]

  Mr. Vaz
  Strictly speaking, the European Council does not take decisions, but notes documents submitted to it in Council Conclusions. A number of documents were submitted to the Helsinki European Council on 10–11 December 1999. The table gives the titles, references and details of the scrutiny history of each document.
  933W

  Scrutiny of documents submitted to Helsinki council

  Document title

  Reference

  Deposited in vote office

  Date of explanatory memoranda (EM)

  Comment

  Enlargement: Council report on the European Conference

  13764/99

  No

  —

  Sent to European Scrutiny Committee for information

  Enlargement: Commission Composite Paper

  12053/99

  3 November 1999

  FCO EMs of 22 and 29 November 1999

  —

  IGC on Institutional Reform: Presidency Report

  13636/99

  No

  —

  Sent to European Scrutiny Committee under cover of letter from FCO Minister of State

  Enlargement: Guidelines for reform and Operational Recommendations

  13863/99

  No

  —

  Sent to European Scrutiny Committee under cover of letter from FCO Minister of State

  CFSP: Presidency Reports on Military and Non-Military Crisis Management

  13619/1/99

  14 December 1999

  FCO EMs of 30 November 1999 addressing security and defence, and military crisis separately

  —

  Common Strategy on Russia: Presidency progress report and workplan

  13483/1/99

  No

  —

  Sent to European Scrutiny Committee for information

  Common Strategy on Ukraine

  13523/2/99

  14 December 1999

  FCO EM of 30 November 1999

  —

  Stability Pact for SE Europe: Report on EU action

  13814/99

  —

  —

  Sent to European Scrutiny Committee for information

  Economic and Monetary Affairs: Council Report on Economic Policy Co-ordination

  13123/1/99

  15 February 2000

  EM under preparation

  —

  Economic and Monetary Affairs: Council Report on Reinforced Tax Co-operation

  13140/1/99

  27 January 2000

  Treasury EM of 17 January 2000

  —

  Economic and Monetary Affairs: Presidency report reviewing the Fight against Fraud

  13329/99

  No

  —

  Sent to European Scrutiny Committee for information

  Employment: Joint Employment Report 1999

  10993/99, 13607/99

  8 October 1999 (version 10993/99)

  DfEE EM of 18 October 1999

  —

  Employment: Council Report on Employment Guidelines 2000

  10992/99, 13605/99

  8 October 1999 (version 10992/99)

  DfEE EM of 18 October 1999

  —

  Employment: Council recommendation on the implementation of member States' employment policies

  10994/99,13608/99

  11 October 1999 (version 10994/99)

  DfEE EM of 18 October 1999

  —

  Council Report: for Integrating environmental aspects and sustainable development into energy policy

  13773/99

  11 January 2000

  DTI EM of 4 January 2000

  —

  Council Report: on strategy on the integration of environmental and sustainable development into transport policy

  11717/99

  —

  —

  EM under preparation

  Council Report: Integration of environmental protection and sustainable development into the Internal Market policy

  11393/99, 13622/99

  7 January 2000 (version 11393/99)

  DTI EM of 11 January 2000

  —

  Council Report: Integrating sustainable development into the industry policy of the EU

  13549/1/99

  6 January 2000

  26 October 1999

  —

  Council Report: Strategy on the environmental integration and sustainable development in common agriculture policy established by the Agriculture Council

  12328/99, 13078/99

  26 November 1999 (version 12328/99)

  28 November 1999

  —

  Council Report on the integration of environment in the Community's development policies

  13644/99

  No

  DfID unnumbered EM of 29 October 1999

  —

  Commission Report on integrating environment and sustainable development into Community policies

  13572/99

  No

  —

  Sent to European Scrutiny Committee for information.

  934W

  935W

  Scrutiny of documents submitted to Helsinki council

  Document title

  Reference

  Deposited in vote office

  Date of explanatory memoranda (EM)

  Comment

  Commission co-ordinated report on environmental indicators

  13573/99

  No

  —

  Sent to the European Scrutiny Committee for information

  Commission Communication on the global evaluation of the 5th action programme for the environment

  13598/99

  20 December 1999

  DETR EM of 12 January 2000

  —

  Commission Report on Better Lawmaking 1999, including Subsidiarity

  13725/99

  20 December 1999

  6 January 2000

  —

  Organised Crime: Report on the finalisation and evaluation of the Action Plan

  9917/99

  7 September 1999

  22 September 1999

  —

  European Strategy against Drugs

  12555/99

  26 November 1999

  26 November 1999

  —

  EU Action Plan on Russian Organised Crime: Basic Principles

  10532/99,13009/1/99

  7 September 1999 (version 10532/99)

  22 September 1999

  —

  Human Rights: Report on the reinforcement of EU action

  13557/99

  No

  —

  Sent to European Scrutiny Committee for information

  Commission Report on safeguarding current sport structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework

  COM(99)644

  14 December 1999

  DCMS EM of 20 December 1999

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 315W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108191]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 February 2000,Official Report, columns 135–37W.

  Austria
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many bilateral meetings were held between his Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997. [109876]

  Mr. Vaz
  From May 1997 until December 1999 there were many bilateral and other meetings involving Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and Officials and their Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs counterparts. A wide range of issues, mostly on EU related matters was discussed.

  Departmental Functions (Food)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if all food served at his Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. [109784]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: All food served at official functions in my office is obtained from suppliers who are subject to the relevant legal requirements.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the enlarged European Union in the light of the Helsinki European Council agreement. [109952]

  Mr. Vaz
  On 14 February the member states of the European Union convened an Intergovernmental Conference to make the institutional changes necessary to prepare for enlargement. The following day they launched accession negotiations with six countries (Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia), increasing to 12 the total number of countries currently in negotiation. Both events represent important steps towards a swift and successful enlargement of the EU, in line with the Helsinki European Council conclusions.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 14 and 15 February; and if he will make a statement. [110552]

  Mr. Vaz
  The General Affairs Council in Brussels on 14–15 February adopted the A points listed in document no. 6075/00 and noted resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its session of 3 February 2000 in Brussels, as listed in document no. 5316/00. Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  1. Preparations for Lisbon European Council

  The Presidency summarised discussions so far. The UK welcomed the proposals for modernisation of the EU economy, and stressed the need for the Lisbon Special Council to agree clear objectives and a timetable for action.
  937W
  2. Defence

  The GAC agreed to establish three interim bodies as part of the follow-up to the Report to the Helsinki European Council on strengthening the Common European Security and Defence Policy: an interim Political and Security Committee, an interim military body, and a system for the detachment of national experts in the military field to the General Secretariat of the Council.

  3. Charter of Rights

  The Presidency gave a brief progress report on preparatory work on the draft EU Charter of Rights.

  4. Commission reform

  The GAC heard a presentation from the Commission Vice-President Neil Kinnock on proposals for management reform within the Commission. The GAC adopted conclusions welcoming these proposals and calling for their rapid implementation.

  5. Freelance interpreters

  The GAC did not reach agreement on the European Commission's proposal to restore the right of freelance interpreters employed by the Commission to be taxed at Community rates, rather than national rates. The issue will be reconsidered at a later date.

  6. Opening of Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC)

  Foreign Ministers inaugurated an Inter-Governmental Conference to decide institutional reforms necessary for enlargement. The President of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, and the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, made statements. Subsequent discussion focused on procedural arrangements for the IGC, such as the language regime for meetings and the order and scope of issues to be discussed.

  7. Western Balkans

  The GAC agreed to maintain its policy of applying maximum pressure on President Milosevic, without penalising the Serbian people. IT decided to suspend the flight ban for a period of six months, to extend the scope of the visa ban list and invited the Commission to present detailed proposals on enhancing the effectiveness of existing financial sanctions. The GAC repeated the urgency of re-establishing freedom of navigation on the Danube and agreed that responsibility in this regard lay mainly with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY).

  The GAC invited the Commission to submit further proposals to address Montenegro's most pressing needs, including facilitation of trade. It reiterated the importance of including Montenegro in the regional projects to be presented at the Regional Funding Conference for the stability pact.

  The GAC reiterated its condemnation of all acts of violence in Kosovo and was particularly concerned by the renewed outbreak of ethnic violence in Mitrovica and the recent attacks against members of KFOR. The GAC warned that its assistance to Kosovo was dependent on progress in inter-ethnic reconciliation. The GAC took note of the High Representative's appeal to provide more police officers for the UN Civil Police mission, and welcomed the Commission's announcement of the early disbursement of 35 million euros to the consolidated Kosovo budget.
  938W
  The GAC agreed on an early visit by an EU Ministerial Troika to Croatia. It also invited the Commission to prepare a feasibility study on the prospects of a Stability and Association Agreement. The Prime Minister of Croatia, Mr. Ivica Racan, joined EU Ministers for coffee after lunch.

  The GAC reiterated its concern about the unwillingness of the leadership of Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the New York declaration and efforts to unravel the Dayton-Paris General Frame Agreement for Peace.

  The GAC gave its full support to the efforts of the Special Co-ordinator, the European Commission and the World bank to give a strong impetus to the Stability Pact's goal of reinvigorating the political and economic reform process and stimulating regional co-operation.

  The GAC endorsed the principal findings in the Commission's report of the Stabilisation and Association process for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania. The Council hoped that the next conditionality review could show significant improvements and underlined the need for fulfilment of all conditions by these countries.

  8. Middle East Peace Process

  The GAC issued conclusions urging restraint in Lebanon; expressing regret and concern that the 13 February deadline for a Framework Agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians had been missed; and urging the Israelis and Palestinians to resume negotiations with a view to concluding permanent status negotiation within the agreed target period.

  9. Russia

  The GAC discussed the latest situation in Chechnya, called on the Russian government to take immediate steps towards a peaceful solution and stressed the need to meet the humanitarian needs of people displaced by the war. The GAC reiterated its support for the OSCE and Council of Europe's efforts to reach a peaceful settlement and expressed its concern about the missing Russian journalist Andrei Babitski.

  10. Mexico

  The GAC welcomed the outcome of negotiation between the EU and Mexico on a Free Trade Agreement, and reaffirmed the importance of the Agreement entering into force quickly. The GAC also agreed that the Commission should monitor and evaluate the impact of the tariff import quota granted to Mexico for orange juice, and that the provisions agreed regarding rules of origin for industrial products did not constitute a precedent for negotiations with third countries.

  11. EU/South Africa

  The Council discussed outstanding difficulties relating to the provisional application of the EU/South Africa Trade, development and Co-operation Agreement. The Council agreed a draft letter to South Africa, on the basis of earlier discussions between South Africa and the European Commission, proposing a solution to the outstanding difficulties and confirming the Council's agreement to the provisional application.

  12. Indonesia

  The Commission presented a communication on Indonesia. This will be the subject of detailed discussion at the March GAC.
  939W
  13. Association Council with Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia

  Associations Councils with Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia were held in the margins of the GAC on 14 February. The Association Councils covered preparations for accession, trade, international issues and implementation of the European Agreements.

  14. Enlargement

  On 15 February, six separate Inter-Governmental Conferences were launched establishing accession negotiations with Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia.

  Kazakhstan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the UK Ambassador made to the proposal by the Kazakhstan Government to change the country's capital city. [110695]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is not for our Ambassador to comment on the change of Kazakhstan's capital city, which transferred formally from Almaty to Astana in June 1998.

  The British Embassy in Kazakhstan, which is also responsible for Krygyzstan, is still situated in Almaty, as are the Embassies of our EU partners and most other countries. We and our EU partners keep the question of transferring our Embassies to the new capital under regular review.

  Serbia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have for an expansion of the heating oil to Serbia scheme. [110694]

  Mr. Vaz
  The initial response of the Serbian government to the Energy for Democracy scheme was to block the first consignment of heating oil at the FRY/Macedonian border. They were forced to let the consignment through after public protests in the towns of Nis and Pirot. The scheme has helped to refute one of Milosevic' s main propaganda lies, that the West is anti-Serb. The EU has now agreed to consider the expansion of the scheme to a further five towns: Novi Sad, Subotica, Sombor, Kraljevo and Kragujevac.

  South-Eastern Europe
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects have been(a) agreed by and (b) put to, but not yet agreed by (i) the European Union, (ii) the World Bank, (iii) NATO and (iv) other institutions, as part of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe. [110691]

  Mr. Vaz
  A large number of projects for the Economic Reconstruction and Security Working Tables of the Stability Pact were tabled at Pact meetings in Skopje on 10–11 February and Sarajevo on 15–16 February. Democracy and Human Rights projects are to be tabled at a meeting in Budapest on 21–22 February. Others are being submitted directly to the Office of the Stability Pact Special Co-Ordinator.

  After the Budapest meeting the Special Co-ordinator's Office will begin tabulating, sifting and prioritising the projects, with a view to tabling a final list at a Regional
  940W
  Financing Conference to be held in Brussels on 29–30 March. International Financial Institutions (including the World Bank), the European Commission and other donors will then consider which of these projects might be financed.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what forthcoming conferences and meetings with UK Government involvement are planned to consider economic projects for South-Eastern Europe; and what is on the agendas. [110692]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK expects to be represented at a South-Eastern Europe Regional Financing Conference in Brussels on 29–30 March, which will consider financing of projects for the region. The agenda for this meeting has not yet been set.

  Danube
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on cyanide pollution in the Danube; and if he will make a statement. [111003]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have followed with concern reports of the pollution in the Danube caused by a serious spill of cyanide-contaminated water from a gold mine in Western Romania. There is no UK involvement in this disaster. The UK supports the EU principle of "The Polluter Pays". We also support the EU initiative in calling for an investigation into the causes of this pollution.

  European Union Political and Security Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the(a) terms of reference and (b) proposed composition of the European Union Political and Security Committee. [110701]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Presidency report adopted at the Helsinki European Council on strengthening the common European security and defence policy adopted at the Helsinki European Council, and placed in the Library of the House, proposed the establishment of a standing Political and Security Committee which would deal with all aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the common European security and defence policy, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, and without prejudice to Community competence; and that the Committee would be composed of national representatives of senior/ambassadorial level.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many senior civil servants from an ethnic minority background are employed in his Department; and how many of them are(a) men and (b) women. [110689]

  Mr. Hain
  Information on the ethnic origin of the Department's staff is collected on the understanding that it will be treated on a confidential basis. To protect the privacy of individual members of staff we do not disclose data relating to fewer than five people. My Department has fewer than five people of minority ethnic origin in its Senior Management Structure. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to ensuring that it
  941W
  reflects the diversity of modern Britain. The Department has a comprehensive minority strategy in place to ensure this happens.

  Russia
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of Russia; and if he will make a statement on the matters discussed. [111004]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet Acting President Vladimir Putin in Moscow this week. He expects to discuss the situation in Chechnya, the outlook for Russia, and a range of issues on the international agenda.

  Middle East
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Israeli(a) politicians and (b) political advisers who met Lord Levy on each of his visits to the Middle East as the Prime Minister's Special Envoy. [110509]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: I refer to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [110725]

  Mr. Hain
  Our policy is that the use of peat should be avoided and manures, coir, bark chippings and organic fertilizers used instead.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the electricity used by his Department is generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [111036]

  Mr. Hain
  None of the electricity used by the Department is currently generated from renewable sources.

  British Council
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra Government grant will be allocated to the British Council for the opening of planned new country directorates in(a) Libya and (b) Iran. [111261]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Council is funded through grant-in-aid, voted by Parliament, for its activities world-wide rather than through specific grants for individual countries. The Council makes decisions about resource allocation for its activities in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to give the same percentage increase or decrease in 942W
  Government grant to the British Council at the annual spending review as his Department receives in the review; and if he will make a statement. [111244]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 181W.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra grant was allocated by his Department to the British Council for opening the new country directorates in(a) Bolivia and (b) Cuba. [111262]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Council is provided with grant-in-aid funding for its activities world-wide. This Government provided the Council with an increase in its grant-in-aid at the first opportunity, ie in the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement covering 1999–2000 to 2001–02. The Council makes decisions on the allocation of resources for its activities, in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Export Licences (Pakistan)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2000,Official Report, column 336W, if he has amended any valid open general export licence since 12 October 1999 by removal of Pakistan as a permitted destination; whether he has issued any instructions to HM Customs and Excise to prevent the export to Pakistan of any specified goods for which a valid standard or open licence is in force; if he has revoked any licence for the export of licensable goods to Pakistan since 12 October 1999; and if he will make a statement. [111079]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 11 February 2000,Official Report, columns 336–37W. None of these steps have been taken. There is no arms embargo on Pakistan. It is possible that some exporters with valid licences agreed before 12 October have competed deliveries under these licences.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111600]

  Mr. Hain
  The FCO does not have this information readily available.

  We are currently carrying out an Environmental Audit which will include recommendations on how to achieve the recycling targets set out in the 1st annual report of the Green Ministers committee.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe" Roadshow
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 33W, which business, educational and other organisations contributed to the "Your Britain, Your Europe", roadshow; and what they contributed. [111152]

  Mr. Vaz
  I visited a number of schools and businesses during the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow. These included Woodham Comprehensive
  943W
  School (Newton Aycliffe), St. Joseph's School (Hebburn), Nissan Manufacturing (UK), Hull University, CORUS Engineering Steels, Rotherham Chamber of Commerce, Kwik Strip Eco Solutions (Bristol), Queen Elizabeth Hospital School (Bristol), the South West Regional Euro Forum, Bath University, King Edward VI College (Nuneaton), St. John's Primary School (Birmingham), Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and De Montfort University (Leicester). Some of these organised events to mark my visit.

  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information was distributed during the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow which directly related to the promotion of the European single currency. [111153]

  Mr. Vaz
  We did not distribute any material relating to the promotion of the European single currency during the roadshow.

  EuroMed
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 762, on EuroMed, if he will list matters covered by negotiations for EuroMed agreements. [111164]

  Mr. Vaz
  Association Agreements negotiated between the EU and individual EuroMed countries cover a wide range of topics, including:

  political dialogue

  respect for human rights

  free movement of goods

  agricultural and fisheries products

  right of establishment and services

  movement of capital

  competition

  economic cooperation

  dialogue and cooperation against money laundering, drugs, terrorism and illegal immigration

  treatment of legally resident nationals

  cultural matters

  financial cooperation (through the EU's MEDA funding programme).

  European Union
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to press for greater flexibility in institutional arrangements in the European Union. [111382]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government's approach to flexibility is set out in the IGC White Paper which was laid before the House on 15 February.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 781, concerning a united Europe of states, what the Government's policy is on the powers which states within the EU should continue to be able to exercise independently. [111109]
  944W
  Mr. Vaz
  The independence of member states is not an issue which will be addressed at the IGC. It will be about those reforms necessary to ensure the Union continues to function effectively after enlargement.

  Seal Culling (Russia)
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Russian Government on the culling of baby seals in Russian waters. [111427]

  Mr. Vaz
  We raised the issue of seal culling with the Russian Ambassador in April last year. Our Embassy in Moscow raised it with the Russian authorities in July. On both occasions we reiterated the strong concerns felt about this issue by both parliamentarians and the British public.

  Colonel Gaddafi
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of transcripts of interviews he has given on allegations of British intelligence involvement in an attempted assassination of Colonel Gaddafi. [111591]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have been asked about this subject in interviews given to the BBC on 9 August 1998 and 14 February 2000. These interviews are a matter of public record. The full text of the first of these interviews is available on the FCO website at www.fco.gov.uk/news/newstext.asp?1401.

  Iran
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Government of Iran about the death sentences imposed on three Iranian Bahài in the city of Mashad on 3 February; and if he will make a statement. [111621]

  Mr. Hain
  We are concerned at reports that three members of the Bahài community were sentenced to death on 3 February. We therefore welcome the subsequent statement from a spokesman for the Iranian Judiciary that no such sentences have been passed, and that there remained the possibility that any convictions would be quashed. The Portuguese Presidency on behalf of the EU member states summoned the Iranian Ambassador to Lisbon on 17 February to express our concern at these reports and seek clarification. The Ambassador was unsighted but said that he would convey the concern of the EU to Tehran. We shall be taking similar action bilaterally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Power Stations
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Eastern Merchant Generation's proposal to retrofit the flue gas desulphurisation plant at the West Burton coal-fired power station. [111901]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Eastern Merchant Generation Limited for the construction of flue gas
  945W
  desulphurisation plant at the 2,000 MW coal-fired power station at West Burton in Nottinghamshire. Planning permission for the plant has also been deemed to be granted, subject to 49 planning conditions agreed with the Nottinghamshire County Council and the Bassetlaw District Council and also subject to the company entering into an agreement with the County Council under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to carry out necessary collateral works. The decisions have been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled 'Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee' (Cm 4071).

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Smith Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals and Scottish Power plc's proposal to build a combined heat and power station at Irvine, Ayrshire. [111903]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today given clearance under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 to SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals and ScottishPower plc's notification to build a 45 MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at the SmithKline Beecham works, Irvine. The decision has been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  The decision to give clearance to the proposal on energy policy grounds is without prejudice to any decision that may be taken on whether or not planning permission is granted.

  Copies of the Press Notice and the clearance letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will provide a detailed response to the Low Pay Commission's recommendations on the national minimum wage. [111902]

  Mr. Byers
  Yes. The Government are today publishing their detailed response to the recommendations and suggestions contained in the Low Pay Commission's second report. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses alongside the Report itself, which the Government published on Tuesday 15 February at the same time as they announced increases to the main and youth rates, and a new remit for the Low Pay Commission.

  British American Tobacco
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take regarding the trading activities of British American Tobacco; and if he will make a statement. [111486]

  Dr. Howells
  The Companies Acts enable me to investigate companies to establish the facts when there are suggestions of serious misconduct or fraud. The allegations here seem more appropriate for HM Customs and Excise, who are responsible for issues relating to 946W
  smuggling and VAT evasion. I understand that officials there have received documents on this matter and are considering them.

  The Health Select Committee is currently looking into aspects of this affair. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment further.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implementation of the Working Time Directive. [110594]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government commissioned an interim report of research on the implementation of the Working Time Regulations. A copy of the report is available from the Library of the House.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the proportion of the(a) turnover and (b) profit of sub-post offices in Paisley, South that accrued from benefit transaction charges in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [111138]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  These figures are commercially confidential but I understand from the Post Office that, of the 17 post offices in the Paisley, South constituency, 12 derive 40 per cent. or more of their workload from Benefits Agency-related work.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural(a) banks and (b) post offices closed in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [110711]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of rural post office closures are as follows:

  Year to March

  1992

  33

  1993

  163

  1994

  160

  1995

  55

  1996

  131

  1997

  149

  1998

  235

  1999

  214

  I understand from the British Bankers' Association that data on bank closures is not maintained in a form which identifies rural locations. The numbers of bank branch closures in total are as follows:

  Year to December

  1992

  522

  1993

  622

  1994

  432

  1995

  646

  1996

  820

  1997

  680

  1998

  355

  947W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pensioners he estimates use rural post offices for collecting pensions; and if he will make a statement. [110710]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office does not hold details of benefit recipients individually or by category.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to improve access to post offices for people in rural areas. [110781]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to ensuring that post offices are equipped and re-designed to face the future, and that they are thereby able to continue to play their role as an essential part of the country's social fabric. For the first time, under provisions in the Postal Services Bill, the Government will issue access criteria for post office counter services to ensure reasonable access to these services, particularly in rural areas and areas of social deprivation. Details of the access criteria will follow the conclusion of the work by the Performance and Innovation Unit.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the population lives(a) within one mile of a post office and (b) over three miles from a post office in (i) rural areas and (ii) urban areas. [110782]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office have provided the following information:

  Percentage

  Distance

  Urban

  Rural

  Northern Ireland

  0.25 mile

  49

  19

  29

  0.50 mile

  92

  52

  60

  1 mile

  100

  85

  83

  2 miles

  100

  97

  96

  3 miles

  100

  99

  100

  5 miles

  100

  100

  100

  Rural areas comprise settlements of less than 6,300 people.

  Data for Northern Ireland are not split between urban and rural categories.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to help all sub-post offices to diversify into(a) bureau de change services, (b) car tax renewals, (c) National Lottery on-line and (d) mobile phone top-up cards; and if he will make a statement. [109479]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: A bureau de change service, introduced in 1996 and providing a wide range of currencies and travellers cheques, is available from all post offices nationwide. Currently 631 post offices offer an on demand bureau de change service whereby foreign currencies and travellers cheques can be bought over the counter. Bureau de change service is available to order throughout the rest of the network and provides delivery within four working days.

  The number of vehicle re-licensing offices has increased from some 2,000 in the early eighties to the present 4,000.
  948W
  National Lottery on-line terminals are sited in 4,303 post offices, of which 3,771 are sub-post offices and approximately 1,500 are located in rural areas.

  Mobile phone pre-pay vouchers are currently available from some 4,800 post offices. I am pleased to be able to inform the right hon. Member that this service will be available to a further 1,800 post offices by April.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the additional income which will accrue to post offices from cash dispensers to be installed in post offices over the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [109478]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The additional income accruing to post offices from the installation of cash dispensers will be dependent on the size and location of the post offices concerned.

  Nannies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date he will implement a code of practice for nanny agencies. [111251]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities announced on 17 January that the principles in the proposed voluntary code for nanny agencies would be reflected in the revised statutory regulations to govern the conduct of employment agencies which we expect to table in Spring. Specific guidance for nanny agencies will be issued around that time.

  Holocaust Survivors
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making in discussions with the banking industry concerning bank charges levied on Holocaust survivors in respect of conversion of pensions to sterling from Deutchmarks; what response he has received from the banking industry to his letter to them; when he will place the relevant correspondence in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [111653]

  Mr. Byers
  As I said in my reply on 29 October 1999,Official Report, column 1012W, I am pursuing this matter with the banking industry. I will send a substantive reply to my hon. Friend as soon as I have received a full response from the banking industry. I will place a copy of my response in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 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. [109234]
  949W
  Dr. Howells
  In DTI Headquarters, the following data are available on women taking and returning from maternity leave in the last five years:

  Calendar year

  Number of staff going on maternity leave

  Number of staff returning from maternity leave

  1995

  116

  32

  1996

  101

  39

  1997

  67

  37

  1998

  69

  44

  1999

  67

  37

  Total

  420

  189

  Those returning in each year may, in addition to their maternity leave entitlement on full pay, have taken a period of unpaid maternity leave which may extend up to 41 weeks after the birth. They will not therefore have necessarily begun their leave in the same year. Other staff may continue on a career break for up to 5 years following their full maternity leave entitlement.It is not possible to obtain the full data requested on length of maternity leave or hours worked on return for Headquarters staff using the Department's current personnel database without incurring disproportionate cost. Chief Executives of the Departments Agencies have been asked to reply separately.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Caroline Flint, dated 22 February 2000:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 4 February to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about women employees in his Department and executive agencies. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  Between 1997 and 1999 forty-three staff returned from maternity leave.
  I am able to inform you that the remaining information you have requested is either not available or could only be made available at disproportionate cost. It is not possible for ETS to identify most of the data requested, using the current Personnel data system (Permis), without more complex programming which would take several days.
  The information dates only from the period since the inception of the Employment Tribunals Service as an executive agency in 1997. There are no earlier records held on the Permis system.

  Letter from J. S. Holden to Caroline Flint, dated 22 February 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of Companies House Executive Agency.
  In the last five years, of the total number of women employees who have taken maternity leave.

  (a) 100% returned to work after childbirth. However, 5% left shortly afterwards as they only returned so that they would not lose their paid maternity leave benefit. They would have been accommodated in part-time posts if they had so wished.

  (b) 100% took their full paid maternity benefit.

  (c) 30% changed their hours immediately on their return to work, and then worked on average 19 hours per week.

  (d) 15% returned to full-time hours and changed to part-time hours subsequently, and then worked on average 24 hours per week.

  The remainder carried on working their previous working pattern by choice, which could be either full-time or part-time.
  950W
  Letter from David Hendon to Caroline Flint, dated 22 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your question on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The following information relates to women within the Radiocommunications Agency who have taken maternity leave in the last five years.

  (a) 84 percent of women returned to work after childbirth

  (b) 66 percent of those women returned to work before the end of maternity leave of which the time range was 41 weeks and the mean time was 18 weeks

  (c) 6 percent of women returned to work after childbirth on reduced working hours for which the average part-time hours worked was 19 hours per week

  (d) 9 percent of women returned work after childbirth on a full-time basis but subsequently reduced their hours.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Caroline Flint, dated 22 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your question about the proportion of women employees in The Insolvency Service who in the last five years (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.
  The table below provides limited information about the number and percentage* of female staff commencing and returning from maternity leave in the last five years:

  Year

  Number of women commencing maternity leave

  Percentage

  Number of women returning from maternity leave

  Percentage

  1995

  27

  3.75

  40

  5.6

  1996

  33

  4.6

  31

  4.3

  1997

  29

  4.0

  32

  4.4

  1998

  33

  4.6

  30

  4.2

  1999

  20

  2.8

  28

  3.9

  * Based on the estimated number of women working in The Service during the five years of 720.

  However, I regret that the information held centrally by The Service on its staff is not maintained in a form which would provide the specific details you have asked for except at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Caroline Flint, dated 22 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of NWML to your question regarding women employees returning to work after childbirth.
  Within the Agency in the last 5 years, 3 women employees (12.5% of the female workforce here) have taken maternity leave. Thus, in response to your specific questions:

  (a) 100% returned to work after childbirth

  (b) None returned before the end of maternity leave

  (c) 100% returned to work on reduced working hours (although one employee had been part-time prior to maternity leave), the average hours being 20 per week.

  (d) None returned full-time and subsequently reduced their hours. I trust that this will be satisfactory.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Caroline Flint, dated 22 February 2000:
  I am replying on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry relating to the return to work of women employees after childbirth during the last five years. The information is based on 77 cases.
  951W

  (a) 81.8% returned to work after childbirth.

  (b) 35% returned to work before the end of the Statutory Maternity Pay period.

  (i) time range 5–15 weeks

  (ii) mean time 14.04 weeks

  (c) 26.8% returned to work on reduced working hours at an average of 18 hours per week.

  (d) 15.6% returned to work full-time and subsequently reduced their hours.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many senior civil servants from an ethnic minority background are employed in his Department; and how many of them are(a) men and (b) women. [110688]

  Dr. Howells
  As at 1 April 1999, 55 members of the senior civil service as a whole were from an ethnic minority background (1.7 per cent).

  Information on ethnic origin in the Civil Service is collected on the understanding that it will be treated on a confidential basis. To protect the privacy of individual members of staff we do not disclose data relating to fewer than five people.

  My Department has fewer than five people of ethnic minority background in the Senior Civil Service.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the initiatives launched by his Department since May 1997 under which specific grants are allocated, indicating in each case and for each financial year the funding provided by central Government. [109316]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: A detailed breakdown of the Department's activities is given in the annual Expenditure Plans Reports Trade and Industry: The Government's Expenditure Plans (Cm 3905, Cm 3605, Cm 4211), published by the Stationery Office Limited.

  Paid Parental Leave
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many recent representations he has received in support of paid parental leave from(a) hon. Members and (b) others. [110466]

  Mr. Byers
  From the start of the consultation on the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations on 4 August 1999, we have received approximately 310 representations in support of paid parental leave. This includes the consultation responses and around 260 letters received by the Department.

  In addition to these representations, we have discussed this issue with key representatives and we are setting up a group to monitor and evaluate the take-up of unpaid parental leave. Its findings will influence our future thinking.

  Retail Price Comparisons
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total net price in sterling of the 56 items surveyed in the AC Nielsen report for each of the four countries included in the project. [111059]
  952W
  Dr. Howells
  Information on the net price of each of the 56 items is included in AC Nielsen's report on international retail price comparisons, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. It is also available on the Internet.

  The research was designed to provide item by item comparisons and comparisons of totals for any sub-group of items, or for the list as whole, are not valid.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many arms export licences for Indonesia have been(a) applied for, (b) granted and (c) rejected since May 1997, in each case listing the categories of equipment they cover. [110772]

  Dr. Howells
  Details of export licensing decisions between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1998 were set out in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in March and November 1999; copies are in the Library of the House.

  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. As regards export licences granted since 1 January 1999, the Export Control Organisation' s computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 1999 and 11 February 2000, 16 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and eight Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Indonesia of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. No applications for a SIEL or OIEL were refused during this period. 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.

  Individual Licences issued between 1 January 1999 and 11 February 2000 covering the export to Indonesia of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  1

  0

  ML2

  2

  0

  ML3

  1

  0

  ML6

  0

  1

  ML9

  1

  3

  ML10

  8

  3

  ML11

  2

  1

  ML14

  1

  0

  ML21

  0

  1

  ML22

  0

  2

  PL5017

  0

  1

  No new licences were issued for the export to Indonesia of goods on the Military List during the four month period of the EU arms embargo which expired on 17 January 2000.
  953W
  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.

  As at 11 February 2000, decisions had not yet been taken on eight applications for a SIEL and 14 applications for an OIEL to export such goods to Indonesia.

  Individual Licence applications pending as at 11 February 2000 covering the export to Indonesia of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of pending applications for SIELs covering goods with this rating

  Number of pending applications pending for OIELs covering goods with this rating

  ML4

  0

  1

  ML5

  0

  2

  ML9

  1

  3

  ML10

  6

  5

  ML11

  0

  4

  ML13

  0

  2

  ML14

  0

  1

  ML15

  0

  4

  ML17

  0

  1

  ML18

  0

  1

  ML22

  1

  1

  PL5001

  0

  1

  PL5017

  1

  2

  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, between 2 May 1997 and 15 September 1999, Indonesia was 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 during this period are in the Library of the House.

  Arms Brokering
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to bring forward legislation to better regulate the brokering of arms. [110962]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government do have the powers to control trafficking and brokering under the United Nations Act 1946 where this is necessary to implement a binding UN Resolution. Under the European Communities Act 1972 the Government have the power to provide for enforcement of a Council Regulation prohibiting trafficking and brokering of specified goods, e.g. dual use goods where there is Community competence. However, competence to prohibit trafficking and brokering of arms or military equipment lies with the member states.

  The Government's White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, published in July 1998, proposed new legislation to extend the Government's power to control trafficking and brokering in several areas, including with respect to the supply of military equipment to destinations subject to any form of arms embargo and the supply of
  954W
  equipment, the export from the UK of which has been banned because of evidence that goods of the same type have been used in torture.

  The Government will announce proposals for new export control legislation in due course, following conclusion of the review of the White Paper proposals in the light of responses received.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111609]

  Dr. Howells
  This Department purchases 44 per cent. recycled paper and 81 per cent. of waste paper is recycled.

  Credit Blacklisting
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the percentage of adults in the UK who are credit blacklisted. [110733]

  Dr. Howells
  Most lenders use credit scoring techniques to help them decide whether they will lend to particular individuals. The Office of Fair Trading research for its 1999 report "Vulnerable Consumers and Financial Services" found that over six million households (out of a total of 24 million) were defined as having low or very low household income. Of these, 3.5 million did not use any form of credit. I would estimate that many of these would not satisfy the credit scoring test.

  Assisted Areas Map
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in reaching agreement with the European Commission on the determination of the new assisted areas map for Great Britain; and if he will make a statement. [111333]

  Dr. Howells
  Discussions with the Commission on the proposals for new Assisted Areas are continuing. We will announce the new map as soon as possible.

  Gardening Leave
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials in his Department are on gardening leave. [111623]

  Mr. Byers
  On 22 February 2000, two officials in the Department's headquarters were at home on full pay pending appointment to a new position in the Department.

  Transfer Technology Ltd.
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when his Department first informed 10 Downing Street that the matter of Transfer Technology grants was being referred to the West Midlands Police; [111627]

  (2) what was the grade of the official who advised that the matter of Transfer Technology grants should be referred to the West Midlands Police; [111625]

  (3) when he was first advised that the matter of Transfer Technology grants should be referred to the West Midlands Police. [111624]
  955W
  Mr. Byers
  I received advice on this matter from one of the Department's Directors on 3 February 2000.

  In accordance with normal procedure the No.10 Press Office was informed after I had taken my decision.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the grant paid to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) in respect of Transfer Technology Ltd. as reference WMR 46414/Z1/1 was repaid. [111629]

  Mr. Byers
  A grant paid to Transfer Technology Ltd. under reference WMR 46414/Z1/1 has not been repaid.

  No grant has been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West.

  Austria (Trade)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what nugatory costs have been incurred by(a) his Department, (b) British Trade International and (c) potential exhibitors as a result of the postponement of the fashion trade fair planned for May 2000 in Vienna; and if he will make a statement. [111635]

  Dr. Howells
  British Trade International had committed funding of £50,000 to 'Britain Now', spread equally over this and the next financial year.

  With the postponement of the event there will now be no call on the second tranche of our funding, ie for the financial year 2000–01. Of the £25,000 already transferred to the project, we are likely to incur some cancellation charges (eg for the fashion show models), although the scale of these is not yet clear. Other "logistic" sponsors (eg freight carriers/shippers and venue) and potential exhibitors have already confirmed that any cancellation fees incurred now will be offset against costs when we reactivate 'Britain Now' at a later date.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many British companies agreed to participate in the Trade Fair in Vienna in May 2000; and if he will list them. [111637]

  Dr. Howells
  The 'Britain Now' event was to be a showcase initiative, promoting the best of British Design in all its aspects, including the Millennium Product Static Exhibition. It was a joint effort by the British Embassy, Vienna, and British Trade International aimed at businesses, opinion formers and the general public in Eastern Austria, but also attracting visitors from the growing markets of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary.

  At the time of the postponement, the British Embassy was still receiving approaches from potential participants. Those participants already committed include the Crafts Council; The British Jewellery and Giftware Federation; Glasgow 1999; The Royal Institute of Architects; Jaguar; Rover; Morgan; Lotus; Rolls Royce; Bentley; Aston Martin; Williams Formula 1 (sponsored by Castrol); British Tourist Authority; British Council; Barbour; Burberry's; Chester Barry; Daks-Simpson; John Smedley; Johnstons of Elgin; Pringle of Scotland; Bella Freud; Jasper Conran and Tristan Webber.
  956W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the British companies that have informed(a) his Department and (b) British Trade International that they will not participate in the Trade Fair planned for May 2000 in Vienna. [111634]

  Dr. Howells
  Bella Freud, fashion designer and granddaughter of Sigmund Freud, is the only participant to have withdrawn from participating in 'Britain Now' because of her family history in Austria. All other companies/organisations have already confirmed with the British Embassy and British Trade International their agreement to participate fully in 'Britain Now' at a later date.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what trade promotion activities to further UK trade with Austria(a) his Department and (b) British Trade International will be sponsoring or supporting financially during 2000. [111632]

  Dr. Howells
  It is important to stress that the sanctions imposed by the EU Member States on Austria are purely political measures. There is no trade embargo with Austria. British Trade International will therefore still be undertaking its normal trade promotion programme during 2000–01.

  Initiatives under consideration include attendance by UK companies sponsored by British Trade International to attend key trade fairs; inward/outward missions and seminars.

  Specifically:

  RETA, a fire and security trade fair in September 2000.
  British Trade International is aiming to recruit 10–20 UK companies to participate in the four-day exhibition. Cost to British Trade International will be approximately £7K.

  PSDB 2000 (Police Scientific Development Branch).
  In April, British Trade International will undertake a pan-European inward mission to this exhibition, recruiting from Poland, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. Two participants have been confirmed from Austria, out of a total of 20 missioners. Cost to British Trade International will be approximately £1K.

  Gartentreff (gardening trade fair).
  In October, British Trade International will be funding a UK brochure stand displaying brochures from approximately 20 UK companies. The stand will be manned by the British Embassy with a cost to British Trade International of approximately £2K.

  Anglo/Austrian Forum. May 2000.
  This is a business to business seminar focusing on Anglo-Austrian trade; Austria as a gateway to Central and Eastern Europe and young entrepreneurs. 10–15 UK companies will be participating at a cost to British Trade International of approximately £1K.

  Southampton Boat Show. September 2000.
  An inward mission with five Austrian buyers. Cost to British Trade International approximately £2K.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications for credit guarantees were received by the ECGD, from which companies, for what amount, and on what date in respect of(a) the Pergau Dam, (b) Singapore Utilities Water Project, (c) the Turkwell Dam, (d) the Ewaso Ngiro Dam,

  957W
  (e) the Ajaokuta Steel Plant, (f) the Katse Dam and (g) the Meula Dam; which applications were approved, for what amount, and on what date; what payment has been made against each project by the ECGD and on what date; what ECGD liability exists against each project; and if he will make a statement. [110393]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: ECGD can find no trace of applications for Credit Guarantees for the Singapore Utilities Water Project, the

  Project

  Exporter

  Amount of and date of application Amount

  Date

  Pergau Dam, Malaysia

  Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. And Cementation International Ltd. (joint venture)

  1 buyer credit: £315m

  December 88

  Revised to £410m

  March 90

  4 supplier credits:

  £ 12.0m

  31 January 91

  £23.6m

  22 February 91

  £8.4m

  22 February 91

  £119.1m

  22 February 91

  Ewaso Ngiro Dam, Kenya

  WLPU Consultants (now called Knight Piesold)

  1 buyer credit: 1£43.8m

  9 April 90

  Ajaokuta Steel Plant, Nigeria

  Carillion Construction

  Figures unavailable

  —

  Katse Dam, Lesotho

  Kier International Ltd. and Sterling International Civil Engineering Ltd. (joint venture)

  1 buyer credit and 2 supplier credits} £267m

  10 December 90

  1 Loan value

  Note:

  Some figures are unavailable because repayments were lumped together with several other credits

  Project

  Amount approved

  Date approved

  Payments by ECGD and date Payment

  Date

  ECGD's liability

  Pergau Dam, Malaysia

  £327.9m

  13 March 1991

  Nil

  —

  £40.3m

  £ 10.8m

  21 March 1991

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  £23.4m

  13 March 1991

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  £7.6m

  21 March 1991

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  £119.1m

  21 March 1991

  Nil

  —

  £11.1m

  Ewaso Ngiro Dam, Kenya

  1£68.1m

  21 June 1990

  £377,043

  15 March 1992

  £10.2m

  £440,150

  15 September 1992

  £442,371

  15 March 1993

  £440,150

  15 September 1993

  £442,371

  15 March 1994

  £4,752

  15 September 1994

  £2,898

  15 March 1995

  Ajaokuta Steel Plant, Nigeria

  £22.4m

  1982

  £14.2m

  Date unavailable

  2£13.9m

  Katse Dam, Lesotho

  £26.5m

  4 March 1991

  Nil

  —

  Figure unavailable

  £40.1m

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  £6.9m

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  1 Loan value + interest

  2 Plus interest

  Note:

  Some figures are unavailable because repayments were lumped together with several other credits

  National Regional Aid
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measurement of sparsity he made of the Inverness travel-to-work area when proposing the Highlands and Islands as a NUTS 2 area under the sparsity provision of the European Commission Guidelines on national regional aid. [111332]

  Dr. Howells
  We proposed the Highlands and Islands as a single NUTS 2 level area with a population of between nine and 10 inhabitants per square kilometre.
  958W
  Turkwell Dam, and the Muela Dam. However ECGD was approached for support for the construction of an underground power station associated with the Muela Dam.

  The answers to the question on the remaining Projects are set out in the following table.

  The information on the Ajaokuta Steel Plant in Nigeria relates to an application for support for a Technical Training Centre associated with the Steel Plant.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106291]
  959W
  Mr. Ingram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Terrorist Violence (Victim Compensation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what mechanisms are in place to monitor aftercare of victims of terrorist violence and punishment shootings; what is his assessment of the extent to which compensation payments have been subject to seizure by paramilitary organisations; how many incidents of such seizure have been reported; what is the RUC estimate of the extent of under-reporting; what steps are taken to prevent fraudulent claims; and what is his assessment of the proportion of claims that may be fraudulent. [107818]

  Mr. Ingram
  All patients receive the treatment and care necessary for their recovery. There are no mechanisms to monitor the aftercare of patients. There is no record of any incidents being reported to police relating to compensation payments being subject to seizure by paramilitary organisation. Consequently, the Royal Ulster Constabulary cannot give an assessment of the extent of such seizure and the level of under-reporting.

  Each claim for criminal injury compensation is investigated by the Compensation Agency to establish that the statutory criteria contained in the Criminal Injuries Compensation (NI) Order 1988 are satisfied. This includes confirming that the alleged offence was reported to the police, obtaining copies of the police investigation report and witness statements, and the court outcome of any prosecution of alleged offenders. Where liability to pay compensation under the 1988 Order is accepted the amount of compensation is determined by reference to medical reports detailing the nature and extent of the injury suffered. The policy of the Compensation Agency is to refer all cases of alleged fraud to the police for investigation. No criminal injury claim arising from terrorist violence or punishment shooting has been referred to the police.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 32W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108205]

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Category of employed

  Number of Protestant male employees

  Number of Roman Catholic male employees

  Number of male employees whose Community cannot be determined

  Number of Protestant female employees

  Number of Roman Catholic female employees

  Number of female employees whose Community cannot be determined

  Managers and administrators

  6

  7

  5

  9

  5

  5

  Professional occupations

  19

  23

  6

  35

  33

  20

  Associate professional and technical occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Clerical and secretarial occupations

  5

  5

  3

  52

  32

  10

  960W
  Mr. Ingram
  Further to my reply to him of 10 January, contracts for research projects funded by this Department generally carry a clause highlighting the obligations of the contractor under the Official Secrets Act and/or a confidentiality clause preventing the contractor from printing, publishing or disclosing information gained during the course of the contract without the written consent of the Department.

  Twenty four contracts did not contain restrictions which prevented the contractor from discussing the findings with journalists until after publication because the letting organisation. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, only part-funded the research. The copyright in these instances remain with the researcher.

  Deaths (Investigations)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to date of the inquiries into the deaths of(a) Mrs. Rosemary Nelson and (b) Mr. John Finucane. [109035]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on the total cost of these investigations is not available. However, on Mrs. Nelson, £767,000 has been spent on this inquiry to date. This figure includes travel, overtime, accommodation and incidental expenses. It does not include the salary costs of Deputy Chief Constable Colin Port and his team of officers.

  On the other death, (assuming that this refers to the murder of Patrick Finucane) the additional cost of police agencies' salaries, overtime, travel, accommodation and incidental expenses since 1989 is £2.3 million. The figure does not include RUC costs.

  Thiepval Memorial Tower
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's support for the Thiepval Memorial Tower on the Somme. [111093]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are responsible for the maintenance of the Memorial. It also provides financial assistance to the Somme Association Ltd. which manages the visitor access.

  Probation Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each category of employee within the Northern Ireland Probation Service and the numbers employed in each category, broken down by(a) gender and (b) perceived community origin. [110657]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is given in the table:
  961W

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Category of employed

  Number of Protestant male employees

  Number of Roman Catholic male employees

  Number of male employees whose Community cannot be determined

  Number of Protestant female employees

  Number of Roman Catholic female employees

  Number of female employees whose Community cannot be determined

  Crafts and skilled manual occupations

  9

  10

  16

  2

  4

  5

  Personal and protective service occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sales occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Plant and machine operatives

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other occupations

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Totals

  39

  45

  31

  99

  75

  41

  Prosecutions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases in each category of offence were referred by the RUC to the DPP in 1998 and 1999; and in how many and in what percentage of cases the DPP(a) directed no prosecutions and (b) brought a successful prosecution. [110659]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply as the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and his Department are superintended by the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.

  The information sought is not available in the form requested. What information is available is set out in tabular form.

  The figures given in the table for the number of persons reported include persons referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland by investigative agencies other than the RUC.

  The figures relate to the number of persons proceeded against rather than the number of offences.

  The number of cases dealt with in a year does not correlate directly with the number of cases reported and directed in that year as a proportion of the results will relate to persons reported and directed in previous years. Further, the figures for 1999 are incomplete as additional returns have to be collated.

  1998

  1999

  Number of persons reported to DPP(NI)

  10,950

  10,170

  Directions issued

  Summary prosecution

  6,271

  5,362

  Prosecution on indictment

  1,043

  1,368

  Number prosecution

  3,614

  3,520

  Outcome of prosecutions Summary:

  Convictions

  4,977

  4,164

  Acquittals

  261

  214

  Conviction rate (%)

  95

  95

  Indictment:

  Convictions

  1,141

  943

  Acquittals

  86

  57

  Conviction rate (%)

  93

  94

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of Kent magistrates courts committee's approach to consultation with local communities. [109643]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Justices of the Peace Act 1997 requires Magistrates Courts Committees to consult with the paying authority when proposing to close a courthouse.

  It is for Kent Magistrates Courts Committee to determine the scope of its consultation but Committees are encouraged to consult wider than the statute requires, for example, with magistrates, staff, police, Probation, Crown Prosecution Service and other professional users.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of magistrates courts in Worcestershire. [109645]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is for the Hereford and Worcester Magistrates Courts Committee to determine the future of magistrates courts in both Worcestershire and Herefordshire. This is in consultation with the local paying authorities, the Worcestershire County Council and the County of Herefordshire District Council.

  JPs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact on justices of the peace of his proposals to achieve economies in the magistrates courts. [R] [109650]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have made no assessment.

  Magistrates Courts Committees are, under statute, responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts for their area.

  Central Government provide 80 per cent. of the funding for Magistrates Courts Committees. The grant allocated for 1999–2000 was £257.5 million. In 2000–01 it is £270.3 million. The Magistrates Courts Committees experiencing hardship have been invited to apply for additional funding.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on steps taken by his Department to process immigration and asylum cases. [109651]

  Jane Kennedy
  Plans are now in place to ensure that the Immigration Appellate Authorities have sufficient staff, judicial, IT and accommodation resources in order to meet the expected increase in workload in the year 2000–01.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [110722]

  Jane Kennedy
  My Department does not use peat compost in the gardens that it owns. The Department's Environment Strategy, while not specifically referring to peat compost, makes a commitment to the integration of sound environmental practice into operational activities. The agents responsible for managing my Department's estate are required to integrate good environment practice into the procurement and supervision of grounds maintenance contracts.

  Information on the use of peat compost on land managed in trust my Department is not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111604]

  Jane Kennedy
  The paper in the documentation used by my Department comes from various independently verified sustainable sources. Information on the percentage of documentation that comes from recycled paper could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All sensitive waste is either recycled or incinerated to generate electricity. Information on the percentage of documentation that is recycled by my Department is not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Conditional Fees
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice he has given to the Rules Committee on the rules of court he considers necessary on conditional fees; and if he will make a statement. [111657]

  Mr. Lock
  The paper, "The Government's conclusions following consultation on Conditional Fees: sharing the risks of litigation" was published on 31 January. That paper sets out the Government's recommendations in respect of rules of court to govern the recovery of the success fee under a conditional fee agreement and of insurance premiums. A copy of the paper has been sent to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.
  964W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assistance will be offered to(a) the public and (b) the legal profession in relation to understanding and preparing for the new rules on conditional fees; and if he will make a statement. [111658]

  Mr. Lock
  The Government will introduce new regulations on 1 April requiring all legal representatives to provide information to lay clients who are considering entering conditional fee agreements. The regulations will require a legal representative, before entering a conditional fee agreement, to explore with the client whether alternative methods of funding the litigation are available, including whether the client's liability for their costs (including the costs of another party) may be covered by insurance. The regulations will require the legal representative to provide an oral explanation of the agreement in addition to providing written information. My Department is also working with the Legal Aid Board to prepare an information leaflet for members of the public explaining the options they will have for financing litigation.

  The report entitled "The Government's Conclusions Following Consultation on Conditional Fees: Sharing the Costs of Litigation", published on 1 February, announced the principles to be set out in regulations applying to conditional fee agreements and contained recommendations to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee concerning the detailed guidance of rules of court governing the recovery of success fees under conditional fee agreements and premiums for after the event insurance policies. Legal representatives can refer for guidance on the regulations to this document, and to the regulations and rules of court themselves once they are made.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received concerning(a) the substance of and (b) the procedure leading to, the new rules of court on conditional fees; and if he will make a statement. [111656]

  Mr. Lock
  The Government received 91 responses to their consultation paper "Conditional Fees: Sharing the Risks of Litigation" on 23 September 1999 from respondents providing views on the regulations and rules of court required to give effect to its policy on conditional fee agreements. These included responses from consumer groups, the Civil Justice Council, the Association of District Judges, the Senior Costs Judge, the legal professional bodies (including those with a specialist interest in conditional fees such as the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers), the trade unions and their legal representatives, individual judges, practitioners and the insurance industry. The views of respondents are summarised in the report entitled "The Government's Conclusions Following Consultation on Conditional Fees: Sharing the Costs of Litigation". That document also lists the names of respondents.

  Since the publication of the report I have received a number of letters from practitioners welcoming the principles the Government intend to set out in regulations applying to conditional fee agreements. These practitioners also welcomed the Government's recommendations to Civil Procedure Rule Committee concerning the detailed

  965W
  guidance in rules of court governing the recovery of success fees under conditional fee agreements and premiums for after the event insurance policies.

  I have also received representations from the President of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers which among other things suggested that its representative and a representative of the Federation of Insurance Lawyers should be co-opted to assist the Civil Procedure Rule Committee draft rules of court, given their special interest in conditional fee agreements and insurance. The Government have no power under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to co-opt representatives onto the Committee.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received concerning the proposed 1 April implementation date for rules of court concerning conditional fees; and if he will make a statement. [111655]

  Mr. Lock
  I have received two letters from the President of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers expressing concern that the Government might have to defer its plans to make success fees and insurance premiums recoverable from 1 April 2000. No such deferment is planned.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what will be recoverable in respect of conditional fee success fees by a successful litigant's lawyers by way of maximum percentage of cap, in relation to each type of work for which success fees can be recovered. [111587]

  Mr. Lock
  The maximum success fees in cases where success fees are permitted will remain at 100 per cent. Recoverability will be subject to the discretion of the court.

  Insurance Premiums
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure that after-the-event insurance premiums recoverable against a losing party will relate only to the risk against incurring a liability in a proceedings and not to financing or marketing expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [111654]

  Mr. Lock
  In its recommendations to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee the Government made clear their wish that rules of court relating to success fees under conditional fee agreements or litigation insurance premiums should provide that only the element relating to the risk that was being covered should be recoverable. A recoverable success fee or insurance premium, in the Government's view, should reflect the related business overheads including, for example, the cost of marketing the services or products concerned. It would be neither desirable nor practicable to attempt to identify and exclude particular elements of normal overhead costs from success fees or insurance premiums.

  The Government have also made clear that they do not believe that the costs relating to financing a case, such as actual or notional interest or credit charges, should be recoverable whether as part of the premium or the success fee.
  966W
  It is, however, for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to decide what detailed rules of court are needed to govern the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums.

  National Insurance Commissioners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals by claimants to the National Insurance Commissioners were(a) granted leave, (b) successful and (c) remitted for rehearing to an appeal tribunal, for each region of the country, in each of the last three years. [111390]

  Jane Kennedy
  We do not categorise appeals by region and therefore are unable to provide the information in the form requested. However details of the number of applications in which leave was granted, in each of the last three years and, of the number of appeals determined in each of these years, the numbers which many were in the claimant's favour are set out in the tables.

  Applications

  Granted

  Leave Refused

  Closed

  Total

  1997

  1,865

  2,850

  37

  4,752

  1998

  1,364

  1,130

  35

  2,529

  1999

  2,010

  1,935

  31

  3,976

  Appeals

  Appeals decided

  Decision in claimant's favour

  1997

  3,926

  2,939

  1998

  4,317

  3,210

  1999

  4,140

  3,237

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) in relation to cases classed as lookalike, delayed behind a lead case before or beyond the NI commissioners what was(a) the average, (b) the median and (c) the longest delay (i) before disposal and (ii) so far while waiting for disposal in each of the last three years; [111395]

  (2) in relation to appeals heard by the National Insurance Commissioners, how many times the DSS was represented by (a) solicitors, (b) junior counsel or advocate, (c) a QC and (d) DSS in-house staff in each of the last three years; [111393]

  (3) what was the (a) average, (b) median and (c) longest delay between grant of leave to a claimant to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioners and the receipt of the (i) representations in writing of the DSS and (ii) representations in writing of the claimant in each of the last three years; [111392]

  (4) how many successful appeals to the National Insurance Commissioners were remitted for rehearing to appeal tribunals in each of the last three years. [111397]

  Jane Kennedy
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to appeals heard by the National Insurance Commissioners(a) what was

  967W
  the total number of appeals heard and (b) how many claimants were represented (i) by solicitors, (ii) by junior counsel or advocate, (iii) by a QC, (iv) by an advice worker and (v) by his or her self in each of the last three years. [111394]

  Jane Kennedy
  Data regarding representation at appeal hearings are not kept, although it is unusual for claimants to be represented by solicitors, junior counsel or advocate or a QC. Claimants are on occasions represented by advice workers but in the main represent themselves.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many lead cases on appeal for the National Insurance Commissioners there were to higher courts; what was the name of each lead case; how many lookalike cases were held up in relation to each such case; and in relation to each such case in which court the case(a) was disposed of and (b) is awaiting disposal. [111396]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows:

  (1) Lead case—Bate (Income support severe disability premium)
  13 January 1993—Decided by the Commissioner adversely to the claimant on the question of backdating.
  30 November 1994—Appeal by claimant to Court of Appeal allowed on a fresh point.
  16 May 1996—Appeal by Secretary of State/Adjudication Officer to House of Lords allowed.
  There were approximately 5,000 lookalike cases.

  (2) Lead case—Fairey (Day attention condition of DLA)
  14 October 1994—Decided by Commissioner in favour of claimant.
  15 June 1995—Appeal by Secretary of State/Adjudication Officer to Court of Appeal dismissed by a majority.
  21 May 1997—Further appeal by Secretary of State/Adjudication Officer to House of Lords dismissed.
  There were approximately 320 lookalike cases.

  (3) Lead case—Plummer and Hammond (Retirement allowance (industrial injuries benefit replacing reduced earnings allowance))
  28 May 1997—Decided by Commissioner adverse to Claimant.
  8 December 1998—Appeal by claimant to Court of Appeal dismissed.
  Approximately 150 lookalike cases were then decided by the Commissioner.
  Of the original 350 cases the remainder still await a judgment of the European Court of Justice in five representative cases (Hepple, Stec and others).
  8 May 1998—Reference by Commissioner to ECJ.

  (4) Lead case—Stafford and Banks (Benefit for casual workers during school holidays)
  24 February 1999—Decided by Commissioner in claimant's favour.
  October 1999—Secretary of State/Adjudication Officer to Court of Appeal allowed.
  The claimant's petition for leave to appeal to House of Lords is outstanding.
  There are approximately 100 cases waiting decision.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the most recent figures for confirmed BSE cases broken down by year of birth. [111528]

  Ms Quin
  The position as at 16 February 2000 was as follows:

  Year of birth

  Total number of confirmed cases

  1974

  1

  1976

  2

  1977

  10

  1978

  6

  1979

  41

  1980

  101

  1981

  261

  1982

  1,393

  1983

  4,461

  1984

  8,067

  1985

  11,064

  1986

  19,728

  1987

  36,861

  1988

  22,175

  1989

  12,631

  1990

  5,620

  1991

  4,519

  1992

  3,010

  1993

  2,062

  1994

  849

  1995

  118

  1996

  1

  Unknown

  43,322

  Total

  176,303

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to publish the evidence given in the Phillips inquiry into BSE. [110501]

  Ms Quin
  The BSE Inquiry is responsible for decisions about the publication of the evidence it receives and its approach has been to make available the evidence on which it relies. It has published witness statements and transcripts of all oral hearings on the internet at http://www.bse.org.uk, and many other documents are publicly available at its offices.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) evidence and (b) observations relating to the use of organophosphates on cattle he has submitted to the Phillips inquiry. [110502]

  Ms Quin
  My Department has provided numerous documents on the use of organophosphorus based warblecides to the BSE Inquiry, including papers on the warble fly eradication programme and on the licensing of warblecides.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what live tests have resulted from the research which he sponsored as a result of the open competition for research on BSE diagnosis in cattle in 1994. [110527]

  Ms Quin
  No research on BSE diagnosis was funded following the open competition for research in 1994. This competition did not call for work in this area. There was,
  969W
  however, a competition in 1996 which resulted in three projects on diagnostic tests for BSE. One of these, which was designed to investigate the differences in metabolic markers in the live animal, is still in progress. None of this work has yet produced a test which can be used in the live animal. Useful post mortem tests have resulted from the completed projects. These are now being evaluated and developed further to improve their sensitivity.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to protect(a) British consumers and (b) the British cattle herd since he was informed of the contents of the report to Directorate D of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General of a veterinary mission to France with regard to certain protective measures against BSE and scrapie with particular reference to implementation of Commission Decisions 94/381/EC, 98/272/EC, 98/703EC and 97/18/EC. [109788]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Domestic legislation already in place to safeguard consumers prohibits the import of bovine specified risk material and the sale of any meat derived from cattle over 30 months old. Compliance with the prohibition on meat and bone meal in feed is monitored through regular sampling.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates he has(a) spoken by telephone to and (b) met (i) the French Minister of Agriculture, (ii) the European Commissioner with responsibility for agriculture and (iii) the European Commissioner with responsibility for health and consumer protection to discuss the contents of the report to Directorate D of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General of a veterinary mission to France with regard to certain protective measures against BSE and scrapie, with particular reference to implementation of Commission Decisions 94/381/EC, 98/272/EC, 98/703EC and 97/18/EC. [109787]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: These issues are for the Commission and individual member states, not for bilateral discussion between member states.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was first informed of the contents of the report to Directorate D of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General of a veterinary mission to France with regard to certain protective measures against BSE and scrapie, with particular reference to implementation of Commission Decisions 94/381/EC, 98/272/EC 98/703EC and 97/18/EC. [109789]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I was informed of the report on 6 February.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for each of the last two years for which records are available, the ages at the time of diagnosis of all the cattle in the United Kingdom diagnosed as suffering from BSE. [109328]

  Ms Quin
  The table shows the number of confirmed cases of BSE reported in the UK in the calendar years 1998 and 19991, by age of the animals.
  970W

  Age in years

  1998

  1999 1

  1–2

  0

  0

  2–3

  1

  1

  3–4

  131

  42

  4–5

  772

  415

  5–6

  986

  713

  6–7

  626

  510

  7–8

  232

  220

  8–9

  140

  94

  9–10

  115

  42

  10–11

  83

  52

  11–12

  49

  32

  12–13

  11

  11

  13–14

  4

  11

  14–15

  1

  0

  15 or more

  1

  0

  Age unknown

  44

  27

  Totals

  3,196

  2,170

  1 Preliminary figures for 1999 as at 9 February 2000

  Lamb
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total tonnage of lamb offered in the United Kingdom under the private storage aid scheme adopted by the EU Sheepmeat Management Committee on 17 September 1999; how many carcases this represented; and what were the corresponding figures for Northern Ireland. [111248]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2099/1999 provided for aid for the private storage of lamb up to a limit of 2,350 tonnes in the United Kingdom.

  2,306 tonnes were offered into the Scheme from Great Britain with contracts issued in respect of 2,297 tonnes. The accepted figure represents 131,236 carcases.

  53 tonnes were offered and accepted from Northern Ireland representing 3,289 carcases.

  Feedingstuff Regulations
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy towards the proposals for the administering of vitamins and minerals contained within section 13 of the EU Draft Feedingstuff Regulations 2000. [110753]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: My Department's recent consultation on the draft Feedingstuff Regulations 2000, specifically requested comments on regulation 13 in order that all the implications of this proposed measure could be assessed. We will be in a position to make a decision on this issue shortly, when we have considered all the responses.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the availability of EU funds to offset the impact of fluctuations in the green pound. [110712]

  Ms Quin
  £264 million in agrimonetary compensation has been, or is being, paid to UK livestock and arable farmers as the 100 per cent. EU-funded first instalment of a compulsory three year package to compensate for the effects on direct payments of euro/sterling exchange rates
  971W
  in 1999. A further £132 million of EU funds will be paid over the period 2000 to 2001 if exchange rates remain as they are.

  Following further currency fluctuation, additional optional EU-funded compensation is available; details will be provided by the Commission at the end of next month. Any additional expenditure on agrimonetary compensation would have to be considered against other calls on public expenditure; because of the Fontainebleau rebate the UK taxpayer would pay about 71p for every £1 spent.

  Regulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives are being pursued to reduce the costs arising for agriculture from regulation in(a) the short-term and (b) the long-term. [110533]

  Ms Quin
  The new support package for farmers announced on 20 September 1999 included two measures which will save the industry £89 million over three years. Charges for inspection of the removal of Specified Risk Material from cattle and sheep carcases and for the provision of cattle passports will not be imposed before 2002–03 at the earliest. On 1 December 1999 we announced that meat hygiene inspection charges for the whole of 1999–2000 are being held at the levels fixed for 1998–99. The charges for 2000–01 will not rise by more than the rate of inflation over current levels.

  Following the review of regulatory burdens three priority reports were presented by the industry-led working groups before Christmas. They were asked to root out unnecessary burdens or to find ways of doing things better. They made 107 recommendations 98 of which were accepted and six will require further consideration. Twenty-three will need to be pursued in Brussels. The aim is to implement these recommendations as quickly as possible. Reports on other issues are expected shortly. We shall continue to work to minimise burdens wherever possible. The next phase will look at policies or schemes run by other Government Departments.

  Sheep Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on the effect that exchange rates have had on the sheep premium calculation; and if he will make a statement. [110526]

  Ms Quin
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 10 February 2000,Official Report, column 285W.

  British Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals he has to audit the performance of the British Cattle Movement Service; [110595]

  (2) what initiatives he is pursuing to improve the efficiency and performance of the British Cattle Movement Service. [110535]
  972W
  Ms Quin
  The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) is subject to regular audit both from within my Department and by the National Audit Office.

  BCMS's performance is monitored against its Public Service Agreement Targets. Industry now has a key role in this process through the recently formed Cattle Tracing Industry Forum.

  As a relatively new organisation, BCMS has been developing its quality control procedures and these have already delivered significant improvements in efficiency. As a result of current management initiatives, together with the commitment of BCMS staff, it is expected that registration of the BCMS quality management system under International Standard ISO EN BS 9002 will be achieved during the next financial year.

  BCMS is also undertaking a programme of visits to commercial organisations and to other member states carrying out analogous services. The visits are intended as a best practice and benchmarking exercise to compare business efficiency. One comparison visit with the commercial sector has already taken place and efficiency visits to two other member states' cattle tracing organisations are arranged for March and April.

  Farming (Promotion)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he is pursuing to promote a stronger partnership between farming, its customers and consumers. [110537]

  Ms Quin
  We are working on a number of initiatives with interested organisations, including the National Farmers Union and IGD (formerly the Institute of Grocery Distribution) to encourage primary producers to work together and with their customers, and to increase understanding of one another and of consumers. The importance of such partnerships was highlighted in the report of the Food Chain Group, which was published last November. The Group identified a range of issues for Government and for industry, and we intend to review progress in the summer.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of arable farms have hedgerow buffer strips around their fields; and if he will make a statement. [110704]

  Ms Quin
  Some figures are available for the length of arable margins on which payments are made under agri-environment schemes, but these do not take account of all other farms where farmers may voluntarily have buffer strips. Figures on the percentage of farms which have buffer strips are not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European Commission measures would regulate any bans on the sale of beef on the bone. [107238]
  973W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: In the light of public protection measures already taken in the UK and the professional advice available to government, we see no case for the re-introduction of such a ban by European Commission measures.

  Agriculture Development Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) of 2 February 2000,Official Report, columns 641–42W, concerning the agriculture development scheme, what was the amount of grant aid offered to each of the lead organisations listed. [109689]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The size of individual awards is commercially confidential, but these grants range in value from £5,500 to £100,000.

  Food Chain Group
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Food Chain Group. [109795]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The Food Chain Group comprises senior figures from the National Farmers Union, Food and Drink Federation, IGD (formerly the Institute of Grocery Distribution) and MAFF, under the chairmanship of a senior MAFF official. The Group was invited to review the opportunities for working together and increasing understanding among the players in the food chain, and between the industry as a whole and consumers.

  The Group's report, which was published on 10 November last year and a copy placed in the Library of the House, has been welcomed by many across the supply chain as a significant contribution to the drive to improve agri-food competitiveness. I have asked the Policy Issues Council of IGD to consider how best to take forward those issues which are for the industry. We intend to review progress in the summer.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if EU Marketing Consent has been given for 98/294/CE Elgina Monsanto Bt maize; on which national seed lists the seed is currently included; and if it is subject to field trials in any EU state; [110290]

  (2) if EU marketing consent has been given for 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis herbicide tolerant maize; on which national seed lists the seeds are currently included; and if they are subject to field trials in any EU state; [110291]

  (3) if EU marketing consent has been given for 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/herbicide tolerant maize; on which national seed lists the seeds are currently included; and if they are subject to field trials in any EU state. [110293]

  Ms Quin
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions take the policy lead on marketing consents under Directive 90/220/EEC. They have advised that marketing consents have been given in 974W
  respect of all of the above Commission decisions. The position with regard to national listing for these varieties is as follows:

  Chardon LL—on the Dutch national list

  Compa CB—on Spanish national list

  Jordi—on the Spanish national list

  Elgina and Compa CB—were added to the Portuguese national list but the Portuguese authorities have notified the Commission that their registration has been suspended.

  We are not aware if any of these varieties are the subject of field trials in other EU member states.

  Pet Travel Scheme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received from airlines regarding the pet travel scheme; [109362]

  (2) when he plans to include airlines in the arrangements available under the pet travel scheme. [109360]

  Ms Quin
  All airlines flying into the UK were invited to express interest in taking part in the Pet Travel Scheme. Eight have done so. Discussions are still underway with the following airlines with a view to agreeing their "Required Methods of Operation":

  British Airways,

  British Midland,

  Finnair, Iberia Airlines,

  Lufthansa,

  Qantas.

  Once these have been agreed the airlines concerned will be able to enter the scheme.

TREASURY

  Underweight Babies
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) number and (b) percentage of underweight babies born in each health authority area in each of the past 10 years. [110827]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 21 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on underweight babies by health authority for each of the past ten years.
  The number of live births under 2,500 grams and their percentage of all live births with a stated birthweight in each Regional Office and health Authority for 1990–1998 are shown in the attached table. Also provided are the number of live and stillbirths under 2,500 grams and their percentage of all births with stated birthweight in each Regional Office and Health Authority for 1990–1998. Data for 1989 are not available based on the latest health authority boundaries as at 1st April 1999.

  975W
  I will arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the House of Commons library.

  Note:

  The table referred to has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many underweight babies were born in each health authority for each of the past 10 years; and what percentage of live births this represented. [110766]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Number of livebirths with a stated birthweight less than 2,500 grams England and Wales, England, regional offices and health authorities1, 1990–1998

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  England and Wales

  46,018

  46,326

  44,789

  44,557

  45,079

  47,251

  47,115

  46,761

  47,462

  England

  43,689

  43,870

  42,408

  42,327

  42,844

  44,851

  44,697

  45,338

  45,069

  Northern and Yorkshire

  5,833

  5,917

  5,755

  5,586

  5,652

  5,940

  5,630

  5,892

  5,568

  Bradford

  610

  606

  589

  627

  682

  630

  618

  625

  692

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  694

  656

  601

  611

  590

  681

  604

  646

  622

  County Durham

  512

  476

  526

  482

  464

  506

  495

  525

  468

  East Riding

  481

  527

  461

  459

  492

  471

  496

  531

  466

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  270

  317

  313

  288

  306

  334

  299

  331

  261

  Leeds

  698

  721

  728

  662

  695

  758

  712

  696

  702

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  442

  482

  423

  431

  445

  433

  426

  440

  391

  North Cumbria

  223

  252

  229

  233

  214

  225

  248

  261

  216

  North Yorkshire

  480

  480

  521

  457

  461

  531

  452

  537

  473

  Northumberland

  233

  225

  214

  222

  227

  241

  198

  223

  215

  Sunderland

  295

  266

  262

  272

  227

  267

  275

  268

  272

  Tees

  599

  621

  569

  533

  534

  555

  511

  515

  511

  Wakefield

  296

  288

  319

  309

  306

  308

  296

  294

  279

  Trent

  4,756

  4,689

  4,666

  4,505

  4,381

  4,502

  4,423

  4,492

  4,598

  Barnsley

  228

  221

  220

  221

  187

  215

  187

  183

  200

  Doncaster

  268

  280

  266

  255

  264

  281

  247

  315

  273

  Leicestershire

  860

  787

  788

  869

  856

  915

  931

  913

  893

  Lincolnshire

  406

  382

  417

  382

  419

  431

  420

  450

  487

  North Derbyshire

  254

  293

  283

  241

  280

  244

  253

  255

  252

  North Nottinghamshire

  360

  350

  330

  328

  348

  371

  382

  404

  346

  Nottingham

  855

  788

  764

  768

  626

  583

  562

  543

  573

  Rotherham

  244

  232

  226

  213

  239

  248

  228

  227

  234

  Sheffield

  465

  504

  524

  500

  504

  492

  483

  460

  513

  South Humber

  272

  301

  282

  300

  245

  274

  259

  272

  291

  Southern Derbyshire

  544

  551

  566

  428

  413

  448

  471

  470

  536

  West Midlands

  5,378

  5,401

  5,078

  5,207

  5,106

  5,366

  5,456

  5,425

  4,486

  Birmingham

  1,371

  1,435

  1,362

  1,335

  1,353

  1,435

  1,400

  1,430

  1,470

  Coventry

  375

  373

  354

  408

  368

  346

  386

  340

  323

  Dudley

  290

  289

  308

  306

  296

  307

  322

  310

  314

  Herefordshire

  135

  127

  106

  133

  112

  118

  123

  126

  122

  North Staffordshire

  419

  426

  383

  406

  351

  382

  395

  367

  422

  Sandwell

  376

  383

  379

  354

  403

  393

  395

  403

  402

  Shropshire

  318

  362

  293

  326

  311

  352

  358

  340

  347

  Solihull

  141

  187

  133

  147

  167

  152

  197

  159

  144

  South Staffordshire

  507

  434

  409

  425

  419

  456

  481

  439

  495

  Walsall

  261

  278

  275

  292

  265

  305

  312

  358

  358

  Warwickshire

  401

  395

  364

  353

  395

  392

  361

  382

  379

  Wolverhampton

  322

  314

  291

  333

  280

  290

  318

  325

  310

  Worcestershire

  462

  398

  421

  389

  386

  438

  408

  446

  400

  NorthWest

  6,450

  6,276

  6,076

  5,794

  5,678

  6,209

  6,247

  6,202

  6,321

  Bury and Rochdale

  421

  456

  472

  370

  416

  419

  424

  435

  461

  East Lancashire

  607

  578

  595

  599

  565

  629

  545

  570

  656

  Liverpool

  533

  442

  399

  411

  419

  489

  508

  434

  454

  Manchester

  651

  633

  613

  550

  506

  588

  562

  548

  540

  Morecambe Bay

  215

  204

  224

  192

  249

  239

  244

  202

  218

  North Cheshire

  248

  291

  238

  232

  218

  221

  260

  237

  261

  North West Lancashire

  400

  425

  363

  339

  381

  361

  403

  430

  413

  Salford and Trafford

  464

  481

  406

  433

  428

  434

  419

  451

  452

  976W
  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Dari Taylor, dated 22 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on underweight babies by health authority for each of the past ten years.
  The number of live births under 2,500 grams and their percentage of all live births with a stated birthweight in each Regional Office and Health Authority for 1990–1998 are shown in the table. Data for 1989 are not available based on the latest health authority boundaries as at 1st April 1999.
  I will arrange a copy of this reply to be placed in the House of Commons library.
  977W

  Number of livebirths with a stated birthweight less than 2,500 grams England and Wales, England, regional offices and health authorities1, 1990–1998

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Sefton

  162

  200

  233

  191

  194

  214

  215

  234

  226

  South Cheshire

  480

  433

  483

  434

  425

  485

  491

  496

  448

  South Lancashire

  277

  248

  237

  237

  232

  231

  242

  244

  216

  St Helen's and Knowsley

  334

  317

  303

  285

  276

  334

  347

  331

  341

  Stockport

  245

  238

  229

  215

  174

  227

  209

  205

  234

  West Pennine

  542

  469

  465

  479

  457

  503

  481

  520

  507

  Wigan and Bolton

  554

  566

  556

  527

  484

  580

  608

  607

  609

  Wirral

  317

  295

  260

  300

  254

  255

  289

  258

  285

  Eastern

  3,842

  4,112

  4,045

  4,056

  4,177

  4,272

  4,284

  4,299

  4,346

  Bedfordshire

  526

  543

  498

  536

  531

  524

  561

  548

  575

  Cambridgeshire

  563

  548

  568

  572

  572

  632

  606

  595

  591

  East and North Hertfordshire

  362

  341

  395

  375

  444

  424

  414

  423

  390

  Norfolk

  501

  530

  514

  560

  562

  603

  569

  551

  576

  North Essex

  617

  677

  664

  640

  633

  668

  651

  644

  656

  South Essex

  493

  620

  535

  544

  530

  503

  524

  585

  445

  Suffolk

  479

  462

  449

  456

  506

  487

  490

  544

  536

  West Hertfordshire

  301

  391

  422

  373

  399

  431

  469

  408

  468

  London

  7,451

  7,397

  7,108

  7,170

  7,609

  8,139

  8,161

  8,379

  8,347

  Barking and Havering

  345

  339

  309

  331

  336

  300

  340

  365

  342

  Barnet

  242

  252

  232

  242

  271

  319

  316

  334

  302

  Bexley and Greenwich

  449

  431

  369

  361

  376

  411

  439

  422

  460

  Brent and Harrow

  588

  605

  608

  558

  556

  568

  609

  581

  558

  Bromley

  213

  220

  217

  232

  257

  250

  257

  233

  226

  Camden and Islington

  329

  325

  315

  373

  380

  377

  381

  406

  375

  Croydon

  349

  346

  338

  333

  331

  382

  358

  368

  404

  Baling, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  732

  705

  768

  721

  702

  760

  756

  780

  835

  East London and The City

  959

  957

  941

  997

  990

  1,053

  1,079

  1,165

  1,166

  Enfield and Haringey

  511

  538

  482

  499

  530

  601

  575

  619

  624

  Hillingdon

  252

  262

  245

  228

  232

  283

  250

  260

  291

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  275

  309

  276

  271

  267

  329

  328

  329

  320

  Kingston and Richmond

  198

  249

  219

  216

  234

  227

  247

  259

  237

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  915

  759

  744

  779

  985

  1,075

  1,063

  1,107

  1,074

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  614

  580

  565

  560

  619

  644

  627

  611

  614

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  480

  520

  480

  469

  453

  560

  536

  540

  519

  South East

  6,503

  6,613

  6,360

  6,455

  6,655

  6,777

  6,807

  6,943

  6,892

  Berkshire

  660

  691

  671

  655

  706

  737

  734

  779

  810

  Buckinghamshire

  520

  552

  513

  572

  583

  584

  593

  620

  573

  East Kent

  461

  497

  448

  412

  435

  438

  406

  508

  421

  East Surrey

  245

  258

  278

  294

  324

  323

  305

  285

  300

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  461

  474

  431

  515

  529

  504

  517

  565

  502

  Isle of Wight

  99

  73

  71

  89

  78

  81

  94

  88

  89

  North and Mid Hampshire

  424

  428

  419

  407

  409

  432

  497

  426

  451

  Northamptonshire

  521

  519

  560

  565

  605

  518

  565

  584

  558

  Oxfordshire

  481

  536

  450

  422

  408

  408

  448

  470

  436

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  469

  418

  437

  425

  443

  448

  434

  400

  410

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  448

  399

  389

  392

  390

  445

  420

  401

  421

  West Kent

  794

  822

  790

  769

  751

  832

  832

  785

  854

  West Surrey

  424

  436

  463

  446

  481

  499

  438

  473

  507

  West Sussex

  496

  480

  450

  492

  513

  528

  524

  559

  560

  SouthWest

  3,476

  3,465

  3,320

  3,554

  3,586

  3,646

  3,689

  3,706

  3,511

  Avon

  703

  696

  721

  756

  758

  808

  845

  835

  738

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  332

  349

  322

  328

  310

  340

  339

  295

  312

  Dorset

  459

  467

  396

  459

  452

  429

  456

  471

  480

  Gloucestershire

  410

  399

  355

  397

  469

  454

  420

  429

  421

  North and East Devon

  306

  321

  297

  323

  317

  324

  346

  309

  328

  Somerset

  335

  305

  323

  379

  324

  346

  352

  334

  332

  South and West Devon

  432

  470

  440

  427

  407

  419

  431

  468

  408

  Wiltshire

  499

  458

  466

  485

  549

  526

  500

  565

  492

  Wales

  2,329

  2,456

  2,381

  2,230

  2,235

  2,400

  2,418

  2,423

  2,393

  Bro Taf

  622

  667

  691

  645

  635

  665

  711

  656

  715

  Dyfed Powys

  296

  308

  309

  311

  311

  325

  342

  300

  316

  Gwent

  522

  564

  528

  507

  478

  528

  512

  522

  466

  Morgannwg

  372

  422

  413

  346

  330

  399

  373

  398

  398

  North Wales

  517

  495

  440

  421

  481

  483

  480

  537

  498

  1 Boundaries as at 1st April 1999

  978W 979W

  Percentage of livebirths with a stated birthweight less than 2,500 grams England and Wales, England, regional offices and health authorities1, 1990–1998

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  England and Wales

  6.8

  6.9

  6.8

  6.8

  7.0

  7.3

  7.3

  7.4

  7.5

  England

  6.8

  6.9

  6.8

  6.9

  7.0

  7.3

  7.3

  7.5

  7.5

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7.0

  7.0

  7.0

  7.0

  7.3

  7.7

  7.4

  7.9

  7.6

  Bradford

  8.1

  7.9

  7.9

  8.5

  9.3

  8.8

  8.7

  9.1

  9.8

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  8.4

  8.0

  7.4

  7.8

  7.7

  8.7

  7.7

  8.4

  8.2

  County Durham

  6.5

  6.1

  6.7

  6.5

  6.6

  7.3

  7.2

  7.8

  7.0

  East Riding

  6.5

  7.0

  6.4

  6.4

  7.2

  6.9

  7.4

  8.2

  7.4

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  5.9

  6.7

  6.9

  6.6

  7.3

  7.9

  7.4

  8.1

  6.8

  Leeds

  7.3

  7.5

  7.9

  7.4

  8.0

  8.5

  8.1

  8.3

  8.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  7.2

  7.9

  7.2

  7.5

  8.2

  7.7

  7.9

  8.3

  7.5

  North Cumbria

  5.8

  6.3

  5.9

  6.3

  5.9

  6.6

  7.0

  7.5

  6.6

  North Yorkshire

  5.6

  5.7

  6.2

  5.7

  5.8

  6.5

  5.5

  6.6

  6.0

  Northumberland

  6.7

  6.3

  6.1

  6.3

  6.7

  7.3

  6.0

  7.1

  6.7

  Sunderland

  7.1

  6.4

  6.5

  7.3

  6.3

  7.6

  8.0

  8.1

  8.4

  Tees

  7.5

  7.6

  7.3

  7.0

  7.3

  7.8

  7.3

  7.7

  7.8

  Wakefield

  6.6

  6.5

  7.3

  7.3

  7.6

  7.9

  7.6

  7.6

  7.7

  Trent

  7.2

  7.2

  7.2

  7.1

  7.0

  7.3

  7.3

  7.6

  7.8

  Barnsley

  7.4

  7.1

  7.1

  7.7

  6.7

  7.6

  6.6

  6.9

  7.8

  Doncaster

  6.3

  6.7

  6.5

  6.5

  6.9

  7.5

  6.8

  8.8

  7.7

  Leicestershire

  7.1

  6.9

  6.8

  7.6

  7.5

  8.0

  8.2

  8.2

  8.0

  Lincolnshire

  6.0

  5.8

  6.2

  5.7

  6.1

  6.4

  6.2

  6.8

  7.3

  North Derbyshire

  5.9

  6.7

  6.5

  5.6

  6.5

  5.9

  6.1

  6.5

  6.4

  North Nottinghamshire

  7.2

  6.8

  6.7

  6.7

  7.2

  8.0

  8.0

  8.9

  7.7

  Nottingham

  9.9

  9.1

  9.1

  9.3

  7.8

  7.5

  7.4

  7.2

  7.8

  Rotherham

  6.7

  6.4

  6.5

  6.2

  7.3

  8.0

  7.1

  7.3

  7.8

  Sheffield

  7.6

  7.5

  8.0

  7.5

  7.8

  7.9

  7.9

  7.6

  8.4

  South Humber

  6.3

  7.2

  6.9

  7.6

  6.3

  7.1

  7.0

  7.5

  8.2

  Southern Derbyshire

  7.3

  7.4

  7.8

  6.3

  6.2

  6.5

  6.9

  7.0

  7.9

  West Midlands

  7.3

  7.4

  7.2

  7.6

  7.6

  8.0

  8.1

  8.1

  8.4

  Birmingham

  8.3

  8.5

  8.5

  8.5

  8.8

  9.5

  9.2

  9.4

  10.0

  Coventry

  8.1

  8.3

  8.3

  9.5

  9.0

  8.7

  9.7

  8.7

  8.7

  Dudley

  7.2

  7.1

  7.6

  7.8

  7.7

  7.9

  8.5

  8.3

  8.8

  Herefordshire

  6.5

  6.2

  5.6

  7.1

  6.1

  6.4

  6.8

  6.8

  6.7

  North Staffordshire

  6.7

  6.9

  6.6

  7.3

  6.5

  7.1

  7.4

  7.0

  8.2

  Sandwell

  8.8

  9.0

  8.8

  8.6

  9.9

  9.7

  9.5

  10.0

  10.4

  Shropshire

  5.9

  6.7

  5.6

  6.4

  6.0

  7.1

  7.0

  6.7

  7.0

  Solihull

  5.5

  7.2

  5.3

  6.4

  7.1

  6.6

  8.5

  7.2

  6.6

  South Staffordshire

  6.6

  5.8

  5.9

  6.4

  6.7

  6.6

  7.0

  6.5

  7.4

  Walsall

  7.4

  8.0

  7.9

  8.3

  7.6

  8.8

  9.1

  10.1

  10.3

  Warwickshire

  6.3

  6.5

  6.3

  6.2

  6.8

  6.9

  6.3

  6.7

  6.7

  Wolverhampton

  9.0

  8.8

  8.3

  9.4

  8.3

  9.2

  9.6

  10.1

  10.0

  Worcestershire

  7.1

  6.3

  6.7

  6.4

  6.4

  7.1

  6.6

  7.2

  6.6

  NorthWest

  7.1

  6.9

  7.0

  7.0

  7.0

  7.7

  7.7

  7.8

  8.1

  Bury and Rochdale

  7.2

  7.9

  8.4

  6.9

  7.8

  8.3

  8.2

  8.6

  9.2

  East Lancashire

  7.7

  7.3

  7.8

  7.9

  7.8

  8.7

  7.7

  8.3

  9.5

  Liverpool

  7.9

  6.8

  7.6

  8.0

  7.9

  8.3

  8.5

  7.7

  8.2

  Manchester

  9.3

  9.2

  9.1

  8.4

  8.3

  9.9

  9.2

  9.2

  9.3

  MorecambeBay

  6.2

  5.6

  6.1

  5.4

  7.3

  7.4

  7.3

  6.2

  6.9

  North Cheshire

  5.6

  6.3

  5.5

  5.7

  5.4

  5.5

  6.6

  6.2

  6.5

  North West Lancashire

  6.8

  7.3

  6.6

  6.3

  7.1

  7.1

  7.6

  8.1

  8.3

  Salford and Trafford

  7.4

  7.7

  6.6

  7.6

  7.9

  8.0

  7.8

  8.3

  8.3

  Sefton

  6.2

  6.8

  7.1

  6.5

  6.6

  7.1

  7.2

  7.6

  7.9

  South Cheshire

  5.9

  5.4

  6.2

  5.8

  5.5

  6.5

  6.4

  6.6

  6.1

  South Lancashire

  6.6

  6.1

  6.2

  6.3

  6.5

  6.5

  6.9

  7.0

  6.3

  St Helen's and Knowsley

  6.8

  6.5

  6.8

  6.7

  6.6

  7.8

  8.0

  8.2

  8.5

  Stockport

  6.5

  6.2

  6.5

  6.3

  5.4

  6.9

  6.3

  6.1

  7.2

  West Pennine

  7.9

  6.9

  6.9

  7.3

  7.3

  7.8

  7.6

  8.3

  8.4

  Wigan and Bolton

  6.7

  7.0

  7.0

  7.1

  6.8

  8.2

  8.3

  8.7

  8.9

  Wirral

  7.1

  6.7

  6.4

  7.1

  6.3

  6.6

  7.6

  7.0

  8.0

  Eastern

  5.9

  6.2

  6.1

  6.1

  6.3

  6.6

  6.6

  6.6

  6.8

  Bedfordshire

  6.7

  7.0

  6.5

  6.8

  6.8

  6.7

  7.3

  7.2

  7.6

  Cambridgeshire

  6.3

  6.1

  6.4

  6.5

  6.4

  7.4

  7.1

  6.9

  6.9

  East and North Hertfordshire

  5.6

  5.2

  6.0

  5.8

  6.7

  6.8

  6.5

  6.6

  6.1

  Norfolk

  5.8

  6.2

  5.9

  6.5

  6.6

  7.1

  6.8

  6.6

  7.0

  North Essex

  5.5

  6.1

  6.0

  5.9

  6.0

  6.4

  6.3

  6.2

  6.4

  South Essex

  5.3

  6.7

  6.0

  6.0

  5.8

  5.7

  5.9

  6.7

  6.3

  980W

  981W

  Percentage of livebirths with a stated birthweight less than 2,500 grams England and Wales, England, regional offices and health authorities1, 1990–1998

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Suffolk

  5.8

  5.7

  5.7

  6.0

  6.4

  6.3

  6.5

  6.9

  7.0

  West Hertfordshire

  6.7

  6.7

  6.3

  5.7

  5.9

  6.5

  6.9

  6.0

  6.8

  London

  7.6

  7.6

  7.3

  7.5

  7.7

  7.9

  7.8

  8.0

  7.9

  Barking and Havering

  6.3

  6.4

  5.8

  6.4

  6.4

  6.2

  6.8

  7.4

  6.8

  Barnet

  7.0

  7.1

  6.4

  6.5

  7.0

  7.7

  7.5

  7.9

  7.2

  Bexley and Greenwich

  7.1

  7.1

  6.6

  6.3

  6.9

  6.9

  7.4

  7.3

  7.6

  Brent and Harrow

  9.2

  9.4

  9.0

  8.5

  8.6

  8.6

  8.9

  8.7

  8.4

  Bromley

  5.9

  6.2

  6.0

  6.4

  7.0

  6.9

  6.9

  6.4

  6.2

  Camden and Islington

  7.7

  7.2

  6.9

  7.9

  7.8

  7.4

  7.5

  7.8

  7.2

  Croydon

  7.2

  7.4

  7.3

  7.5

  7.4

  8.3

  7.8

  7.9

  8.7

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  7.8

  7.4

  7.7

  7.7

  7.4

  7.7

  7.7

  7.8

  8.2

  East London and The City

  8.6

  8.5

  8.5

  9.0

  9.0

  9.0

  8.9

  9.7

  9.7

  Enfield and Haringey

  7.6

  7.5

  6.8

  7.1

  7.5

  8.0

  7.7

  8.2

  8.3

  Hillingdon

  7.4

  7.4

  7.1

  6.8

  6.7

  8.3

  7.3

  7.5

  8.2

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  7.2

  7.7

  7.3

  7.8

  7.4

  7.8

  7.7

  7.6

  7.5

  Kingston and Richmond

  5.2

  6.3

  5.6

  5.7

  5.8

  5.7

  5.9

  6.2

  5.4

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  8.6

  9.1

  8.6

  8.3

  8.9

  9.1

  8.7

  8.8

  8.8

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  7.0

  6.7

  6.4

  6.4

  7.1

  7.1

  6.9

  6.7

  6.9

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  7.7

  8.5

  7.8

  7.9

  8.5

  8.3

  7.9

  8.0

  7.7

  South East

  6.1

  6.3

  6.1

  6.3

  6.4

  6.6

  6.6

  6.8

  6.7

  Berkshire

  6.6

  6.9

  6.4

  6.3

  6.6

  6.9

  6.8

  7.1

  7.6

  Buckinghamshire

  5.9

  6.2

  5.8

  6.6

  6.6

  6.8

  6.7

  7.2

  6.6

  East Kent

  6.5

  7.1

  6.3

  6.0

  6.4

  6.7

  6.2

  7.4

  6.3

  East Surrey

  5.2

  5.4

  6.0

  6.4

  6.9

  6.5

  6.3

  5.8

  5.9

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  5.9

  6.1

  5.7

  6.6

  6.6

  6.4

  6.7

  7.1

  6.3

  Isle of Wight

  7.1

  5.5

  5.4

  6.8

  5.9

  6.5

  7.1

  7.3

  7.3

  North and Mid Hampshire

  5.9

  6.3

  6.0

  5.8

  5.9

  6.2

  7.2

  6.2

  6.4

  Northamptonshire

  6.3

  6.8

  6.9

  7.6

  7.9

  7.0

  7.5

  7.8

  7.5

  Oxfordshire

  6.3

  7.0

  6.0

  5.8

  5.8

  5.7

  6.2

  6.3

  5.9

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6.6

  6.0

  6.3

  6.2

  6.7

  6.9

  6.7

  6.4

  6.6

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  6.6

  6.2

  5.9

  6.2

  6.3

  7.1

  6.8

  6.6

  7.0

  West Kent

  6.0

  6.4

  6.1

  5.9

  5.9

  6.7

  6.6

  6.3

  6.9

  West Surrey

  5.6

  5.6

  5.8

  5.9

  6.3

  6.4

  5.7

  6.2

  6.5

  West Sussex

  5.9

  5.9

  5.6

  6.3

  6.3

  6.6

  6.4

  6.8

  6.6

  South West

  6.1

  6.2

  5.9

  6.4

  6.5

  6.7

  6.7

  6.8

  6.5

  Avon

  6.0

  5.9

  6.1

  6.3

  6.3

  6.8

  7.0

  7.0

  6.3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  6.0

  6.5

  6.0

  6.3

  6.2

  6.8

  6.7

  5.8

  6.2

  Dorset

  6.2

  6.5

  5.7

  6.4

  6.5

  6.3

  6.5

  6.8

  7.0

  Gloucestershire

  6.0

  6.2

  5.4

  6.1

  7.3

  6.9

  6.5

  6.8

  6.5

  North and East Devon

  5.9

  6.4

  6.0

  6.4

  6.5

  6.7

  6.9

  6.3

  6.7

  Somerset

  5.8

  5.4

  5.8

  6.9

  6.0

  6.5

  6.7

  6.4

  6.3

  South and West Devon

  6.2

  6.7

  6.4

  6.5

  6.2

  6.6

  6.7

  7.4

  6.7

  Wiltshire

  6.3

  6.0

  6.0

  6.4

  6.9

  7.0

  6.6

  7.4

  6.5

  Wales

  6.2

  6.7

  6.6

  6.3

  6.5

  7.0

  6.9

  7.0

  7.2

  Bro Taf

  6.1

  6.7

  7.0

  6.8

  6.9

  7.2

  7.7

  7.2

  8.0

  Dyfed Powys

  5.4

  5.8

  6.0

  6.3

  6.4

  6.5

  6.7

  5.8

  6.4

  Gwent

  6.9

  7.5

  7.2

  6.9

  6.6

  7.6

  7.3

  7.7

  7.0

  Morgannwg

  6.0

  7.0

  6.9

  5.8

  5.8

  7.1

  6.4

  6.9

  7.4

  North Wales

  6.4

  6.2

  5.7

  5.5

  6.3

  6.4

  6.3

  7.2

  6.6

  1 Boundaries as at 1st April 1999

  Import/Export Traders
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made to assess demand from import/export traders for simplified Customs procedures across the community. [111910]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs are planning to carry out pilot studies of a Single European Authorisation (SEA) which would allow multinational traders to be authorised by and pay customs duty to one Member State in respect of all their import and export operations within the European Union. Excise duties such as on alcohol and tobacco products are excluded from these arrangements. The Government considers that SEA will increase the 982W
  competitiveness of UK business by reducing their administrative burdens. It will facilitate the opportunities for speedy paperless movement of goods throughout the EU.

  SEA is actively promoted by the main UK trade associations and their affiliated associations in the EU, including the Freight Transport Association and the Confederation of British Industry.

  Under the terms of the trials businesses will be able to centralise the payment of duty in one accounting centre in one of the Member States, even though the movement of goods may take place elsewhere in the Community. VAT will be excluded from the trial because it is a

  983W
  'destination' based tax and has to be accounted for in the Member State where the goods are 'consumed'. The provision of trade statistics, too, will remain a national requirement.

  The United Kingdom plans to undertake up to 12 pilot studies. They will be closely assessed and each authorisation will be reviewed after 12 months. In addition, the project as a whole will be evaluated before any decision is taken to adopt the procedure permanently, which would require Community legislation. The procedure does not involve any transfer of responsibility from the Member States to the European Commission.

  To safeguard the interests of both the UK and other Member States with whom we enter into such arrangements, a Joint Understanding on Co-operation will be signed by the customs administrations involved to govern the conduct of the pilot studies. Discussions are at their most advanced with the Dutch customs administration and I am placing a copy of the draft understanding in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is expected to provide a template for similar agreements with other Member States.

  Although the pilot arrangements will allow duty to be paid in one Member State for goods imported into another, there will be no difference in the total amount the Member States' customs duty contributes to the Community. Customs will negotiate reciprocal arrangements with other Member States in respect of the 10 per cent. of duty which is retained by the Member States to cover their costs of collecting Community duties. It is envisaged that the arrangements will vary depending on the circumstances of each agreement.

  Customs have already undertaken a financial impact analysis of the top 500 UK customs duty payers to assess what would happen to duty payments for each of these traders if they were authorised for SEA. The analysis suggests that the consequences for the UK' s retained Own Resources (including interest) for duty collected under SEA if the arrangements were universally implemented would be likely to be positive.

  The SEA arrangements represent a significant departure from usual practice for collecting and making available Community own resources which would help to streamline and modernise the collection of customs duty, and facilitate trade by reducing traders' compliance costs.

  Personal Services (Taxation)
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the draft legislation covering the taxation of personal services provided through intermediaries (IR35) will be published. [111869]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The draft Finance Bill clauses, draft Social Security Regulations and accompanying Explanatory Notes have been published today. Copies have been placed on the Inland Revenue website (www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ir35) and also in the Libraries of the House.

  The Social Security Regulations will come into force on 6 April 2000. The Finance Bill clauses will be debated during the passage of the Finance Bill and will become
  984W
  law once the Finance Bill has received Royal Assent. The tax changes will be applied retrospectively from 6 April 2000.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of changes in(a) indirect taxation, (b) direct taxation and (c) benefits since May 1997 on the real-terms incomes of an average pensioner household; and if he will indicate the method he used in making this calculation. [111169]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have introduced a package of measures to provide support that is decent and fair and ensures that even the least well off pensioners can share in the increasing prosperity of the nation.

  As a result of the measures announced by the Government, pensioner households will be, on average, £300 a year better off.
  The Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners was introduced in April 1999. The Government are committed to increase the MIG in line with earnings throughout the remainder of this Parliament;
  The five-fold increase in the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners means that pensioner households will receive a payment of £100 every winter;
  Under the Minimum Tax Guarantee, the age related personal allowances were increased by £200 more than statutory indexation in April 1999, thereby lifting 200,000 pensioners out of tax. Pensioners aged 65 or over now have to have an income of at least £110 a week before they pay any income tax;
  The extension of the lop rate of income tax to savings income will benefit 1.5 million pensioners;
  Free television licences for pensioners aged 75 and over will be introduced in autumn 2000 and will benefit over three million pensioner households.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms using 1998–99 prices the total level of national insurance contributions received for each year from 1979–80 to 1999–2000, indicating for each of those years the real terms percentage growth of national insurance contributions received in relation to the preceding year's total. [110026]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: Available information for Great Britain is given in the table.

  Total NIC receipts (cash terms)

  Total NIC receipts (1998–99 prices)

  £ billion

  £ billion

  % increase on previous year

  1979–80

  11.45

  31.50

  n/a

  1980–81

  13.56

  31.55

  0.16

  1981–82

  15.43

  32.80

  3.96

  1982–83

  18.28

  36.32

  10.73

  1983–84

  20.11

  38.19

  5.15

  1984–85

  21.57

  38.92

  1.91

  1985–86

  23.74

  40.68

  4.52

  1986–87

  25.70

  42.71

  4.99

  1987–88

  28.31

  44.66

  4.57

  1988–89

  31.80

  47.00

  5.24

  1989–90

  34.61

  47.72

  1.53

  985W

  Total NIC receipts (cash terms)

  Total NIC receipts (1998–99 prices)

  £ billion

  £ billion

  % increase on previous year

  1990–91

  36.32

  46.43

  -2.70

  1991–92

  37.91

  45.64

  -1.70

  1992–93

  39.08

  45.54

  -0.22

  1993–94

  40.66

  46.16

  1.36

  1994–95

  43.09

  48.23

  4.48

  1995–96

  45.30

  49.29

  2.20

  1996–97

  47.42

  49.98

  1.40

  1997–98

  51.83

  53.14

  6.32

  1998–99

  55.48

  55.48

  4.40

  1999–2000

  57.41

  56.13

  1.17

  Notes:

  1. Constant prices using GDP deflator at market prices

  2. Figures for 1999–2000 are projections consistent with the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many requests for employment histories are pending in the National Insurance Contributions Office; and what assessment he has made of the period of time required to clear the backlog. [110085]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at Friday 4 February 2000 there were 5,790 employment history cases awaiting completion. It is estimated that it will take 34 weeks to recover and restore the normal target clearance of 13 weeks for these cases. We anticipate being back on target by 31 October 2000.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what target has been set for average response times for employment history requests when the new National Insurance Recording System is fully operational; and from what date the target will be applicable. [110086]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The target will remain at the current 13 weeks from receipt of the request.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if implementation milestones have been agreed for the rollout of the NIRS2 project; if those milestones have been revised; and on what dates, and in respect of what sums, penalty payments have been incurred by the NIRS2 project manager. [111670]

  Mr. Timms
  Implementation milestones were agreed for the NIRS2 project when the Private Finance Initiative contract was awarded in May 1995.

  The original implementation date for the first NIRS2 Release was on 10 February 1997. In July 1996 this milestone was revised to allow the first release to be phased in over three stages between 10 February and 5 April 1998. Subsequent releases, that have introduced changes to the system, have been successfully delivered and on time.

  The supplier, Andersen Consulting, has made compensation payments for the revised implementation strategy of £4.1 million.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the payments made for the commissioning of the NIRS2 project and the dates on which payments were made; and what further programme of payments to commission NIRS2 has been agreed. [111669]
  986W
  Mr. Timms
  The table shows the payments made to Andersen Consulting for the work commissioned from them during the NIRS2 project. The payments cover both the provisions of the NIRS2 service and changes that have been made to the system.

  £ million

  Period

  The following invoiced charges were due:

  April 1995 to March 1996

  0.139

  April 1996 to March 1997

  0.586

  April 1997 to March 1998

  1.118

  April 1998 to March 1999

  5.876

  April 1999 to January 2000

  11.726

  Total

  19.445

  Various credits were deducted from the above totaling

  6.347

  Net total

  13.098

  Future payments are estimated as follows:

  February 2000 to March 2000

  6.976

  April 2000 to March 2001

  9.990

  April 2001 to March 2002

  8.170

  April 2002 to March 2003

  8.640

  April 2003 to March 2004

  10.950

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take following allegations that tobacco companies are involved in smuggling and evasion of customs and excise duties; and if he will make a statement. [111487]

  Mr. Timms
  HM Customs and Excise will examine thoroughly any information provided to them about criminal involvement by any organisation or individual in the smuggling of tobacco or any other goods into the UK and will take appropriate action.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that e-commerce transactions bear the full tax liabilities; what examination he is making of e-commerce websites; and what revenue he anticipates from e-commerce transaction tax in the current financial year. [111357]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's policy on the taxation of e-commerce was set out in a paper "Electronic Commerce: The UK's Taxation Agenda". This was published jointly by Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue in November 1999. A copy of the paper is in the Library.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will hold an inquiry into the alleged leak of ONS average earnings figures on Wednesday 16 February. [111619]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are committed to the highest standards in the handling and release of market sensitive data. Data leaks by their nature are serious. We have seen no evidence but if any did emerge we would take it very seriously indeed.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 451W, on asset sales if he will list projections of aggregate receipts by Department in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [111276]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Data for 1999–2000 and projections for the following two years will be published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report in March and Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses in April.

  Fuel Taxation
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the present level of fuel taxation on people in rural areas. [111282]

  Mr. Timms
  As the Chancellor made clear in the Pre-Budget Report he will take the Government's economic and social objectives as well as the UK's environmental commitments into account in deciding the appropriate level of fuel duties.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the present level of fuel taxation on small garage owners. [111167]

  Capital modernisation fund

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  Budget 99 allocation

  Crime Reduction Programme

  23

  68

  79

  170.0

  National IT Strategy

  59

  176

  235

  470.0

  A&E and primary modernisation

  120

  131

  179

  430.0

  Rural transport

  11.4

  —

  —

  11.4

  Venture Capital

  —

  20

  —

  20.0

  Round 1—subsequent winners

  London Underground

  0

  100

  0

  100

  Improving bus information

  0

  50

  0

  50

  IT integration in criminal justice system

  0

  20

  10

  30

  Action on cataracts

  0

  12

  8

  20

  Police DNA databases

  —

  20

  —

  20

  Internet job matching scheme

  0

  18

  0

  18

  Meningitis vaccinations

  14

  0

  0

  14

  Active Communities

  0.4

  3.63

  4.03

  8.06

  Networking of DSA test centres

  0

  2.8

  0

  2.8

  Biological munitions disposal

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Electronic procurement systems across government

  0

  0.8

  0.3

  1.1

  VED evasion: Automatic number plate readers

  0

  0.4

  0

  0.4

  Promotion of British Interests abroad

  0

  5

  7

  12

  Electronic procurement by posts overseas

  0

  0.6

  0

  0.6

  National telephone job-broking service

  —

  10

  40

  50

  Cambridge/MIT Institute

  —

  14

  14

  28

  Customs and Excise X-ray scanners

  —

  1

  22

  23

  VAT
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has undertaken into the impact of the changes in VAT on domestic fuel made in July 1997 on different groups of the population. [111366]

  Mr. Timms
  The rate of VAT on domestic fuel was reduced to 5 per cent. on 1 September 1997, the lowest
  988W
  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Russian Debt
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 616W, if he will place a copy of the agreement on restructuring Russian debt in the Library. [111342]

  Mr. Timms
  Her Majesty's Government were not a party to the agreement restructuring Russian debt owed to the London Club of private sector creditors reached on 11 February. The London office of Deutsche Bank, the lead bank of the London Club in this negotiation, may be able to provide further details.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the projects that will receive funding from the capital modernisation fund in the years (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 and (i) the funding for and (ii) the timing of spending on each project; and if he will make a statement. [111249]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Allocations from the Capital Modernisation Fund have been announced for the projects listed in the following table. A second round of bidding for the Fund is underway.

  rate possible under EC law. There has been no research into the impact of the cut.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111599]
  989W
  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury does not purchase recycled paper. However, the paper purchased is produced using an ECF/TCF bleaching process and the paper fibres are obtained from a sustainable source. Approximately 74 per cent. of paper purchased is collected for recycling.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government are taking to implement the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [111667]

  Mr. Timms
  So far this year, three countries have reached decision point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative: Mauritania, Bolivia and Uganda. We are working closely with International Financial Institutions and with the countries themselves, in a capacity building and advisory role, towards the G7 target that three quarters of eligible countries should reach their decision point by the end of the year.

  The Government have stepped in to bridge the IMF financing gap and have pledged to help other Multilateral Development Banks meet their costs of participating in the initiative. In total the Government have pledged $385 million to the Institutions involved in debt relief. The UK's contribution (including our share of the sum from the European Development Fund) is the largest resourced pledge of any bilateral donor. The European Development Fund contribution, released at the UK Government's urging, has been instrumental in allowing countries to be brought forward for debt relief before the delivery of the US's pledged financing.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [110717]

  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury does not own or maintain any gardens.

  Electricity
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the electricity used by his Department is generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [111035]

  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury's electricity contract does not include supply from renewable sources.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior civil servants from an ethnic minority background are employed in his Department; and how many of them are(a) men and (b) women. [110679]

  Mr. Timms
  As at 1 April 1999, 55 members of the senior civil service were from an ethnic minority background (1.7 per cent).

  Information on ethnic origin in the civil service is collected on the understanding that it will be treated on a confidential basis. To protect the privacy of individual members of staff we do not disclose data relating to fewer than five people.
  990W
  The aggregate total of ethnic minority staff in the senior civil service within HM Treasury, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise is fewer than five people.

  Drug Enforcement
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last 10 years the amount spent by Customs and Excise on drug enforcement for(a) the United Kingdom as a whole, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales. [111002]

  Mr. Timms
  Customs and Excise's estimated expenditure on drugs enforcement for 1999–2000 is £209 million. Comparable figures for previous years are not available separately from overall expenditure on protection of society. Nor are separate figures available for Scotland and Wales.

  National Minimum Wage
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the(a) gross earnings, (b) earnings after income tax and National Insurance Contributions and (c) entitlements to the Working Families Tax Credit of a dual-earner couple with two children under the age of 11 years, both earning the minimum wage and both working full-time. [111241]

  Mr. Timms
  The figures requested are given in the table.

  £/week

  Couple, both working full-time

  Gross earnings

  252.00

  Earnings net of income tax and National Insurance Contributions

  231.67

  Amount of Working Families' Tax Credit

  25.13

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many young people between the ages of 16 and 25 years do not have a National Insurance number; and for what reasons; what assessment he has made of the effects on access to work of not possessing a National Insurance number; and if he will make a statement. [110809]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on young people without a National Insurance number are not available. Allocation of the National Insurance numbers is normally via the automatic data transfer of children approaching their 16th birthday from the Child Benefit system to the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS). Young people who fall outside the scope of the Child Benefit System do not automatically receive a National Insurance number. There is no legal requirement to have a National Insurance number before applying for employment. The legal requirement is to apply for a National Insurance number on entry to employment.

  When an individual without a National Insurance number registers for employment, the Employment Services Agency will issue them with a temporary number.

  Primary Care (Death Rates)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the standardised mortality rate for each ward in(a) West Hull primary care group, (b) East Hull primary care group and (c) East Riding primary care group; and what is the average figure for the United Kingdom. [110357]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 22 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on standardised mortality rates for each ward in the West Hull, East Hull and East Riding Primary Care Groups and the UK.
  East Riding Health Authority contains 4 Primary Care Groups: Western Hull, Eastern Hull, Yorkshire Coast and Wolds and East Yorkshire. The attached table shows European standardised mortality rates for each ward in East Riding HA based on deaths in 1991–3 and populations from the 1991 Census. Many of the wards in existence in 1991 are covered by more than one Primary Care Group. We have not provided data for all wards in the UK due to disproportionate cost.
  The European standardised mortality rate is a measure of the expected number of deaths per 100,000 population if the local population had the same age structure as the European standard population.

  Age-standardised mortality rates per 100,000 by Wards in East Riding health authority

  Wardname

  Wardcode

  Rate

  Airmyn and Rawcliffe

  KNFA

  971

  Crowle

  KNFB

  817

  EastDerwent

  KNFC

  814

  East Howdenshire

  KNFD

  934

  Gilberdyke

  KNFF

  856

  Goole Central and South

  KNFG

  892

  Goole East

  KNFH

  833

  Goole North

  KNFJ

  796

  Goole North-East

  KNFK

  882

  Goole West

  KNFL

  687

  Holme Upon Spalding Moor

  KNFN

  990

  Hook

  KNFP

  995

  Howden

  KNFQ

  910

  Marshland

  KNFS

  871

  Mid Howdenshire

  KNFT

  994

  North Axholme

  KNFU

  784

  North Cave

  KNFW

  596

  Snaith

  KNFX

  949

  Battleburn

  KQFA

  879

  Bridlington Bessingby

  KQFB

  899

  Bridlington Hilderthorpe

  KQFC

  932

  Bridlington Old Town East

  KQFD

  690

  Bridlington Old Town West

  KQFE

  840

  Bridlington Quay North

  KQFF

  657

  Bridlington Quay South

  KQFG

  916

  Coastal

  KQFH

  825

  Driffield North

  KQFJ

  808

  Driffield South

  KQFK

  850

  Garrowby

  KQFL

  719

  Hutton Cranwsick

  KQFM

  687

  Lowland

  KQFN

  749

  Market Weighton

  KQFP

  894

  Nafferton

  KQFQ

  889

  Pocklington

  KQFR

  700

  Roman

  KQFS

  741

  St. John

  KQFT

  742

  Stamford Bridge

  KQFU

  997

  Vale

  KQFW

  616

  992W

  Age-standardised mortality rates per 100,000 by Wards in East Riding health authority

  Wardname

  Wardcode

  Rate

  Viking

  KQFX

  766

  Wilberfoss

  KQFY

  795

  Wold

  KQFZ

  522

  Woodland

  KQGA

  827

  Anlaby

  KRFA

  631

  Brough

  KRFB

  699

  Castle

  KRFC

  548

  Cherry Holme

  KRFD

  755

  Hessle East

  KRFE

  660

  HessleWest

  KRFF

  851

  Kirk Ella

  KRFG

  696

  Leconfield

  KRFH

  571

  Leven

  KRFJ

  673

  Mill Beck and Croxby

  KRFK

  752

  Minster North

  KRFL

  669

  Minster South

  KRFM

  970

  Molescroft

  KRFN

  669

  Priory

  KRFP

  679

  St. Mary's East

  KRFQ

  767

  St. Mary's West

  KRFR

  612

  Skidby and Rowley

  KRFS

  836

  South Cave

  KRFT

  748

  Springfield

  KRFU

  720

  Swanland

  KRFW

  757

  Tickton

  KRFX

  760

  Walkington

  KRFY

  656

  Willerby

  KRFZ

  769

  Woodmansey

  KRGA

  565

  Ulceby

  KSFW

  789

  Aldbrough

  KUFA

  602

  Bilton

  KUFB

  909

  Brandesburton

  KUFC

  908

  Burstwick

  KUFD

  1,152

  Burton Pidsea

  KUFE

  559

  Easington

  KUFF

  1,008

  Hedon

  KUFG

  953

  Hornsea North

  KUFH

  851

  Hornsea South

  KUFJ

  656

  Keyingham

  KUFK

  684

  Patrington

  KUFL

  661

  Paull

  KUFM

  920

  Preston North

  KUFN

  817

  Roos

  KUFP

  813

  Seaton

  KUFQ

  689

  Skirlaugh

  KUFR

  705

  Sproatley

  KUFS

  670

  Thorngumbald

  KUFT

  841

  Withernsea North

  KUFU

  758

  Withernsea South

  KUFW

  939

  Avenue

  KWFA

  1,055

  Beverley

  KWFB

  831

  Boothferry

  KWFC

  649

  Derringham

  KWFD

  681

  Drypool

  KWFE

  939

  Holderness

  KWFF

  690

  Ings

  KWFG

  963

  Longhill

  KWFH

  851

  Marfleet

  KWFJ

  884

  Myton

  KWFK

  892

  Newington

  KWFL

  882

  Newland

  KWFM

  808

  Noddle Hill

  KWFN

  1,172

  Orchard Park

  KWFP

  873

  Pickering

  KWFQ

  1,005

  St. Andrews

  KWFR

  1,266

  Southcoates

  KWFS

  859

  Stoneferry

  KWFT

  833

  Sutton

  KWFU

  737

  University

  KWFW

  772

  Birdsall

  PBFC

  959

  Sherburn

  PBFY

  703

  Hertford

  PCFM

  660

  993W

  Age-standardised mortality rates per 100,000 by Wards in East Riding health authority

  Wardname

  Wardcode

  Rate

  Barlby with Osgodby

  PDFC

  722

  Brayton

  PDFF

  802

  Dunnington

  PDFN

  679

  Eggborough

  PDFP

  746

  Hemingbrough

  PDFU

  840

  Wheldrake with Elvington

  PDGL

  692

  UK

  —

  810

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the average death rates by ward allowing for age and sex standardisation in(a) West Hull Primary Care Group, (b) East Hull Primary Care Group, (c) East Riding Primary Care Group and (d) the UK; [110374]

  (2) what are the average cancer-related death rates by ward allowing for age and sex standardisation in (a) West Hull Primary Care Group, (b) East Hull Primary Care Group, (c) East Riding Primary Care Group and (d) the UK; [110375]

  (3) what are the average death rates for cervical cancer by ward allowing for age and sex standardisation in (a) West Hull Primary Care Group, (b) East Hull Primary Care Group, (c) East Riding Primary Care Group and (d) the UK; [110376]

  (4) what are the average coronary heart disease death rates by ward allowing for age and sex standardisation in (a) West Hull Primary Care Group, (b) East Hull Primary Care Group, (c) East Riding Primary Care Group and (d) the UK; [110377]

  Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMR) by ward and cause of death, 1991–93.

  Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR)

  Wards in East Riding health authority

  Wardcode

  All-causes

  CHD

  Stroke

  Cancer

  Airmyn and Rawcliffe

  KNFA

  117

  84

  110

  143

  Crowle

  KNFB

  98

  77

  72

  136

  East Derwent

  KNFC

  96

  122

  45

  93

  East Howdenshire

  KNFD

  111

  81

  170

  106

  Gilberdyke

  KNFF

  110

  148

  108

  76

  Goole Central and South

  KNFG

  99

  115

  91

  100

  Goole East

  KNFH

  100

  119

  96

  82

  Goole North

  KNFJ

  102

  113

  104

  82

  Goole North-East

  KNFK

  107

  153

  107

  126

  Goole West

  KNFL

  77

  101

  56

  73

  Holme upon Spalding Moor

  KNFN

  119

  168

  97

  83

  Hook

  KNFP

  129

  108

  184

  150

  Howden

  KNFQ

  117

  124

  162

  68

  Marshland

  KNFS

  121

  82

  154

  76

  Mid Howdenshire

  KNFT

  117

  84

  208

  165

  North Axholme

  KNFU

  88

  103

  120

  79

  North Cave

  KNFW

  74

  93

  78

  75

  Snaith

  KNFX

  113

  113

  188

  104

  Battleburn

  KQFA

  108

  142

  89

  66

  Bridlington Bessingby

  KQFB

  118

  123

  108

  103

  Bridlington Hilderthorpe

  KQFC

  116

  134

  120

  90

  Bridlington Old Town East

  KQFD

  85

  78

  101

  86

  Bridlington Old Town West

  KQFE

  102

  124

  96

  92

  Bridlington Quay North

  KQFF

  81

  86

  85

  83

  Bridlington Quay South

  KQFG

  117

  137

  108

  116

  Coastal

  KQFH

  108

  156

  82

  79

  Driffield North

  KQFJ

  102

  116

  95

  88

  Driffield South

  KQFK

  110

  107

  118

  106

  994W
  (5) what are the average stroke death rates by ward allowing for age and sex standardisation in (a) West Hull Primary Care Group, (b) East Hull Primary Care Group, (c) East Riding Primary Care Group and (d) the UK. [110378]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 22 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on average death rates, average cancer related death rates, average death rates for cervical cancer, average coronary heart disease death rates and average stroke death rates. You asked for the rates for each ward in the West Hull, East Hull and East Riding Primary Care Groups and the UK.
  East Riding Health Authority is made up of 4 Primary care Groups: Western Hull, Eastern Hull, Yorkshire Coast and Wolds and East Yorkshire. The attached table shows indirectly standardised mortality ratios (SMR) for all-causes of death, coronary heart disease, cancer and stroke, for each ward in East Riding HA during 1991–1993, based on populations from the 1991 Census.
  We have provided indirectly standardised ratios rather than European standardised rates as the latter does not incorporate sex standardisation and is likely to be less accurate for small numbers of deaths by cause in each ward. Many of the wards in existence in the 1991 Census are covered by more than one Primary Care Group. We have not provided data for all wards in the UK due to disproportionate cost and we have not provided data for cervical cancer deaths as the maximum number of deaths over the three year period in any ward in East Riding HA is three and most wards had no deaths.
  An SMR is defined as the ratio for the observed deaths in a given population over the expected deaths in that population if it experienced the age-specific death rates of a standard population (in this case the United Kingdom). The SMR for the UK is 100. Values greater than 100 indicate higher than average mortality and values lower than 100 indicate lower than average mortality.
  995W

  Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMR) by ward and cause of death, 1991–93

  Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR)

  Wards in East Riding health authority

  Wardcode

  All-causes

  CHD

  Stroke

  Cancer

  Garrowby

  KQFL

  84

  107

  85

  54

  Hutton Cranswick

  KQFM

  78

  82

  90

  130

  Lowland

  KQFN

  88

  120

  28

  52

  Market Weighton

  KQFP

  114

  107

  97

  120

  Nafferton

  KQFQ

  107

  94

  84

  97

  Pocklington

  KQFR

  87

  82

  77

  107

  Roman

  KQFS

  90

  115

  111

  92

  St. John

  KQFT

  91

  117

  53

  116

  Stamford Bridge

  KQFU

  134

  82

  184

  126

  Vale

  KQFW

  74

  37

  134

  79

  Viking

  KQFX

  96

  112

  103

  79

  Wilberfoss

  KQFY

  96

  126

  67

  108

  Wold

  KQFZ

  67

  55

  87

  76

  Woodland

  KQGA

  99

  117

  117

  83

  Anlaby

  KRFA

  76

  103

  73

  86

  Brough

  KRFB

  88

  94

  80

  101

  Castle

  KRFC

  71

  85

  76

  81

  Cherry Holme

  KRFD

  86

  106

  15

  74

  Hessle East

  KRFE

  84

  93

  85

  82

  Hessle West

  KRFF

  119

  105

  144

  95

  Kirk Ella

  KRFG

  92

  88

  104

  71

  Leconfield

  KRFH

  73

  82

  30

  90

  Leven

  KRFJ

  78

  108

  92

  64

  Mill Beck and Croxby

  KRFK

  96

  97

  94

  94

  Minster North

  KRFL

  85

  89

  120

  79

  Minster South

  KRFM

  128

  105

  207

  127

  Molescroft

  KRFN

  83

  99

  73

  73

  Priory

  KRFP

  90

  79

  114

  72

  St. Mary's East

  KRFQ

  96

  112

  97

  87

  St. Mary's West

  KRFR

  86

  78

  94

  75

  Skidby and Rowley

  KRFS

  102

  109

  124

  104

  South Cave

  KRFT

  92

  98

  99

  88

  Springfield

  KRFU

  90

  108

  63

  97

  Swanland

  KRFW

  96

  100

  111

  84

  Tickton

  KRFX

  93

  86

  132

  101

  Walkington

  KRFY

  78

  33

  119

  93

  Willerby

  KRFZ

  92

  75

  55

  97

  Woodmansey

  KRGA

  68

  68

  89

  90

  Ulceby

  KSFW

  97

  112

  168

  118

  Aldbrough

  KUFA

  71

  73

  43

  62

  Bilton

  KUFB

  109

  68

  155

  117

  Brandesburton

  KUFC

  106

  107

  60

  62

  Burstwick

  KUFD

  136

  229

  48

  126

  Burton Pidsea

  KUFE

  77

  92

  49

  120

  Easington

  KUFF

  124

  153

  65

  142

  Hedon

  KUFG

  120

  122

  123

  113

  Hornsea North

  KUFH

  113

  108

  85

  104

  Hornsea South

  KUFJ

  76

  87

  86

  84

  Keyingham

  KUFK

  85

  78

  74

  79

  Patrington

  KUFL

  78

  76

  75

  70

  Paull

  KUFM

  108

  53

  102

  146

  Preston North

  KUFN

  107

  129

  195

  80

  Roos

  KUFP

  98

  120

  53

  97

  Seaton

  KUFQ

  81

  112

  135

  66

  Skirlaugh

  KUFR

  85

  127

  59

  77

  Sproatley

  KUFS

  82

  91

  43

  117

  Thorngumbald

  KUFT

  96

  108

  143

  88

  Withernsea North

  KUFU

  87

  109

  60

  100

  Withernsea South

  KUFW

  115

  114

  88

  109

  Avenue

  KWFA

  134

  112

  173

  117

  Beverley

  KWFB

  106

  97

  119

  101

  Boothferry

  KWFC

  80

  95

  79

  93

  Derringham

  KWFD

  85

  91

  66

  116

  Drypool

  KWFE

  115

  140

  78

  128

  Holderness

  KWFF

  85

  109

  59

  88

  Ings

  KWFG

  117

  113

  94

  116

  Longhill

  KWFH

  100

  107

  85

  101

  Marfleet

  KWFJ

  111

  122

  110

  121

  Myton

  KWFK

  106

  107

  78

  130

  Newington

  KWFL

  107

  112

  106

  116

  996W

  997W

  Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) by ward and cause of death, 1991–93

  Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR)

  Wards in East Riding health authority

  Wardcode

  All-causes

  CHD

  Stroke

  Cancer

  Newland

  KWFM

  102

  104

  109

  116

  Noddle Hill

  KWFN

  144

  157

  140

  134

  Orchard Park

  KWFP

  109

  117

  77

  130

  Pickering

  KWFQ

  125

  105

  151

  145

  St. Andrews

  KWFR

  151

  140

  172

  162

  Southcoates

  KWFS

  103

  113

  72

  124

  Stoneferry

  KWFT

  109

  137

  113

  123

  Sutton

  KWFU

  93

  97

  74

  102

  University

  KWFW

  96

  107

  63

  108

  Birdsall

  PBFC

  116

  123

  191

  53

  Sherburn

  PBFY

  87

  90

  85

  120

  Hertford

  PCFM

  80

  82

  135

  76

  Barlby with Osgodby

  PDFC

  90

  87

  90

  104

  Brayton

  PDFF

  92

  115

  92

  92

  Dunnington

  PDFN

  85

  84

  74

  81

  Eggborough

  PDFP

  90

  91

  84

  46

  Hemingbrough

  PDFU

  102

  115

  148

  88

  Wheldrake with Elvington

  PDGL

  86

  65

  136

  66

  UK

  —

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Job Vacancies (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the number of job vacancies in Newcastle upon Tyne each December from 1992 to 1999; and if he will analyse in which broad occupational group those vacancies fall. [111359]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 22 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of job vacancies in Newcastle upon Tyne.
  Jobcentre vacancies information analysed by occupational groups are only available quarterly for the months of January, April, July and October and can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library.
  Jobcentre vacancies do not represent the total number of vacancies available in the economy. Latest estimates suggest that about a third of all vacancies nationally are notified to Jobcentres. This proportion may vary between regions and between occupations as well as over time.

  Percentage of gross income taken in direct and indirect tax by quintile group, 1997–98

  Quintile groups of households 1

  Bottom

  Second

  Third

  Fourth

  Top

  All households

  Total direct taxes

  10

  13

  18

  21

  24

  20

  Income tax2

  3

  6

  10

  13

  17

  13

  Employees' NIC3

  2

  3

  5

  5

  4

  4

  Local taxes4

  6

  5

  3

  3

  2

  3

  Total indirect taxes

  28

  22

  19

  17

  12

  16

  VAT

  10

  8

  8

  7

  5

  7

  Duty on petrol/oil

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Duty on tobacco

  4

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Duty on alcohol

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Other indirect taxes5

  10

  8

  6

  6

  4

  6

  1 Households are ranked by equivalised disposable income

  2 Income tax is net of tax relief on mortgage interest and life assurance premiums

  3 National Insurance Contributions

  4 Council tax, domestic rates and water charges after deducting discounts, council tax benefits and rates rebates

  5 Includes intermediate taxes, vehicle excise duty and lottery and betting taxes

  Taxation
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the percentage of the income of each quintile group of the population which is taken in(a) direct tax and (b) indirect tax; and if he will provide a breakdown of this estimate for each of the main taxes. [111151]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 22 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking for an estimate of the percentage of the income of each quintile group of the population which is taken in (a) direct tax and (b) indirect tax; and for a breakdown of this estimate for each of the main taxes.
  The information that you requested is set out in the attached table. These figures are derived from Table 2A in Appendix 1 of the article `The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 1997-98' published in the April 1999 edition of Economic Trends. The analyses in the article are based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey.

  Youth Unemployment (Sundorne)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the percentage change has been in youth unemployment in the ward of Sundorne in Shrewsbury and Atcham since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [110834]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 22 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the percentage change in youth unemployment in the ward of Sundome in Shrewsbury and Atcham since May 1997.
  The ONS publish a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  In May 1997, in the Sundome ward there were 32 computerised claims among the 18–24 year olds compared with 16 in January 2000. This represents a fall of 50%. Claimant count figures are not

  Suicides and undetermined deaths1 for usual residents of Somerset, by age, 1980–982

  Year

  Total

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  1980

  43

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  3

  6

  0

  1981

  65

  0

  2

  5

  0

  4

  6

  4

  3

  1982

  43

  0

  0

  2

  2

  3

  4

  3

  8

  1983

  53

  0

  0

  3

  3

  3

  5

  2

  5

  1984

  55

  0

  1

  3

  0

  3

  4

  3

  6

  1985

  48

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  6

  2

  3

  1986

  62

  0

  0

  3

  0

  3

  3

  5

  7

  1987

  57

  2

  2

  2

  4

  5

  3

  7

  2

  1988

  44

  0

  1

  4

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  1989

  47

  0

  2

  1

  5

  4

  5

  1

  1

  1990

  69

  0

  3

  3

  6

  4

  6

  13

  3

  1991

  53

  0

  2

  6

  5

  5

  6

  7

  6

  1992

  50

  0

  0

  2

  3

  4

  4

  5

  11

  1993

  49

  0

  1

  2

  4

  5

  2

  3

  4

  1994

  53

  0

  0

  5

  1

  5

  7

  5

  7

  1995

  50

  0

  1

  2

  4

  5

  6

  8

  4

  1996

  46

  0

  1

  0

  5

  5

  0

  4

  9

  1997

  47

  0

  1

  4

  5

  4

  4

  8

  5

  1998

  43

  0

  2

  3

  5

  10

  5

  2

  2

  Suicides and undetermined deaths 1for usual residents of Somerset, by age, 1980–982

  Year

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–68

  70–74

  75–79

  80–84

  85+

  1980

  4

  5

  2

  4

  6

  3

  2

  1

  1981

  3

  5

  9

  9

  4

  2

  5

  4

  1982

  5

  3

  2

  6

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1983

  9

  5

  2

  5

  5

  4

  1

  1

  1984

  5

  6

  5

  3

  7

  8

  1

  0

  1985

  3

  6

  7

  5

  2

  3

  2

  0

  1986

  7

  6

  8

  5

  5

  6

  4

  0

  1987

  7

  4

  2

  5

  4

  5

  2

  1

  1988

  7

  2

  2

  3

  3

  4

  5

  1

  1989

  4

  5

  4

  5

  3

  5

  2

  0

  1990

  7

  2

  4

  1

  9

  3

  3

  2

  1991

  1

  5

  2

  3

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1992

  3

  2

  5

  5

  4

  1

  0

  1

  1993

  5

  4

  6

  4

  4

  1

  2

  2

  1994

  7

  3

  1

  3

  3

  1

  4

  1

  1995

  4

  3

  1

  1

  4

  4

  1

  2

  1996

  4

  2

  2

  2

  4

  3

  3

  2

  1997

  1

  4

  3

  5

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1998

  1

  2

  1

  3

  3

  0

  2

  2

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes E950–E959 and E980– E989 excluding E988.8.

  2 For 1980 to 1992 the year is the year when the deaths were registered.

  Note:

  For 1993–98 the year is the year when death occurred.
  1000W
  seasonally adjusted at ward level. Computerised claims do not include clerical claims which make up around 1 per cent. of the total claimant count.

  Suicides (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides there have been in(a) Somerset and (b) Yeovil constituency in each year since 1980, broken down by age; and if he will make a statement. [110794]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paddy Ashdown, dated 22 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking how many suicides there have been in Somerset and Yeovil.
  Figures for the county of Somerset are presented in the attached table for years up to 1998 (the latest available.) Boundary changes to the Yeovil constituency mean that figures are not available for years prior to 1988. Figures for Yeovil are therefore presented in the attached table only for years 1988 to 1998, based on the 1999 constituency boundary.
  1001W

  Suicides and undetermined deaths 1 for usual residents of the electoral constituency of Yeovil, by age, 1988–982

  Year

  Total

  15–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  1988

  10

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1989

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  14

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  4

  1

  1

  1991

  9

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  1992

  9

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1993

  12

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1994

  15

  0

  2

  1

  1

  4

  0

  1

  4

  1995

  6

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1996

  10

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1997

  8

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1998

  8

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  Suicides and undetermined deaths 1 for usual residents of the electoral constituency of Yeovil, by age, 1988–982

  Year

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  80–84

  85+

  1988

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1989

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1991

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1994

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1997

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes E950–E959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.8.

  2 For 1988 to 1992 the year is the year when the deaths were registered.

  Note:

  For 1993 to 1998 the year is the year when death occurred.

  Wages (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in(a) Somerset and (b) Yeovil constituency earn (a) £3.60 per hour, (b) £3.61 per hour to £3.80 per hour, (c) £3.81p per hour to £4.00 per hour and (d) £4.00 to £4.50 per hour; and what percentage of total employees this constitutes in each case. [110795]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Jim Holt to Mr. Paddy Ashdown, dated 22 February 2000:
  As the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding earnings for employees in Somerset and Yeovil.
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. However, the release of NES data is restricted to figures which are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy.
  1002W
  I have provided the available data for Somerset and Yeovil in the attached table. These are based on the 1999 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.
  We are only able to give percentage earning below specified thresholds, rather than numbers because appropriate grossing factors for the NES sample are not available at very detailed levels of disaggregation such as parliamentary constituencies.
  The NES is based on a one per cent. sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold and in particular those who work part-time.

  New Earnings Survey, April 1999 (GB): Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

  Gross hourly earnings excluding overtime

  Percentage earning

  £3.60

  £3.61-£3.80

  £3.81-£4.00

  £4.01-£4.50

  Somerset

  Full-time

  0.6

  0.3

  1.4

  6.3

  Part-time

  3.8

  6.9

  7.7

  16.2

  All

  1.3

  1.9

  2.9

  8.6

  Yeovil

  Full-time

  0.8

  0.0

  0.8

  6.3

  Part-time

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  All

  1.4

  1.0

  3.1

  9.7

  1 Denotes reliable estimate unavailable

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

Lord Joffe
Joel Goodman Joffe, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Joffe, of Liddington in the County of Wiltshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Judd and the Lord Haskel, and made the solemn Affirmation.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.41 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to deliver the opening address at a British Council conference to be held in the Reichstag building in Berlin on Monday 28th February when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Armed Forces Disciplinary System: Personnel Rights
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to cover the situation which might arise if members of the Armed Forces exercise their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 in ways which conflict with service discipline.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we recognise the importance of maintaining a sound system of discipline in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces Discipline Bill includes measures to ensure that service personnel rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are maintained in a way consistent with service discipline.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her attempt to answer the Question, perhaps I may remind her that when there is a conflict between any two branches of our statute law, it can only be resolved in our democracy by an Act of Parliament. It cannot be resolved, as she suggested, while the Armed Forces Discipline Bill is going through your Lordships' House, by advice from the Minister.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was consistent and assiduous in pursuing this point during
124
the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. In introducing the Bill into the House I signed a certificate, which I did on advice, that nothing in the Bill was in conflict with the European convention. My honourable and right honourable friends in another place signed a similar certificate in introducing the Bill into another place. I remind the noble Lord that very often rights in the European convention are not absolute rights. I remind him that Article 11 says:
"This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State".
So I think the noble Lord will find that there is not the absolute conflict which he fears may be the case. That is indeed my opinion and the opinion of my right honourable and honourable friends.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in the Armed Forces Discipline Bill the Government seek to ensure that the authority of the commanding officer is not undermined by the Human Rights Act 1998. Do Her Majesty's Government agree that there may be occasions when the interests of the service must take precedence over the individual human rights of the serviceman or woman? Will the Government undertake to defend any commanding officer who applies the provisions of the Armed Forces discipline Acts—for example, in the case of disobedience to a lawful command—against any charge brought against him by an individual in his unit under the Human Rights Act?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is nothing in the Human Rights Act or in the Bill currently under discussion in another place which prevents proceedings being taken for offences. When we discussed this matter in your Lordships' House I said that operational considerations would remain paramount. There should not be any misunderstanding on this point. The Government, like any other responsible government, will expect commanders to give appropriate priority to the operational imperatives of the situation and, of course, to the lives and security of those under their command. I do not believe that there is any conflict between that unwavering intention and the procedures set out in the Bill which your Lordships have discussed and which is currently in another place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she would expect a commander to give operational—I forget the words that she used. But her answer was far from clear. The noble and gallant Lord asked whether Her Majesty's Government would ensure that the Human Rights Act did not take precedence over the commander's decision. The noble Baroness's answer was not clear.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very sorry. I shall try again. Operational considerations will be paramount. That is an unequivocal statement. I said that I did not believe there should be any misunderstanding on the point.

125
We debated this matter fully in your Lordships' House when we were dealing with the Armed Forces Discipline Bill and I would not want to be misunderstood in any way on it. If I am being asked for an assurance that in some operational circumstances the requirements of the Bill may be set on one side, I cannot offer your Lordships that assurance. There is no operational "opt out", if I may put it that way, which was the point on which the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pressed me very assiduously when we were discussing the Bill. The important point is that we have a single system here which is capable of operating in all circumstances. As I said, in all circumstances it is operational effectiveness—it is the commanding officer's duty to ensure that appropriate priority is given to the lives and security of those under his command—which must take priority.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in substance, the noble and gallant Lord asked the Minister whether the Government would defend commanding officers who were sued by junior members of the forces over orders that they had given. The noble Baroness's reply in substance, as I understood it, was that the Government could see no circumstances under which such a case would be brought. Were those circumstances unexpectedly to arise, could the noble and gallant Lord expect such officers to receive such governmental support?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot think of every possible exigency that might occur where the commanding officer's word was challenged. If I may say so, the noble Lord is asking me to gaze into the future in a way that is a little difficult for me to do. I have said that operational effectiveness is the crucial issue and, of course, where the commanding officer's discipline was being exercised in pursuit of that operational effectiveness, we would usually—most often—expect to be able to support the commanding officer. But I cannot say that on every single occasion we would always know that the commanding officer had been right. That really would be taking it a little too far. However, I hope that I have given a reasonably reassuring response to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this is not entirely a matter of operational requirements but of a possible conflict between the authority of a commanding officer and the rights of a soldier or a junior under the Human Rights Act? The noble and gallant Lord's question is a very simple one. The noble Baroness ought to be able to look into the future to that extent. If the authority of a commanding officer is challenged under the Human Rights Act, will the authority of the commanding officer be upheld, or not?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is precisely why we dealt with the Bill in the way that we did—because such an issue would be a matter for
126
the courts. The noble and gallant Lord asked me about the exercise of a commanding officer's disciplinary authority. What I have said is that, where that disciplinary authority, properly exercised, is in pursuit of operational effectiveness, we should expect that. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is asking me to pre-judge possible decisions that a court might take.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, will it be a breach of the Human Rights Act or of the service discipline Acts if the Army refuses to kiss the IRA, as recommended by the Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friends are urging me that that question was somewhat wide of the mark. However, I am rather grateful to the noble Lord. He has raised a matter that appeared in the newspapers today and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to say to him that we do not accept that there is any equivalence—that is an issue that has been raised—between legally held military weapons on the one hand and illegally held terrorist weapons on the other. Our position is that any reductions that we may make in our military presence in Northern Ireland should be justified purely in terms of the security situation. That is the kind of thing that I believe the House wants to hear, not the rather provocative phrasing of the noble Lord's question.

Democratic Republic of Congo
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to help African governments end the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, our interest is in a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Congo. That is why we have worked closely with our African, United Nations and European Union partners since the start of the conflict to urge all parties to reach a negotiated settlement. We strongly support the Lusaka agreement. It is Africa's agreement, and provides the right formula for peace in the Congo and the region. Our aim is now to help implement the agreement and to keep the DRC at the top of the international community's agenda.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that positive reply. Indeed, we should all be grateful for what the Foreign Office is trying to do in that part of Africa, considering that there are nearly a million displaced people in the Congo who are suffering every day. However, will the Government give more consideration to the size of the peacekeeping force that is to be sent to the region and to the international response following the recent discussion in the Security Council? Given the size and importance of the Congo, how can a small force of that size possibly meet its commitments under the Lusaka

127
agreement? Will the Government encourage the United Nations to believe that the situation in Africa is very serious and that it must be addressed today?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised a variety of points. I assure the House that we support the phased approach recommended by the UN Secretary-General. As the noble Earl said, there was a proposal for a peacekeeping force of 5,500. That phased approach will allow the Secretary-General to decide whether the necessary climate of security, co-operation and access exists in each area before UN troops and observers are deployed. We are ready to consider a third phase of the UN mission—a full UN peacekeeping operation—as soon as conditions allow. I believe that the noble Earl and everyone else understands that one has to move with some caution into areas such as this before committing larger groups of troops.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords is the noble Baroness aware of the chilling remark made last week by the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Richard Holbrooke, in testimony to Congress? He said:
"there is a high probability—in fact a near certainty—of a catastrophic political and humanitarian disaster in central Africa".
Will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the United Kingdom Government can bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe or Uganda, through the Commonwealth Secretariat or in other ways, to withdraw their troops from that dangerous situation?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right about the seriousness and severity of the situation. The UK is providing political and practical support for the peace process in every way that we can. We are providing people and money to implement the military aspects. Six British military liaison officers have been deployed: four in Kinshasa, one in Lusaka and one in Harare. We have given £150,000 to help get the joint military commission up and running, and the quotation given by the noble Baroness shows the absolute priority that must be given to that. We are trying to do all that we can to encourage all the parties concerned to move on that and to take it seriously.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the majority of victims of this war, like those of other wars, are likely to be non-combatants and that a large number of them will be women and children? What is being done to ensure that they are supplied with food and clean water?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, my noble friend is right. In such situations it is often the civilians who suffer most. Since the current conflict began, in August 1998, the UK has committed £1.7 million in humanitarian assistance. I assure my noble friend that the organisations with which we work have to identify the beneficiaries of any project supported by the UK
128
to ensure that the resources are targeted at civilians who are most in need. My noble friend asked specifically about food and clean water. Perhaps I may give a few examples. We have given £250,000 to Christian Aid for emergency food aid; for emergency water supplies and sanitation, we have given £320,000 to CARE and Oxfam, and £56,600 to the British Red Cross.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, with the Rwandan army now established in the eastern part of the country, is there not a high risk that the Tutsi/non-Tutsi conflict, which had such hideous consequences in Rwanda in 1996, will spread for the first time to the DRC? Do Her Majesty's Government reckon that we have a proper and a practical interest in international efforts to forestall that, perhaps by urging the Rwandans to withdraw their army?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord again emphasises the imperative to keep up the pressure to move on this question. Our priority in Africa is to build peace and to prevent conflict. Different situations call for different responses. In Africa, that means supporting peaceful African solutions to African problems. We shall continue to play an active and constructive role in the implementation process and to work in the Security Council to support the resolution of conflicts. In the DRC, that means sustaining the Lusaka agreement.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does my noble friend hear a tragic echo of Angola in what is happening in the DRC? Does she recollect that, despite umpteen UN resolutions, umpteen missions, fine words, and, in the case of Angola, appeals to implement the Lusaka protocols, all efforts failed because of a lack of will? Unless there is the will to deal with the situation, we shall go through the same tragedy again and again. Will my noble friend make sure that the will is provided, as well as the physical resources?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I assure my noble friend and the House that we shall try to ensure that this matter remains high on the agenda of the international community and that we play our part in both resources and effort to achieve some kind of peace.

UK Membership of European Union
2.59 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they view United Kingdom membership of the North American Free Trade Agreement as in any way a viable alternative to United Kingdom membership of the European Union and whether they have made any investigation of such a possibility.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not view UK membership of the North American Free Trade Association as a viable alternative to membership of the European Union. The United Kingdom is a committed member of the EU and reaps substantial benefit from that membership. The UK has no intention now or in the future of applying to be admitted to NAFTA.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Given the fact that less than 15 per cent of our trade is with NAFTA and rather more than 55 per cent with the European Union, and that joining NAFTA would mean leaving the EU, does the noble Lord agree that the present quixotic enthusiasm of the Conservative leadership in another place for talks with members of the Republican Party to that end is, at the very best, an example of the unelectable in pursuit of the undesirable? What will Her Majesty's Government do to ensure that people understand the absurdity of this notion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my figures relating to trade are very close to those of the noble Lord. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, that is a matter for the Conservative Front Bench. However, I am encouraged to read in this morning's newspapers that Mr Hague has reaffirmed that it is not the intention of the Conservative Party to withdraw from the European Union. If he can get that message across to his colleagues, we shall all benefit.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, be that as it may, why is it that, according to this year's WTO report, while between 1990 and 1998 the EU's percentage of world trade fell by 8 per cent, NAFTA's increased by 13 per cent; and how is it that that has been achieved without asking for billions of pounds of contributions from national governments or the employment of a single bureaucrat?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first point, it is not "be that as it may" but "be that as it is". I recorded what I understood to be a speech made today by the Leader of the Opposition. As to world trade, the noble Lord is right. In particular, the context of world trade between first world countries and the rest of the world is absolutely critical. That is why those who urge that we should become closer to, or even members of, NAFTA on the grounds that free trade between that organisation and the European Union is particularly valuable are so wrong.

Sex Education
3.2 p.m.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux Lord Randall of St Budeaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce new guidelines to discourage the promotion of homosexuality to young children.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made clear that the new guidance to schools on sex and relationships education will stress that it is not the job of teachers to promote sexual orientation but to help pupils to understand human sexuality and to respect themselves and others. The guidance will be firmly rooted in the law which already specifically requires schools to provide sex education with due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. It will also be set in the context of the national framework for personal, social and health education which includes teaching about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for a very helpful and constructive Answer. Is she aware that, especially over the past two weeks, I have been consulting both professionals and lay people and that there is serious concern and confusion in the community, as well as a lack of confidence in the stance of the Government, over the promotion of homosexuality? Does my noble friend agree that before drawing up any guidelines the Government should carefully define and consider in detail the balance between the role of parents and the role of the state in sex education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was not aware that my noble friend had undertaken extensive consultations. However, I am interested to hear that he has done so and I am happy to know more about the outcome. I do not believe that anyone has grounds to lack confidence in what the Government are doing in this area. The Government take the issue extremely seriously and are themselves involved in extensive consultations with all the interested parties. One aspect that the Government need to look at is the respective roles of parents and teachers in this sensitive area.
Baroness Young: My Lords, while wishing to read very carefully what the noble Baroness said in her initial response to the Question—I found it somewhat difficult to follow the argument—I ask her whether she will clarify the point raised by the noble Lord about the Government's attitude to the promotion of homosexuality in schools. If there are to be guidelines, will they appear on the face of either the Local Government Bill or possibly the Learning and Skills Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as to the second part of the noble Baroness's question, currently the

131
Government are considering whether they should have a statutory duty to provide such guidelines. I hope that the Government will reach a conclusion on that matter fairly soon. As to the first part of the question, perhaps I should re-read what I said since the noble Baroness did not pick it up. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that the new guidance to schools in this area will stress that it is not the job of teachers to promote sexual orientation but to help pupils to understand human sexuality and to respect themselves and others.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Secretary of State's guidelines will make clear that schools must consult parents about their policies and programmes for sex education in schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, any guidance will make clear that schools should consult parents on their policies and programmes for sex and relationships education. It will also make clear that they should not use materials which are inappropriate to the age and maturity of pupils. This area of education is already the responsibility of governing bodies, which are themselves required to consult parents about it.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the very positive discussions on this issue that the Secretary of State is holding with the Churches and the good progress that is being made to find a suitable framework for sex and personal relationship education in schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that discussions have begun and are ongoing. The Government are enormously grateful to the Churches for the time and effort that they put into consideration of this difficult and sensitive area. The Government have consulted Church and faith groups, including the Jewish and Muslim communities, and will continue to do so until they formally issue guidance for consultation with the schools sector and beyond.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I do not believe that the Liberals have had a chance for a while.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that, without criticising the phrasing of the Question, many of us who are parents and grandparents take a more positive view than that which is contained in it; in other words, we are much more concerned about guidelines to explain and give young children an understanding of homosexuality than guidelines to discourage the promotion of homosexuality to young children?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept that one aspect of sex education should be to help young people
132
understand sexuality in all its ramifications and to ensure that they learn to be tolerant and to behave in a tolerant manner.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Government consider giving an early opportunity to debate in this House the issue of sex education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is a matter for the business managers and the usual channels.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it must be this side's turn now!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is definitely the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged. Will these guidelines be available by Report stage; and will the work the Government are doing with the Church be visible in the concrete form of amendments, or some provision?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am always delighted to respond to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Unfortunately I cannot be helpful to him because I do not know the answer. Discussions are continuing and will continue. They are being pursued as a matter of urgency. However, I cannot say whether the work will be completed by the Report stage of either the Local Government Bill—it will be quite soon—or the Learning and Skills Bill. As soon as the guidance is available for consultation I shall be happy to ensure that the noble Lord has a copy of it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Noble Lords: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has been very patient.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a somewhat confusing picture is emerging in Scotland in relation to this matter? Following the vote in this House, the Scottish Parliament decided that Section 28 should be withdrawn. That is complicated enough. It is a properly devolved subject. However, several local authorities in Scotland have now made decisions by majority vote to retain Section 28. So it depends where one lives in Scotland as to which provision applies.

133
I am encouraged by the discussions taking place in England to resolve the problem with guidance. Could that wisdom and those sensible discussions be shared with our Scottish friends to achieve some degree of uniformity and understanding in Scotland?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Scots are a law unto themselves on this matter. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be happy to have discussions with his opposite number in Scotland. I am aware that the Scottish Executive has issued guidance on sex education. It is not statutory guidance because the curriculum in Scotland is not subject to statutory guidance. But guidance has been issued.

Suspension of Hospital Medical Practitioners Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for new procedures for the suspension of hospital medical practitioners. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Knight of Collingtree.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Colchester Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I explain the procedure for dealing with the three GLA orders today. It has been agreed among the usual channels that the second of today's affirmative orders and the Prayer against the
134
election rules will be debated together this afternoon, and that includes the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
The procedure will be as follows. The debate on the disqualification order will take place first, and the Motion to approve it will be moved and dealt with, it is to be hoped, quite quickly.
The joint debate on the remaining two orders will then begin. My noble friend Lord Whitty will move his Motion that the election expenses order be agreed to. In his speech he will deal with the election expenses order and the election rules order. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will then move his amendment to the first order and speak also to his second Motion on the election rules.
The joint debate on both instruments will then take place. Any noble Lord who wishes to speak on either Motion should do so at that point. At the end of the debate the amendment to the order will be dealt with first. The Question will then be put on the election expenses order. Finally, and without further debate, the Question will be put on the Prayer against the election rules.

Greater London Authority (Disqualification) Order 2000
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd February be approved [9th Report. from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first of the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper is the one that my noble friend the Chief Whip suggested might be over quite rapidly.
In the White Paper A Mayor and Assembly for London, the Government indicated that people who held public offices would be required to resign from them if they decided to stand for election as either mayor or to the assembly. We have decided, on reflection, that a less comprehensive approach, keeping disqualification to a minimum, is the right one to follow.
The Greater London Authority Act 1999, and other existing legislation, disqualifies certain categories of people, such as members of the authority's staff, from being elected or being the mayor or an assembly member. The 1999 Act also establishes tailor-made disqualification regimes for the new police and fire authorities, Transport for London, and the London Development Agency. Under Section 21(1)(b) of the 1999 Act, the Secretary of State may by order designate offices and appointments which disqualify the holders from being elected or being the mayor of London or a member of the London assembly.
The draft Greater London Authority (Disqualification) Order is now before the House. The order has been considered and approved by the other

135
place. The purpose of the order is to set out clearly those offices and appointments which are not compatible with the roles of mayor of London or a member of the London assembly. In my opinion, the order is compatible with the European Convention on Human rights.
Part I of the schedule to the order lists those eight bodies all of whose members are disqualified. Part II of the schedule lists a further 18 offices and appointments, the holders of which cannot be the mayor or an assembly member.
The disqualification arrangements for the Greater London Authority need to be tailored to its circumstances—to the role and functions of the mayor and assembly members and to the inclusive approach the authority is intended to embody in London. Our aim has been to strike the right balance between preventing conflicts of interest and restricting the democratic right to stand for election of the fewest possible people.
The GLA will be a strategic authority. It will have a relatively small range of specific functions, all of which are vital to the well-being of the capital. The mayor will also need to provide leadership for London, and to work in partnership with other organisations. We want the jobs of mayor and assembly member to be open to a wide range of talented people and to promote an inclusive approach and co-operation and partnership—and perhaps some untalented people as well! We are therefore keeping to a minimum those offices and appointments which a person will not be able to combine with being the mayor or an assembly member. We want to prevent significant conflicts of interest, but do not believe that we should rule out in legislation overlapping, complementary interests.
We believe that serious conflicts of interest with the role of mayor or assembly member could arise with offices and appointments whose holders are required to be, or to be seen to be, politically impartial—such as judges or civil servants; or who are with a body which has a scrutiny role over the GLA or one of the four functional bodies—such as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary or the Police Complaints Authority; or who may exercise a quasi-judicial role over the GLA or a functional body—such as a person who hears appeals on penalty fares issued on behalf of Transport for London, a subject which is dear to many of your Lordships' hearts.
Offices and appointments which meet these criteria are listed in the order. The order also clarifies that magistrate members of the new police authority are not eligible to stand for election as mayor or an assembly member. People who currently hold posts or employment which are disqualified in primary legislation or under this order will be required to resign before they give consent to their candidature as part of the formal nomination procedure, under the rules which will apply to the conduct of the GLA elections.
The disqualification arrangements set out in this order will be augmented by statutory guidance on ethical standards to which the GLA will be required to have regard. This guidance which we shall publish
136
shortly will cover conflicts (whether of interest or of time pressures) with other public offices. I believe that this is a sensible fulfilment of our requirements under the Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000
3.25 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I hope that this one will be conducted with equal dispatch! This order prescribes the maximum amounts of election expenses of candidates and their agents, and third parties, in elections for the mayor of London and the London Assembly. In my opinion, the draft order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The draft order sets out three separate limits; for mayoral candidates, Assembly constituency candidates, and for parties and independent candidates contesting the London-wide list, reflecting the unique voting system that we have in the GLA. These limits are: £420,000 per mayoral candidate; £35,000 per candidate contesting an Assembly constituency; £330,000 per party or independent candidate contesting the London-wide list.
These orders were the subject of substantial consultation with the political parties in December. We listened carefully to the points that they raised about the level of the limits and significantly reduced our original proposals for the mayor and the London-wide list from the levels that we had originally proposed, which were £990,000 and £495,000 respectively. That was because the consultees in other parties considered them to be too high and likely significantly to disadvantage smaller parties in particular. The new limits provide for a more level playing field for candidates, while at the same time allowing candidates and their parties the freedom to put their message across to the electorate.
The limits can be broadly compared to expenses limits in other relevant regimes. The expense limit for mayoral candidates and parties contesting the London-wide list are broadly derived from the figure of £30,000 per parliamentary constituency used in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill as the building block for calculating the national spending limits which we are proposing for political parties. The Assembly constituency limit is broadly equivalent to the sum of parliamentary constituency limits within an Assembly constituency area. Those limits are enough to enable parties and candidates to fight effective campaigns at either the London-wide or constituency level, while at the same time not allowing their spending to become unacceptably high.

137
When the order comes into force, GLA candidates and parties contesting the London-wide list will not be permitted to spend more than the relevant prescribed limit in respect of their election expenses. Election expenses are defined in the Representation of the People Act 1983 as,
"whether before, during or after an election, on account of or in respect of the conduct and management of the election".
Spending before 14th December 1999, the date when the relevant provisions in the GLA Act were commenced, is not caught by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and hence would not, in our view, count towards the limit.
Article 2 of this order prescribes the maximum expenditure which a person other than a candidate or his agent, that is a third party, may incur at such elections. Those limits are: £25,000 per third party supporting or opposing mayoral candidates; £25,000 per third party supporting or opposing London-wide list candidates, including independents; and £1,800 per third party supporting or opposing an Assembly constituency candidate. These limits are derived from the formula that we intend to bring forward by amendment to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill to limit third party spending in local elections.
During the debate on this draft order, the other place expressed concern that these limits were high. I recognise that they are indeed high compared to the current limit of £5 set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983, but I believe that they are justified both in the light of the Bowman judgment in the European Court of Human Rights, in which the court ruled that the £5 limit constituted an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression, and to ensure that third parties are able to put their case across to the electorate. They are the main points of this order.
Because of the procedure outlined by my noble friend the Chief Whip, I need also to refer briefly to the election rules which are referred to in the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Those rules, which are under the negative procedure, deal with the nuts and bolts of the election, such as the time by which nominations have to be submitted, how the public know when and where they can vote, how the polling station functions, and how the counting of votes is organised. If there are no rules, the elections cannot go ahead. I make that point in view of extraneous comment outside this Chamber. Except where necessary—for example, to provide for new voting systems in London—they follow exactly the patterns which have been set by all election rules made in the past 50 years.
As with the order, we have consulted with the political parties in producing these rules and with those who are professionally involved in running elections, and we took account of the views received in those consultations before we laid these rules before Parliament. The rules, therefore, are not controversial. Representatives of all parties have been consulted and
138
have raised no objection to them. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and others who may speak in this debate will bear that in mind.
I need to say one other thing. This is a straightforward proposal under provisions in the GLA Act. This order and the election rules follow the normal procedure in drawing up the election rules and expenses rules under the legislation in local authority elections. I had my lunch interrupted on Sunday and my breakfast interrupted today by the dulcet tones of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who indicated, slightly to my astonishment, that the Opposition intended to move against this order and these rules. In addition, I have had an indication that the Liberal Democrat Party might also be tempted to support this move, not on the ground of anything contained in these orders—as I have said, these have already been agreed by the parties—but on the ground of an entirely extraneous matter that is not and could not be contained in these orders. I therefore suggest that, as we move to the joint debate for which my noble friend the Chief Whip has indicated the procedure, we should bear in mind that any vote that is taken today will not be a vote on what has been put before this House, it having been passed in another place; it will be on something quite different. Before deciding whether and how to vote tonight, your Lordships should bear that in mind. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Whitty.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before it on 3rd February and calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay an order which provides that candidates are allowed one freepost delivery per household".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just explained, these orders for the London mayoral election and the GLA elections lay down rules which are largely based on our parliamentary rules for elections in Westminster and Europe, the Assembly elections that have been conducted recently in Wales and Northern Ireland and, of course, the Scottish parliamentary elections, where the top up member system to be used in the London Assembly was also used.
One important aspect is missing. It is an important aspect which, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has pointed out, has led me to move this amendment and the Prayer and which has led the Liberal Democrats to say that they are absolutely with me on this issue. Unlike all the election candidates for the elections that I have mentioned—the House of Commons, the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—the London candidates will have no access to freepost. Candidates will not be able to send an election address to each elector, or even to each

139
household. A much more important point is that each elector will not receive through the post a communication from the candidates informing them of the election and informing them of the candidates who are seeking the support of the voters.
We heard last week from the Minister, Keith Hill, in the other place and from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in your Lordships' House why the Government had decided not to make the freepost delivery available. Rather briefly, we have also heard an argument from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, today.
We have to go back to the arguments we heard in your Lordships' House last week from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. They were also deployed by Mr Keith Hill when moving these two orders in the other place. First, we are told that it is too late to raise the issue; that it should have been raised during the passage of the Bill and it was not. That statement is wrong. The issue was raised in the Standing Committee in the other place on 28th January 1999. The Minister's uninformative response was:
"The right honourable gentleman raised a different issue on whether a free mail shot should apply, as in parliamentary elections, or whether it should not, as in local government elections. Perhaps he has raised one more issue".
And that was that! We might have a debate about the meaning of that answer or non-answer, but the idea that the issue was not raised is not true.
Equally, freepost was not an issue during the passage of the Scotland Bill or the Government of Wales Bill. And after those Bills became Acts, no one suggested that just because the issue was not raised during their passage through Parliament no freepost should be given in Scotland and Wales. So that point is entirely bogus.
Then we have the principal point; the local government argument. The argument is that these are local elections and we do not have a post at local elections. I looked back at what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said when as Minister she introduced the Greater London Authority White Paper on 25th March 1998. To be fair, she started by saying:
"Today we are publishing our detailed proposals for a radical new type of local government".
But then she went on to say:
"The new authority will have new powers devolved from central government … This is another step in our programme of constitutional reform. We are establishing new devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales"—
a read-across to Scotland and Wales—
"We are now taking a significant step in decentralising government by establishing these new arrangements in London …The mayor of London will be a powerful figure, with an electorate of over 5 million voters—more than any other individual politician in this country … [He] will control a large budget—currently more than £3 billion".—[Official Report, 25/3/98; col. 1278.]
That is what the noble Baroness said. Your Lordships will notice that the budget was £3 billion and not the £30 million mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, last Monday.
I now draw your Lordships' attention to the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, which are to be found in Commons Hansard on 14th December 1998. He said—and he must have been reading it out because the English is quite good—
"The proposed authority is not similar to any local government authority as we know it. It will be a new type of city government, with a city executive and elected mayor … Therefore, it is fair to say that it is not the normal local government structure".—[Official Report, Commons. 14/12/98; col. 624]
Exactly, my Lords! London already has local government and local government elections in its 33 boroughs. They will continue. The London-wide elections are for a new form of government, not "local" as we have traditionally known them.
As we have traditionally known council elections, there is no freepost, but equally there is no deposit. However, your Lordships will find that under these orders and the Greater London Authority election rules, there are deposits in these London elections. So they are not as local as the Government are trying to make out. The deposits are £10,000 for the mayoral candidates; £1,000 for a first-past-the-post candidates; and £5,000 for each top-up party. Deposits are what we have in Westminster, in the European elections and in the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and with deposits goes a freepost. The Government cannot have it both ways.
Of course, there is a huge electorate in London; bigger than any other in the country. Five million people will elect one person. Nothing—nothing—comes within the same league as such an electorate and election.
One thing surprised me. At the end of last week the Home Office announced the pilot schemes. Noble Lords who have been following the Representation of the People Bill will know that there are to be pilot schemes of various kinds to try out ways to increase turn-out at local elections this coming May. Local authorities have put in bids for them. One local authority which has put in a bid, and had it accepted, is Watford, and the experiment in Watford is a freepost facility.
It goes further than that because if it were a success, under the Representation of the People Bill the Government would have the power to roll out the same freepost facilities to local governments throughout the country and by secondary legislation.
Lord Whitty: Will not the noble Lord accept that the Watford experiment, if such it be, is possible only under the provisions of the Bill which is still before the House? The noble Lord is asking us to produce secondary legislation for which we have no primary power. Not only could it not be under the powers under which these orders are proposed, but there are no primary powers for us to introduce a freepost. That is the point that I am making and it is the point which the House must seriously consider in making a judgment on the noble Lord's Motion.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if that is the case, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord

141
Whitty, did not make the point in his introductory speech. But even if it is the case, I offer the noble Lord a vehicle. The Representation of the People Bill has its Report stage next Tuesday. Last week, we debated an amendment and we and the Liberal Democrats used it as a means of putting down a marker that we were serious about the issue and the Government could do something about it in that Bill. If they need a primary vehicle, it is there and will be passed in good time. So that does not stand up as much of an argument!
Lord Borrie: My Lords, will the noble Lord specify the provision in the Greater London Authority Act which gives power to the Government to do what he is asking them to do today?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am puzzled about that, because I cannot remember any such powers in the Scotland and Wales Bills, and I spent a lot of time on them. I suspect that there are provisions elsewhere in the various Representation of the People Acts which could be used if the draftsmen had used their ingenuity and if the Government wished. But I have given the Government the opportunity; the Representation of the People Bill is before Parliament and we do not need to argue this issue any longer. The vehicle exists because we can do something about the problem in that Bill.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made some amazing claims about the cost of this. First, he conjured up 40 candidates for mayor and a cost of £30 million; frivolous candidates will rush forward in their tens in order to take advantage of the freepost facilities for a deposit of only £10,000 plus the cost of printing the leaflets. There is no evidence that that has and will happen. Let us take the European elections which were held throughout Scotland. Did anyone pay a deposit and stand in those elections to gain freepost advertising? Did freepost come through my letterbox advertising the local haggis, tatties and neeps restaurant and the local kilt outfitter? It did not; nor did such things happen in London when the European elections were held throughout the city.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I agreed that that did not happen in the most recent European elections, but perhaps he will cast his mind back to those elections in 1994. In London North, there was a candidate whose main claim to fame seemed to be that he ran, I am sure, a good driving school at the bottom of the Stroud Green Road, which is near to where I live. That was his claim to fame as a candidate for the European Parliament. He obtained freepost and publicity on the back of it. That is precisely the kind of candidate that the Government are talking about.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the noble Lord was so worried about that, why did he not persuade his colleagues not to have a freepost at the recent European elections? He does not seem to have
142
tried to lock the door after that horse had bolted, so why try to do so for the London elections? That does not work, either.
I turn to the cost. The European parliamentary elections freepost cost £21.5 million. That was for the whole of the UK. In Scotland, the total cost for two drops—one for the first-past-the-post candidate and one for the top-up list—cost about £4.5 million. I extrapolate that to about £6 million for London. Therefore, I am afraid that the argument is bogus.
If the Government were really worried about frivolous candidates, first, they would have produced more than only one example and, secondly, they would have done something about it in the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the last European elections and dare—I say it?—they would now be doing something about the next series of elections.
In any case, although I am not an expert on this, I understand that the Post Office has some pretty firm rules about what it takes as election addresses and what can appear on the freepost leaflets. I do not believe that the argument about cost and frivolous candidates works, especially when we have it in other elections. The Government spent money on the freepost because they knew that in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the European Parliament it was the right thing to do. It is the way to increase interest in elections, to increase turn-out, and to ensure fairness between the parties—all the reasons that led the postwar Labour government to pass the 1948 Act introducing the freepost. It is just as well that the current lot were not in power then or there would still not be a freepost.
But I should not be surprised: fairness has not been at the forefront since 1997 as regards elections. In the Scottish referendum there were two questions instead of one in order to try and ensure the result. The Welsh referendum was held a week later to try to persuade the Welsh to follow the Scots. There was the closed list for the European elections—I had better not remind your Lordships about that—in order to keep control. There was the method of voting for the Welsh First Minister which was gerrymandered to ensure that Alun Michael got the job, but not Rhodri Morgan who was the choice of the Labour membership in Wales. Just last week there was the same gerrymandering to make sure that Ken Livingstone—perhaps I should not say that name too loudly in case it disturbs the Government—the choice of the Labour members in London, did not win that election. Here we are again. It is all so logical. You fix the Labour candidate by fixing Livingstone; then, if that is not enough and just in case he stands, you fix him again by having no freepost and then you threaten that if your Lordships just say that they are a bit worried about it, you fix the House of Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord is always so courteous in giving way. I wonder whether he would care to add to his history of democratic events the destruction of the London County Council by a Conservative government because Labour kept on winning in London. Then there was the destruction of

143
the Greater London Council because the Conservative government again thought that the Greater London Council was electing a Labour administration too often. Would the noble Lord care to add those to his list?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is pretty old history. But Ken Livingstone was involved in that, and the Labour Party liked Ken Livingstone at that stage.
Earl Russell: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to remind the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of the maxim that two wrongs do not make a right?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was going to turn to that and say that that is not an argument against not having freepost in these elections. If the noble Lord believes that it is such a terrific thing and is so glad to see it coming back to London, he should want the fullest participation and that involves a freepost.
I want to examine the argument that somehow your Lordships' House has no right to deal with these matters. I refer first to the convention against voting on secondary legislation. It was not a convention, but an agreement between the Labour and Conservative Front Benches. It never included the Liberal Democrats, as no doubt they will tell us, and it never included the Cross Benches.
Secondly, and much, much more important, is the fact that this is a new House. It is the House that Tony built. It is the House governed by the Jay doctrine. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said in the House Magazine on 27th September last. She said:
"The House of Lords … will be more legitimate, because its members have earned their places, and therefore more effective".
She went further in the Parliamentary Monitor in November of that year when she said:
"A decision by the House not to support a proposal from the Government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinion. So the Executive will be better held to account".
If those words from the noble Baroness mean anything, I hope that we shall have no complaint from her if a combination of Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Cross-Benchers, and I even hope a few Labour Peers, combine to hold the executive to account. That is what the noble Baroness wants of her new House and I venture to suggest that is what she will get later this afternoon. Is it too much to ask the Government to listen to what your Lordships are saying?
It is not just your Lordships. We should listen to what the Labour MP for a London constituency, Diane Abbott, said in the other place last week. She said:
"If the House of Lords knocks the issue back to the Commons, Ministers should not argue that it is just another example of the peers versus the people. In fact it will be the Government versus the people".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/00; col. 885]
144
I could not have put it better myself. Even at this late stage I hope that the Government will back down and put some sensible proposals to us. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before it on 3rd February and calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay an order which provides that candidates are allowed one freepost delivery per household".—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish).
3.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the freepost in parliamentary elections goes back a very long time. In fact, it goes back further than 1948. It was introduced by Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act 1918, following a Speaker's Conference in 1917. I should like to quote from a speech made in the debate on that section in the other place by Herbert Samuel, a future leader of the Liberal Party. He said:
"The greatest danger in the working of a democracy is the indifference of the elector, and in the laudable desire to limit expenditure and electoral activities in various directions we may possibly overshoot the mark, and find, in future, that we may get much too small a portion of the electorate taking an interest in the election, and that the electorate may not be fully informed of the issues".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/8/17; col. 1297.]
Those words are at least as true today as they were when they were uttered over 80 years ago.
We need a freepost for the sake of democracy. Candidates must be able to get their message over to electors. There are, of course, measures to eliminate frivolous candidates. Substantial deposits are required for the London elections. Candidates for mayor must get the signatures of 10 supporters in each London borough. But the elections will be contested by serious candidates of minor parties. Certainly the Greens, who won a London seat in the European elections, may very well do so again.
Without the freepost, candidates, particularly from the minor parties, cannot get their messages across. The electoral areas are enormous. For the mayor and for the London-wide assembly candidates, the electorate will comprise 5 million people. For the 14 assembly constituencies, the average electorate will be more than 350,000. As I pointed out in the debate on the Representation of the People Bill, more and more Londoners live in blocks of flats with locked doors and entryphones and more and more Londoners have ex-directory telephone numbers. These people cannot be reached by the ordinary methods of canvassing and leaflet delivery; neither can we rely on media coverage of the election. Even we in the Liberal Democrats, with an excellent candidate, control of three London boroughs and strong representation in many other London boroughs, get hardly any media coverage. What hope do the minor parties have of getting a mention, let alone an explanation of what they stand for?
Freepost is the best method that we have of making sure that candidates can get their message across to any elector willing to go to the trouble of picking a leaflet off the floor by the front door and reading it.

145
But the importance of the freepost is not due only to the vast size of the electorate and the inaccessibility of electors. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has pointed out, this is a new type of election. It is the first-ever direct election for an executive mayor. We have new systems of voting unfamiliar to the people of London for both mayor and assembly members. There are several parties in this election with a serious chance of winning Assembly seats. The parties need to tell the electors not only what their programme is, but how to vote for them when they get to the polling station.
If ever there was an election for which freepost was essential, this is it. Yet the Government propose to deny the electors of London the right to the information they need in order to make an informed choice. That is a matter of concern not only for the Opposition parties, but for many individuals in the Labour Party as well.
I refer to the debate on these regulations in the other place on 15th February, a week ago. Three of the most powerful speeches in favour of freepost came from the Labour Benches. They were made by Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Audrey Wise. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has already quoted one extract from Diane Abbott's speech. I should like to quote another:
"It is astonishing to some of us that the Government seriously propose not to have a free post in the election. It might technically be just another local authority election, but Ministers know full well that it is not the same. The number of people involved and the significance of the mayoralty mean that it is more than a local authority election".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/00; col. 885.]
Why do the Government object to the freepost? In part, of course, it is for the unspoken reason of the candidate whose name cannot be spoken, Mr Ken Livingstone. However, what the Government say is that it will be too expensive. In Committee on the Representation of the People Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, spoke of a cost somewhere between £15 million and £30 million. That is absurd. The whole cost of the freepost in 659 constituencies for the 1997 general election was £20 million. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said, the cost for the 1999 European elections was £21.5 million. Head for head, that would work out at around £2 million for London.
I accept that that figure may be an underestimate because there may be more candidates for mayor in London than the average number of candidates for parliamentary elections. However, there would not be many more and certainly no more than are able to afford not only the deposit but the much more substantial costs of printing a large number of leaflets. On top of that, there are ways acceptable to us in which the cost could be substantially reduced. My noble friend Lord Rennard will explain those later in the debate.
In any case, the Post Office is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government. The real cost is not that which the Post Office would charge a promotion
146
business to distribute its junk mail, but the marginal cost to the Post Office in terms of additional overtime and perhaps temporary staff. That would add up to only a fraction of the Government's figures. Even if the cost does amount to a figure as high as £4 million or £5 million, trying to get democracy on the cheap is a very bad bargain.
The Government have said that a freepost might be abused. Did any abuse occur in the 1999 European elections when any independent candidate could have obtained a freepost to cover the whole of London? No. In fact, there could not be any abuse because, as my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out in the debate last week, Post Office regulations prevent a freepost being used for advertising.
The Government then say that, of course, this is a local election and a freepost is not available for such elections. I detect here the hand of the Treasury. "Give way on London", says the Treasury, "and the parties will be asking for a freepost for mayoral elections in Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle or Eatanswill". There is a good case for saying that there should be a freepost available for mayoral elections in other large cities, but that is a different case from the one we are making today. The fact is that the London elections are not local elections; they are regional elections. London is not just a city; it is a region of its own. The 14 Assembly constituencies—the smallest unit in these elections—are five times the size of the average Westminster constituency. They are perhaps 100 times the size of the average local government ward. So these are not local elections in any ordinary sense.
The Government's position amounts to saying, "These are local elections and therefore local election rules apply." You cannot turn an elephant into a rabbit by calling it a rabbit; that is what the Government are trying to do. The final irony, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out, is Watford. If these rules go through for 4th May this year, we shall have a freepost in the local elections for Watford but not for the metropolis of London. That is an absurdity if ever there was one.
The final argument put by the Government is that it is undemocratic and unconstitutional for your Lordships' House to reject these rules. I believe that argument to be the weakest of all. The Labour Party has produced a travesty of democracy in the way it has selected its candidate for the London mayoral elections and the Labour Government have thereby forfeited the right to preach to your Lordships' House about democracy.
I shall return to the speech made by Diane Abbott:
"Ministers should not argue that it is just another example of the peers versus the people. In fact, it will be the Government versus the people".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/00, col. 885]
On 20th October 1994, your Lordships' House affirmed that it has unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration. That Motion was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, I believe, intends to speak in today's debate. The

147
power to reject secondary legislation must be exercised extremely cautiously. But it is a power that can and should be exercised when it is really needed.
Your Lordships' House was once described as, "Mr Balfour's poodle". Since the House of Lords Act last year, the present House is no one's poodle. In defence of democracy, your Lordships' House should be not a poodle, but a Rottweiler. That is why, on behalf of my party, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for reminding us of the history of the freepost. However, the one obvious lesson to be learnt from that history is that, since the freepost was introduced—and most strikingly over the past 30 to 40 years—turn-out for elections has markedly diminished. Absurdly low polls were secured in last year's local and European elections. Furthermore, I have been reminded by my noble friend Lord Islwyn of the extremely low turn-out for the Welsh elections.
If we are really concerned about democracy, then we must conclude that it needs to be robust and generated by activity at a political level. I believe that we have reached the point where the freepost is seen as a replacement for positive political activity. In many wards and in constituencies, people see the freepost as an alternative to old-style canvassing. In many parts of Britain, that form of old-style canvassing in support of both national and local elections has diminished remarkably over the past two decades. If we are to secure higher turn-outs, we need people to knock on doors and deliver leaflets.
I have fought many elections over the past 30 years. However, over recent years I have found that the leaflet that is handed in to the elector at the door receives more attention than the one that comes through the letterbox with the post. The fact is that today there is a great deal more junk mail than used to be the case. The manifesto submitted by the postman tends to be thrown into the wastebin along with the junk mail that many of us deplore. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, whether he has had the experience of canvassing over entryphones in London.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I have canvassed in London and I recognise the particular difficulties it can present. However, perhaps I may move on to compare London with other areas in a moment. It is worth the effort to canvass because one then secures the agreement of the elector to turn out and vote. A leaflet delivered in the post does not have that effect.
148
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seeks to emphasise the difference between London and other parts of the country. However, he overlooks the fact that London is viewed with a degree of suspicion in other parts of the country. I give way to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Given the logic of his remarks so far, the noble Lord appears to be seeking to abolish the freepost altogether. Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am suggesting that we are reaching a point where we should consider that very proposition in the interests of stimulating a more active democracy. It may be that there is a stronger case to be made for state aid for political parties so that the parties themselves are more invigorated and able to persuade others to be active, rather than merely relying on a postal service.
The difference between London and the rest of the country must also be considered. I accept that London covers a large area and has an extremely large electorate; indeed, it is almost of regional proportions. However, the fact remains that in the great cities, if London gets a freepost, then everyone else will demand it. There would be no justice in denying that. We would then be compounding the error, if error there is.
I do not understand how people can say, "Well, we'll accept a freepost in London and deny it elsewhere". However, if we accept it elsewhere, we shall be embarking upon a very costly exercise. I know that noble Lords opposite say that businesses and commercial interests may be reflected in increased numbers of candidatures. I am surprised that that is not so. However, I do not believe that the entrepreneurial spirit is quite dead in Britain; it is only a matter of time.
I recall an article written by Mr Livingstone a long time ago, perhaps when he was rather more left-wing than he appears to be at the moment. In it he suggested that the Members for the industrial north spent their time in the wine bars and other such establishments of Westminster. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before the wine bars that we were once supposed to frequent will decide to put up their candidates. However, the fact remains that we are talking about substantial amounts of expenditure which could grow considerably.
One reason for my intervention is that in my area a report from Ofsted was recently rather critical of the education authority. The criticism was based largely on the inadequacy of our school buildings. For years in the early 1990s I argued for greater provision for school buildings. The government at that time, who were so keen on cutting public expenditure, allowed my local authority very small sums for that purpose and a backlog of need developed quite markedly. Indeed, I recall pointing out to the Minister at that time that we were allowed to spend £1 per head on the maintenance of our school buildings while across the south of England and in London the sum of at least £8 per head was provided. If we are to quibble about

149
providing decently for our schools but can lavish vast expenditure on an increasingly pointless exercise, then we are not acting with the wisdom expected of this House.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I understand that this Government are in favour of encouraging democracy and greater participation in the election of representatives at all levels of democracy. I give them every benefit of the doubt in believing that that is true. Within limits, that involves encouraging people to stand whether or not they fall into the predestined idea of being born either a little Liberal or a little Conservative. The Socialist Party has already broken that tidy little one up, and it is open to other parties to do the same.
I speak on behalf of the Green Party, which already has a representative—a very able one—elected by London on a wide franchise as an MEP. We have a standing as a party in this city, as in this country, and I believe that we should be allowed and encouraged to take part in the democratic process. However, with an electorate of 5 million, the type of personal canvassing which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, so rightly believed is good becomes very difficult with the limitations imposed by fax, answerphones and ex-directory numbers.
My party is putting up a candidate for mayor and candidates for the Assembly. We believe that we shall certainly succeed in getting Assembly candidates elected. That is done on a city-wide basis. We make no secret of the fact that there are parts of London where Green activists are thin on the ground. I am told by my party that one has to go quite a long way to find a member of the Green Party in Barking, for example. However, that does not mean that we should be denied the opportunity of canvassing those voters in Barking and persuading them to cast their votes for what we believe is an extremely good candidate and an extremely good party with an extremely good policy.
Unless we manage to overturn the regulations and make the Government think again on this point, the people who want to vote for the Green Party over a large part of London will be disenfranchised. I cannot believe that, ideally speaking, that is what the Government want. If they do not want it, the remedy is in their own hands. I hope that they will agree to give way on this important democratic point.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, asked whether it was right that we should accept a freepost in London and deny it elsewhere. I believe that I am then entitled to ask whether it is right that we should have a freepost in Wales and deny it to the people of London. The truth is that his speech could have been made only by a representative of a large and powerful party wanting to deny the possibility of victory to those with fewer resources.
150
I, too, have fought elections and have won them. Indeed, I took particular offence at the remarks of the Leader of another place when she suggested that an unelected House is not entitled to vote on these issues. I took offence not least because, if I am in this House at all, it is, I suppose, because of an ability to win elections and then to have served my country in the other place. Therefore, I feel absolutely entitled to stand up and say that it cannot be right that a Government, with the resources of the media and the ability to get the headlines, should seek to deny this very modest tool to those from other parties who may seek to stand.
The irony of the argument is this: I suspect that in part the object of the exercise is to place yet another obstacle in front of Mr Livingstone. Yet Mr Livingstone is the one person who probably will not be affected by it because he will attract publicity anyway. I have no doubt that, freepost or no freepost, he will probably be as well known in London as any other candidate. It seems to me much more likely that, if he wants to stand, he will get himself better known than the rather curious choice of the Labour Party as a result of the machinations seen in recent weeks.
I opened The Times this morning and turned to the article by Peter Riddell. I always turn to him because I feel that he is the only political correspondent who will find something good to say about the Labour Government and their actions. When it is not apparent to those outside, it will be to Mr Riddell. He has a charitable disposition when it comes to the actions of the Labour Administration, although he seems rather less charitable about the person he describes as,
"the hapless and hopeless Lord Bassam of Brighton".
Of course, I would not be so unkind. However, Mr Riddell is normally charitable to Labour. Yet today he has written:
"Any second chamber worth the name should act as a check on the elected chamber on constitutional issues".
He then sets out the arguments almost as powerfully as they were advanced by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and from the Liberal Democrat Benches. He points out that if the Government are defeated tonight there will be plenty of opportunity to come forward with an alternative so that the elections can be held. He concludes:
"They should listen, to avoid making an even greater mess of the elections than they have".
I must say that I am not particularly concerned if they make a mess of the choice of their own candidate. If they do that, they are likely to get a bloody nose from the electorate.
As I observed in the House last night during the debate on Welsh affairs, I have a great respect for the ability of the British electorate to give any arrogant and inadequate government a bloody nose. I suspect that the electorate will do that and that the Labour Government will suffer as a consequence of their activities in recent weeks; and that they will suffer in London as they have already suffered in Wales where they were given a sharp lesson in the assembly elections and an even sharper lesson in the Ceredigion by-election.

151
But the fact that the Government will be taught a sharp lesson by the electorate is not an adequate reason for this House not to do its undoubted duty to protect the people of this country from the arrogance of an over-weaning Government who are determined to use their weight, authority, money and resources to win elections when the choice should be offered to the people on terms of equality.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, we are currently debating the expenses order to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has moved an amendment. We are debating also the election rules.
During the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, he kindly permitted me to intervene to ask under what provision of the Greater London Authority Act a rule of the kind for which he is asking—namely, one asking for freepost delivery—is permitted. He may well know that there is no such provision. I do not refer to the debates which we have had on the Representation of the People Bill, or, indeed, to those which we may have next Tuesday on that Bill. But it seems to me that unless there is some provision in the Greater London Authority Act of which I have not yet heard which may permit the Government to do what he is asking to be done in today's debate, that part of the debate or the initiation of his amendment is misconceived.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why the Government did not recognise the weakness of the Scotland and Wales legislation which also failed to give the same powers in the same circumstances; and why they did not object to their own drafting?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. As I am not a Minister, I cannot say that I will ask my officials to advise me and that I will reply in writing to the noble Viscount. No doubt Ministers will take account of what was said in the intervention by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. The question of freepost was raised in Commons Standing Committee A on 28th January 1999 by my honourable friend Mr Davey and by Mr Eric Forth. The Minister's reply was:
"I have already given the Committee an absolute assurance that we will consult before we come forward with proposals. I have undertaken that those consultations will include both the hon. Gentleman's party and the principal Opposition party".
Under the circumstances, does the noble Lord agree that those remarks deserve the "William Waldegrave award for honest evasion"?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in so far as I understand the noble Earl, I am sure that he is right.
I turn to the election rules which we are also debating at this time and refer to the new constitutional doctrine, as it seemed to me, enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He
152
indicated by reference to speeches by my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington that whatever conventions there may have been—I hope I am not misconstruing what the noble Lord said—this is a new House. That phrase was certainly used. He said that it is more legitimate; will therefore carry more weight; and that more account should be taken of what this House says. I hope that the noble Lord has covered himself as he is a Deputy Leader and I know that the Leaders and the Deputy Leaders of the Opposition have to consult Mr William Hague in order to be sure that everything is all right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: On the point which he was making, will the noble Lord accept that irrespective of what is provided in primary legislation, here we are faced with two orders? Does he accept that we have the absolute entitlement to reject them and the question is whether we do or whether we do not; and that if there is some reason which appears to us to be just, sensible and reasonable, we are entitled to do so without creating any precedent?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, what I was about to say will certainly provide something of an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
I was going to consider the convention as it has grown up. This House is dealing with a Motion to annul an order which is subject to the negative resolution procedure which has not been annulled by the other place. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is in his place. I wanted to refer to him and to Lord Salisbury. In the 1960s, which some noble Lords here today will remember and of others will know from their knowledge of political life in the past 20 years, there were important debates on orders concerning Southern Rhodesia. Important statements were made in this House by Members from different parties as to the circumstances in which it was legitimate for this House to go against the elected House on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is not in his place today, said that, certainly, the House of Lords may go in defiance of the elected Chamber. He said that the House was certainly entitled to do that, but he said that surely no government could passively accept such an adverse vote.
During the debates on the Southern Rhodesia order, some noble Lords had argued that they should vote against an order in exceptional circumstances and that it was legitimate for the House of Lords to do that. But they limited that to certain special circumstances. One was the circumstance mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, during the debates and he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said that the House would be within its constitutional rights in going against the elected House and thus affording the government and the opposition a period of reflection. That cannot apply in this case because we are talking about the election rules which, as the Minister explained, deal with the nuts and bolts of the London mayoral and assembly elections and there is nothing there which requires further reflection. They have been agreed by all the various parties.

153
The other case for this House legitimately going against the views of the elected Chamber was where the House of Lords might be regarded as being better in step with public opinion. During the debates on the Southern Rhodesia order, Lord Salisbury argued that that was an occasion on which the views of the electorate might not be reflected in the House of Commons and, thus, the second Chamber should not feel constrained in voting against the order.
It is impossible to suggest that the election rules here dealing with the nuts and bolts of the London mayoral and assembly elections do not reflect public opinion. As we all know, there was a referendum after the election of the Labour Government on 1st May 1997 indicating that the public felt that there should be such elections. These rules merely facilitate that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated that, whatever conventions there may have been in the late 1960s, those conventions are now out of date. It seems to me that something is being evolved on the hoof here by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It deserves to be discussed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. It is not on the hoof. Has not the noble Lord read paragraph 739 of the Wakeham report? That says that, as of today, this House has an absolute right of veto and therefore every entitlement to support the Motion of my noble friend. Does not the noble Lord understand that?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I do not regard that as giving this House a complete opportunity, in its present state of evolution on the road to whatever will follow in due course, or any greater right by constitutional convention than was the case in the 1960s in the examples I gave.
On grounds of constitutionality it is not appropriate for this Chamber to turn down the nuts and bolts detail of the election rules simply as a device to bring something new on to the agenda. There may be other, more legitimate ways, of doing that.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, two questions arise on this amendment. The first, which has been raised for the first time by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is whether there is a convention that precludes your Lordships—and should preclude your Lordships—from accepting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The second question is whether, if there is no such convention, this is an appropriate occasion on which your Lordships should exercise a right to move against subordinate legislation.
The first question should not be necessary. It was decided with perfect clarity by your Lordships in 1994, long after matters such as the Salisbury convention were adumbrated; long after the Southern Rhodesia order. If it is necessary now, nevertheless, to pursue the matter, it is because freedom depends on eternal
154
vigilance, because repositories of power are eternally seeking the aggrandisement of that power. That is one of the symptoms whereby the corruption of power can be measured. It is necessary therefore to now examine the position.
I mentioned that the matter had been decided. On 20th October 1994 a resolution was brought before your Lordships' House in these terms:
"That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration".
That was explained immediately by the mover of the resolution—I have to say it was myself—in these terms:
"the purpose of the Motion … is to make clear that there is no convention which precludes your Lordships from voting on subsidiary legislation".—[Official Report, 20/10/94; col. 356.]
Nobody ever suggested that there was a legal rule but a number of Ministers suggested that there was such a convention, just as a number of Ministers are now suggesting that there is such a convention. But that is inconsistent with the resolution which your Lordships carried.
I refer to the measure because, as recently as 7th December of last year, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, repeatedly asserted that there was no such convention. It was a convoluted argument and selectively quoted, but I need not go into that because the conclusion was quite unacceptable. He finally said that, "The noble Viscount"—that is the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who I am glad to see is in his place behind a splendid camellia and who can deal with this himself—
"indicated that we [the Conservative government] accept the Motion, but on the basis that there is a convention that says that we do not vote against subsidiary legislation".—[Official Report, 7/12/99; col. 1266.]
The noble Viscount can no doubt explain that that is obviously incorrect. The Minister was arguing that the resolution was accepted by the Government on the basis that it meant precisely the opposite of what it said and what it was said to be intended to do.
So that is the constitutional background. There is absolutely no convention which precludes your Lordships from considering the merits of the amendment. I do not desire to say anything on that because the matter has been argued quite conclusively by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Goodhart, but it does fall within a slightly wider context.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, mentioned the falling off of voting figures; very worrying. I cannot presume to agree with him that that is due to the postal vote; that is an entirely fanciful idea. But there is no question but that parliamentary democracy is in a state of some crisis, because the present Government are a strongly centralising, aggrandising government. The phrase that is used is that they are "control freaks". So they are. To adopt the language of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—I am glad to see him in his place—what has happened in Wales and what is happening in London is a shambles and that brings parliamentary democracy greatly into disrepute.

155
In considering further constitutional questions, as your Lordships propose to do, it seems to me that the central issue will be the health of parliamentary government. Anything that derogates from that is to be guarded against very carefully. To me, the knowledge of issues among the people who are to vote—the people who will be affected by the issues—seems to be very near the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy. Therefore, if this matter is put to a Division, I shall vote for the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I should just like to say what a very great pleasure, as always, it is follow the noble and learned Lord. In what I hope will be a short intervention, I shall return to the central point of his argument. However, in view of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I ought, first, to declare an interest in at least part of his argument as I am president of the Watford Conservative Association.
Like the noble and learned Lord, I was much impressed by the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Mackay. He so clearly embarrassed the Government that they had to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, to put forward what I thought, coming from him, was a very remarkable and ideological view. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he was arguing that any form of public subsidy in elections was a disincentive to vigour and personal enterprise. If that is so, perhaps I may encourage the noble Lord to come across to these Benches because, at least ideologically, that argument would fit very well with some of what we have said. I give way.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Viscount fully appreciated the point I was making. It may well be that the freepost has served its purpose. It was designed to stimulate and persuade people to vote; and, indeed, to remind them that they should vote. Turn-out has dropped dramatically. That is the matter which should be exercising the minds of politicians today.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, who I well remember with affection from another place, I understood from his original argument that he equated the introduction of the freepost with the decline in turn-out at general elections. But, as I understand him now, he has slightly modified that argument. However, that is not something with which I wish to bore your Lordships this afternoon.
In view of the excellent way in which my noble friend deployed his arguments, I shall not attempt to repeat them. However, I have two questions for the Government. The first relates to the assertion, which was made much of by colleagues of noble Lords on the Government Bench in another place during the course of consideration of this order; namely, that it was really outrageous that an unelected House should have anything to do with consideration of electoral law. If I
156
am right, that was the centre piece of the oratory of the Leader of another place. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, shaking his head; indeed, it means that he at least sees the inherent weaknesses of his right honourable friend's argument. If that is so, it is rather curious in that, as my noble friend said, the Government are portraying a rather cavalier view of the constitutional place of a second Chamber in our system.
As former colleagues of mine can bear out, I have long agreed with the proposition that your Lordships' House badly needs reform. It seems to me that the reason for such reform is, above all, to give it the independence and authority with which to carry out its central constitutional role, which seems to me to be very clear: to ensure that another place does its job properly. That role is not to challenge the ultimate authority of the other place, but to have enough independence and authority of its own to insist that it should not put up with the sort of sloppy legislation that governments of both parties have got away with because of their dominance of another place, even when they have not enjoyed a majority as, indeed, the government of whom I was a part did not in the dying days of 1996–97.
It is very clear that a government with an enormous majority who wish to act in a high-handed manner are able to do so—the evidence that they are doing so is all too clear from the glum faces on their own Back Benches, both in this and another place, when considering this proposition—unless and until your Lordships' House at least puts up its hand and says, "We ought to think about this again". Therefore, my first question to the Government is as follows: if there is to be any sort of parliamentary control in the present circumstances of a high-handed government's actions, who, apart from this House, is in a position to exercise at least a measure of warning? If I understand the constitutional position correctly, it is surely not only the right but also the duty of your Lordships' House to do just that.
My second question for the Government is quite simply this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, talked with his usual authority on the matter of conventions. I was Leader of this House when the noble and learned Lord introduced his celebrated Motion. He was kind enough today to point out that I accepted his assertion contained within that Motion without demur. I have been pleased to see that not only he but also the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have acknowledged that fact. My question arises out of your Lordships' acceptance—and, indeed, my own—of the noble and learned Lord's Motion; namely, what is the nature of constitutional conventions? They are not embodied in law. Is it not true that we have found that constitutional conventions that are universally accepted can, arguably, have greater force and staying power than legislation? But surely those conventions, by definition, can apply only if they are universally accepted.
I suggest to noble Lords that there are probably only two conventions in our present constitution that are immutable. The first is that the Sovereign always signs

157
legislation put before her after its passage through both Houses of Parliament; and, secondly, that a government will resign and call a general election after they have been defeated on a vote of confidence. Apart from those two, I suggest that it is really impossible to sustain that a convention exists if a large part of Parliament—either House—refuses to accept it. I wonder, therefore, whether it is fair for me to ask the Government whether they agree with the implied analysis in that question.
If I am correct in that respect, surely it is fair to say that, when he announced that he no longer regarded that convention as applying in the new House, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was in fact perfectly within his rights to abrogate any adherence he may have had to the convention in the first place. Indeed, he actually had the courtesy in that speech before Christmas to give the Government plenty of notice about his intentions. Therefore, in view of what I said about your Lordships' position as a check on an over-mighty government who dominate another place, and bearing in mind what the noble and learned Lord said about the nature of conventions, especially this one, it seems to me to be perfectly sensible for us to make an independent judgment about the rights and wrongs of what the Government propose in this order. Surely this House is within its rights to vote against the order if its judgment tells it that that is what it ought to do.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I wish to make something clear and to put a question to him. These Benches have never contested that this House has a right to vote on secondary legislation. Whether it is wise or prudent to do so is another matter. My colleagues have addressed that point. However, we question the propriety—given the noble Viscount's vast experience, I should be interested to hear his view—of threatening to vote down secondary legislation on a ground entirely extraneous to that secondary legislation. That, I suggest, takes us into new constitutional territory where neither convention nor constitution gives us any guidance. I hope that the noble Viscount will respond to that point.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord aright, he accepts that this House has the right to exercise its judgment—as I suggested a moment ago—as to whether or not to vote against a piece of secondary legislation. If I understand the implication of the second part of the noble Lord's remarks, he is resurrecting what I think has now been demonstrated to be a canard during the course of this debate; namely, that this House is doing something which it is not allowed to do because the primary legislation on which this secondary legislation depends does not mention the question of free post. I believe that that is what the noble Lord is saying. If so, I assume that the noble Lord will refer to the Law
158
Officers the question of whether the Government acted ultra vires in the matter of Scotland and Wales, and whether they ought to sue themselves.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this but I should stop this canard too. Section 11 of the Government of Wales Act and Section 12 of the Scotland Act provide for legislation which could apply the parliamentary provisions to elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. The Greater London Authority Act has no such provision. Therefore, what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, proposes is actually to ask the Government to act ultra vires in respect of current legislation. I query the propriety of that.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
Lord Peston: My Lords, one would have thought that after about five interventions someone on this side might get a chance to speak. I rise with the normal glum expression on my face to say a few words in favour of the Government for a change. We seem to be debating three topics, one of which I was quite unprepared for; namely, a rather scurrilous attack on the democratic credentials of the Labour Party.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Peston: My Lords, looking at the Conservative Party and having sat in this House unreformed for many years I find it most odd that the Conservative Party of all people should attack us on the ground of parliamentary democracy. For some time I have been intrigued by its commitment to democracy. I did not see a sign of it in the years when I sat on the Opposition Front Bench. Although I am willing to discuss the history of our great parties at some point, I believe that such scurrilous remarks ought to be held for another occasion.
In my second topic I pour oil on troubled waters. It seems to me that, as regards the question of the mail shot, a reasonable person could come to the view that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, takes. I do not regard his view as completely unreasonable; namely, that there could be a free mail shot, or that £5, £10, £15, £20 or £30 million should be spent. However, I ask him to consider that an equally reasonable person—if he can conceive of a person equally as reasonable as he is—could come to the opposite view. I am relatively open-minded on the matter. I am certainly not accusing him—as I often do—of being an idiot on these matters. As I say, one could take the view that there should be a free mail shot.
However, I am afraid that I belong to the school of thought of my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath. I regard these mail shots as junk mail. My heart sinks at the thought that, if the Opposition were to get their

159
way, more of it would arrive through my letter box. As I say, the Opposition do not hold an impossible view but I ask them to accept that this side does not hold an impossible view either.
The main topic I wish to debate concerns what your Lordships have a right to do and what they should do with respect to secondary legislation. When I first came to your Lordships' House I rapidly became a member of the Opposition Front Bench. I knew nothing about the conventions of your Lordships' House. I did not know much about Parliament anyway, and certainly not much about your Lordships' House. I reasonably pronounced that we had better divide against an order that I did not like.
The Leader of the Opposition at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, "Under no circumstances can you do that. If you so much as suggest that you will not be on this Front Bench anymore or ever again." I inquired why that was and I was told, "There is a convention that we do not do that sort of thing." My noble friend Lord Richard replaced my noble friend Lord Cledwyn as leader of the opposition and this subject arose on more than one occasion. Even as regards some measures that we considered monstrous we were told about the convention that I have mentioned. The question did not arise as to whether we had a right to divide on these measures—that is the point to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, adverted—but whether one should do that. As regards the academic point, I have no doubt of the right to do it. My point is that, until recently, I was under the impression that we simply did not do it because that is not the way that your Lordships behave.
When my noble friend Lord Barnett and I gave evidence to the Wakeham Commission we included in that evidence the proposition that the convention I have mentioned should change and that in the new, reformed House of Lords noble Lords ought to scrutinise secondary legislation as effectively as primary legislation. We were fairly moderate in our view; namely, we felt that we should be able to vote on it once in order to send it back to the other place for reconsideration. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and others, I should say that that is still my view. However, it is also my view—I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and others to think about this—that we should do that only when we have had a proper debate in your Lordships' House on how your Lordships' House should behave in the new phase in which it finds itself. We should not do it in an ad hoc manner on an amendment of this kind for no specific reason—
Earl Russell: My Lords, did the noble Lord attend the debate of 7th December 1999?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have no idea. Will the noble Earl tell me the subject of the debate? Did it concern monetary policy, for example?
Earl Russell: My Lords, it concerned precisely the question which the noble Lord says that we should have debated. We did debate it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, there has been no debate in your Lordships' House of a fundamental kind on the
160
question of how your Lordships should proceed under the new system. I believe strongly that we should have such a debate. We should ask ourselves how we wish to proceed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept the point that I believe I have made twice today; namely, that this question of primary legislation, whether it confers the power to do this or that, is totally beside the point?
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is not totally beside the point. However, it is beside the point to raise the question in the first place on a matter which is not before us. The issue before us is whether your Lordships should vote on a matter of secondary legislation when many of us were under the impression that we simply did not do it. As far as I know it does not follow logically that because you can do something you should do it. I ask noble Lords to reflect on that point.
The notion that the whole of parliamentary democracy depends on a free mail shot is a contender for the most absurd proposition of this Session so far. However, that is by the way. As I say, were we to debate how your Lordships' House should behave in the present set-up, I, for one, would say that we ought to approach secondary legislation in a new way. I repeat that it would be a new way. What the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the Liberal Democrats propose to do is a new departure and constitutes something completely different from what we did when we were the principal opposition. I believe that the proposal would imperil your Lordships' House in terms of its reasonableness in dealing with these matters.
Therefore if we debate this and if your Lordships come to the conclusion that they wish to proceed in this way in the future I will support that. I am not sure that my friends on the Front Bench will be that pleased because governments hate anybody doing anything about secondary legislation. I think we should; but I certainly do not believe that we should be doing anything like that on this occasion in an ad hoc manner, as I have said, simply for what I regard as a rather party political point.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Rennard: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have not had a contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches for quite a long time. I think it is their turn.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, as you look around our great capital city at the moment you will see a great many posters bearing the same slogan:
"The biggest job in London: it is your choice who gets it."

161
That is the Government's slogan on advertising boards across the city and on the back of every Tube ticket. However, I believe that it rings somewhat hollow in the light of the Labour Party's electoral college system, in which some votes count for more than others. Perhaps the slogan should be changed to,
"The biggest job in London: it is the Government's choice who you should get."
The issue of maintaining the traditional right of all candidates in major elections to have one of their leaflets delivered at public expense is the heart of the matter: democratic choice or centralised control. In all large-scale elections in Britain in modern times candidates have been able to have free delivery by the Post Office of leaflets to help them get their message across directly to the voters. This is a large-scale election: more than 5 million people can cast their votes. It is the same electorate as that which elected eight Members of the European Parliament to represent London last June. Candidates then were collectively entitled to one free mailshot during their campaign.
I shall not pretend that there is any great enthusiasm on the part of the recipients to receive literature from candidates. I cannot imagine many people waiting impatiently behind their letterboxes, eager for the party leaflets to drop through their door. However, when the Government take away their right to hear directly from their candidates on such important issues in this way, I suspect the public will become even more cynical about the whole political process than they are at present.
The Government are trying to suggest that the election of a mayor and an Assembly for London is just another local election. I do not believe that this equates with the facts. Local elections will continue to be held in London for borough council elections, and there is no local councillor in Britain who will have anything like the power that the mayor of London will have. The present advertising campaign does not suggest that this is a local election. "The biggest job in London", as it describes the position of mayor, is not that of a local councillor. Indeed, if it was only a local election I am quite sure that the Labour Party would not have used the electoral college system to choose its candidate, which has caused it so much trouble. Very often I have heard that the justification for the Labour Party using the same system to elect a mayoral candidate as it used to elect its party leader, and indeed its party leader in Wales, is exactly because the London elections are not merely local elections. It does not require deposits such as the £10,000 which is required to stand as a candidate for mayor of London. So we are dealing with a large-scale regional election—an election the size of which justifies a free mailing.
The issue has again been raised as to whether this mailshot could be abused for possible commercial advantage. The standard Post Office regulations—I am very familiar with them—are very specific on this matter. They say that communications must contain matter relating to the election only and that a candidate must give a proof of his copy to the Royal
162
Mail area manager and obtain his clearance before printing, so abuse by commercialisation can very clearly be prevented.
Can the cost be justified? The Government's initial rather absurd estimate of the cost has halved in approximately a fortnight, so that perhaps within a week I hope they may actually agree that the cost of allowing all candidates to have a leaflet delivered together will actually be rather less than the cost of their own advertising campaign, which simply urges people to vote in the election. The independent Electoral Reform Society suggests that one envelope containing all the free postings would cost something between £2 million and £4 million. That compares with the £4 million that I understand is within the Government's present budget to cover the fact that the elections are taking place.
I have a simpler suggestion. Why not deliver all the leaflets with the poll cards? The poll cards have to be delivered to voters, advising of the date of the poll, the polling station, the hours of opening and so on. In real terms the additional cost would simply be that of collating the literature and of the rubber bands that would be required. In any event, the costs of this operation are really only a payment from one part of the Government to another, namely the Post Office. The heart of this argument is fair, free and democratic competition. At a time when we are all concerned about lack of participation in the democratic process, I do not believe that there should be a weakening of that process by withdrawing healthy competition between candidates which results from free mailing. We should also bear in mind that it is especially necessary for large parts of London where many homes are inaccessible to private callers.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, here is the opportunity of the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, to speak.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what wonderful support from the noble Lord, Lord Williams! I thank him. I am always amused to see, when the Government are in deep trouble, that they call upon the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to try to help them out. I was not going to make jokes about the "hapless Lord Bassam of Brighton" because it is a bit unfair but, I am terribly sorry, I could not resist it.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made one fundamental historical error. He said that constitutions should not be made on the hoof. The whole point about the British constitution is that it has been solidly made on the hoof by people inventing precedents which did not exist to enhance the liberty of the subject. The on-the-hoof method of constitution making in our case has worked sublimely well.
That leads me to what happened with the last House of Lords Act. That was constitution making on the hoof—and an actually fairly bruised, unshod hoof at that— in that the Government did not then think of what would happen as a result of getting rid of all of us. What happened was that this House now has

163
legitimacy, which it has not had since 1911. My peerage is not Walpole; it is not Pitt; it is Mr Anthony Blair. It is he who has given me legitimacy. He gave it to me by the House of Lords Act 1999. Therefore I can do what I would not have done when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was on the Opposition Front Bench. Then, for a perfectly good reason, we did not vote against democratisation, because the House lacked legitimacy, and also because there was an imbalance in the House. The imbalance has been rightly destroyed and we have been given new legitimacy. The consequence of that legitimacy—
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl talks of the House being in balance at the moment. Out of a House of 661 Peers, there are 181 who take the Labour vote and 480 who do not. Is the House still unbalanced?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is unbalanced in a sensible way. It is unbalanced in that nobody can rig it. My noble friends on the Front Bench cannot call in Earls and Marquesses of ancient lineage. One of my noble friends says "shame". I actually think it is right that they should not, but it means that the Conservatives cannot win a Division without outside help: nor can the Liberals, nor can the Cross-Benchers and nor can—
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is just not correct. There are 233 Conservative Peers and there are 181 Labour Peers. You have 50 more votes than the Government.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, would the noble Lord who is now addressing us in response to the Government Chief Whip point out that a very substantial part of the Conservatives' representation is a result of the Weatherill amendment negotiated by the present Government?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the way in which it arose is called constitution making on the hoof, which is the whole point of it. We have a Chamber which does not have the faults of last Session's Chamber. That, I suggest—as it has come about through an Act of Parliament introduced by the Government gives us the right to alter convention. The terms of the Salisbury convention of 1945 were simple: you do not muck about with our programme; we do not muck about with the composition. The composition, correctly, has been mucked about with. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, but with immense responsibility and care, to argue with government and to bring better and more balanced constitutional—call it Whig— arrangements into our affairs. That seems a sensible way in which to approach the matter.
I hope beyond anything that if, in the—should I say unlikely event of the Conservatives returning to power?
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I should not say that. But should that happen, I sincerely hope that I should
164
never hear the argument, if noble Lords opposite again have the pleasure of Opposition, that if they believed that the Conservatives were being idiots, they would not hesitate to say so, because as night follows day, all governments are idiots.
There is a wonderful letter in The Times today which states that it is interesting to see that the Iranians have run a better election than the Labour Party. I am afraid to say that that goes beyond saying for the arrangements for the London mayor. The fact that the contest is between someone who ruined the GLC and someone who ruined Camden Council is neither here nor there. The choice is not excellent, but there it is.
To deprive smaller parties of the right to send out their literature when the Government are—what does my brief say—printing an 11-page leaflet about the election—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, Ministers have briefs from civil servants, so we must also be allowed to read from them occasionally and it happens to be a brief with which I agree. It is based on fact and so there is no harm in using it. The Government are sending out an 11-page leaflet so that everyone will know how to vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, the cost can be nominal. To deprive the electors of London of that would be wrong and for us not to exercise our constitutional duty would be silly.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate but I have been provoked by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others who seem to be using the debate on London local government to establish certain constitutional principles which are certainly in dispute. I do not want to argue today about whether this is a more legitimate House as a result of the partial reforms. That is a matter for another day. But we need to look carefully at what is being suggested.
It is being suggested that through secondary legislation this House should alter and amend primary legislation. It has been said that the automatic right of the House to vote on any issue should not be challenged. The House may vote on any matter on which it wants to. I should have expected that sensible people would at least have considered carefully why they were voting. It is not a question of the right to vote but of whether a vote should be exercised. I have been in the House for a short time, so I hesitate to discuss conventions, but my understanding in relation to orders is that secondary legislation may be challenged only on the grounds that it is not in accord with primary legislation. I have not heard it argued here today that the orders before us are not in accord with primary legislation.
That being so, the only reason for voting against the orders which makes sense, which was partially argued by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is that it is the duty of the second chamber to exercise a check on the

165
lower House. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that the Government were behaving with perversity and arrogance. If they were doing so, parts of the two orders would go beyond what the primary legislation allowed the Government to do. If that was the case, it would be proper and right to check the Government for exercising powers which they do not possess in primary legislation. But to say that the Government are not doing enough in the orders and to ask the House to say that the Government should go beyond that which is in primary legislation does not make good constitutional procedure.
Those words will not make any difference. I have been in the game long enough to know that speeches from any Benches are unlikely to sway anyone. One noble Lord might perhaps be swayed, but more than that would be unusual. If the Opposition have made up their minds to proceed and vote the order down either by passing the amendment or otherwise, they are of course free to do so. But it does not make good sense or good constitutional law. I believe that in their heart of hearts the Opposition Front Bench know well that they are being opportunistic. That is fine; good luck to them. But let us not allow them to pretend that they are defending some ancient right of the House of Lords, because they are not.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have a characteristically modest point to make. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with great interest, because I always do so. As I understand him, he was saying that we are bound by a precedent to which we should keep until we have had a debate to justify its removal. But I do not believe that we are bound by a precedent. It is the Front Bench of each party that is bound by a precedent, not the rest of us. I give your Lordships an example of how that worked out some 10 years ago.
At that time, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the then Lord Chancellor, specified by way of secondary legislation the characteristics of the conditional fee; in particular, what should be—if I may be allowed the horrible phrase—the extent of the uplift allowed to the winning solicitor. He suggested that the uplift should be 100 per cent. I objected to that figure on many bases, but on the main basis that his own advisory committee had said that 20 per cent was more than adequate and 100 per cent could lead to all sorts of abuses.
The net result was that I lost by five votes in a well-attended House. It later turned out that if the Opposition Front Bench had voted in my favour, as they encouraged their Back-Benchers to do, I should have won by 10 votes. A rather acid comment in the newspapers to that effect emanated from the Liberal Party the next day.
So this great convention, to which we should all adhere, applies only to the Front Benches. I asked why there should be such a convention, as it did not seem to make sense. I was told quite simply, "It is done because
166
when the Opposition gain power they hope that the same will happen to them". It is a form of self-defence. It has no logical justification at all. It is not absolute. In a case which concerned Rhodesia, it was not applied. Its substance and its philosophy are so weak that I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that he really need not worry his head about it.
5.10 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, there is another convention which has not so far been mentioned and which is more important than any which has been mentioned. I refer to the convention that in a democracy the rules of engagement for the conduct of elections should in general be agreed between the parties. I am not saying that everything should be agreed by everyone. One does not want to turn a need to create consensus into a right of veto. But, in general, rules for elections should be agreed between the Government and at least one major opposition party, preferably including the Official Opposition.
Through the whole of my adult memory, I cannot find more than one case when elections have gone ahead under rules which were approved by the governing party and by no other party. In this case, the rules for the election are objected to by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and, I may now add, the UK Independence Party. It is not often that we on these Benches agree with the UK Independence Party. It is not often that the Conservative Party agrees with the Green Party. That elections should not go ahead on that basis is a more important convention than any convention about the management of this House.
We are told by another place that we lack legitimacy to interfere in these matters because we are not elected. I find it curious that the Government wish the majority of this House to remain unelected. Were they to make this point in order to procure an elected Chamber, we on these Benches would be happy to support them. But should they make this point in order to preserve the right of those who govern another place to do exactly what they like, we on these Benches would not support them.
I remember well the debate of 20th October 1994, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank spoke from the Front Bench and I spoke from the Back Bench. I made the point in that debate that there is an interlocking between conventions. I described them as a roundabout. I agree that it was once the case that we did not vote on regulations. On these Benches we have done it three times since 1994. My noble friend Lord Avebury did it the first time and I did it the second and third times, with the full support of our Benches on each occasion. If the Government do not wish votes on regulations to happen, they must not put through highly controversial matters by regulation. I cannot think of anything much more controversial than to attempt to run an election according to rules acceptable only to the governing party. This is not a Labour Party selection.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, we have heard a good deal today about constitutional conventions and a number of authoritative contributions have been made. I take a rather simple view that it is the duty of your Lordships' House to consider as best it can its judgment on those matters which are properly brought before it. At least one very powerful argument has been made for why in the mayoral election, above all others, candidates should have the privilege of a free postal system. In local elections and parliamentary elections, most people would concede that the party system works reasonably well. Parties and other organisations with established structures work reasonably well in putting forward candidates and being able to mobilise supporters and distribute literature.
They work well because, on the whole, electors in those elections cannot often know individually the many candidates. When they elect a governing group to a council or indeed to Parliament, they need to know that there is a coherent set of policies. Therefore, the party labels or organisational labels have a great value. The organisational structures behind them work to put those views across to electors. If there is one argument for having a directly elected mayor, it is that it allows individuals of stature and individuals who can make a contribution to their city to come forward as valid candidates for mayor without the support or backing of that kind of organisational structure. That is one argument for having a directly elected mayor as opposed to simply the leader of the majority group.
It stands to reason that that kind of candidate cannot depend on the canvassing structure and local system that party politics provides. Therefore, if we want to have candidates of calibre outside the party structure put themselves forward for mayor, we have to have an electoral system that recognises their needs and encourages that kind of candidate to stand. At the end of the debate, I should like to understand from the Government whether they accept the force of those arguments. Will they accept the principle that, in order to support the notion of a directly elected mayor, such candidates should have a free postal system? If they do accept that, it is incumbent on them to explain how they will provide for it.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have been selected by my party as a prospective candidate for the Greater London Assembly. There has been a good deal of discussion within the Association of London Government, which I chair, about the issue and the principle of freepost. All of the parties represented on that association have taken the view that freepost would be appropriate for this election because, to use the words of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, this is a local authority that is unlike any other. It would not necessarily set a precedent of that kind. But the principle of freepost has to be seen as part of a package with the other arrangements which would exist in terms of the way in which an election is conducted.
168
What is unfortunate about the debate is that we have not looked at those other elements of the package. Clearly, a cost is associated with having freepost. However, the parallel issues about the threshold which enables people to stand have not been addressed by the opposition parties today.
We have heard some strange arguments which suggest that somehow a freepost is the only bastion that exists to protect a proper democracy and that somehow it is the only thing that enables small parties to flourish and to operate in an electoral system. The reality is that freepost is not free for the parties. It is some time since I was engaged in a parliamentary election. That was as a chair of a constituency party. However, if I remember correctly, the activities associated with a freepost require the printing of the material itself, the enveloping and addressing of that material, and the bundling of that material into the precise order that the Post Office requests, which is not necessarily an order which any of us would immediately recognise as being a logical way of putting it together. That is a quite complicated process which requires a substantial degree of resources and organisation. Those will not be readily available across London to a party which merely creates itself and has only a small membership, but it is a substantial consideration. A freepost is healthy for democracy, but let us not pretend that it is the bastion of democracy.
I found it surprising to be told by one noble Lord that we were taking away from the public the right to hear directly from candidates. That is a very strange statement. There will be a whole variety of ways in which the public will hear directly from candidates. I, too, have a nostalgic belief in the traditional process of knocking on doors and speaking directly to electors. But the mass media will be the method by which people hear from candidates, particularly in the mayoral election. So let us not get too excited about this. A freepost is helpful for the conduct of democracy, but it is not an essential requirement.
The issue of frivolous candidates concerns me. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, brushed aside the issue of a north London candidate in the European elections in 1994. I accept that north London is a long way from Scotland and that he may not have been familiar with the circumstances. The argument put by some noble Lords that there are rules that would prevent people promoting their business, for example, goes only so far. If one's claim to be an appropriate candidate for the post of London mayor or for membership of the European Parliament is that one runs an extremely successful driving school located in the Stroud Green Road, that is in effect a way of promoting that driving school. I do not suggest that that was the sole motivation of the candidate in this case—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Has he not just destroyed his own argument? He started by saying how much effort was required to take advantage of

169
freepost. Is the truth of the matter that the only frivolous candidate he fears is Ken Livingstone, which is what all this is about?
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, my point is slightly more complicated. I am suggesting that if a candidate who runs a commercial undertaking believes, perhaps erroneously, that the business can be promoted through this process, that candidate will put resources into ensuring that the leaflets are printed, bundled up and enveloped, and that the requirements of the Post Office are met. What one gets is a free postal delivery instead of having to pay a substantial cost over and above those extra costs.
I do not regard Ken Livingstone as a frivolous candidate. I think London could do better, but it will be fascinating to see what decision he takes. My only point is that I wonder whether the purpose of the Opposition's position today is not simply to delay matters to allow Ken Livingstone more time to make up his mind.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that it would, for example, be impossible under Post Office regulations for the quoted driving instructor to advertise the phone number or address of the driving school and it would therefore be a pretty useless mailshot for him?
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that. The location of the driving school would be described. I am sure that the noble Lord is familiar with the Stroud Green Road. It is not an extremely long road. Usually an address is added at the bottom under the heading, "Printed and published by", which would provide the clues for those with good eyesight. The point is that the mailshot would provide an opportunity that could be used in that way. It is a serious concern. It would be wrong for your Lordships to pretend that it does not exist and that there is not a cost to government in so doing.
The other elements of the package have not been mentioned. The threshold for entering the mayoral election is quite low. It is £10,000 and 10 signatures in each of the various London local authorities. That is not a large number of signatures. The most difficult requirement is to find 10 electors in the area of the Corporation of London, which has some 5,000 electors—so in order to stand as a candidate one would have to find one in 500 electors to provide a signature. That is the most difficult requirement that has been set. But if the same threshold of one in 500 electors were applied, which is close to the threshold that applies in terms of signatures to stand as a local government candidate: in practice, 10 signatures in an electorate of, say 5,000—it would mean a requirement of 10,000 signatures across the Greater London area. That would require serious commitment by a political party, and one which candidates who wanted to stand for merely commercial or frivolous ends would find quite difficult. Similarly, if the deposit were put on the same level as that for parliamentary elections, it would
170
be a much more substantial figure, running into several hundreds of thousands of pounds. I do not suggest that those thresholds would necessarily be appropriate. What I am suggesting is that the question of freepost must be examined in the context of the threshold for putting forward a candidacy.
The key point is that the amendment moved and the points made are inappropriate for this order. I suggested, perhaps frivolously (a word that has been repeated a number of time in this debate), that the idea of the amendment was simply to give time for an individual to consider his position. However, I wonder whether this House wants to go down on record as voting against an order which could have the consequence of delaying the election in London, when we know that the people of London want the Greater London Authority and an opportunity to vote for a mayor and assembly. I wonder whether this inappropriate move is simply designed to postpone the election. I wonder why, when there are other opportunities on the parliamentary timetable to raise this matter in a more appropriate way, this strange device has been cobbled together for this occasion if it is not to make some rather silly and petty party political point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have tried to take the sense of the House generally. It seems to be that we might perhaps hear from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and then the Minister.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there was a breathtaking moment in the early part of the noble Lord's speech when I thought that he was going to oppose his Government. After that, he lost his sense of direction and went in quite another.
I shall not speak at any length because I understand that Front Benches are united in wishing to shut us up. I am always very diffident. If I have any reputation at all in this House, it is for being exceedingly diffident for the convenience of the Front Benches. I merely want to make some brief points. First, I am heartily sorry that there is to be an election for the post of mayor of London. I deeply regret it, and I believe that the Prime Minister will come to regret it. So far, the process has not been a source of great satisfaction to any political party except the Liberals, who have a quarrel regarding a certain anonymity on the part of a very worthy candidate.
As to the nonsense that has been talked about conventions, I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. A custom has grown up whereby, when there is to be a fairly large election—no one can doubt that an election for the whole of London is quite a large affair—there is a general expectation that there will be a free electoral mailshot for every household. It is astonishing to hear such a stalwart supporter of the Labour Party going so far as to say that the great democratic institution of a free mailshot is equivalent

171
to junk mail. It may be treated as junk mail, but surely it does not come well from him to talk as though it were.
In these circumstances, the Government have no grounds whatever for denying this. To say that we are all being rather frivolous and that we are making party political points is absolutely misplaced. The Government have made a very serious error. They ought not to press it further. I hope that they will receive a sharp lesson in this House tonight.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, first I should make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that at least the Liberal Democrats have been ready for this election for the past six months. As far as we are concerned, the sooner it takes place the better. The noble Lord is such a Pooh-Bah that it is difficult to know in what capacity he addresses the House. However, it was clear from his speech that today he addresses the House as a Millbank loyalist. I would rather have heard him speak in his capacity as chairman of the Association of London Government, which I understand has called for a freepost.
We have had a debate of high quality which has gone some way to meet the requirements of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. A good deal of the debate has been concerned with the shape, powers and responsibilities of the reformed House. The crux of the matter was put by my noble friend Lord Rennard, who spoke of posters all over London. We are talking about the biggest job in London. It is true that the subject we are debating tonight—freepost—is not within the orders, but it can be argued that in such circumstances we can use the powers of this House to right a negative as well as a positive wrong. As has been put forward time and again, in the raft of reforms put forward London was always seen as being on a par with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As to the views of the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Hardy, about a free mailshot, that is not the only buttress to democracy. However, as politics becomes more expensive and we move into Internet democracy, the power and wealth of the big battalions become stronger and stronger. For that reason, it is very important that we retain those elements in our electoral process that assist smaller parties and individuals.
The Government's arguments about cost are pretty rich. This is a government who have spent more on publications and propaganda than any other in peacetime history. To start rolling out the cost element is almost the last refuge. I suspect that the last refuge is lawyers' niggles, to which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred. As was pointed out, they are always brought out in an emergency. Today, they have been successfully blown out of the water collectively by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Ackner. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, let the cat out of the bag. We are all aware of the convention which the Government clutch to their bosom. As always, it is not a convention but a
172
convenient old boys' Act worked out between Front Benches. The Government anticipate that they will need it at some time and so do not rock the boat for the Opposition.
I am concerned that this should have been done by the Labour Party in connection with its raft of constitutional reforms. A number of speakers, among them the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, spoke about the fall-off in democracy. Before the election the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party had a committee which looked at a raft of reforms in an attempt to reengage the public in the democratic process. I take pride in the speed with which most of those pledges have been carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, spoke about the Labour Party and democracy. No one doubts the party's long and historic commitment to democracy, but the chapter of incidents that have arisen as it tries to bring about these constitutional changes has, frankly, damaged its credibility. In Scotland we have seen the attempt to prevent Dennis Canavan from standing, which was quickly reversed by the will of the electorate. We saw the shambles in Wales involving Rhodri Morgan. We have also witnessed the farce in London over the past few weeks. The Labour Party is now becoming as much associated with fix and fiddle in elections as the Conservative Party was with sleaze, and it will do it as much electoral damage unless it cuts it out. My friends in the Labour Party—I have a few left—tell me that the problem lies with an over-promoted general secretary and a coterie of advisers around the Prime Minister who believe that they invented politics in 1997. If so, it behoves some of those on the Benches opposite to make them think again.
I was much impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I hope that he will read the speeches of Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Audrey Wise. He will be aware that when he was in the Commons he and they would have been part of the Tribune Group. There are now more members of the Tribune Group in this House than down the corridor. That is how matters develop.
The Labour Party organisation as I understood it was that of Sara Barker, whose slogan was "The triumph of ideals must be organised", not that the triumph of the Prime Minister must be obtained at any cost. It is time for the Labour Party to get behind its old principles. If by voting down this order tonight we give the Government time to think carefully as to whether in this election to provide London with new governance, which is a great achievement for the Labour Party, they should connive in such a shabby act as to deny a freepost, I believe that we shall be doing a service to that party as well as the country. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that the electorate would give the Government a bloody nose. I believe that if they pursue this course much longer the electorate will do so. In the meantime, I believe that we should give them a bloody nose.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we approach the point where the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, must decide whether to press his Motion and other Lords must decide whether to follow him. This House has reached a critical point. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, may well be right that we have had an excellent debate; certainly, we have heard some excellent speeches. But it is also evident that none of those speeches has addressed the order that I moved two-and-a-half hours ago or quibbled with either that measure or the election rules, to which the noble Lord's Prayer relates. In other words, we have had a debate about a matter that is not actually before your Lordships' House.
I do not say that noble Lords should not conduct such a debate. In this House there have been a number of debates whose relationship to the Motion on the Order Paper has been remote, to say the least. However, I believe that when the House decides whether to use its undoubted constitutional right— which it rarely does—to vote down secondary legislation it should do so on the basis of the legislation before it, not legislation that is not before it. If this House did anything else it would not be exerting its constitutional role to ask the Government to think again or performing its role to improve legislation. It is, therefore, a slightly curious debate.
Earl Russell: My Lords, has the Minister ever objected to a Bill because of a clause that is not there?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl has on many occasions objected to a Bill because of a clause that is not there. However, he has not broken a convention which, in the case of affirmative resolutions, has existed for 32 years. I do not often refer to great tomes such as Erskine May. However, I have checked Erskine May because the Library's research document does not answer the point definitively. Erskine May indicates that at no time has this House ever adopted a Prayer against a negative Motion. We are therefore in new territory. Of course the House has a right to do so. I have not denied that. The Leader of another place has not denied that. We have queried the wisdom of so doing. We have queried the prudence of so doing. We have queried the political implications of so doing. But we have not queried that right. Noble Lords now need to assess for themselves whether the wisdom of so doing is clear.
I referred to a period of 32 years. The last time this House voted down an order of this kind was on the basis of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. It was a vote which I thought brought shame on the House. Nevertheless, it voted on the order that was before it. In 32 years we have not done the same. I believe, therefore, that we need to think.
The issue of the freepost is entirely extraneous to the matters in the rules and the order. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, shakes his head. He has said that it is the convention in these matters for the parties to be in agreement on the rules. These rules, which are fairly
174
extensive, and this order, which is also fairly extensive in relation to the expenses, were subject to that convention: the parties agreed them.
Moreover, as I made clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, not only does the noble Lord's amendment require us to do something which is not covered by the orders—this is not a lawyer's niggling point, something my noble friend Lord Borrie found himself condemned for saying it also asks the Government to act ultra vires in terms of existing legislation. Noble Lords may well be of the opinion that the Government, this House (we are all partly guilty) and another place—Parliament as a whole—were remiss in not putting such a provision in the Greater London Authority Act. However, none of us did. The brief reference made in Committee in another place was passed over not only by my colleague, Nick Raynsford, but also by the Opposition in another place. It was not pursued. The matter was not raised in this place, so we did not make provision. The power, therefore, does not exist to do what the noble Lord's Prayer requires us to do.
This again is utterly and completely unprecedented territory. It is not a question of constitutional rights. It is not a question of breaking a convention, which I accept your Lordships have the right to break. It is moving into completely new constitutional territory. I hope that noble Lords recognise that.
Noble Lords raised the precedent of Scotland and Wales. I repeat—noble Lords seem to have missed this point—that in relation to Section 11 of the Government of Wales Act and Section 12 of the Scotland Act there is power for the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations which apply the national election provisions to the elections for that Assembly and that Parliament. I repeat: the equivalent provision does not exist in the Greater London Authority Act. We are therefore in totally new territory. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and those who are tempted to follow him, to consider what they are doing.
It is legitimate for the noble Lord to raise the issue in a different context. He raised it at Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill. However, it is not legitimate and verges on serious impropriety and abuse of procedure to debate an entirely separate issue which we are not allowed to raise under the primary legislation in this context, force through a Division and vote down secondary legislation on the basis of such a move.
This is not the House of Lords behaving like the watchdog of the constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put it better when he said that we are behaving like a Rottweiler, an undisciplined and undisciplinable animal. That is not the role of the House of Lords in any of our views of the future; and it should not be a role advocated by the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord did so.
What is to stop my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for example—I see that he is not in his place—from moving to vote down secondary legislation on matters of education on the grounds, for

175
example, that he objects to the common agricultural policy? Once we get into that territory, your Lordships are using one area of law, of regulation, to vote down another. It amounts to an abuse of the proceedings of this House and, I would say, leads us not only into very difficult territory but also territory which—if the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were not about to jump to his feet and accuse me of asperity of speech—I would suggest was close to a serious criminal offence.
However, for the record I address some of the points raised in relation to a freepost. I am sure that we shall return to the issue next Tuesday in relation to the Representation of the People Bill. I turn, first, to the question of cost. The figures referred to by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, quoted elsewhere, relate to the original proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay; namely, that we adopt the same procedure as for national elections in the Greater London proposals. That would mean an addressed envelope to every elector costing &£750,000 per party. On the basis that there might well be 20 parties contesting the mayoral plus the GLA elections, the cost could amount to &£15 million or more. The proposition today is slightly less expensive in that the delivery is addressed to households. But even that would cost &£420,000 per party and therefore over &£8 million.
Not only do we not have the primary legislation authority; we do not have the budget to pay for that. Therefore the money would come out of the GLA budget. As my noble friend Lord Bassam rightly pointed out, the budget of &£35 million is the administrative budget for the GLA. The &£3 billion relates to all the expenditure by the police, the Greater London Development Agency and Transport for London and not the administrative expenditure of the GLA. We are suggesting, therefore, that we take &£8 million out of that &£35 million for the first year of the GLA'S operation. We have at the very least to consider the wisdom and acceptability of doing that in relation to London.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, and to save bringing forward the issue later, where is the £4 million coming from to send out the 11-page leaflet to every household?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that expenditure will come from central funds and we have the authority to pay. We do not have the authority to pay, nor do we have the budget allocated for us to pay, under the GLA Act.
I wish to raise one other point on this extraneous matter. It relates to abuse. A number of noble Lords suggested that we do not want a freepost in case my good friend Ken Livingstone decides to run as an independent and we would wish to stop him getting any publicity. I think that noble Lords recognise the somewhat absurd implications of that.
However, we wish to stop abuse in this area. We are talking about a circulation to 5 million people. My noble friend Lord Harris referred to a driving instructor somewhere in Camden. I have a more exciting example. In the recent Kensington and
176
Chelsea by-election, the electors of Kensington and Chelsea—one might have thought that they had had enough excitement with having Nicholas Scott, Alan Clark and now Michael Portillo as their MP—were treated to 19 candidates. One of the candidates who took advantage of the freepost was a Ms Louise Hodges of the Daily and Sunday Sport Party. Some of her policies were quite respectable. However, the implication, to be frank, is not quite so respectable. She does not put her telephone number but only the address of the Daily Sport. I believe that that semi-commercialisation of the election and freepost process—the current procedures of the Post Office, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, referred, were incapable of stopping it—is a possible abuse. To put it at its lowest, we should at least consider these implications before we move into this election, leaving it open to abuse of a mailing to 5 million people of that sort of material.
I return to the substance of what I have been talking about. The election rules that are before the House have been agreed between the parties. The expenses provisions that are before the House have been agreed between the parties. There is no dispute about that. Not one noble Lord who has spoken has raised any objection to that. Yet we are faced with a proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that we should vote against those provisions. If we stick with that position from the House of Lords, of course we shall have no rules for the election: we shall have no limit on expenses for the election. Is that really in the interest of Londoners or the interests of democracy?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is simply not true. All you have to do is reintroduce an order which proposes something slightly different. That canard is simply not a runner. That is a bad metaphor!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me guidance as to what. I may unfortunately have to do later tonight. I hope that I shall not have to do it. Until we submit virtually equivalent orders and the House agrees those virtually equivalent orders, we have no basis on which to fight the election and no basis on which to limit expenses in that election. That would be an absurd situation in which to place the House.
I have contended throughout that not only does this take us into uncharted territory, which I submit your Lordships should be cautious of entering, but that it is also particularly inappropriate that we should do it today. The noble Lord is well aware of, and has referred to, the fact that an appropriate Bill is possibly going through Parliament at this time. We have very good arguments against his proposition, which we shall deploy on Report. It may be rather late in the day to do it. We should perhaps have included that provision in the GLA Bill. Belated though it may be, however, it must be within the scope of the Representation of the People Bill. My noble friend Lord Bassam will be taking the Report stage of that Bill on Tuesday. That surely will be a legitimate opportunity for the noble Lord to

177
press these matters— not by effectively rejecting a basis for fighting the London election on which we are all agreed.
If the noble Lord wants to present any propositions, or indeed if we have any new propositions, which will avoid huge cost to the taxpayer and avoid the possibility of abuse, my noble friend Lord Bassam and I shall be quite happy to talk to him or to anybody else about sensible propositions which meet our criteria. We are not, however, prepared to be bounced—I might even use the term "blackmailed" at this point without impugning anybody's integrity in a personal sense—into surrendering our advocacy of this order and these rules on the basis of something which is irrelevant and on the basis of a Prayer which would bounce the Government into doing something which is ultra vires. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will mark my words well in this respect. I hope, therefore, that the House will also understand what it will do if it follows the noble Lord's lead.
Earl Russell: Is the Minister about to tell us that this Government have never bounced anybody into doing anything?
Lord Whitty: Only within our vires, large though they may be!
5.55 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wish I could say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his summing up. I am not sure that I can say that. I believe that we have been round the same sort of course which the media went round and which we went round last week on the Representation of the People Bill. The Government's case seems to be entirely that we cannot complain about the orders simply because something is missing. That is new. I have heard Labour Members complaining fairly vigorously about many matters being missing from legislation and yet it has never stopped them.
The more serious point made by the noble Lord, if I heard him correctly, is that there are no powers in the Greater London Authority Act. I have checked that the Scotland Act does not directly mention these matters, but it does give power under Section 12(4)(a) to,
"apply, with or without modifications or exceptions, any provision made by or under the Representation of the People Acts or the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 or by any other enactment relating to parliamentary elections".
Section 405(1) of the Greater London Authority Act seems to give Ministers powers every bit as wide as the powers that I have mentioned under the Scotland Act. It states:
"Any Minister of the Crown may by order make such amendments, repeals or revocations as appear to him to be appropriate in consequence of this Act, or of any regulations and orders under this Act … in any enactment contained in an Act passed before the relevant day or in the Session in which that day falls".
178
That is a fairly extensive power.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is the standard clause which appears at the end of a number of pieces of legislation. The key words are,
"in consequence of this Act".
If it is not referred to elsewhere in the Act, one cannot invoke it for this purpose.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not a lawyer, neither is the noble Lord the Minister, but it seems to me that it is a matter of common sense to suggest that such a freepost is in consequence of an election, and I believe that the public would agree with that. The Government may therefore find that they are able to try these powers. In any case, as we have said frequently, they could use the Representation of the People Bill. All that I derived from the last part of the Minister's statement is that we and the Liberal Democrats could put forward amendments to the Representation of the People Bill and take the temperature. We have now twice taken the temperature and I have not seen the patient—namely, the Labour Party—show any sign of responding to the medicine that we have tried to administer. It is simply not prepared to budge an inch. It is not even prepared to concede that there may be an argument in this respect or that there may be ways in which we could address this issue. I am not therefore terribly impressed by the Minister's point.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear in the latter part of my speech that if the noble Lord wished to pursue this matter in that context, my noble friend Lord Bassam and I would be willing to talk to him and to the Liberal Democrats to see whether there is a way of meeting their objectives which does not meet the objections that we have currently spelt out. I believe, therefore, that mine is a fair reaction to the points that have been raised in this debate. It does not alter the basic impropriety of pressing the Motion tonight, but it is a positive and a constructive reaction.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is possible that in that event we would make a tiny bit of progress but, of course, we would still have no guarantee that our position would be met any more sympathetically when we come to Report stage next Tuesday. It would give us more confidence in the noble Lord's bona fides if he simply decided not to proceed this evening with the affirmative order, but to withdraw it, in which case my amendment would fall and I would certainly withdraw my Prayer against the negative instrument. Those matters could then stand aside until we see what happens next Tuesday. In that way, the Government would have to produce some goods next Tuesday. If they do not produce any goods next Tuesday, we would still have some power.
The fact of the matter is that if I do what the Minister would like me to do, I shall be left tomorrow morning absolutely powerless. The Liberal Democrats

179
and I would be left without any clothes at all so far as this battle is concerned. We want the Representation of the People Bill for other reasons, and the Government know that we would not play ping-pong in relation to it and invoke the Parliament Act. Frankly, the Government are asking me to give away what little weaponry I have to try to persuade them to come forward with a decent solution.
Lord Whitty: Far be it from me to advise the noble Lord on his powers; this is not the normal job of the Government Front Bench. Nevertheless, his Prayer is, of course, a Prayer against a negative resolution. If he withdraws it, it is still laid before the House and he can therefore bring forward his Prayer before the House at any time. He would not be bereft. I hope that he does not use it; I would expect him not to use it; and I would expect a constructive outcome. Nevertheless, it is untrue to say that he would be bereft of all power if he did not press his amendment tonight.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand that, but we are left with the affirmative order. I do not believe that any damage would be done to the Government's position if we could genuinely make progress next Tuesday. No damage would be done to the Government's position if they withdrew their affirmative order and I withdrew my Prayer. That would put us on all fours and we could go on to discussions; see what conclusion we could reach; come forward with an agreed package at the Report stage, or even at Third Reading if the worst came to the worst, of the Representation of the People Bill; and then the affirmative order before us and the negative order would pass happily without further comment. That is a reasonable proposition, rather than asking the Liberal Democrats and myself to take on faith that we shall make a little more progress on Tuesday.
The Minister can withdraw his Motion, which means that my amendment falls. I shall then happily withdraw my Prayer. If the Minister proceeds with his affirmative order, I must ask my noble friends—and my new noble friends, too—to join me in the Lobby.
6.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 215; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bell, L.

Aldington, L.

Belstead, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Biffen, L.

Ampthill, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Blackwell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blaker, L.

Attlee, E.

Blatch, B.

Avebury, L.

Boardman, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Bowness, L.

Barker, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bridges, L.

180

Brookeborough, V.

Inglewood, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jacobs, L.

Burnham, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Buscombe, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Butterworth, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Byford, B.

Jopling, L.

Caithness, E.

Kelvedon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Kirkham, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Laird, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Chadlington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Chilver, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Cockfield, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Listowel, E.

Colwyn, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lucas, L.

Courtown, E.

Ludford, B.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Luke, L.

Cox, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Craigavon, V.

McConnell, L.

Cranborne, V.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Deedes, L.

McNally, L.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dholakia, L.

Marlesford, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dundee, E.

Methuen, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elles, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Montrose, D.

Elton, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Ezra, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Falkland, V.

Moynihan, L.

Feldman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newby, L,.

Flather, B.

Northbrook, L.

Fookes, B.

Northesk, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Onslow, E.

Geddes, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Geraint, L.

Palmer, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Peel, E.

Glentoran, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Goodhart, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hanham, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Prentice, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Razzall, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Reay, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rees, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Rennard, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Home, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hooper, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Howe, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

181

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Sandberg, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sandwich, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Seccombe, B.

Tope, L.

Selsdon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Sharman, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Slim, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strange, B.

Wilcox, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Swinfen, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Taverne, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Windlesham, L.

Thatcher, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Goudie, B.

Amos, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Grabiner, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bach, L.

Gregson, L.

Barnett, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harrison, L.

Blease, L.

Haskel, L.

Borrie, L.

Hayman, B.

Bragg, L.

Healey, L.

Brett, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brightman, L.

Hollick, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brookman, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burns, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Christopher, L.

Islwyn, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jay of Paddington, (Lord Privy Seal)

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Crawley, B.

Judd, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Levy, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lipsey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lockwood, B.

Diamond, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

Longford, E.

Donoughue, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dubs, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Eatwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Elder, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Filkin, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gale, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Gavron, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gilbert, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Molloy, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

182

Morris of Manchester, L.

Simon, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Nicol, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Orme, L.

Stern, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Paul, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Peston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Puttnam, L.

Tenby, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Uddin, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Walpole, L.

Rea, L.

Warner, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Richard, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Whitaker, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Whitty, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wilkins, B.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sewel, L.

Winston, L.

Shepherd, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Greater London Authority Elections Rules 2000
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish:My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules laid before the House on 8th February be annulled (S.I.2000/208).—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
6.15
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 206; Not-Contents 143.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bowness, L.

Aldington, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Bridges, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Burnham, L.

Attlee, E.

Buscombe, B.

Avebury, L.

Butterworth, L.

Barker, B.

Byford, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Caithness, E.

Bell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Biffen, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Carnarvon, E.

Blackwell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blaker, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blatch, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Boardman, L.

Chadlington, L.

183

Chilver, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Listowel, E.

Cockfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lucas, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ludford, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Luke, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

McConnell, L.

Cox, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNally, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mancroft, L.

Deedes, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dholakia, L.

Methuen, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dundee, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Montrose, D.

Elles, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Ezra, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Falkland, V.

Newby, L.

Feldman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Flather, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fookes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Palmer, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Peel, E.

Geraint, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glentoran, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goodhart, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

Prentice, L.

Hamwee, B.

Razzall, L.

Hanham, B.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rees, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller]

Rees-Mogg, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rennard, L

Harris of Peckham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Russell, E.

Holderness, L.

Saatchi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Home, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooper, B.

Sandberg, L.

Hooson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Selsdon, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharman, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Inglewood, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jacobs, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Slim, V.

Jopling, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Kimball, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kingsland, L.

Strange, B.

Kirkham, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Swinfen, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Taverne, L.

Laird, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

184

Tope, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Tordoff, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Vivian, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Waddington, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Wakeham, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bach, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Blease, L.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brett, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Levy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Longford, E.

Christopher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Diamond, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dixon, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Molloy, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Nicol, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Orme, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Paul, L.

Filkin, L.

Peston, L.

Gale, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gavron, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Puttnam, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grabiner, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Gregson, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harrison, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Sewel, L.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Healey, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon, V.

Hollick, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Stern, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

185

Strabolgi, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitaker, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wilkins, B.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Walpole, L.

Winston, L.

Warner, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly; it was ordered that the Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to make a brief statement. We shall return to the concerns so clearly expressed in this debate in our discussions on Report of the Representation of the People Bill next Tuesday.
As regards the orders that were put before the House today, we shall reintroduce those orders at the earliest opportunity.

Electronic Communications Bill
6.25 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am delighted to introduce this important Bill. The Electronic Communications Bill will help achieve the Government's target for making the UK the best place in the world for e-commerce by putting in place the right legal framework. Just as Britain led the world in the first industrial revolution, so the Government are determined that Britain will be among the winners in the knowledge economy.
Our strategy for achieving this ambitious target is clear. We need modern, competitive markets that will enable the fast growth of electronic commerce, confident consumers with the skills and access to exploit the potential of the Internet and a government committed to exploiting the full potential of the new technologies to transform and improve the ways in which we deliver services to citizens and citizens communicate with the Government.
The Bill will help to create the right market framework. It will lay sound foundations for Britain to become a dynamic, knowledge-based economy by promoting electronic commerce and electronic governance. Bill Gates has described the Bill as "the model for Europe". The CBI said today:
"The CBI would now like to see the Bill pass to the statute book as speedily as possible, and we welcome and support the Government's commitment to try and enact this Bill by April".
Through the Bill, we plan to be one of the first countries to implement the EU Electronic Signatures Directive, so that British firms can benefit from the emerging on-line single market. The UK is rightly
186
being seen as Europe's e-commerce hub; not least because of the co-regulatory approach we are adopting with industry—an example being the innovative T Scheme to provide trust services to business and the public. I will say more about the T Scheme later in my speech.
The Bill will build trust in the authenticity, confidentiality and security of on-line transactions. It would confirm the legal admissibility of electronic signatures. Furthermore, it will enable us to modernise the statute book by allowing the Government to amend references to paper signatures, documents, records and formalities such as sealing or witnessing to include electronic equivalents.
The Bill is the result of an extensive process of consultation with business and the IT industry and the Government have made extensive changes to the policy inherited from the previous administration. This process of consultation has resulted in a genuine partnership in this area between government and industry. Indeed, as I shall explain, the Government hope to see many of the Bill's objectives achieved by self-regulation to the extent that we hope that we shall not need to bring Part I into force.
The first aim of the Electronic Communications Bill is to build trust among consumers and business in the providers of cryptography services. There is widespread agreement of the need for a kitemark so that consumers and businesses can have trust in the providers of those services. Such services allow users to verify who has sent an e-mail, to have confidence that their messages will not be altered en route and to have confidence that their commercial information or credit card details will be kept secret.
Part I provides statutory back-up to a voluntary, self-regulatory scheme of trust service providers. The Government are working with the Alliance for Electronic Business, which is drawing up a self-regulatory approvals scheme, known as the T Scheme, to ensure minimum standards of quality and service.
When the Government consulted on the draft Bill in July 1999, we spelt out the criteria which we believe such a scheme should meet. Those include the need for a broad coverage of industry sectors and range of services, consumer representation, clear standards, the ability to ensure compliance and the ability to meet EU standards so that British businesses and consumers can take advantage of the single market.
The Government's strong preference is for self-regulation, with the statutory powers in Part I held in reserve in case self-regulation fails. The Government are confident that if the Alliance for Electronic Business delivers what it currently plans to deliver, we shall not need to brine Part I into force.
We believe that self-regulation will work. However, this is an extraordinarily fast-moving area, and the T Scheme is not yet operational. It would be thoroughly irresponsible to abandon now the possibility that we shall need a statutory scheme in future. Instead, the sensible course is to work with industry on self-regulation, while creating a statutory default option. After Royal Assent we would hold

187
Part I in reserve in case self-regulation fails. We would then conduct an open review in 2004 of how self-regulation was working. Provided it was working well, these powers would lapse within five years under the sunset clause—Clause 15.
In view of our preference for self-regulation, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has suggested that the House might consider amending the Bill to make the commencement of this part subject to the affirmative procedure. Having considered carefully the committee's views in this area, the Government have reflected on their position and I shall table amendments to meet that recommendation.
Part II of the Bill confirms the legal admissibility of electronic signatures. It would give Ministers the powers to update the statute book by providing electronic equivalents to paper signatures, records and documents. Lawyers argue about whether or not electronic signatures would be recognised as valid by the courts. We cannot afford to wait while lawyers argue and courts decide. Instead, Clause 7 will allow business and consumers to have confidence in electronic signatures. It puts beyond doubt that a court can admit evidence of an electronic signature and a certificate in support of a signature, not only for the purpose of establishing who the communication came from, but also in establishing the date and time it was sent and in some cases whether it was intended to have legal effect.
These measures have been widely welcomed by industry. For example, Intel said that it was,
"delighted that government … is focusing on the real issue of legal recognition of electronic signatures which will give a vital boost to business and consumer confidence".
John Browning, co-founder of First Tuesday, Europe's leading meeting place for people, money and ideas in new media and e-commerce, said:
"Creating a regulatory environment that makes the electronic realm at least as consistent, predictable and trustworthy as the physical one is the most important thing Government can do to promote the new generation of internet entrepreneurs transforming Britain's economy—and the world's".
Through Clause 7, where there are no specific statutory requirements as to form, the vast majority of contracts will be able to be carried out electronically. There are other cases, estimated to be as many as 40,000, where specific legal barriers exist to completing tasks electronically. They include barriers to electronic transactions between citizens and government, and between businesses, other organisations, citizens and third parties.
Clause 8 would give the Government and the Scottish administration the power to sweep away obstacles in existing laws which insist on the use of paper and formalities such as sealing, wherever it makes sense to do so, in order to give people the electronic option. This is a wide-ranging power but the Government believe that using secondary legislation to undertake the required modernisation is the most sensible way to proceed. The alternative of proceeding by separate primary legislation would waste valuable parliamentary time and was overwhelmingly rejected in consultation. On the other hand, allowing an
188
electronic alternative across the board would risk creating uncertainty and confusion in those cases where the electronic alternative to a paper process was not obvious. I am glad that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was convinced by our arguments for proceeding in this way.
I am also pleased to inform the House of two early uses of this power, assuming parliamentary consent. We are consulting on a draft order to use the power to allow requirements of the Companies Act, such as incorporation, shareholder communications and the appointment of proxies, to be met electronically. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would use the power to allow conveyancing to be carried out electronically. He expects to publish draft orders for consultation later in the year.
The Bill also modernises the out-dated system for modifying telecommunications licences. It is widely agreed that the current licence modification procedure requires urgent revision. A system devised at the time of privatisation to deal with a handful of telecoms companies has become swamped in today's market of hundreds of licensees. The current system requires the Director-General of Telecommunications to gain the written consent of all relevant licensees or to refer his proposals to the Competition Commission before proceeding with a licence modification.
The Bill puts in place a more efficient procedure. The director-general would be able to make fast-track licence modifications, without reference to the Competition Commission, in cases where either no relevant licensees actively object to the pay modification, or where a modification is deregulatory according to stringent criteria. These proposals would allow the fair and efficient development of telecoms licences and facilitate effective regulation of the telecoms industry.
Finally, I turn to the controversial issue of key escrow. That is the proposal that users of encryption should be required to deposit copies of the keys which protect confidential data with a third party. The Government have listened carefully to the views of business. The Performance and Innovation Unit study, published on 26th May last year, confirmed that partnership with industry, rather than mandatory key escrow, was the best way to meet law enforcement concerns. We have now written that policy on to the face of the Bill through Clause 13, which explicitly prohibits key escrow requirements.
It is fitting that this Bill is likely to be one of Britain's first 21st century laws. It would provide a sound legal basis for electronic commerce and electronic government, and it would help to build consumer confidence in buying on the Internet. It is a modernising Bill, which would bring the statute book in line with modern technology. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to speak to this Bill with some pleasure: pleasure that we have already

189
achieved a great deal in another place in our determination to simplify the proposed legislation and ensure a light touch; and, further, that we have today an opportunity to address an exciting, fast-moving subject that is already impacting upon our culture and our thinking.
It is often said that if you stand still you will fall behind. With information technology you need to be on the run. Electronic commerce—the commercial application of IT— has already transformed the way that many companies do business. It provides access to larger markets, reduced operating costs and opportunities for customised marketing. Moreover, it is having a significant impact upon job creation worldwide. There are enormous potential benefits for the consumer, including increased consumer choice, lower prices and improved customer care. E-commerce's key to success in the global market rests upon its ability to compete, both in terms of cost and speed of delivery. There is no doubt that progress so far has been prodigious because the IT industry has been allowed to develop unfettered by rules and regulations. Thus far, it is a tribute to what we on these Benches mean by free enterprise.
Attempts to legislate on Internet matters are almost bound to fail at both national and European level because the market-place is global and "location" as such has become, for the most part, irrelevant. The Internet is capable of creating an important shift of power from government to the individual. That is bad news for the politicians and, in particular, those who hold the purse strings of government. Governments will attempt to arrest that. However, they may do so at their peril, since the change that has already taken place in a business's ability to communicate and contract across the globe means that it must be able to compete if it is to survive in the market-place.
That said, we on these Benches accept that there needs to be a framework within which all users can feel confident that, however they choose to interact or interface with electronic commerce, they are able to do so in a secure environment. In that context, governments can give limited assistance for the growth of e-commerce in three ways: first, by setting up recognised and certified systems for electronic signatures; secondly, by removing barriers to e-commerce and making it possible for any type of contract or transaction to be concluded over the Internet; and, thirdly, by providing a clear legal framework for e-commerce. That means responding where the current law fails to meet the needs of the user in an Internet context. For example, keeping the Internet free of fraud will require a change to the current legal principle that it is not possible to defraud a computer.
In the experience of those on these Benches, in consultation both with IT companies and with business, there are currently three major concerns in relation to locating electronic commerce activities: taxation, cross-jurisdictional transactions and an adequate resource of computer skills. In essence, a
190
favourable tax regime, coupled with access to appropriate skills and the freedom to contract internationally, are key.
More interference by government than that and we run the risk of discouraging an industry, particularly business from outside the United Kingdom, from participating in electronic commerce in the United Kingdom. The Electronic Communications Bill does not deal with any of those issues. However, the Government need to address them, particularly in the light of what is already happening in Brussels. There is no doubt that, once again, we are witnessing ill-thought-through and confusing bureaucracy that will place increased burdens on business and could seriously hinder the growth of e-commerce across the EU. Consideration of the Electronic Communications Bill cannot take place in isolation without reference to laws which are impinging, and will impinge, upon the ability to effect and develop e-commerce here in the United Kingdom.
Let us take, for example, Article 15 of the draft regulations replacing the Brussels and Rome Conventions which will give consumers the right to sue an e-commerce provider in the consumer's own home courts. How will that sit with the draft directive on legal aspects of e-commerce? This directive applies the single market "country of origin" principle whereby service providers are regulated in the member state in which they have their main place of residence.
The net effect of this proposal would be to require someone doing business via the Internet to comply with 15 different sets of laws—indeed, 25 if enlargement goes ahead—in direct contravention to the home country control principle. In short, that is a mess and the Government need to put pressure on our EU partners to sort it out; otherwise many businesses, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, may well not bother with e-commerce at all as the risks will simply be too great.
I turn to the Bill itself. Part I establishes a part-statutory, part-voluntary register of Internet service providers. That remains a concern. We believe that the industry is best equipped to set standards and that it can be relied upon to do so without government interference. To that end, we would like to see the five-year term for the sunset clause significantly reduced.
With reference to Part II of the Bill, thanks to considerable pressure from both the IT industry and the Conservative Party during its passage in another place, it is now in much better shape to deliver all that we want to see in this Bill; that is, the establishment of a proper legal framework within which a person can contract with another and that the contract will stand up in law.
We are, however, proposing at Committee stage to consider further the status of an electronic signature as against a digital signature. We are concerned, for example, that the definition of an electronic signature under Clause 7(2) does not follow the definition in the European Electronic Signature Directive. In particular, there is no requirement that an electronic signature should have a personal element, nor that it

191
should indicate approval of the data signed. In fact what is currently defined is more akin to a digital signature. I should like to know whether the Minister thinks that that matters.
Having listened to the Conservative Party and dropped the original Part III, which would have given law-enforcement agencies draconian new powers to demand the unscrambling of intercepted emails, the current Part III is a bolt-on extra. It provides a retrospective amendment to the telecommunications licence law. We believe that that part of the Bill must be watched closely to ensure, in particular, that there is no inequity among existing telecommunications licence holders.
In conclusion, our belief is that the Bill should be as light of touch as possible. It should act as a signal to the business world that the Government will not needlessly interfere, thereby leaving e-commerce to flourish for the benefit of all. An encouraging statement made by the e-Minister, Patricia Hewitt, in another place is worth noting. She said:
"I hope to see many of the Bill's objectives being achieved by selfregulation, so that we will not need to commence Part I".
I very much hope that that approach will be sustained through the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House and well beyond.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I am pleased to welcome this Bill as a valuable step forward in the promotion of e-commerce in this country. It states as its aim removing barriers and facilitating the adoption of e-commerce in the UK.
I am pleased to note the significant public consultation which took place in relation to the matter. That was widely welcomed by the industry. A number of concerns that arose from that have been addressed. In particular, I am pleased to see the removal of the key escrow provisions from the original Bill and the investigation and disclosure requirements, although I believe that we shall need to revisit that should those provisions appear later in the investigatory powers Bill.
I submit that, as enabling legislation, it is a light touch on the tiller. I like the idea of the voluntary code which is envisaged, known as the T Scheme. I believe that that is critically important in the development of e-commerce, particularly in view of the speed at which things move. I have said on previous occasions in this House that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the legislative process to keep up with the speed of developments regarding the Internet. In that regard, it is interesting to note the new term that I became aware of relatively recently which is used extensively in net-based and web-based matters; that is, "dog years". It is based on the notion that when considering developments in technology, one should take one-seventh of the normal timespan in which something would develop and use that as a guideline. That means that we need to act with speed. Voluntary codes must be made to work to see us through that process.
192
I am pleased that not too much is proscribed in the Bill. The Internet is more than just a faster and more convenient way of conducting commercial transactions. It is not just a digital mirror of the conventional world, which many people suppose it to be; it is not just another channel of communication, nor another technology like TV or radio. There are many—I count myself among them—who believe that this may be the most profound agent for change in social and economic spheres in our lifetime.
The Internet is not essentially about computers; it is about the way that people use and interact with computers; it is about a new way of life. I see the Internet as being a force for change in five ways. First, it immediately overcomes the barriers of distance; distance is no longer relevant. Secondly, it brings buyers and sellers together immediately and one must therefore consider what will happen to the function of intermediaries, which are so much a part of many economies. Thirdly, it puts people on a level playing field, regardless of their status as either multinational corporations or single individuals. Fourthly, it enables complex alliances and gatherings of people to form spontaneously. Fifthly, it is the avenue through which ideas and knowledge can be made freely available. It is a powerful force for change.
A number of issues arise in relation to the Internet which, of necessity, could not be addressed in this Bill. We must ensure that what results from the development of the Internet is not a new divide— a digital divide, as opposed to a social or a class divide—between those who have access and those who do not. That may be due to age or inclination, but it is an issue that the Government must keep at the forefront of their mind.
How do we make access as widely available as possible? It may be through schemes involving terminals for hire, help with phone calls—in that regard the issue of metered phone calls will be critical—or in the further development of computers for schools. In that regard, I do not mean where computers simply sit in computer rooms to enable computer science to be taught, but where they become an integral part of the whole education process. Access may be created through schemes involving training for all people, which is clearly important. It may be necessary to encourage further places of public access. We already have cyber cafes; we could also have access in libraries and so forth.
The e-commerce revolution is happening today. It is moving at a speed which terrifies most of us in business. IT skills are critical and speed is of the essence. I welcome the Bill; I support it. It strikes the right balance between enabling legislation and voluntary regulation or voluntary schemes that can move at the necessary speed.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I welcome this Bill as a move in the right direction. The big problem with the Internet is that people can conceal their identities. It is important to know with whom one is communicating.

193
From that point of view electronic or digital signatures are vital. They will give people confidence that they are doing business with the right party.
One anxiety about which I have received briefing is that the timing of the implementation of some of the provisions is being left to Ministers and they could therefore be implemented piecemeal. I cannot understand why we cannot make a blanket change and say that, given the right electronic signature and so forth, electronic documents will be as admissible as written documents with exemptions for certain vital classes. Why should it be necessary to amend around 45,000 different references to the written word, which would take a parliamentary lifetime? The real worry is that inertia will defeat the objective and, if we do not jump in with both feet, at the end of the day we will be left behind.
The whole issue revolves around the confidence of knowing with whom one is dealing and that to enter into a contract with them means that the contract will be binding. So the next stage must involve the legal admissibility of electronic documents. I understand that to be properly dealt with in the Bill. I am not a lawyer and I have not studied the matter in great detail. But I welcome the fact that the Government will not have total access to people's communications. They do not at present and there is no reason why they should just because we are going electronic. The fact that they cannot keep the key escrow is very powerful.
If the Internet is going to grow there should be minimum regulation. We cannot regulate in a vacuum; we cannot even regulate at a European level. There are no boundaries for the Internet. One of the great things about it is that it is possible to do business anywhere. One can, if one wishes, put one's website on a server sitting on the other side of the globe in a country that is not regulated. The great strength of the Bill therefore is that it does not try to do too much. It alights on one problem and tries to resolve that. From that point of view, people must have confidence that the self-regulatory scheme will work. If it does not, the Government must be ready to act swiftly. If people's electronic signatures are discredited, then doing business over the Internet will be discredited.
I am glad that the Bill does not regulate such things as personal data and their storage. They will probably be covered by the data protection Acts, which may not be as strong in other jurisdictions but, after all, we do not have to give our personal data if we do not want to. We can always opt out. The Internet does not force people to do anything; it is a facilitator. The Government need to introduce legislation which facilitates use of the Internet, makes it advantageous to use it and does not put people off using it. This Bill is the first step in the right direction of helping to facilitate Internet business.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a member of PITCOM and of EURIM, but that does not mean that I support all their policies in this specific area of work.
194
When reading the papers for the debate this evening, my mind kept going back to the late Lord Chelmsford from the Benches opposite. He brought great expertise to our discussions in this whole field of developing communications and the changing of our lives electronically. I am sure that we shall miss his major contribution in our debate this evening.
I too welcome the Bill. In fact, much of the correspondence I received was in support of the Bill. There were perhaps a few "ifs" and "maybes", but the general impression is that this Bill is urgently needed; it is well placed in this area of e-commerce and we must get on with it. Although the Bill has such major support, some reservations have been expressed. I do not share any of those reservations because the Bill is written is such a way as to have a "light touch", which will enable us to deal with such situations.
The key point about the Bill is that it recognises that this is a tremendous opportunity for us. It is not just about electronic commerce; this is one of the spin-offs of the whole world of electronics and is presenting us with great opportunities. I know that we are basically dealing with the business element here, but we should also recognise the social changes that it is bringing about in our community. Indeed, it is a new language in its own right. You can sit round a table talking and someone may mention a new word from that language. Everyone sitting there will nod his or her head, but I am not so sure that everyone understands the new terminology. I include myself in that group.
The impact of electronic commerce on business will be enormous. If I want to buy a car in the future, I may well decide not to visit a car showroom; I may just put my request on the website and ask who is bidding. I may then choose the lowest bid. At present, you can actually buy holidays, and so on, by an auction that is provider-led. But this could well become consumer-led. Indeed, the whole concept opens up all these opportunities.
We see that the young are not put off by any of this new technology. Indeed, they tutor their parents on how to access websites, and so on. I am sure that many parents who trust the system enough at present to buy things on the web—there are too few of them—have been shown how to get on to the system by their children. There is also the development of that wonderful term "silver surfers". The whole concept spans all the ages and presents us with tremendous opportunities.
I enjoyed the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. He rightly said that this is a global business, whether it be buying or talking; indeed, the BT slogan "It's good to talk" is true. But this is a different way of talking: it is about families connecting all over the world, as though they in the same room. Eventually, of course, with further investment they will feel as if they are in the same room with video links.
The Bill is crucial to the speed of development. I may be wrong, but I actually believe that we are only—to use the vernacular—in the "foothills" of the possibilities that face us in the future in this area. Therefore, no traditional, statutory framework will

195
suit it. However, that does not mean that the traditional values will not; indeed, I suggest that they will. When I talk about "values", I mean those of the "consumer"—a word which, unfortunately, has not been sufficiently used in debates on this subject. The consumer expects an honest deal. After making a purchase, he expects to receive the goods that he believed he had purchased.
In my view, the Bill reflects that "light touch, technology neutral" approach. If the legislation had been much firmer, it could well have proved to be out of date before it was signed, even if it is due to be signed in a different way from that which generally applies to Bills. As I said, there are enormous opportunities, but we cannot kid ourselves that there are no dangers involved. We have all read reports about money laundering, drugs and, indeed, the downside of this electronic world, including paedophile pornography. That is extremely damaging not only to those involved, but also to our society at large. We must somehow find a way to deal with that aspect.
I go along with the view that self-regulation is probably the right way forward for this kind of development. However, I shall not concentrate this evening on such potential risks, serious though they are. I agree with my honourable friend the Minister in another place who said:
"The first aim of the … Bill is to build trust among consumers and businesses in the providers of trust services".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/99; col. 43.]
Certainly, consumer trust is essential. At the time that the Bill was going through another place, there were discussions with the Alliance for Electronic Business to develop a self-regulation approval scheme. This would be on the basis that the Government would set the public policy objectives and the industry would deliver solutions through self-regulation—perhaps by a kite-mark.
I believe that such safeguards are needed. The industry has sought the opportunity to provide self-regulation and, therefore, it is essential that it should deliver. Indeed, over the past few weeks we have seen the London Evening Standard starting to highlight some of the potential problems for consumers. It has set up an online system of "e-whinge@standard.co.uk". I shall not name the companies that the public have actually gone online to complain about because they have not received the service or the goods that they thought they were ordering; and, indeed, for which they had paid online. It is just a window of what could happen if the industry does not deliver that self-regulation.
I was therefore delighted to see, and I very much welcome, the launch of Trust UK, in which my noble friend Lord Borrie is involved. It gives me confidence to know that someone of his experience and knowledge is involved in this project. I certainly wish it well. It has been set up as a government initiative but will mean that the Alliance for Electronic Business and the Consumers' Association will be working together. They will provide a code of practice for businesses for trading on the Internet. That has to be the way forward. I believe that there were about 200 people at
196
that launch, most of whom represented organisations. If I read out the names of those organisations, I am sure that noble Lords would recognise them as household names. They include the Financial Times, the Royal Mail, British Telecom, ICL, as well as others, including Microsoft—that international company with a very dominant role in the market.
I have a question for my noble friend the Minister. It concerns something regarding notaries groups that I came across while I was reading the briefing for this debate. Apparently, they receive their terms from the Archbishop of Canterbury, although I have never heard this before. They have a role in signing off certain legal elements within the system. Of course, this has quite an impact. My noble friend may not be able to answer this question this evening; indeed, I should certainly be content if I did not receive an answer tonight. Nevertheless, the question needs to be raised. Are these people going to be involved in the work of Trust UK?
The banks, which will be crucial in the process, are certainly supporting it. However, it is interesting to note that, in parallel, they feel that perhaps an organisation called Indentrus (which is the global framework for trust services based on inter-bank co-operation) may well be more effective because it is a global impact organisation. There is also the view that cryptography, as we know it, may not provide the high-level security that may be needed for some of the trading online within a time-span of five years. When I read that wording, I thought that it was all gobbledegook, but I think I now understand it. It clearly demonstrates the language that is developing in this whole area.
Finally, I believe that the Government are right to hold statutory powers in reserve in case self-regulation fails. It shows that they are serious about consumer protection. However, I think that the sunset clause should give assurance to the industry that, if it delivers effective self-regulation, there will not be a need for statutory regulation. As noble Lords have probably gathered, I welcome the Bill; indeed, I am an enthusiast for this whole area. It provides us with a tremendous opportunity. If we have a debate on this in 10 years' time, I am sure that we will have moved on considerably in an area that is changing the very nature of the world in which we live.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I hesitated before I put down my name to take part in this Second Reading debate. I did so simply because I consider myself to be an amateur—indeed, a silver surfer—but an enthusiastic user of electronic communications. I do not understand how they work, but I am jolly glad that they do. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for the very kind comments that she made this evening with regard to Lord Chelmsford for the work that he did for EURIM. I still think of him as my noble friend, even though he is no longer with us in this House or, indeed, alive. Indeed, he recruited me as a member of that body hardly before I had sat on these Benches more than a day or two. He was an enthusiastic recruiter.

197
It occurred to me that this Bill will have an effect on every enthusiast, or on anyone who at the moment has no idea that he or she will become a user of electronic communications. It seems at the moment that every time one picks up a newspaper one is assailed with stories of the Internet and with e-commerce and e-communications stories all jumbled up together, so that when the public see the prefix "e", they believe that e-commerce is being referred to. The climate is different to that of three years ago in which the previous government framed their proposals. E-transactions were then still very much in their infancy. It is right that the Bill should recognise that changed climate.
When I read the briefing of various organisations before today's debate it became clear to me that forecasts of how e-communications will develop are as many and as varied as the experts who are ready to give their advice. Tonight the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said that things move at a stunningly rapid pace and mentioned "dog years". As David Williams of Morgan Stanley put it last week,
"Three months is the equivalent of an Internet year".
However, perhaps one thing the experts can agree on is that, whatever the pace, it is fairly rapid.
What is the e-world in which this Bill will operate? New products are being rolled out at an amazingly rapid pace. In the past two weeks there has been a flurry of announcements from Abbey National, Barclays, Halifax and Lloyds TSB. On Thursday Abbey said that it planned to launch a net bank with venture capital support and would double its e-commerce spending to £200 million next year. The financial pundits have forecast that tomorrow more plans will be announced by the Pru regarding the future of Egg, its net bank. I can mention those companies because I am not a customer of either and therefore I have no interest to declare.
As such plans race ahead, there is also no stopping the online shoppers, to whom reference has been made this evening. This growth has occurred despite all the fraud scare stories, the odd hacker attack and sporadically incompetent retailers. According to the latest research by experts at NOP it is estimated that Britons alone will spend more than £10 billion online this year. That is a massive amount when one considers that we spent only about £3.2 billion last year, and less than £500 million the previous year. It is no wonder that almost every television advert that we see these days is Internet related.
A presence on the web is no longer a luxury or merely an eye-catching marketing tool for business; it is a necessity for those who want to keep pace in today's increasingly global commercial environment. But the kind of e-commerce that we hear about is simply the tip of the iceberg. The unseen, as yet uncelebrated, use of the net should be about moving core business processes online and re-engineering the way they work. However, many companies have delayed their e-business plans because of their security
198
worries. I note that the not-for-profit IT organisation, InterForum, in its report Electronic Signatures—Signing up to the Digital Economy, states,
"According to figures from an NOP survey, while 76% of large British companies use the net and 76% have websites, 71% of large companies in Britain do not use the net to send confidential or sensitive information. To leverage its immense potential, the net needs to become a safe and trustworthy medium for even the most valuable and sensitive of transactions".
That is why I, like my noble friend Lady Buscombe, welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction in ensuring that transactions over the net are safe.
How will the Bill make matters any better for users and providers of e-communications? I had intended to give an almost unqualified welcome to Part II of the Bill but having heard what my noble friend said earlier with regard to electronic signatures, I have a few qualms. On reading the Bill beforehand I had expected that it would provide that electronic signatures would be used only where a handwritten alternative was already provided for, and that the electronic signature would tie the message and the information to the person who had sent it so that one could prove who had sent it and verify the integrity of the information. On that basis I thought that the measure was an excellent move forward. However, having heard the comments of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure the House with regard to the query about digital signatures and electronic signatures.
After all, the advent of electronic signatures and other technical advances all promise to make it safer to do business on the web. I am certainly aware that public bodies are planning to use electronic signatures and other public key infrastructure [PKI] technologies to push forward what they can do over the web. I was intrigued to hear the Minister mention that conveyancing would soon be put on the web. I look forward to seeing how that will operate.
Will the Minister tell the House whether the trials that are under way at Customs and Excise to establish the feasibility of filing VAT returns and making VAT payments over the net are progressing satisfactorily? Is there any information at this early stage on whether that business will be transferred to the web? If that is the case, I believe that businesses would welcome it as a way of ensuring that their returns have been received. They will not need to re-enter data and they will be able to hold on to their money for longer without risking late payment penalties. That subject is always of interest to businesses, particularly to small businesses.
Like my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I have some concerns about Part I of the Bill. I listened carefully to the Minister's introduction of the Bill. I look forward to examining those issues further in Committee. The Minister referred to the Select Committee's report and its recommendations with regard to Parts I and III. The noble Lord said that the Government would be prepared to accept some of the committee's recommendations. I hope that in Committee we shall have the opportunity to examine carefully all of the committee's recommendations. I hope that we can persuade the Government to accept all of the recommendations rather than just some of them.

199
Many noble Lords have said tonight that this Bill operates in a light touch atmosphere, one where extra regulation is introduced but may be welcomed. I welcome that light touch. I hope that anything that we do in Committee will maintain that light touch rather than seek to add additional regulation.
7.17 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. I endorse the welcome for the Government's light touch approach and preference for self-regulation in this matter. I declare an interest as a director of an Internet solutions provider which provides both Internet connectivity and sophisticated Internet solutions for business. In my capacity of having run that company in the West End I can certainly bear witness to the extraordinary growth in the use of electronic commerce, particularly in the business-to-business market. The Internet may be full of uncertainties, but one area of agreement among industry pundits and executives is that the volume of businesses buying online will soon dwarf purchases by consumers. There is no doubt that electronic networks are dramatically changing the modus operandi of our corporate culture. I recall the speech made last year by the chief executive of Intel when he remarked that any company which does not transform itself into an Internet company in the next five years will not be a company. Perhaps that is a bit far fetched, but the pace of transformation is staggering as the world becomes ever more a global village.
While the United Kingdom and Europe have arguably been leading the development of new Internet technologies, I have certainly noticed that United Kingdom businesses are in many cases almost two years behind American companies in their appreciation of what the Internet can do for them. I totally agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, when she commented on many of the terms that are often referred to.
One of the roles of our company is to educate businesses as to the value of co-location, webstreaming, webcasting, virtual private networks, facilities management and of course the whole wide range of e-commerce solutions. Last year the trend in the industry was the race to establish dot.coms and portals. This year the focus has shifted to application service providers, WAP and enabling technologies, including the need to embrace and promote electronic commerce, which many refer to as "the holy grail of the Internet".
When this Bill was debated in another place, several Members expressed their concerns about the impediments in the United Kingdom to online shopping, both through the cost of installing a PC at home and the comparatively high costs of connectivity to the local loop. I am sure that many would have welcomed the Chancellor's recent pledge to reduce the costs of connectivity to the net.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, referred to the speed of developments in the Internet. While referring to PCs, I would draw attention to non-PC devices such
200
as mobile phones. These are expected to out-sell PCs by 2002. The forecast is that they will outsell them by a factor of 10 to one by 2010. Within the next two years it is predicted that more people will be accessing the Internet through mobile telephones than through PCs. In the future a major part of personal communications, be it voice, data, images or video, will be wireless. The third generation technology developments anticipated in a few years' time will enable users of cellular devices to surf wherever they are, with wireless commerce set to soar.
The growth of e-business is being driven by several factors, including more intelligent software and technologies, an increase of e-business outsourcing, growing business sophistication on the Internet and of course the trickle-down effect of very large companies moving to web-based procurement systems.
I totally agree with the e-commerce Minister, Patricia Hewitt, in her foreword to the InterForum White Paper on electronic signatures when she said:
"one of the challenges for industry is to present the new technologies in such a way that electronic commerce is understood by both business and the public".
Certainly the key to the success of electronic commerce is the necessity to ensure trust and confidence in this medium. Many recent reports confirmed both public and business concerns regarding the confidentiality and security of transactions made online. There is clearly a strong case for advanced authentification strategies in the light of the explosive growth in e-commerce, particularly in view of the trend in the United States and the forecast of the growth of e-commerce in Europe.
It is a well-known fact that online criminals have targeted victims through fraudulent billing of credit card numbers. Visa International recently reported that while the Internet generates only 2 per cent of its credit card business, e-commerce accounts for roughly 50 per cent of discovered fraud and billing disputes. Obviously a major part of that percentage concerns billing disputes rather than fraud, but it is still a staggering figure. Identity theft, when criminals assume their victims' identities to obtain credit cards and loans in their name and pillage their bank accounts, is another type of online fraud that is also proliferating. A skilled hacker can in many cases access a company's client database to obtain customer records and use this information to order credit cards or apply for loans in other people's names. I therefore totally agree that there is a strongly demonstrated need to protect individuals and corporations from these so-called cyber bandits.
I would again draw reference to the White Paper on electronic signatures, which aptly summarised the position when it said:
"To truly leverage its immense potential, the Internet needs to become a safe and trustworthy medium for even the most valuable and sensitive of transactions. What is needed is a mechanism to guarantee the integrity of information and provide relationships of trust that are the foundations of a commercial infrastructure".
While I am inherently suspicious of regulating electronic commerce, I wholeheartedly support the objectives of this Bill, although I have reservations

201
about Part I. I certainly hope that, in the words of the Minister, a market framework is built which creates trust in the authenticity, confidentiality and security of online transactions and confirms the legal validity of online transactions and electronic signatures. Ultimately, though, I believe in co-regulation, with the Government defining public policy objectives and the industry delivering solutions through self-regulation. I am pleased that the Government appear to support this policy, and therefore wish this Bill a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Evans of Watford: My Lords, may I first declare an interest as a director of an online company. I am delighted to welcome the Bill. It will give important assistance, reassurance and safety to the rapidly growing world of electronic commerce and communications. It is certainly vital to Britain's future economic well-being and is especially important as Britain has already secured a leading position, if not the leading position, in Europe.
I am especially pleased that the Government have adopted a "light touch" approach to the many thorny issues that surround this new and as yet only partially understood area of business activity. I say "only partially understood" because we cannot yet be sure how the arrival of instantaneous network communication will affect business methods, organisational procedures and the social life of this country.
Although the Internet and similar digital communication technologies have been in widespread use for around 10 years, we cannot yet know how society will adapt to such technologies, nor can we know the implications of such use that may emerge. One thing has become clear, however. The rate of change in our society has increased once again, perhaps to a degree it is still hard fully to appreciate.
Change in the Internet world is moving so fast that our existing mechanisms of lawmaking will not be able to respond quickly enough to regulate such activity in a timely way. It is for that central reason that I welcome the fact that in this Bill it is the framework and not the detail that is laid before us. In the Government's subsequent deliberations on topics which are not covered by the Bill—I refer to such issues as law enforcement agency access to encrypted communications and the right of citizens to absolute privacy in electronic communications—it will be helpful to remember that present legislative procedures are unable to keep up with the developments occurring in the digital world. This may require the Government to introduce broad-based legislation which gives Ministers of the Crown greater freedom to adjust electronic communications regulations.
Lest my comments be conceived as a proposal to weaken the democratic process, perhaps I may make it clear that any such powers devolved to Ministers and departments must be limited and, where appropriate,
202
should be subject to retrospective review by both Houses. But some way must be found to allow government and departments to keep up with the developments of the Internet age. Our present legislative processes are woefully inadequate in a domain which is global, low-cost and moving at the speed of light.
Despite such an apparent challenge to our governmental processes, I wish to return to the contentious issues of unbreakable encryption and methods of providing lawful access to such encrypted material by our various law enforcement agencies. Along with other noble Lords, I was last year shown samples of a wide range of shocking material which is currently transmitted via public digital networks and which can only be described here as criminal in nature. In common with all other responsible citizens, I wish to support methods for the police and other security services to detect, hunt down and prosecute paedophiles, terrorists, drug wholesalers, currency counterfeiters and other criminal groups which are already taking advantage of strong digital encryption techniques to hide their activities.
I must make it clear that I believe Britain's future economic health is dependent on strong, unbreakable encryption techniques being freely available to lawful users without fear of government restriction, routine surveillance or any form of monitoring. In the future, the majority of business communications will obviously be digital and, as the degree of active, competitive, economic monitoring, analysis and commercial spying inevitably increases, business leaders operating within the UK must be certain that they can communicate lawfully in such a way that no law enforcement agency or other security service can intercept and interpret their lawful but highly sensitive communications without a court order. Such a freedom remains at the heart of our democracy and it will be central to our economic well-being.
Having presented that warning about issues which have been removed from the Bill and which are due to be presented on another occasion and having proposed that some mechanism for updating legislative detail without constant return to both Houses may need to be devised, I am extremely pleased to commend this excellent Bill to your Lordships.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I, too, should declare an interest as an executive of a financial institution which is a member of a number of schemes which issue digital signatures and certificates.
I spoke in the debate last autumn on the gracious Address to welcome the promise of the Bill. Like other speakers, I welcome it again this evening. I said at that time that the impact of electronic commerce in revolutionising industry and commerce in this country was not well understood. Despite the publicity given to the dot.com revolution since then, that is still true. In particular, outside the House and the debate, there is not as yet a full understanding of the extent to which e-commerce and the Internet

203
revolution will impact on major established corporations—those with established customer bases, brands and manufacturing processes—and the extent to which the changing interface with the customer will affect not only the customer but will have an impact all the way through the business system in terms of procurement and processing systems, with data passing through from one side to another, hardly touching the sides. It is that potential of e-commerce and the wealth creation and productivity improvements that lie behind it which are so important to the success of the Bill, as the Government and the Minister have recognised.
While welcoming the Bill, I should like to raise one or two queries regarding interpretation which it would be helpful to clarify during the course of its passage. The first relates to liabilities associated with the use of digital signatures under Clause 7; in particular, the question of who bears liability if a digital signature is accepted in good faith as evidence of a transaction and subsequently the authenticity or appropriateness of the signature is contested. The security around digital signatures could fail for one of two reasons: first, there is the possibility that the certification process of the person named as the holder of the signature may fail; the person who issues the certificate may fail to carry out adequate checks or to satisfactorily identify the bona fides, so certificates may be issued which are not backed up by the true identity of the person seeking to enter into the transaction.
The second reason concerns the security of the encryption and coding systems. The possibility of criminal elements attempting to keep one step ahead of encryption technology has been mentioned. I should not want to cast any doubts on the robustness of the encryption and security techniques being developed, but we are all well aware that it will be seen as a challenge to find ways around them. It is inevitable that those techniques will have to continue to evolve levels of sophistication to keep one step ahead. There will he additional challenges as encryption and signatures move into mobile telephony. As has been mentioned, the mobile world is likely to be a major area of use of digital transactions. Another factor will be the increasing use of smart cards as carriers of digital signatures, which will provide some additional elements of security but at the same time will create some new points of vulnerability as people find ways of reading the codes on cards through one means or another.
Therefore, we must accept that there will be cases where digital signatures accepted in good faith will turn out to be contested on the grounds either that someone has intervened fraudulently or that the certification itself has turned out to be inadequate. My assumption is that the framework of law will recognise that those who accept signatures in good faith will have the right to claim against those who offer them digital signatures and that those individuals providing digital signatures will in turn have the right to claim against those who provided them with encryption systems and certificates. No doubt it is anticipated that different levels of guarantee will be provided by those
204
providing digital certificates and those providing encryption systems to guarantee different levels of security for what they are offering. In that framework, protection will be given, liabilities will be provided and insurance taken out to ensure that claims may be met. The Bill does not relate only to the consumer world of smallish purchases over the net but also to the use of digital signatures and encryption techniques to protect commercial and financial market transactions which may run into not only millions but hundreds of millions of pounds.
I believe that there is a presumption in the legislation. For example, paragraph 43 of the Explanatory Notes states that,
It will be for the court to decide in a particular case whether an electronic signature has been correctly used and what weight it should be given (e.g. in relation to the authentication or integrity of a message) against other evidence".
As a non-lawyer, it would be helpful to me at least— and it may be helpful to others—as we go through the Bill to clarify exactly how the courts will interpret the liabilities for digital signatures and certificates and how that process will work.
I should like to raise a second point. Like other noble Lords, I very much hope that it will remain a voluntary scheme, but if the Government find need to use Part I and keep a register of authorised certificate issuers, what liability might then fall on them? What will be their liability if they authenticate people who turn out not to be providing certificates of appropriate integrity or people who do not have appropriate checks behind them? If that part of the Bill were used, how would the Government deal with that liability or apparent liability?
My third point concerns the Government's intention in accepting digital signatures for payments from organisations and citizens, both in terms of the use of digital signatures and certificates in government procurement and in the consumer sector with regard to the use of digital signatures on smart cards for benefit payments and tax payments. The Government can be a major force for change. The procedures and standards they seek to adopt in their own rules of engagement will set standards that will have an impact on the rest of the industry. It would be helpful to know what the Government plan in that area and how they will develop their behaviour.
My fourth and final point concerns protection of information. I welcome the prohibition in the Bill. Equally, it would be helpful if the Government could clarify what, if any, ability the Government or government agencies have under the Bill to intrude on private information. Are there any circumstances or provisions under which that would be permissible?
The points I have raised are points of clarity and not disagreement. Like other noble Lords, I wish the Bill a rapid passage through the House and look forward to it being on the statute book.
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate as one who embraces new technology and

205
the positive good it can do for mankind. I enjoy the instant communication and access to information of all kinds as well as the ability to trade online. There seems to be no limit to the potential of this relatively new medium and its power is quite literally awesome.
At this stage I should perhaps declare my only other interest. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, I am a member of PITCOM. I should like to take this opportunity to thank her for her kind remarks about my late friend, Lord Chelmsford.
We are living in an age where the speed of computer technology and the Internet are literally transforming the way we communicate and do business. It is, I believe, more significant, more far reaching and indeed more durable than the period of the Industrial Revolution, a point made by the Minister in his opening speech. Therefore, the legislative framework that we introduce to ensure order in this fast-moving world, while at the same time giving UK plc full entrepreneurial opportunities in this field, is of enormous significance.
The Bill goes some way along that road and I therefore join other noble Lords in giving it my general support, although I am concerned about one or two aspects. The voluntary industry scheme—or T Scheme as it is called—does have its merits and it has the general support of the CBI, the British Bankers' Association and many others, but what worries me is that the Secretary of State has up to five years to introduce the framework of Part I of the Bill by statutory instrument. My concern in this regard is that, as I have already mentioned, technology is moving at a remarkable pace and indeed it is common for major hardware and software upgrades within the industry to take place at six-monthly intervals or even less.
The scenario I invite noble Lords to consider is that if the Secretary of State deems it necessary to lay before Parliament a statutory instrument in, say, three or four years' time, the entire landscape will have been transformed from what it is today. Given that we simply cannot predict what e-business will look like in even two years' time, I am a little uneasy that the Bill does not allow for the approval scheme to be subject to formal consultation before its implementation. If that could be written into the Bill it would enable all interested parties to make state of the art contributions and ensure that Part I of the Bill met the then needs of customers and suppliers alike.
I have heard it said that legislators should be likened to hedgehogs on the global super-highway because they tend to get run over and squashed! I am not saying that this creates a convincing argument for doing nothing, but it is important to recognise that it is indeed a global business and the technology exists to provide encryption services anywhere in the world. Many service providers have their servers located in countries other than the one in which they provide services. This could be a matter for concern because it might enable encryption service providers to claim immunity from T Scheme and United Kingdom legislation.
206
I turn now to Clause 7, which is the heart of the Bill. Clause 7 gives legal recognition to electronic signatures. On the passing of the Bill, the scene will be set for these electronic signatures to be used to authorise a wide variety of transactions with values ranging from pennies to many millions of pounds. Users will expect the level of authentication of such signatures generally to reflect the value of a transaction. For many users, low-cost certification will be sufficient, but, as I understand it, Clause 7 as currently worded requires a level of certification which would make low-cost certificates legally inadmissible. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell be whether my understanding is correct. Depending on his reply, this may be an area I would like to return to at later stages as I am anxious to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently restrict the development of low-cost electronic commerce services.
E-business is fundamentally changing the telecommunications markets. The most obvious example of this is the rapid growth of Internet service providers—ISPs—offering free access and achieving huge market valuations. For example, the company Freeserve was valued at more than £2 billion within a year of its launch. This is resulting in the building of new IP or Internet protocol-based networks which will be able to carry Internet traffic more efficiently. These networks will also carry voice-over IP calls, potentially by-passing all or part of the existing switched telephone network. As if that was not enough, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, said, the mobile networks will be licensed later this year to provide and develop WAP—wireless access protocol—technology which will enable them to provide similar services to those on the move.
Telephony and multimedia services will increasingly be bundled together by third party service providers as well as network operators. In a few years' time all this could result in people taking their multimedia services—that is to say, telephone, e-business and entertainment—from one service provider in a fiercely competitive market. This is all exciting stuff and, I think, good news for the individual customer. But there is a worrying aspect which has already been mentioned. Internet fraud is a growing problem and people need to be reassured that this is a safe medium in which to conduct business.
By way of example, I should like to draw attention to a recent story of some professional hackers who managed to gain access to credit card records on a major service provider on the Internet in America and "stole" 15,000 records—that is to say, all the essential information they needed to use the cards fraudulently. As I understand it, those cards have not so far been used for any illegal trading but it shows the power and persistence of those with criminal minds who are always looking for a way to exploit the system.
I believe that the Bill goes some way towards increasing confidence and sending a message that this country is serious about playing a leading role in ensuring that that happens. As legislators, we shall have a big challenge in the future to create durable laws and regulations with a light hand and not get squashed

207
by the tremendous global flow of traffic down the Internet super-highway. With the slight caveat in my earlier remarks, I wish the Bill well on its passage through this House.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, am a member of PITCOM and of EURIM. I should like to join my noble friend Lady Dean, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, in remembering Lord Chelmsford. I certainly remember him discussing these matters and drawing our attention to them five or six years ago. He was certainly well ahead of the times.
I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill. I agree that the Government were absolutely right to take out of the Bill the demand that the key to the de-encryption of material be deposited with a third party. It would have been both unworkable and a possible violation of people's human rights. The Government were right to avoid those difficulties.
All speakers have referred to the fact that business on the Internet is evolving fast and that we are going through a time of great change. The noble Lord, Lord St John, told us that we shall be able to access the Internet on our mobile phones and television sets. Of course, we no longer only shop on the Internet; we also access services: we do our banking, make our travel arrangements, complete our tax returns and do all kings of things. Indeed, these changes are being urged on us by means of the discounts that are offered to use the Internet. That may be one reason for the speed of change. However, that change brings its own confusion and problems.
That is why the Government are wise to suspend Part I of the Bill. I hope that the cold storage will last for the full five years. Judging by the rate at which things are changing on the Internet, conditions will be vastly different in five years' time. Who knows what new developments await us round the corner?
I agree with my noble friend the Minister that the value of consultation at times of rapid change is enormous. The value is that the Government are much closer to the market. That is why the T Scheme being prepared by the industry is so valuable—because it comes from the market. However, that spirit of consultation and partnership should be extended to the actual approval of the scheme. As I understand it, the Bill says that there should be statutory approval of the verification services.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, I believe that the Government would be very wise to allow for the actual approval scheme to be subject to formal consultation before it is approved and implemented. In that way, the spirit of partnership and consultation would be maintained which is so valuable in such a fast-moving and changing scenario.
There is another aspect of the Bill where I believe that mistakes can be avoided. I refer to the part dealing with the way in which commerce is undertaken. At present, all of us, including the Government, see e-commerce as different from
208
conventional commerce—"c-commerce", as it may be termed. The difference lies partly in the hype and partly in the impact and novelty of e-commerce; but it also lies partly in the fact that there are a lot more controls over transactions on the Internet. Phone lines are regulated; bandwidths are auctioned by the Government and controlled by them; whereas with conventional commerce there are no such controls. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seemed to indicate, one of the reasons why c-commerce has flourished is the absence of controls.
I am going to make a prediction; and I am well aware of the dangers in so doing. The prediction may be obvious, given what has been said in this debate. It is my belief that in five years' time those controls will have gone, and that we shall not have separate e-commerce and c-commerce. They will have come together, and we shall just have plain commerce.
How will that affect the Bill, and how can mistakes be avoided? Perhaps I may give an example. People are buying ordinary things such as books and sacks of potatoes over the Internet every minute of the day. However, two weeks ago, I saw an announcement in the newspapers that someone was selling a gas-fired power station over the Internet. Over the years, c-commerce has developed hundreds of ways of verifying transactions. There is a simple and low-cost way of verifying the sale of a sack of potatoes, but it is vastly more expensive and complicated to verify the sale of a gas-fired power station.
As the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, pointed out, it is not clear that the Bill allows for the varying ways of verifying signatures. Clause 7 deals with that, and I am not sure whether it provides the certainty that low-cost certificates are as admissible as full certificates. A simple e-mail could verify the signature for the sale of a sack of potatoes, but it manifestly could not for the sale of a gas-fired power station. My point is that we must make sure that the Bill allows for normal flexible business practices in anticipation of e-commerce and c-commerce coming together.
I certainly welcome the Bill for what it will do to encourage and facilitate commerce over the Internet; and for the good example set by the Government. They have promised that businesses will be able to make their VAT and PAYE returns and to file returns at Companies House over the Internet, while also being paid by the Government for the supply of goods and services. That is all very good. Surely everyone will support legislation designed to reduce paperwork.
At the same time, however, the Government have to regulate and discipline transactions using the Internet. Achieving the balance between discipline and encouragement is difficult. It is difficult because the development of the knowledge economy happens in surprising ways. In Brazil, for instance, there is a popular portal run by a branch of the Church called "The Portal to Heaven". I have not actually tried it, but obviously someone is trying to use the knowledge economy to replace prayer and to provide virtual salvation!

209
More down to earth is the fact that Cisco, with 26,000 employees, is able to operate its huge business by owning only two plants, but owning the knowledge of a further 30. That is the way things are going. Those are the complex alliances about which the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, spoke.
These surprising new ways of doing business give rise to several problems for the Government, particularly for the Treasury. It will become much more difficult to identify transactions and the paper trail that supports them in order to determine duties and taxes due. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is shaking her head. I know that she commented on that, and I entirely agree with her.
My noble friend Lord Evans spoke about this problem in relation to criminal activity. In order to obtain information that proper taxes and duties are being paid, the Government may well have to insist on decoding encrypted messages and signatures. I know that with the use of some clever joined-up government, the Minister has transferred much of that responsibility to the Home Secretary. However, it is something that his department will need to bear in mind when finding the balance between regulating business on the Internet and encouraging it. Indeed, the Government may well face challenges under our human rights legislation, after it comes into effect in October. Within the EU, that is less of a problem, because the Bill goes a little way towards harmonising electronic signatures in the internal market in Europe.
There is another aspect which touches on human rights. My noble friend Lady Dean spoke about consumer values, and she has a point. One big difference between shopping on the Internet and shopping in a store is that in the latter case when one looks at the merchandise the shopkeeper knows nothing about one. Therefore, the customer is king. When one shops on the Internet, the situation is reversed. The moment one logs on to somebody's website to look at the merchandise, one announces one's presence and immediately information about one is called up. It is not very sophisticated at the moment, but it will become far more so. I envisage that in future this may be used for price discrimination. The price of goods offered may be adjusted unfairly to manipulate one's pattern of purchases.
Encryption and secure electronic signatures can play an important part in maintaining a shopper's consumer rights and anonymity. This is best left to voluntary arrangements and consultation in regulating cryptography services. But I believe that the Government should be aware of that need when framing the legislation.
Other noble Lords have spoken of trust. As e-commerce and c-commerce come together, the old habits of dealing with trusted suppliers of goods and services will still apply in spite of the rapid changes to which noble Lords have referred. To know with whom one is dealing is a concern of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who is not in his place. I believe that that is especially the case in business-to-business commerce.
210
As far as concern consumers, the fight for their business over the Internet is on. That explains some of the huge advertising campaigns that we now see about the reliability and fairness of different content providers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that in the end we shall deal with the suppliers and the content providers whom we trust. As in the past, that will be our greatest protection. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I run a small e-commerce business. My expenditure substantially exceeds income and, therefore, I should be worth millions. However, I appear to have missed a trick. I welcome this Bill. It is enormously important that we set our rules and regulations in a way that attracts e-commerce to the UK. It is by its nature such a mobile beast that it will find a home wherever it is made most welcome and where the regulations imposed on it are those which the eventual consumer finds sensible. It is the consumer who decides which particular e-business flourishes and which goes to the wall. In that context, I believe that the Bill is a useful contribution.
I hope very much that the Minister will bring us up to date on where we are with European legislation which will have an impact in this area. In particular, I should like to end up in a situation where if I, as a UK businessman, decide that my contracts with third parties all over the world shall be governed by English law that will be respected by the EU when it comes to judge whether or not I have broken those contracts. At the moment, it appears that the EU seeks to make me subject to the legislation of 15 different countries. Perhaps in some senses the Financial Services and Markets Bill takes the same attitude; namely, it seeks to impose UK legislation on a lot of foreign transactions. I should be grateful to hear a statement of principle from the Government so that we have an idea of where we may be going.
I like Part I of the Bill. Section 5 of the report e-commerce@its.best.uk is thoroughly useful and I commend it to noble Lords. It sets out clearly the right relationship between government and the market. One wishes that other departments of the Government had read it and adhered to it. The report sets out four principles. First, the Government should provide a light touch regulatory and tax framework. Part I fits into that pattern extremely well. The idea of having reserve powers and allowing the market to develop with that in mind seems an excellent way of ensuring that a fairly unprepared, diverse and, to some extent, reluctant business community does what it should do. I hope and expect that that will succeed.
Other government departments do not take that attitude. HM Customs and Excise is particularly awkward to deal with. I have a particular problems in deciding where an overseas customer is resident. I trade in knowledge, not physical goods. HM Customs and Excise will not give me any help in identifying what evidence it requires to establish that one of my customers is outside the EU. I do not

211
believe that that is the right attitude. I understand the problems of HM Customs and Excise. However, I believe that it should be proactive in trying to help businessmen to do business internationally over the web rather than lay sticks over the elephant trap in the hope that they will break under the weight of being trodden on.
The second principle set out by the report is that the Government should act as a catalyst for change. I believe that Part I of the Bill satisfies that entirely. Many of the Government's activities in this area are sterling examples of the Government at their best in dealing with these aspects. The third principle is that the Government should ensure that e-commerce developments contribute to the creation of a strong and fair society. As to that, there is a great deal to do. This fast developing market is one which naturally creates monopolies. Businesses band together just out of fear of the pace at which the market changes. They try to hold on to bits of the market to look after their own interests against the interests of the consumer.
The prime sinner is, as ever, British Telecom. For years it delayed pricing ISDN properly. The service was so expensive that it was out of the reach of people. BT brought it down to a proper commercial price only when the service had scarcely any advantage over ordinary moderns. Not surprisingly, it has not been able to do much with it. Now BT is entrusted with the introduction of a crucial piece of new technology: ASDL (asynchronous subscriber digital lines). I do not know whether many noble Lords have seen the speed of Internet access that is available through the new Library terminals. Pages flick across the screen so fast that one scarcely sees a change. When one tries to dial in over the old network one must wait 15 or 20 seconds before the next page chugs along. ASDL is about 20 times faster than the ordinary dial-up access and will make an enormous difference to how the web is used.
ASDL is the equivalent of mobile telephony for the web in terms of usefulness. People will be prepared to pay the kind of price that the French are being asked to pay for ASDL access, which is about £250 a year. BT proposes a figure of about £1,000 a year. That is not right. This is a crucial development, and if the UK is to remain the centre of innovation in e-commerce we must get it right.
Other aspects of big business practice have been mentioned; for example, the problems of credit card acceptance in relation to new small businesses. I refer to the waiting period that is traditionally required before one can use credit cards and, therefore, gain access to online payment systems. We must bear in mind the effects of social exclusion which will result if we do not open up the web to all kinds of businesses and people in this country. I believe that we can look back with pride at the penny post as an example of the kinds of things at which the Government should aim. Clearly, that was something which cost the residents of London who could have had it a great deal cheaper. Nonetheless, it was immensely beneficial to the country as a whole.
212
The Government need to pay attention to the infrastructure, the underlying rules and regulations of the network. In Committee we shall be able to discuss the Government's attitude to Spam. Laws in California seem to have made a reasonable start in dealing with that plague. I should like to discuss whether the Government are prepared to consider going down that route in the UK.
We also need to cover quality assurance. There was mention today of Trust UK, an organisation for which I have little time. It is an amalgamation of trade associations. To combine an amorphous group of trade associations, with little budget and insignificant government backing, and produce something in which people will believe I find a ridiculous idea. Trade associations are worse than the BMA in general. For ordinary customers to rely on a group of them is not the right way forward.
There is hope—the action may be too slow and too late—that the accountants may produce some provision. They are supposed to be good at auditing and assuring the public that something is as it is supposed to be. They can adjust to providing services to small and large businesses. They should have leapt to provide such a service; they have not done so. I am part of that profession and I am sorry; I hope that the situation will be remedied soon.
The fourth criterion that e-commerce@its.best.uk asks of the Government is that they act as an exemplar. In many ways that is right. I was disappointed by the reaction of the Government Front Bench to my recent questions on improving Hansard. The Government do not seem to be looking positively at what they can do with new technology to make all our lives easier or considering methods which are not possible with a paper-based system but are possible in electronic terms.
I turn to Part II of the Bill. Over several years we shall be faced with a complex series of regulations some of which raise difficult questions. I look forward to considering in Committee whether they can be settled by negative procedure. In the passage of those regulations we shall find it difficult to know the circumstances in which an electronic signature is valid and when it is not. I wish to pursue with the Government the concept of an individual or a business stating that he or it will accept an electronic signature in all circumstances when legislation or other custom would require a written signature, thereby bypassing the slow, difficult-to-discern passage of legislation. For instance, Westminster City Council might say, "We will accept all notices required to be given to us in electronic form with an electronic signature. We do not have to wait for the Government to pass all the necessary legislation to make that a consumer right." In other words, until the Government pass such legislation, I would not have the right to serve those notices by e-mail, but an individual council might make it possible for me to do so. It would wish to be certain that everything was made valid by electronic signature.

213
I wish also to pursue proof of delivery. I have not seen the issue discussed anywhere. It is a difficult concept as regards e-mail. I do not know how the Government imagine that that concept will be tackled. I am concerned about the "believability" of signatures. I should like to pursue in some detail in Committee the precise way in which we are to understand that an electronic signature represents a person. If I am buying a house from a person, I know through a chain of people that that person exists. I have talked to my solicitor who has talked to another solicitor. Solicitors know and trust each; and there is a client at the other end. Even if I have never met the person there is reason for me to believe that his signature on a piece of paper has reality. How do I achieve a similar state of belief with an electronic signature? I may not be able to make the same connection through to the person making the signature.
The only matter I wish to pursue in Part III relates to social exclusion and ASDL. If we do not do something about telecommunications licences there is a strong chance that people in the countryside more than three miles from a main exchange will be excluded from the ASDL network. It is not technically possible to run an ASDL line more than three miles from an exchange. However, the mobile telecommunications companies have masts all over the countryside. Few homes are not within three miles of a telecommunications mast. As part of the permission by the community to have those masts in the area, there should be some obligation on the owners of the masts to provide ASDL connections from those masts to local houses. I do not seek to put that provision in the Bill, but I should like to discuss the issue. I can see no other way in which ASDL will be brought effectively into the countryside.
I welcome the Bill. I was worried when the Minister said that Bill Gates liked it. I use a lot of his software every day, and bug-ridden, ill-documented, unreliable stuff it is. I hope that his was a general welcome rather than a comment on the quality of the clauses. I look forward to hearing the Minister defend them in Committee.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join with every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate in welcoming the Bill in general terms. I like the idea at the beginning of the millennium of passing a Bill providing a framework for the regulation of what will undoubtedly be the medium of the new millennium.
I welcome the change of heart on a number of points by the Government and the Tory Opposition. On the Tory side, I welcome the fact that it has changed its position radically from that of another place. On Second Reading, it moved that another place,
"declines to give a Second Reading to the … Bill because it introduces a completely unnecessary element of regulation in the supervision of electronic commerce".
I am delighted that the Tory Front Bench has moved away significantly from that position and is joining in the general unanimity with which the principle of the Bill is now accepted.
214
I am pleased that the Government have moved away from their position on a number of issues relating to the Bill. From these Benches, we are delighted that they have chosen not to put in what was originally Part III of the Bill. It may be brought back in more appropriate form later in the Session. But that has not stopped one or two noble Lords from making the speech they would have made if Part III had been included in the Bill in its original form.
I am delighted that the Government have acceded to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Minister indicated that he will bring forward amendments. I share the view of the Internet Services Providers Association, whose chairman said that,
"Government has heard the voice of the Internet industry in the United Kingdom and chosen to explicitly reject the use of key escrow as a legal requirement".
I am sure the House will be pleased that the Government have recognised the pressure from the Internet industry on that issue.
I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, regarding the wide endorsement of the Bill by Microsoft. When I read, as did a number of noble Lords, that Microsoft entirely welcomed the Bill and regarded it as a model for future legislation throughout Europe, I began to wonder whether the support we were giving the Bill should be rethought marginally. No doubt we can contemplate that when we discuss the detail in Committee.
But, of course, after taking out all the things that the Government have taken out—the Minister described this as "a light and regulatory framework"—I suppose we could also say that the Bill is now a rather short and meagre affair. There is an element of slight cynicism in wondering whether this Bill is now put forward, having had everything taken out of it, because the Government had announced in the Queen's Speech the year before last that they would put forward this Bill and therefore now feel that they must put it forward; but that is perhaps unnecessarily cynical. Nevertheless, although we generally support it, we will from these Benches, and no doubt from the Opposition Benches of the Conservative Party, wish to deal with specific matters as it passes through Committee.
There are a number of points on which we wish to probe the Government. With regard to the first part relating to the creation of a register of approved providers of cryptography support services, we will probably not wish to re-visit the argument that was advanced in another place as to whether it is better to wait to see if these powers are needed before legislating. The other place has decided that that is the best way to proceed. The Minister indicated that he hoped that the powers would not have to be exercised, and I do not believe that we need to re-run the argument as to whether in that case it would be better not to have them at all. However, there are one or two points in that section on which we shall wish to probe the Government.

215
First, with regard to Clause 2(3)(d), we wish to go into some detail about what is meant by,
"a fit and proper person to be approved",
which raises a number of issues that will be worthy of discussion. Secondly, in relation to that section, we wish to probe the question of what information can be disclosed in connection with the investigation and prosecution of crime. There clearly is an issue here as to whether similar protections that are applicable under the Data Protection Act ought also to be applicable to this section. These are matters with which we can deal in Committee.
The second part of the Bill allows electronic signatures and messages to be treated in much the same way as paper ones. There are some points relating to this matter with which we wish to deal in Committee. First, there is a view that the Government have not quite gone far enough in this Bill to ensure that electronic signatures will achieve parity with hand-written signatures. The Irish Electronic Commerce Act, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act in the USA and the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act in Canada go somewhat further than the Government are now contemplating and we shall wish to probe that area in Committee.
Leaving aside detailed comments on the Bill, Patricia Hewitt, the e-commerce Minister as she is known, has indicated that the purpose of this Bill is to encourage growth in electronic commerce. The Minister also indicated this evening that that is the purpose of the Bill. If we believe, with my noble friend Lord Sharman, that the creation of the Internet is the most significant commerce development of our lifetime, this Second Reading provides an opportunity for us to comment on what we feel is missing from the government rhetoric, if we are talking about a Bill which is designed to enable electronic commerce to thrive. After all, most of the provisions of the Bill are prescriptive rather than enabling, and most of them go to create a form of regulation and restriction rather than encouraging electronic commerce.
There are a number of questions—I can certainly list three—that I would like to put to the Minister in relation to what the Government are proposing to do in order to enhance electronic commerce in this country. First, it is all very well to say that electronic commerce and the use of the Internet will be enhanced by making a large number of free computers available to schoolchildren and to institutes of education, but that will not be an adequate response to the modern age if adequate training provisions are not put in place. We could have free or subsidised training in local colleges, in schools, in community centres, to ensure that the less privileged in our society have an opportunity to access this key medium.
Secondly, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is fundamental to the development of electronic commerce in this country. We have seen in recent days a large destruction of the BT share price as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks. However, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, it is not only access to the Internet by ordinary people in
216
their homes and the price of that access that are relevant. What in many cases is more relevant is the whole issue of the cost of broad-band access, the cost that is relevant to enabling particularly small and medium-sized businesses to sign up to the Internet. They will not be able to access the opportunities that are available to them unless the cost of that access is reduced. In terms of determining government policy, this is one of the most significant things that the Government can do to further the growth of electronic commerce.
Thirdly, there are a number of areas in which the Government can take a lead by making more government products available online: TV licences, driving licences and tax returns could all he made available online electronically to the public. That is an example which could be set by the Government to demonstrate their commitment to the development of the Internet.
In conclusion, we on these Benches welcome the Bill and we shall probe the detail in Committee. However, we feel that it is marginally long on rhetoric and slightly short on practical help to the industry.
8.26 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, we have had a most illuminating debate, and I congratulate all noble Lords who have taken part. I would particularly like to associate these Benches with the very kind and generous tribute paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, to my noble friend Lord Chelmsford. This would indeed have been grist to his mill, had he still been with us. Like all noble Lords who have spoken, I congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill, though I should say that our welcome for it here owes a great deal to the fact that the Government were so receptive to our suggestions in another place.
We all have our own preferences for defining the pervasive and meteoric rise of IT. I need not dwell on that. What surprises me, however, is the degree of hyperbole with which IT is so often wrapped. While not wishing to attract the slur of being labelled as a "dark force of conservatism", I maintain that our perceptions about IT need to be tempered with some caution. We can be too tempted into viewing its benefits through rose-coloured spectacles. While it has a huge potential as a force for good, it also has a capacity to create new and unforeseen problems. For example, there was a news report over the weekend about the so-called "dot.com down-and-outs". As the Select Committee of another place put it:
"Public policy must not be transfixed by technology, but it must be informed by it and might be transformed by it".
In other words, we need to bear in mind that for every boon that IT may bring, it may also create an associated matrix of problems.
With that introduction, I move to consider the Bill itself. I say at once that we on these Benches support the principle which underpins the Government's thinking. The litmus test by which this Bill should be judged is the extent to which it will facilitate the use of

217
electronic communications and electronic data storage. Will it encourage or impede the development of e-commerce?
As the Minister explained, Part I provides for a statutory and voluntary register of approved providers of cryptography support services, the Government's "co-regulatory" approach. The mood music of the Government—and, incidentally, of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—is that it is their abiding hope and expectation that this scheme will never be implemented. The Minister near enough confirmed that today. Here, the scheme being promoted by the Alliance for Electronic Business is well-advanced. Again, the Minister confirmed that the Government are satisfied with its progress so far.
More than that, and as other noble Lords have observed, Clause 15(3) has been expressly framed to repeal Part I if no order to give effect to its provisions has been tabled after five years. Fair enough, but this sunset clause begs the question as to why we are being asked to legislate for something that the Government, on their own admission, have neither a desire nor an intention currently to implement. To this extent, it could be interpreted that Part I is little more than legislation for legislation's sake, regulation for regulation's sake.
The Government have argued that they are simply following the recommendation of the Select Committee of another place. Equally, we on these Benches accept and welcome the fact that the part is framed to be as technology neutral as possible. That may be so, but, as all noble Lords have said, technological advance in IT is explosive. As my noble friend Lord Liverpool made so plain, there can be no guarantee that the current drafting will remain in step with that advance.
Consider this:
"A Bill takes at least a year to get through Parliament. Given the pace of the Internet, it's likely to be out of date even before it comes into effect".
Those are not my words; they are the Prime Minister's.
Of course governments need flexibility. Order-making powers are the ideal mechanism for its delivery, particularly with respect to technical aspects of public policy. But, like the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, we feel that this is too important, too significant, an issue to be left to the whim of an individual Secretary of State effectively free from proper parliamentary scrutiny. While grateful for the Minister's concession, we remain concerned about the possibility of a further "stealth" e-tax being levied on the industry by means of any fees required from those signing up to a voluntary/statutory scheme. Hard on the heels of the IR35 provision, which may result in the loss of £1.9 billion-worth of UK IT consultancy fees, at a cost to the Exchequer of £760 million, this would be antipathetic to the advancement of UK e-commerce.
The Minister makes great play of the Government's "genuine partnership" with industry on this Bill. Of course consultation is essential, but this is not all one-way traffic. I have already mentioned IR35. Moreover,
218
no less a body than InterForum, member companies of which have annual revenues of some £78 billion, have commented that:
"For the Government to reserve powers to introduce an alternative scheme at any time undermines confidence and injects an element of risk into our business planning—just at the moment when we should be doing everything possible to increase our investment. Therefore, we would recommend that you remove Part I and take forward a simplified Bill".
We on these Benches are sympathetic to that view.
I turn now to what is the kernel of the Bill; Part II and the admissibility of electronic signatures in law. We accept without reservation that this is both sensible and desirable. There is consensus about that on all sides of the House. It will build confidence and trust among both consumers and practitioners of e-commerce. But, as my noble friends Lady Buscombe and Lady Anelay have pointed out, it will do so only if we get the legislation right.
I was pleasantly surprised and pleased to observe that, perhaps unusually for Members of another place, their scrutiny of Part II has been characterised by sweet reason. Of course, even in this transitional House, we are much more accustomed to such an approach. On that basis, we will spend many happy hours in Committee debating some of the finer technical points at issue here.
At this stage, I simply flag up our more general anxiety about the order-making powers in Part II. We acknowledge the rationale for them and the simple fact that the Government should be seen to be giving a lead in this matter. The difficulty, as articulated by Amazon.com., is that there is no imposition of either urgency or co-ordination upon individual Ministers: each can proceed in his own sweet time and in whatever way he deems appropriate.
Ironically, this is a particular concern of none other than the Alliance for Electronic Business, which has set the end of this year as a deadline for the tabling of the relevant statutory instruments if the growth of e-commerce in the UK is not to be compromised. Of course the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce published the first Section 8 order in draft only last week. We welcome that and the Minister's commitment to the issue. We simply ask whether the Government are adequately seized of the possibility that some of her ministerial colleagues—perhaps of a more monolithic or (dare I say?) Luddite bent—will naturally follow the sleekness of her example.
In some respects, the Bill is as significant for what is absent from it as for the scraps and odd pieces of red meat that it contains. Key-escrow is a case in point. But in this we should be under no illusions. The measure before us today is, as it were, a first skirmish in an ongoing battle against the demons of over-exuberant regulatory burden. Other areas of the legislative mill—notably Finance Bills and the Financial Services and Markets Bill—are making their own, potentially anomalous, provisions for IT.
Echoing some of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I note that a common position, on which the Government will no doubt seek to legislate in due

219
course, was arrived at on the EU Directive on Certain Legal Aspects of Electronic Commerce on 7th December last. I note, too, the DTI announcement on 3rd February of the White Paper for proposals to reform telecommunications and broadcasting regulations to take account of the convergence in the communications industries as a prelude to future legislation. Other EU directives are in the pipeline. A veritable log-jam of e-commerce related measures is building up in the wings.
We also recognise that the Government are pursuing a number of initiatives away from the spotlight, if I can put it that way, of primary legislation; such as the TrustUK kitemark, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, and the fact that the e-envoy has finally got his feet under the desk in the Cabinet Office. These form part of the deluge of recommendations from the PIU's report, e-commerce@itsbest, which I hope the Minister can confirm are on track. In this context, perhaps the Minister can also confirm the assessment of the Better Regulation Task Force that the 60 different initiatives that are being worked on for IT regulation could lead to 4,000 items of legislation.
Whether this flurry of activity will be beneficial in the context of e-commerce, only time will tell. Overall, we doubt it. But, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe pointed out, we on these Benches are certain of one thing; e-commerce in the UK will prosper only if government properly understand the global—not UK-wide, not European, but global—context in which it operates. That more than anything else is the key to the prosperity of UK e-commerce. I noted that last year in Cambridge the Prime Minister seemed to demand that business should "think European" in the context of IT. That is worrying because it is far too narrow a focus.
The Government's assertions for their public policy approach to IT are bold. They claim that the Bill:
"forms a key part of the Government's strategy for making the UK the best place in the world to do electronic business by starting the process of modernising the law and creating a climate in which electronic business can be conducted with confidence".
All good and well. We hope that they are right. Indeed, Part II of this Bill is a legitimate part of that process. But we believe that Part I, and the Government's wider IT agenda, contain alarming signals about their commitment to "light touch" regulation. Bluntly, that does, and should, worry us. In the meantime, we welcome its small step/giant leap character and look forward to its Committee stage in due course.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this has been a very constructive and interesting debate. There is obviously a great deal of expertise among noble Lords here tonight. I look forward very much to detailed discussions in Committee when I am sure that I shall benefit further from the knowledge and experience of others.
I am particularly delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, emphasised the opportunities involved because I
220
believe that that is what we should keep our eyes on as we go forward with this Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that I believe it was slightly uncharitable to say, on the one hand, that he applauds the "light touch" of regulation, and, on the other, to say that it is a meagre Bill. One can have it one way or the other, but I do not believe that one should try to have it both ways. I believe that we can all agree tonight that the extraordinary achievements of the IT industry are based on market enterprise at its very best. I believe that that is common ground.
I shall try to respond in a moment to some of the detailed points raised during the debate, but first I should like to elaborate on one or two of the remarks which I made in opening it. This Bill, appropriately introduced in the parliamentary Session spanning the millennium, is central to the modernising theme of the Government's legislative programme. Modernising the law to ensure that our economy prospers in the information age is a vitally important task to which we are committed. We are equally committed to modernising government itself. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we shall take a leadership role in this field. In short, we are determined to create both a legal and a business environment that makes the UK the best place in the world for electronic business.
The overall aim of the Bill is, as I said, to provide a market framework within which electronic commerce can thrive. It will build trust in the authenticity, confidentiality and security of online transactions. Such trust is vital if businesses and the public are to have confidence to use the new exciting technologies entering the marketplace. But government alone cannot build that trust. The task is as much for business, which is why we are so keen on co-regulation. But we need to legislate to create the right legal framework. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that although we need to look at the opportunities, we must also stress very clearly that there are major security issues which need to be tackled.
If individuals and businesses do not trust electronic communications, they will be reluctant to order goods and services online and to send their credit card details over the Internet. That is why electronic signature services and confidentiality services are so important to the future of electronic commerce. But how do we decide which service providers we can trust and those which perhaps have failed to invest in the expertise and technology which such services demand? That is where a "kitemark" scheme is so important.
I am delighted that the Opposition have acknowledged the extent to which technology has moved in the past few years and that that is a good reason for them to modify the position that they held when this Bill was conceived, which was to have an essentially mandatory approach to the registration of cryptographic services and a mandatory placement of the keys. The Opposition now agree with us that a voluntary approach is a better one.
We have discussed in some detail the merits of self-regulation over a statutory approvals scheme. The Government's preference is for self-regulation, which

221
is well known, as is our involvement in the development of the Alliance for Electronic Business's T Scheme. We are confident that this scheme can deliver. But we should be foolish to assume that its success is guaranteed. The market is immature and we cannot predict the future, much as we might wish to do so. It is therefore only right that we keep the possibility of introducing a statutory scheme in reserve. We are confident that the T Scheme will succeed, but I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that it would be right to give up that power.
The Government recognise the degree of parliamentary interest, both in this House and in another place, in the procedure which would apply if this part of the Bill were brought into force. We have listened carefully to the arguments and have carefully considered the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. As I have already outlined, we shall bring forward amendments in Committee to make the commencement of this part of the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. Both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the issues and to vote on the decision.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, that the Bill is technology neutral. In that sense, the extent to which technology develops in this period, before any sunset clause would come into effect, is not relevant to this particular point. Before any regulations were brought in, there would be consultation.
Part II of the Bill has been described as the "kernel". I would not argue with that description. It will clear up uncertainty about the admissibility of electronic signatures and thereby build confidence in them. It will also give Ministers the tool to modernise the statute book to enable information to be communicated or stored electronically. In doing so, it will pave the way for a revolution in the way in which government works and will modernise our relationship with the citizen. It will offer electronic options for those who want them.
I now comment on some of the particular points raised by noble Lords. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, about access. That is absolutely fundamental to the process so that we do not have people who are disadvantaged in this new world. I hope that he will take particular interest in this Bill and the issues on crime which might arise, knowing of his chairmanship of the Foresight Crime Prevention Panel.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised the question of whether we should look at electronic signatures across the board. We looked at that and resolved that it would cause more uncertainty and confusion than proceeding the way we are, which is with primary legislation to make that possible, but then looking in turn at each of the areas in depth before bringing forward regulations.
A question was also raised about the definition of an electronic signature. That includes the concept of authenticity, which in turn is defined in Clause 14(2). One aspect of authenticity is whether the communication was intended to have legal effect. The
222
courts will be able to consider whether a person who signed something electronically intended it to have legal effect. The signature will be evidence of that, although there may be other evidence which needs to be considered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also raised a question on electronic signatures. Clause 7 is drawn widely to allow any kind of electronic signature to be admissible as evidence in court. But that does not mean that on every occasion the signature will be accepted as genuine. It is possible to get hold of someone else's electronic signature if the owner is careless, just as it is possible to forge a handwritten signature. So it will be for the courts to examine the particular case and then to decide what actually happened, on all the evidence available. I believe that that strikes the right balance.
I am glad to be able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the definition of an electronic signature in Clause 7(2) encompasses both digital and electronic signatures. That is important to retain the overall technology neutrality of the Bill. In that context, as in others, there is no intention of second-guessing the development of the market. I should explain to the House that neither the definition contained in the Bill nor that in the Electronic Signatures Directive is restricted to personal signatures. That would restrict the scope of these measures, as not all electronic signatures are generated by individuals.
My noble friend Lady Dean raised a question about the role of notaries and the banks through IDENTRUS in the Alliance of Electronic Business's T Scheme. I understand that both the notaries and the banks are playing important roles in the alliance's work and they will be encouraged to continue to do so. I am sure that notaries can bring particular expertise to the world of e-commerce. However, I can assure the House that under the Bill there will be no new requirements for signatures to be notarised. I am also confident that the banks will be able to play an important role in both the T Scheme and IDENTRUS, the latter being essentially for bank-to-business electronic commerce.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked about liabilities. Clearly, this is an important issue. The Bill does not make special provision for the liability of cryptographic service providers. Problems can be dealt with through the existing English law of tort and contract. A person who uses an electronic signature will normally have a contractual relationship with the service provider. If something goes wrong, he will be able to look at the terms of the contract. In some cases, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the regulations covering unfair terms in consumer contracts limit the way in which liability for breach of contract can be excluded through exclusion clauses. Of course, the Government will not be authenticating signatures in this process, so there will be no liability for erroneous signatures.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, raised two further questions. I can assure him that the Government will deliver leadership on e-commerce. As regards

223
investigatory powers, nothing in this Bill relates to that matter. It is covered in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, asked about low-cost signatures. I do not believe that this Bill affects their recognition in any way. While it does not exclude low-cost signatures, to the extent that people provide services which are of lower quality, that fact should be taken into account by those who use such services.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the Bill is in line with the EU Electronic Signatures Directive. As regards the question of legislation and jurisdiction across national boundaries, it would always be nice in such areas to say that one's own legislation and jurisdiction is predominant. However, when one is selling to people in other countries, they may have a different view. The idea behind looking at this matter on a European basis is to attempt to secure unanimity on that view. Nevertheless, on the balance of rights between the producer and the consumer, this is an issue where the consumer will always view it in a different way from the producer. Obviously the producer would always wish for the jurisdiction of his country to apply, while the consumer, when he buys from another country, would prefer to use the jurisdiction of his own country. The right balance needs to be struck to give the consumer confidence, but also to ensure that costs are not loaded unnecessarily onto the producer. That is the core of this difficult issue which we are trying to resolve.
I should also say that Clause 8 only refers to situations where existing legislation refers to writing or signatures. It is then for individuals to make use of electronic signatures or not as they wish. If one takes the approach—and I think that this is the right one—
224
of saying that electronic signatures are an option, then one needs to accept the situation that there will be some cases where individuals make use of them and some cases where they do not. I believe that that diversity is preferable to trying to impose one overall, standard policy.
As I said earlier, this has been an extremely interesting debate. I hope that I have covered the main issues that have been raised by all noble Lords who have contributed. If I have not done so, there will be many opportunities to look at these issues again in more detail as the Bill progresses through its stages.
The information age has already begun to touch on all our lives. It has the potential to transform them. We are all agreed on the need to embrace these changes. If we do not, we will find that we have been left behind both commercially and in other ways. The information revolution does not only give us the opportunity to improve the productivity of our businesses or the efficiency of government but to improve society as well: to deliver services to the public more efficiently; to improve people's access to information; to improve the education of our children and our access to medical care. It is not change for the sake of it but change for the greater good.
This Bill is a key component of our strategy for making the most of the opportunities which new technologies have offered us. It is a light-touch Bill which will help to make this country the best place in the world for electronic trading. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at four minutes before nine o'clock.

  Kosovo: Trafficking in Young Women
  Kosovo: Trafficking in Young Women
  Belgium: British Missions and the Union Flag
  Belgium: British Missions and the Union Flag
  India: Religious Tolerance
  India: Religious Tolerance
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Chile: Presidential Inauguration
  Chile: Presidential Inauguration
  Bicameral Democracies: Non-elected second chambers
  Bicameral Democracies: Non-elected second chambers
  Serbia and Kosovo: Deaths, Injuries and Homelessness
  Serbia and Kosovo: Deaths, Injuries and Homelessness
  Mozambique: Landmine Clearance
  Mozambique: Landmine Clearance
  Police Pursuit Driver Training
  Police Pursuit Driver Training
  Charity Accounting
  Charity Accounting
  Youth Justice
  Youth Justice
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Action Plan
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Action Plan
  Asylum Seekers: Support Arrangements
  Asylum Seekers: Support Arrangements
  Gulf War Illnesses
  Gulf War Illnesses
  Service Families Accommodation: Rodent Control
  Service Families Accommodation: Rodent Control
  Army Manpower
  Army Manpower
  Estate Agents: Regulation
  Estate Agents: Regulation
  Works of Art: Droit de Suite Tax
  Works of Art: Droit de Suite Tax
  Part-time Work Regulations: Effects on Hotel and Restaurant Sector
  Part-time Work Regulations: Effects on Hotel and Restaurant Sector
  Ripon Grammar School Ballot
  Ripon Grammar School Ballot
  Primary School Pupils in Private Education
  Primary School Pupils in Private Education
  South Yorkshire Objective One Programme
  South Yorkshire Objective One Programme
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  Pituitary glycoproteins
  Pituitary glycoproteins
  Tissue Extracts from Slaughterhouses
  Tissue Extracts from Slaughterhouses
  Farmers: Early Retirement Schemes
  Farmers: Early Retirement Schemes
  Organophosphorus Compounds: Container Design
  Organophosphorus Compounds: Container Design
  Epichlorohydrin
  Epichlorohydrin
  Agriculture Development Scheme Awards
  Agriculture Development Scheme Awards
  House of Lords Reform: Evidence to Royal Commission
  House of Lords Reform: Evidence to Royal Commission