Sitting of 28 February 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Mr. Michael Colvin, Member for Romsey, together with the death of his wife Nichola. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of Michael and Nichola and in extending our deep sympathy to their family and their friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent assessment his Department has made of the contribution that arts and sport can make to tackling social exclusion; and if he will make a statement. [110596]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): My Department's report to the social exclusion unit, the policy action team 10 report "Arts and Sport", which was
    2
    published in July 1999, set out the contribution of the arts and sport to tackling social exclusion. There have been a number of initiatives since its publication, all designed to enhance the contribution of sport and the arts to this important issue.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that people living in areas of social exclusion and poverty often cannot participate in sport or afford to watch it? Is it not vital for lottery and Government funds to be used to aid projects such as the community project launched by Burnley football club, and, indeed, to descend to the grass roots in tackling the problem of those suffering social exclusion?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right. The lottery has a real role in the distribution of funds to sport, especially in getting money to where it is most needed. The announcement of the establishment of 12 sport action zones marked the beginning of the process, and we look forward to such zones being widespread throughout the country.
    Mr. John Greenway: Sport England revealed today that 89 per cent. of six to-eight-year-olds and 79 per cent. of nine to-11-year-olds spend less than two hours a week in physical education lessons. What kind of social exclusion is that? Does not that shocking analysis confirm the depth of the crisis affecting sport in schools, which involves children from all backgrounds?
    When will the Minister publish her sports strategy? How can anyone be confident that the decline can be reversed, when school playing fields are being sold off at a greater rate than ever before, and the Department for Education and Employment is not listening?
    Kate Hoey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and look forward to a long, productive and constructive relationship with him. I know that we have things in common, which we will not go into at this stage.
    We welcome Sport England's young people in sport survey 1999. It contains encouraging material, but it also raises worrying points about what is happening in our

    3
    primary schools. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are taking that into account. There have been a number of developments, including the announcement of the establishment of school sport co-ordinators and of sports colleges, which are working with local feeder primary schools.
    Together with the Department for Education and Employment—because action must be taken jointly—we are doing what we can to ensure that teacher training is improved for primary schools with physical education expertise, and I think that we shall see real improvement over the next couple of years.

    Television Licences
    Mr. David Winnick: When he proposes that the free television licence for those aged 75 years and over will start. [110597]
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What is the starting date for the television licence concession for those aged 75 years and over; and if he will make a statement. [110598]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): As I announced in my statement to the House on the future funding of the BBC on 21 February, free television licences for people aged 75 or over will come into force from 1 November this year.
    Let me take this opportunity to correct a misimpression that I may have inadvertently given the House last Monday. I indicated then that a copy of the Pannell Kerr Forster report on the finances of the BBC was being placed in the Library of the House. In fact, a copy of the summary and conclusions of the report was being so placed, because the body of the report contains commercially confidential information. I apologise for any erroneous impression that I may have given.
    Mr. Winnick: Is not the issuing of free television licences for those aged 75 and over a good illustration of what we do in office and what the Tories refused to do—that is, try to help people? Is it not better to be motivated by the wish to help people than to be motivated by simple personal ambition—naming no names for the moment?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has a long and honourable record of campaigning on the issue in the House. According to the figures from the latest census—which, unfortunately, was held nearly 10 years ago—there were 5,930 people aged over 75 in his constituency at that time. The number has almost certainly increased since then, and I am sure that many thousands of his constituents will be very pleased about what the Government are doing.
    Mr. Prentice: Meanwhile, 6,500 of my constituents will be celebrating the introduction of this hugely popular policy.
    Yesterday, when I was canvassing in a Lancashire county council by-election—[Interruption.] I do not need to register anything. When I was canvassing, a number of pensioners said to me, "Is this not just age discrimination?" I replied, "You will be 75 one day."
    4
    Nevertheless, why should such a hugely popular policy involve a cut-off at 75? Why should it not apply to all pensioner households?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend should address part of his question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it should be pointed out that as pensioners reach a more advanced age they tend to become less mobile, to spend more time at home and, indeed, to spend more time watching television. At that point—the point at which they reach the age of 75—television becomes more important in their lives, which is why we thought it appropriate to take this step.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State is trying to pass the blame on to the Chancellor. Is it not the Secretary of State's responsibility that, from April, pensioners who are under the age of 75 will have to pay a television licence tax double the rate of inflation? Is that not totally unfair? Can he explain why he did not disclose the whole of the Pannell Kerr Forster report? Is not the truth that it was politically embarrassing and that is why the Government have not disclosed it? If it is so commercially sensitive, why is it that leaks can be put in The Sunday Times, for example, telling us that there are 200 profit centres within the BBC—information that is not available in the summary of the report, but which apparently is suitable for leaking?
    Mr. Smith: No, I cannot accept any of that. The measures that we have put in place will, over the next six to seven years, provide the BBC with a modest and regular increase in its funding to enable it to maintain and improve its position as our premier public service broadcaster. That is one of the reasons I am encouraging the BBC to ensure, for example, that it makes more new programmes and broadcasts fewer repeats. That is one of the things that I expect to result from the measures that we have put in place.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: At the risk of intruding on the Secretary of State's love-in with at least one of his Back Benchers, may I ask him to explain why he has done nothing to address the anomaly whereby people aged between 60 and 74 who are in sheltered accommodation receive concessions on what they have to pay for their television licences, and people of those ages who are not in sheltered accommodation do not? Does he not agree that the fact that people are in sheltered accommodation is no guarantee of what their income really is?
    Mr. Smith: I hate to point out to the hon. Gentleman that, throughout the 18 years or more that the Conservatives were in government, they did absolutely nothing—not even the admirable measure that we are taking in relation to the over-75s. We looked carefully, as did the Davies committee, at the concession for people in sheltered accommodation. We thought it right to keep it in place because it would not be sensible to remove a concession that was already there, but we did not feel that it was appropriate at this stage to go further.
    Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend answer a query that has been raised by a number of pensioners in my constituency? Has he given any

    5
    thought to what will happen to pensioners who have to renew their television licences just before the free licences come in? Will they be entitled to a rebate? If so, will the Government ensure that they are informed about how to apply to get their money refunded?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. If the television licence of anyone who will be 75 or over on 1 November falls due after 1 April, they will be able to apply for a part-year licence up to 1 November so they do not have to purchase the entire year's licence. If anyone has already purchased a full year's licence, some of which will be unexpired on 1 November, they will be entitled to a refund. We will ensure that all the details of the scheme are made available directly to everyone who will qualify.

    Art Exports
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the current levels of exports of works of art from Great Britain. [110599]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the annual report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art for the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999, which was published on 26 November 1999 and laid before Parliament, and provides information about the level of exports of works of art requiring individual export licences for that period.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he proud of the fact that the committee's latest report shows that funding for the safeguarding of important national art treasures fell last year by 75 per cent., from £23 million to under £6 million? What plans does he have immediately to address that chronic decline? If the answer is none, will it not be best for him to export himself, if he is able to find a gullible enough buyer?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a charming suggestion. I am pleased to tell him that our plans include more than doubling the funding available to the national heritage memorial fund. I am also pleased to say that the trustees of the heritage lottery fund have indicated that the money that they will allocate for the acquisition of works of art will be doubled. He will also have noted that, in the period shortly after publication of the report, the heritage lottery fund rose magnificently to the occasion, as did the national art collections fund, to enable the purchase by the national gallery of Scotland of Botticelli's "The Virgin Adoring the Sleeping Christ Child".
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I associate myself with the remarks about Michael Colvin? Among his many other talents, he was a very accomplished artist, and he did a great deal of work on behalf of the arts, both locally and across the country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have their own memories of Michael. I came to know him best through his work for the arts. I am quite sure that the entire House will join me in sending our heartfelt sympathy to Michael and Nichola's family on this tragedy.
    Notwithstanding the comments that the Minister has just made on export of works of art, does he accept that the verdict of the export reviewing committee was that
    6
    Britain does face a heritage crisis? What will the Government do about museums' acquisition budgets, which are at an appallingly low ebb? Should not providing the funds and the assistance to help museums to acquire works of art be a key part of the Government's policy of enhancing access?
    Mr. Howarth: Before responding to the hon. Gentleman's question, I should like to say that I have the happiest of memories of a visit to York with Michael and Nichola Colvin, and with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) who is in the Chamber. We went to look at the heritage in York, and it was a very happy day. Michael and Nichola were great lovers of heritage, and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was absolutely right to make that important point in the House on this particular day.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's question on the alleged crisis in funding for acquisitions, I should remind him that funding levels are very much what they were when the previous, Conservative Government left office. Subsequently, not only have we been able to ensure that the Botticelli was obtained for the national gallery of Scotland, but the United Kingdom national gallery, in London, has acquired Stubbs's "Whistlejacket" and Dürer's "Jerome". Extremely important acquisitions have been made in museums and galleries in Bolton, Leeds, Doncaster, Bury St. Edmunds, Cirencester and Cambridge.
    As I said, the national art collections fund and the heritage lottery fund rise to the occasion when required to do so. There is not the crisis that the hon. Gentleman asserts that there is.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown:If he will make a statement on the Millennium Commission funding for the dome. [110600]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Millennium Commission is supporting the dome as the centrepiece of its UK-wide spectrum of millennium projects. In 1997, the commission agreed a grant of £449 million gross to the New Millennium Experience Company. In response to an application from NMEC, the commission has further agreed to provide a repayable grant of up to £60 million to assist the company with its cashflow, subject to detailed appraisal and to the company demonstrating clearly the need for those funds. To date, £32 million of the additional grant has been released by the commission after such appraisal.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the figures on Millennium Commission money that has gone into the dome. If those funds—which, on his own figures, amount to more than half a billion pounds—had not been spent on the dome, they would have gone into the lottery and to other good causes. Has he met anyone who would have preferred that money to go into the dome, rather than to be spent on a range of other public services—which, with that vast sum, could have been hugely improved?
    Mr. Smith: The project has had cross-party support ever since its inception. It is remarkably well appreciated

    7
    by those who go: indeed, The Sunday Times, hardly a known lover of the dome, published a poll in which 1,000 visitors to the dome were asked whether they enjoyed it and 85 per cent. said yes. Asked whether it was good value for money, 62 per cent. said yes. The most recent attendance figures bear that out. The dome has just had its best week ever. On every single one of the nine days from Friday 18 February, more than 24,500 people visited it. The best day ever was Monday 21 February, with 27,621 visitors. That, of course, was the day when the Tories presciently chose to have a debate in which they roundly attacked the dome.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday, with a guest from overseas, I was one of many thousands of people who had a great time at the dome, not only enjoying the zones and the show but appreciating the excellent and courteous service from all the staff? Is not it about time that the Tory party and the chattering classes abandoned their snobbish sniping at a project that has a great potential for success if given a chance?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially about the courteous and expert way in which the staff deal with visitors, which has been widely appreciated. It is not absolutely everyone in the Tory party who takes a negative view, however. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in last Monday's debate, strongly said:
    The dome is a national project … We must be seen to support it and give it every chance to be the success that I have always believed, and still believe, it will prove to be.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1320–21.]
    He speaks more clearly than anyone on the Opposition Front Bench for the 872,000 people who have visited the dome to date.
    Mr. Norman Baker: In respect of dome funding, why, almost two years to the week after BSkyB said that it would sponsor the dome, has it yet to sign on the dotted line? What is the hold-up? We have never had an explanation. What conditions does the company want to attach to its sponsorship? Should not those who want to use the dome mark cough up the dome cash?
    Mr. Smith: The details of those arrangements are matters for the New Millennium Experience Company, not for me. As far as I am aware, the discussion is simply over minor details and there is still a clear commitment on the part of BSkyB to sign the contract and deliver the money that it has promised.
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: Will my right hon. Friend pass on my deep appreciation to Lord Falconer for his intervention last Thursday in response to specific requests from the children of Alkrington county primary school, who visited the dome and had a tremendous time? I visited it yesterday with my two grandsons and we enjoyed it immensely. It is no wonder that the dome is proving highly popular, despite the Tory party's efforts to undermine it.
    Mr. Smith: I will indeed pass on those welcome remarks to my noble Friend. Such admirable assistance would probably be condemned by Opposition Front Benchers as meddling.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: When the £32 million is repaid, what will the Millennium Commission spend it on?
    Mr. Smith: The commission's programme of work for capital projects, the millennium festival and the millennium awards is well in place. Clear priorities are set out, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, and the money is destined for valuable projects throughout the country.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend recall that many of us in Birmingham and the west midlands felt cheated when the previous Government changed the rules to get the millennium exhibition on a bend in the river in the furthest reaches of east London? That said, we welcome the success that the dome now promises to be and we are glad that so many people enjoy it. Will he invite the Opposition and most of the national media to admit that they have got this wrong?
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous approach to the issue. One reason why Greenwich was chosen as the location for the exhibition was the regeneration impact that the dome will have on a deprived part of south-east London, with the creation of many jobs and a specific tourism effect. I very much endorse his comment that it is time that the Conservatives got behind the project and helped to make it the real national success—without political partisanship—that I believe it can and should be.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I do not know how many times I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives want the dome to be a success. As I have told him many times before, not least in the debate last week, we wish P-Y well. However, we do not support the Government's atrocious handling of the project. What guarantee can he give that the dome will not be back for more money before the end of the year? What estimate has he made of the cost to the commission and to taxpayers of his Government's decision to keep the dome in place after the exhibition closes?
    Mr. Smith: Adopting the language that the hon. Gentleman has used on occasions over the past two months is a strange way of hoping that the dome will be a success. The legacy competition is in place. We anticipate that funds will be coming back into English Partnerships and the New Millennium Experience Company—and through them to the Millennium Commission—because of our decision to continue the life of the dome beyond the end of this year.

    Lottery Grants
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What action he is taking to simplify the application process for lottery grants. [110601]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): My Department is working with distributors to ensure that the lottery application process is as simple and user-friendly as possible, and that forms

    9
    are written in plain language. The quality, efficiency and standards team, which I established last year, is looking at how the costs of making a lottery application can be reduced. Lottery distributors already have in place the awards for all scheme, which is a straightforward way for community groups to apply for grants of £500 to £5,000. One simple application form covers charities, arts, sport and heritage groups.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives have pledged to withdraw national lottery money from schools and hospitals, despite overwhelming public support for such projects?
    Mr. Smith: We are a little unclear about what the Conservatives would do. They specifically said at their party conference that health and education projects such as those supported by the new opportunities fund were not the sort of things that they believed that lottery money should be spent on. I believe that in that they differ from the vast majority of people in this country.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: When the Secretary of State is considering simplifying the application process for lottery grants, will he bear in mind the fact that some small clubs, particularly sports clubs, struggle with the complexity of existing forms because they do not have the necessary expertise to fill them in? Of course the overall checking of any application has to be rigorous, but perhaps the initial form could be simple and straightforward, particularly for small clubs, and the more rigorous checking could happen later in the process, once the application is being proceeded with.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman asks a perceptive and constructive question, as he often does. Sport England and the heritage lottery fund already have a two-stage mechanism along the lines that he has outlined. I am also pleased to say that last month all the distributors attended a presentation by the Plain English Campaign and are considering how to make the best use of its services to ensure that the initial application process is easy to understand and that applications can easily be made by community groups, which may not have professional advisers ready to hand.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am getting slightly tired of the Secretary of State traducing my opinions. I hope that he will answer a straight question. However simple the lottery application forms become, do not the Government's actions mean that sport, the arts and charities stand a lesser chance of benefiting from the lottery than previously, and that the biggest lottery winner is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Chris Smith: No. By the end of the current franchise period, the sport, arts, heritage and charities strands of the lottery will have received more than £1.9 billion each. That is more than was originally anticipated, even after the new opportunities fund was established to ensure that additional funds raised from the lottery could be made available to projects related to health, education and the environment.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What proposals he has received from train and bus operating companies in Wales for special ticket and travel arrangements for the millennium dome. [110602]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Culture, Media and Sport Question Time. We look forward to debating with him in the future.
    The New Millennium Experience Company has been working closely with key travel trade operators to ensure that good-value travel packages—either day trips, or including accommodation—are available for the people of Wales.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, there is little evidence that people in Wales are availing themselves of the millennium dome. Indeed, the Minister's Department was unable to give me any figures relating to ticket sales in Wales. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the loans recently made available for the dome would have met the deficit in NHS spending in Wales. Will the Minister assure the House that, in future, ticket sales alone will determine the dome's success or failure, and that more effort will be made to allow people in Wales to go to the dome without being penalised by distance?
    Janet Anderson: I can say only that, during half-term week, no fewer than 178,000 people visited the dome. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, attendance at the dome so far has totalled 872,367 people. Those figures speak for themselves, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman's constituency has its day at the dome tomorrow—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had taken more interest in the dome's activities, he might have known that. I urge him to get down to the dome tomorrow and join his constituents.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the people of Monmouthshire will be delighted to participate in cheap package trips to see the wonderful entertainment at the dome. Last Thursday was Monmouthshire day there, and I watched a wonderful performance by young people associated with Gwent theatre from my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth). My only regret about that day was that no bus load of people from the Arts Council of Wales came to see the wonderful work of Gwent theatre. The council recently decided to end the theatre's franchise for next year. That decision has now been overturned, thanks to the wonderful campaign on Gwent theatre's behalf.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right, and he gives a much more accurate and knowledgeable account of the interest of the people of Wales in the dome. If I may, I shall quote from the Daily Post report published after Gwynedd had its day in the dome in 18 February. It stated:
    The young people of Gwynedd descended on the Millennium Dome yesterday …and they admitted they were "gobsmacked" by the building. John Meadows, of Barmouth, said last night, "We came

    11
    down here with the criticism it has had in recent weeks in mind, but it is absolutely fantastic. I'm gobsmacked, it absolutely blew me away."

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: What plans he has for community sport activity to help combat social exclusion; and if he will make a statement. [110603]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): The Government are determined to ensure that all sections of society have access to sporting opportunities and that community sport activities help to combat social exclusion.
    Mr. Gerrard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for what she said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about targeting lottery funding. However, does she agree that successful community sports schemes can still have difficulties with day-to-day running costs? Because lottery funding and much other funding is project-oriented, there can still be a problem with core running costs. Will my hon. Friend look at what the Government can do to assist community sports schemes in that situation and at what can be done to encourage local authorities to assist them?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; sport and recreational activity can make a real contribution to all aspects of neighbourhood renewal and can improve the whole area of young people's activities, including their attitude to health, employment, education and the reduction of crime. I know that he has an interest in the Leyton Orient community sports programme. It is a very good project, providing a real opportunity for young people to get involved in the football club, and the football club puts something back into the local community. I hope that my hon. Friend will convey to Leyton Orient our thanks for what the club is doing. Those are precisely the kind of joint initiatives and partnerships that will be necessary, because local authorities cannot do everything on their own.

    Gender Balance (Sport)
    Charlotte Atkins: If he will make a statement on the gender balance relating to participation in sports and on funding to encourage greater participation by girls. [110606]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Sport England provides more than £6 million of Exchequer funding to sports governing bodies, and all are required to ensure that they have proposals for the development of women and girls sport as part of the condition of funding. It also funds activities specifically designed to encourage more young women and girls to take up sport.
    Charlotte Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. During the excellent Adjournment debate on 14 December 1999, she said that she was studying recent research into what turns young girls off physical education and sport. Does she agree that many young girls are not excited by competitive sport but, because they are image-conscious, they are interested in activities such as dance, aerobics and gym-style workouts? What is she
    12
    doing to transform our teenage girls from a generation of couch potatoes to young fit women with high self-esteem and confidence? Is she aware that many women look to her, as a woman, to take a lead on this important issue?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend will be aware of two recent reports into the kind of physical education and sporting activities in which young girls are likely to be interested. One, a very important joint initiative by Nike and the Youth Sport Trust, proposed a range of new, innovative ways of encouraging young girls to stay interested in physical education and sport.
    A number of things can be done to make the delivery of sport and physical education more attractive to them. Much more could be done about getting young girls involved in the planning and delivery of their lessons, such as introducing different types of sports. My hon. Friend is right that at a certain age, many young women do not want to be involved in competitive team sports. The important thing is that the rest of the school's pupils are not stopped from taking part in those sports. I am keen to find ways of getting more girls and young women involved in sport. The media could do much more to project the role of women in sport rather than using some of the images that they currently employ.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister agree that trends of sports participation at schools are in the wrong direction for both girls and boys, and that £6 million is a hopelessly inadequate amount of money from the Sports Council to promote sport in schools?
    Kate Hoey: One of the most interesting things to emerge from the young people in sport national survey conducted by Sport England was that more young people are taking part in sport, not necessarily in school, but after school and linked to school. Again, schools cannot do everything. They are the bedrock and the foundation, but the link between what happens in school and after school is important. That is why so much more support is being given to after-school activities that are sport-oriented.
    Ms Claire Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that one issue highlighted by the Sport England report is that many schools lack the best facilities for sport on site? As a result, many children have to travel much further off-site to participate in sports, thus reducing the time available. Does she agree that, in this case, joined-up government between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment really would make things work?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right. Departments on their own cannot deliver good quality physical education and sport in schools. We need that joined-up thinking. That is why we made the joint appointment of Sue Campbell from the Youth Sport Trust to work across Departments—between my Department and the Department for Education and Employment. That is joined-up thinking. There are many imaginative ways to make resources go further and to do things differently; that needs joined-up thinking and that is what we are determined to do.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister agree that when her hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands

    13
    (Charlotte Atkins) dismisses a whole generation of girls as couch potatoes, she does not help to advance the provision of facilities for the young? It must primarily be the responsibility of the girls' schools—especially in deprived areas—not only to provide facilities and opportunities for sport, but to give the Government better statistics than they seem to have at present.
    Kate Hoey: It is important that the figures for the participation of young girls are right. In many schools, participation is as high as it has ever been. A good, high-quality physical education teacher and programme play an important role and do much to ensure that young girls and young boys receive an introduction to sport that will last them through life.

    Art Collections
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on progress on the review of national art collections to identify art that may have been looted from victims of Nazi persecution. [110607]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The national museums directors conference will be holding a news conference tomorrow to make a first report of the results of research into provenance during the period 1933–45. I understand that the findings will be published on the internet.
    Mr. Dismore: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, which shows, with the panel that was announced last week, a clear recognition of the need to make restitution to the victims of the Nazis—a need that was badly neglected by the previous Conservative Government. There is some concern, especially in the Jewish community, as to the need for further consultation over the membership and terms of reference of the panel. Will he tell us what powers the panel will have if there is a dispute between the rightful owner of a looted work of art, who wants it back, and an institution that does not want to give it up?
    Mr. Howarth: Of course, I have held consultations and continue to do so. Last year, I offered organisations representing Jewish people, or acting on behalf of Jewish claimants, the opportunity to meet senior officials in my Department. The Holocaust Educational Trust and the European Commission on Looted Art availed themselves of that opportunity; the Board of Deputies of British Jews did not do so. However, I was pleased to meet representatives of all three organisations before publishing our proposals for the terms of reference of the spoliation advisory panel, which are, of course, consultative.
    On the second point made by my hon. Friend, our sole desire in establishing the panel is to make it easier for justice to be done. I am holding consultations on the membership of the panel. It will be chaired by a most distinguished, retired, Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir David Hirst. I propose that it should include not only lawyers, but historians, ethicists, experts on the art market, Jews and gentiles. The panel's paramount purpose will be to achieve a fair and just solution both for the claimant and for the institution. It will have a range of remedies;
    14
    however if, unfortunately, the remedy that it offers does not recommend itself in a particular case, the claimant will still have the right to go to law.

    Dance
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What support he has provided to those responsible for the development of dance to ensure that those involved in the training, particularly of children, have appropriate qualifications and expertise. [110608]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Much dance teacher training is provided by private sector bodies, which run training and provide qualifications which are recognised by the Council for Dance Education and Training as of a high quality and as examples of appropriate practice within the sector. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is currently engaged in accrediting qualifications submitted by awarding bodies who wish to have them placed within the national qualifications framework.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that, although the Government have found substantial extra funds for arts and sports bodies, an activity such as dance—which is a hybrid of sport and art—may not receive its proper share of resources? Is he also aware that, as a result, more than half the children and people learning dance are taught by people with absolutely no qualifications to support them? Dance is particularly important for young girls as it motivates them and makes them active. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider ways in which the dance authorities can offer their expertise to those teachers who are currently operating without qualifications?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will be mindful that Emma Goldman once said to Lenin, "If I can't dance, I do not want to be part of your revolution." That is something that new Labour should not forget.
    Of all human activities, dance is the one that I would most regret seeing heavily regulated by the state. None the less, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that teachers of dance have the health, safety and physical well-being of dancers in their hands. It is important that we should be able to be confident that those teachers are properly trained and qualified.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Minister recall making, through his Department, the announcement in the late summer of last year that grants to dance students would be substantially changed, making it possible for the first time for pupils of minimal means to be able to undertake dance studies? Does he realise how high the hopes of young dance students were raised only for those hopes to be dashed when they discovered that the grant system had become far more niggardly? It caused many of them to wonder whether they would be able to continue with their studies. Will he apologise to those dance students who, until that system of niggardly grants was improved and rectified, thought that they would have to give up their dance studies?
    Mr. Howarth: No, I will not apologise. I am rather proud of what we have been able to do. It was something

    15
    that has needed to be done for many years. We have introduced a far more generous system of support for students of dance and drama. It is not the case that every school that offers to teach dance will qualify to be part of the system. We should concentrate resources—and increasingly so—on the schools that are centres of excellence.

    Green Spaces Initiative
    Ms Hazel Blears: In what ways he expects children to benefit from the green spaces initiative funded by the new opportunities fund. [110609]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new opportunities fund launched the green spaces and sustainable communities initiative in January, having consulted extensively on the scope of the programme in the autumn of last year. It is envisaged that projects involving opportunities for children's play, organised and informal sport, playing fields, access to the countryside and creating safer routes to school will be eligible, among others. Such projects will greatly benefit the health, happiness, safety and social well-being of children, particularly in areas of multiple deprivation.
    Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Many inner-city areas are concrete jungles; there are 32 tower blocks in my constituency. The previous Tory Government sold off 5,000 playing fields, leaving many of our schools with no green space on which children can play. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that money from the green spaces initiative will be targeted specifically at cities, such as mine, where children need green spaces to play?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend rightly identifies the importance—especially, but not exclusively, in inner-city areas—of the creation of green spaces where children can play and where an oasis of greenery in the midst of concrete can be created. The new opportunities fund will seek to apply its funds primarily to areas of deprivation and it will look for good applications. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage her constituents to come forward with precisely such applications.

    Rugby League World Cup
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What support and assistance he (a) has given and (b) intends to give, to the Rugby Football League with regard to promoting the forthcoming rugby league world cup in the UK. [110610]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): I am delighted that the rugby league world cup is being hosted in the UK this year, with the final being played at Old Trafford in November. As with all major events being staged in this country, we are ready to offer promotional and diplomatic support to assist the organisers in the delivery of a successful event, and I am pleased that UK Sport has agreed support in principle of £350,000 towards the cost of staging the rugby league world cup.
    Mr. Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but will she also ensure that discrimination against rugby
    16
    league will be ended and that it will be included as one of the nine specialist sports to receive special funding from Sport England?
    Kate Hoey: As my hon. Friend will know, I am meeting the all-party rugby league group this week to discuss precisely that issue. That decision would be historical, and I should like Sport England to look at the matter again.

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

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Churches (Theft)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What arrangements are in place for insurance of churches in remote locations against theft of their fabric. [110626]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): It is the responsibility of the individual church, that is to say its parochial church council, to arrange and finance its own insurance of the church building and its contents.
    Guidance is available to parochial church councils and others from the Council for the Care of Churches of the Church of England and from individual insurers.
    Mr. Prentice: That is a very disappointing reply. We could equalise premiums across the country so that parishes would not pay more if their churches were vulnerable to theft and vandalism. People in my constituency are absolutely fed up to the back teeth of historic artefacts being stripped from churches. Not long ago, the entire stone tiling from the mediaeval parish church at Gill was stripped; it disappeared down the M1 and is probably in a garden in Islington as I speak. I want my hon. Friend to speak to the Home Secretary about that and perhaps to designate police officers responsible for stolen stones, as Skipton does.
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has the next question, and he may be better able to answer questions about the whereabouts of artefacts. I am saddened to tell the House that the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group confirmed that in 1998 it paid more than 4,000 claims as a result of attacks against churches, including theft, vandalism and arson. Ten churches are attacked every day, and one in four can expect to be the victim of crime every year. As insurers, the group views that high level of crime as completely unacceptable—and on that point, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend—and it works with the Church, wherever possible, to help to combat the rising number of attacks on its people and property.
    There are seminars on church security and there is a new system of marking church property, which is a sponsored system of alpha dots which marks kits and artefacts in the hope that they may be recovered.

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What is the policy of the commissioners in respect of the use of redundant churches for socially useful purposes. [110627]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Significantly more than half the redundant churches have been appropriated to new uses—that is 880 in all—and continue to serve the community by providing facilities for worship, social and educational opportunities or low cost housing.
    It is the Church of England's policy that when a church is closed for public worship under the Pastoral Measure 1983 the commissioners will assist and encourage the diocese to seek an alternative use for the building.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the representative of the Church Commissioners join me in expressing the hope that nobody in Islington is furnishing their garden with stolen church property brought down the M1 or along any other motorway, because such behaviour would be outrageous and deplorable?
    Will my hon. Friend also consider seriously the long-term use of former church buildings? Many constituencies have former Church of England properties that have been sold off, sometimes for community use or worship by other faiths, which are then miraculously transferred to the private housing market, where they fall into the hands of property developers? Somewhere along the line, somebody has made a vast amount of money out of the conversion of a church building into expensive, exclusive private housing, when it is the policy and wish of the Church Commissioners that any redundant church building should be used for socially useful purposes such as social housing, if possible.
    Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that any future church property that is sold will have a charge placed on it that will prevent it from being sold for excessive profit in the private market and ensure instead that it is made useful for the community for worship or social or housing purposes?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me define the term "socially useful". It covers use for a wide variety of civic, community and social activities, worship by other Christian bodies, arts, crafts, music and drama centres, workshops, shops, museums and sports halls and the provision of low-cost housing. The point of selling on from those who take over such property is a matter of concern. My hon. Friend has reflected that, and I shall be glad to take it up with the commissioners.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Would it not be better to try to ensure that churches do not become redundant? Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Church Commissioners to talk to the dioceses about providing grants for further community uses of churches, so that they do not become redundant?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Some 1,500 churches have been made redundant and current guidelines recommend that use for worship by adherents of a non-Christian faith is not to be regarded as eminently suitable. That is to say, we are not in the
    18
    business of turning over our redundant churches to other faiths. I shall be happy to take up on his behalf the point about whether grants should be made available to keep churches going.

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

    National Audit Office
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resources available to the National Audit Office. [110628]
    Mr. Alan Williams: With permission, I shall reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, to whom I am sure the whole House will want to send good wishes for a speedy recovery.
    It is a main concern of the Commission to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the right resources to undertake his work. The Commission last met on 2 December 1999 to consider the supply estimate of the National Audit Office for next year. The Commission took account of the NAO's growing work load and recommended additional funding for 2000–01 as a result. Although the Commission will continue to monitor the situation, I am satisfied that, at present, funding for the work is adequate and that, were the Comptroller and Auditor General to need more staff or other resources in future, he would request extra funding from the House when compiling his annual Supply estimate.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and echo what he has said about the distinguished Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission. The whole House wishes him a full and speedy recovery and looks forward to the display of his talents in the Chamber as soon as possible.
    In the light of the recent NAO report, which highlighted the Department's slow progress in securing internet access, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the NAO commands both sufficient resources and adequate specialist expertise to be able to follow up the findings of that report, monitor progress and ensure an improvement in the performance of Departments?
    Mr. Williams: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious comments, which I shall obviously pass on to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-underLyne.
    The NAO constantly makes use of outsider, specialist advice when it thinks that it is needed. It bids for the financial resources that it feels it needs. We have met what has been requested, and I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's comments about my

    19
    right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
    Will my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) communicate to the NAO and its officials the appreciation of the membership of the House of Commons of its excellent work in unravelling the costs associated with the buildings of Thames house and Vauxhall cross—the headquarters of MI5 and MI6?
    Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend and I have served with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on the Public Accounts Committee, and I thank him for his kind comments.
    I share my hon. Friend's suspicion that the higher the indiscretion, the higher the classification of document obtained. When I read press reports on security buildings, my only reassurance was that my hon. Friend is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, so I am sure that he will ensure that the services are fully accountable.
    Mr. David Davis: I join others in expressing hopes for the rapid return of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I received a letter from him today, in which he said he was feeling very fit and looking forward to being back with us very soon.
    20
    On the substantive question, the budget was drawn up while the Gavyn Davies report on the BBC was still extant. Was there money in the budget to allow an investigation into the BBC? Does the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) think that that would have been a good use of money?
    Mr. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know that he visited my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne the day after he was taken ill and that the visit was much appreciated by my right hon. Friend and his wife.
    On the issue of the BBC, I read with some fascination the suggestion that the NAO is not an appropriate body to monitor such matters because it has no understanding of consumer issues. As one of the few Members of Parliament who has been a completely independent consumer Minister, may I allay the fears of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? To help him, I should like to point out, as his Department has not, that between them the NAO and the PAC have produced reports on the water industry, in relation to quality of services; the telecommunications industry, on anti-competitive behaviour; the gas industry, in relation to giving consumers a choice; and "The Office of Fair Trading: Protecting the Consumer from Unfair Trading Practices", which has only just been completed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will now revise his decision.

Mozambique
3.31 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to make a statement on the Government's response to the situation in Mozambique following the recent cyclone and flooding.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Over the past two weeks, the worst floods in more than 50 years have hit southern Mozambique. Cyclone Eline also caused substantial damage in the central provinces. Over the weekend, water deposited by Eline in Zimbabwe and South Africa has filtered through to Mozambique, causing further massive flooding of the Limpopo and Save rivers.
The Government of Mozambique estimate that more than 500,000 people have been affected, with more than 100,000 still awaiting rescue following the flood surge over the weekend. The people are becoming frail and they need food and water. The situation is very serious. Regrettably, it might become even worse in the next few days, because of the likelihood of further storms and flooding from the Cahora Bassa dam.
The first phase of the relief operation, involving rescue and evacuation of people stranded by flood water, is still on-going. Co-ordination of rescue activities has been problematic. We are doing all we can to make available extra helicopters and boats. As the flood water subsides, the relief operation will move into a second phase, in which priorities will be urgent repairs to essential infrastructure, shelter, food delivery and medical services.
My Department deployed two humanitarian specialists to the region during the initial stages of the flooding on 11 February. They conducted rapid assessments and liaised with the Mozambique authorities and humanitarian organisations to help to plan the rescue operation. We dispatched a consignment of more than 400 tents from the UK to Maputo for the Red Cross to distribute for emergency shelter to the homeless. We also supported the United Nations disaster assessment and co-ordination team, which is assisting the Mozambique authorities with the targeting and co-ordination of relief efforts. Given the deteriorating situation over the weekend, we are redeploying a humanitarian specialist to Mozambique. We are also strengthening the World Food Programme with the secondment of two logistics experts to assist with the effective tasking of helicopters.
My Department has already contributed some £2.2 million for rescue and immediate relief, including the provision of shelter, water, sanitation and health support. That funding has been channelled through the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the Red Cross, ActionAid, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and World Vision. Those activities are being co-ordinated with the Mozambique authorities. We stand ready to provide further assistance.
Dr. Tonge: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. I also welcome her Department's pledge of £2.2 million in aid and $1 million to continue South Africa's military operation for a further 10 days. South Africa's force is
22
stretched and underfunded and that country is itself suffering from the floods, so its efforts are to be commended.
Many thousands, however, are still stranded in the Save river valley, and more helicopters are needed. Although we cannot always predict natural disasters, which sadly seem to be becoming more frequent, does the Secretary of State accept that the NGOs and the military could work together, and that rapid response and needs assessments should be better co-ordinated? For instance, both Britain and the international community as a whole might be better able to respond if a United Nations rapid reaction task force were set up, ready for a disaster when it happened.
Will the Secretary of State comment on reports that Mozambique still has not received its debt relief, because of International Monetary Fund objections?
Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The problem is not money. The problem is deploying on the ground, getting the helicopters and boats where they are needed, and getting food and water to people. The hon. Lady is right: the situation will probably get very much worse. There are people who are in bad shape and cannot be rescued because there are not enough helicopters. It is an organisational rather than a financial problem.
We are trying to get better disaster relief preparations across the world. Organisation in-country is needed for the immediate response—it takes time to bring people in from elsewhere, however ready they are.
Mozambique is one of the most desperately poor countries in the world, coming back from a terrible history, with only frail capacity within the country, and a brave, reforming Government. It is extremely difficult for such a country to respond to such a disaster.
On the question of whether more disasters are occurring, our evidence suggests that there are not necessarily more disasters, but they affect more people, because more people are living on unsuitable land and are more dreadfully affected by disasters.
I agree that we must do more to have in place a rapid reaction capability. We have been working to strengthen UNDAC—the United Nations disaster assessment co-ordination team. It is much faster now and moves in quickly to help countries to call for the support that they need.
Mozambique received $1.5 billion in debt relief in July 1999 and will get more in March. It has reserves, and it will need a great deal of money to reconstruct the country, but the problem at present is not money to spend: it is deploying on the ground to save people's lives.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I join the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) in thanking the Secretary of State for coming to the House today to update us on the serious situation in Mozambique. No one can fail to be moved by the pictures that we see on television. Our sympathies go to the victims and their families, and our support to the voluntary workers, especially from Oxfam and Save the Children Fund, and the officials who are trying desperately to save lives.
Will the Secretary of State comment on what her Minister said on the BBC one o'clock news—that by tomorrow, 14 helicopters will be in use rescuing people,

23
and that only six are currently in use? In her assessment, is that sufficient air-lift capability to save all the lives threatened by the rising water? What else can be done to encourage people with helicopters in the area to come to the assistance of victims of the flood? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with our Ministry of Defence about any further assistance that could be provided?
I welcome the £2.2 million in cash that has already been committed to the relief effort over the past few days, but in the light of the appeal from Chief Anyaoku today, what further funds can the Department commit? Is there any way in which the Department can help to satisfy the demand for boats, which are obviously desperately needed?
It was disappointing to hear reports last week that the British Government had been criticised by aid workers and the Mozambique authorities for ignoring local disaster relief efforts. What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of those criticisms? Has she had an opportunity to deal with them?
On debt relief, I note from the Minister's comments earlier today that no repayment of debt relief will be expected by the UK from Mozambique this year. Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that no repayment will be expected in the subsequent year? Will she comment on the fact that half the $8.3 billion debt owed by Mozambique is to Russia, Italy and France? Can she give the House an undertaking that she will discuss with those countries the opportunities that they will offer Mozambique for debt relief?
I wonder whether we have learned any lessons. In 1997, a resolution was passed in the European Parliament when 73 people died, 400,000 were made homeless and 70,000 hectares were laid waste in Mozambique because of floods. Will the Secretary of State assure us that she will give priority to good emergency planning? Fine words and funds are all very well, but we need good planning and co-ordination in future. If she can assure us that she will move forward on that basis, the Opposition will support her.
Clare Short: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support for the Department's work. We—and everyone—are currently hunting for helicopters. We can pay for them. Although none were found in Zimbabwe, South Africa is making them available. If we can find them and buy them, we shall send them in. Nine are currently working, but only three have winch capacity, which is needed to pick people up. The situation is therefore desperate.
We are also looking for boats, but the floods are so bad and the tides so difficult that it is dangerous to use them. We have not got the right equipment and we are short of helicopters with winches. As we speak, my officials are hunting around the region for such helicopters. We have talked to the Ministry of Defence—shortly, I might talk to its Ministers a little more—and it has no resources within 3,000 miles—[Interruption.] Well, that was my understanding from advice that I received from the Ministry this morning. The Ministry of Defence therefore has no resources nearby.
The reality in the modern world is that equipment is not on hand for every emergency. As I told the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan),
24
there is no shortage of funds to deal with the emergency; the problem is deployment and getting things done. We can make more money available.
I examined the criticism of the British Government which appeared in one newspaper. The Government in Mozambique is a brave, reforming Government with frail capacity. One or two of their officials were a bit irritated with my officials, who have a lot of experience, flew straight in and made many suggestions about what should be done. We have a good relationship with the Government of Mozambique.
As I said earlier, debt relief will be important for reconstruction later. It is not currently an issue. The Government of Mozambique have considerable reserves that they will need to deploy. There are no payments due to the United Kingdom Government. We are not a big creditor of Mozambique's. We are discussing with other Governments ways in which to speed up HIPC 2 and how they can match us on 100 per cent. debt relief. We shall do all that we can.
I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that we have learned no lessons. It is great that we have reached the point that, when a disaster occurs in one poor country, the public throughout the world call on their Governments to do all they can to help. We are a leading force in the international community's ability to react quickly to emergencies.
We are considering the worst disaster that Mozambique has suffered in 50 years. It is a very poor, frail country, and it is dealing with an unprecedented disaster. The United Nations is helping; we are helping. We shall do all we can, but things will get worse before they get better.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend knows that some members of the Select Committee on International Development have recently returned from Mozambique. We met my right hon. Friend's officials, who are doing a good job there. I heard no criticism of the British Government while I was there: quite the contrary. However, I want to raise some points with my right hon. Friend.
Last week, we watched some of the rescue operations and some of the delivery of food, medicines and tents—we saw the first consignment of British tents being lifted off the ground and taken by helicopter to the affected area. People were anxious that there were only two helicopters, and that they had insufficient funds to pay for them for a second week. The helicopters were hired from the South African Government. People claimed that they had insufficient money to continue hiring them. I do not claim that the Department did not provide the money; it has been very generous. However, other countries contribute to the United Nations. Some seem to believe that the United Nations can work without the necessary funds. When Mrs. Ogata visited Britain five years ago, she said, "Give me the money, I can do the job."
People in Mozambique were worried that they could not continue to use two helicopters for a second week. That says something about the shoestring budget on which the United Nations works. When 100,000 people are in danger of losing their lives—some are clinging on to roofs and trees with the flood waters still rising—the world has fallen short of what it ought to do in an emergency of this kind. It has been known for weeks that there was a threat of floods in the area, so there is something wrong if we are scrabbling around for helicopters.

25
I saw the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs working in Mozambique with the assistance of somebody from the Department for International Development, but the truth is that the aid agencies were very concerned that they were not able to do what they thought was necessary because of a lack of money. It is not right that the world has fallen short of being able to assist people in one of the poorest countries in the world who are in difficulty through no fault of their own. We cannot help them in the way that we should because the United Nations does not have the resources.
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that the Select Committee has been in Mozambique and grateful to it for being careful not to use any resources that are needed to help deal with the disaster. I appreciate that; it behaved very responsibly.
It is always easy to say that there is not enough money. Truly, the problem is not that, but getting people, organisation and efficiency on the ground now, getting helicopters—we do not have enough and we have even fewer with winches—and getting them flying. The disaster is that Mozambique is one of the poorest countries in the world and history has been very hard on it. It has a good, reforming Government, but capacity in the country is enormously weak.
It is not true that money is the problem for the UN or non-governmental organisations; it is getting the money and the assistance deployed on the ground. I am proud that our Department and my officials in our conflict and humanitarian affairs department are among the best in the world at moving rapidly. Lots of other countries go on television to pledge money, but it takes months to get it to Mozambique. We can provide money for as many helicopters as we can get into the theatre and are searching for them all around. Believe me: the problem is not money but organisation, helicopters, efficiency and getting food to people before many die.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Can the Secretary of State tell the House a bit more about the effect of the hurricane that hit the central provinces of Mozambique? Most of the BBC reporting has been on the flooding to the north and south of Maputo. Can she also say whether provision is being made and plans are being laid to provide the farmers with seeds and tools to replant their crops after the floods recede? That is necessary before the dry season sets in. They need to plant as soon as the floods recede.
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There was a cyclone and flooding is coming on the whiplash, back in from South Africa and Zimbabwe. Another storm is coming in from the sea and there is a danger of Cahora Bassa flooding. That is a disaster and so hard and unfair for Mozambique, which is being hit from both sides. It looks as though things will get very much worse. I can assure him that we and, I presume, others are preparing for the next phase in terms of seeds and tools. The main road has been damaged and Mozambique has hardly any infrastructure or roads. I have had meetings with my officials. My emergency officials are at work and the officials out in Mozambique are preparing for the next phase now.
Fiona Mactaggart: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the responses of ordinary people
26
up and down Britain to what they have seen on television is a desire to help. Is there anything that they can do? People want to contribute to the solution in some way when they see such horrors.
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right—the British people are notoriously generous. Whenever there is a crisis, they want to contribute and do so in large and ever growing amounts. People can give money to the NGOs that I have mentioned, which are working on the ground—Save the Children Fund, ActionAid, World Vision and so on—and I believe that there is to be an appeal from the Disasters Emergency Committee. I am sure that the public will want to contribute as generously as they always do.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I too was in Mozambique last week with the Select Committee on International Development. May I say, unusually, that the Government's response was good? I particularly commend the work of the Secretary of State's officials in Mozambique, and of the two people seconded from the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Gilbert Greenall and Ian Howard-Williams, who did excellent work in co-ordinating the humanitarian relief.
The people of Mozambique had very little, and now many of them have much less. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will not reduce the aid that she has already given to Mozambique for purposes other than this catastrophe, especially for the work on HIV and AIDS prevention in that country?
Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to my officials. This country has a reputation as one of the fastest to respond to disasters, because officials in my Department work day and night and have good response systems. We are all entitled to be proud of them.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not reduce our growing aid programme. Mozambique is a very poor country with a frail administrative capacity and a weak infrastructure. At the moment it has reserves, because it is having to strengthen the capacity of its systems to be able to spend money on the ground to reach people all over that desperately poor country. We have a growing programme, and I can increase it as the money can be spent.
We must review the position once Mozambique is over the disaster so that reconstruction can begin. We have committed resources and we can spend more than Mozambique can absorb at the moment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will continue to be the case.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that a parliamentary delegation from Mozambique came to this country last year under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and visited Burnley. Members of that delegation underlined the points that she has made about the difficult problems that their country is facing after a civil war that lasted many years.
Mozambique is the newest member of the Commonwealth. Are Commonwealth countries responding positively to deal with the immediate crisis and to help to save lives now, to cope with the immediate aftermath of the crisis to which my right hon. Friend referred, and to aid its

27
economy and help to solve the on-going debt problem? The Commonwealth, in addition to this country and South Africa, should respond positively.
Clare Short: Mozambique is a proud member of the Commonwealth, and, I think, the only member that was not colonised by Britain. The Queen visited Mozambique recently and was given an enormously warm reception. The Commonwealth is not a large donor of emergency assistance. The Commonwealth secretariat is good on human rights work, support for Parliaments and other such matters. I am sure that other Commonwealth countries will respond.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the needs are massive, and I am sure that the world will rally to Mozambique. History has been hard on that country, and the Mozambique Government, in their brave efforts to take their country forward and to institute reform, deserve all the support they can get.
Mr. Roger Gale: May I add my good wishes to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff in Maputo? They are a first-rate team who are working in conditions that are difficult and dangerous for them as well as for the people of Mozambique.
Those of us who went to Mozambique at the end of last year to scrutinise the elections came back with mixed feelings of hope and despair: some hope because the elections were, by and large, fair and democracy looked set fair, and some despair that poverty may undermine the democratic process. That was before the floods.
It is clear that the people of Mozambique are facing real threats of dysentery and cholera, and the food crop for this year is likely to be entirely wiped out. One of the biggest problems faced day in, day out are land mines. Those mines will have moved in the floods, and no one will have any idea where they are, so agriculture will be incredibly dangerous. This must be the time for the right hon. Lady to talk immediately to her hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces with a view to getting out there the engineering capacity to cope with this crisis—not just in the next two or three weeks, but in the next two or three months and perhaps the next two or three years.
Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Foreign Office staff in the area. Our high commissioner has given an excellent lead, and is dedicated to the provision of support for Mozambique.
Although Mozambique is a very poor country, it is a very impressive country. A vicious civil war, partly fed by apartheid South Africa, has now turned to democracy. People are no longer killing each other, and there is a Parliament with a Government and an Opposition. That is a remarkable achievement for such a desperately poor country, but its democracy will be under strain as a result of this growing disaster. As I have said, we will do all we can to help with reconstruction of the infrastructure, and the provision of food and seeds.
It is true that land mines are a problem, but at the request of the Mozambique Government, the United Kingdom is leading the effort in Zambesia province, which was one of the centres of the fighting during the civil war. I am pleased to say that when I was there, nearly
28
a year ago, the mines had basically been cleared. We have left a small team in the area, because some mines always remain in bushes and so on, as the hon. Gentleman suggests; but I do not think that it is flooded. When a war ends, it is possible to clear land mines.
I will of course consult the Ministry of Defence further about what more we can do, but if our own forces are not nearby, that is not always the best way in which to help. If they are in the region and in the theatre, it is best for them to help immediately, but it is not generally useful to bring them in from far away during a later phase of a disaster.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: My right hon. Friend said that this was more a question of immediate organisation than of finance. Does she agree, however, that there may well be thousands of small boat owners who are relatively poor and whose boats could be put to use, but who will need recompense for their loss? A few weeks down the line, it will be a question of providing more money for that purpose. Is my right hon. Friend confident that international financial resources will be available?
Clare Short: At present, 100,000 people are stranded, and we have nine helicopters with winches. We need boats to convey food and water, and to get people out. The situation is turbulent, and the conditions are currently dangerous for boats. What we need are bigger boats.
Many people have lost everything—their home and all their property. Those are terrible losses, but we must ensure that people do not lose their lives. Of course there will be further losses and the reconstruction effort will be massive. In the face of emergencies such as this, there is always—understandably—a call for money, but we must provide help on the ground now while people are still alive, to prevent them from dying and make them safe. Such organisation is not a resource problem: the UK can find more money and other countries have committed money. That is not a difficulty at this stage.
Madam Speaker: Order. When the Secretary of State turns her head away from the microphone, the recording is lost.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State know the location of the nearest United States navy carrier group? If it could be of any use, has she interceded—or will she intercede—with her United States opposite number?
Clare Short: I do not normally monitor the location of the United States navy, but I will ask someone to find out. USAID is engaged, but I have heard no talk of deployment.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State confident that the Ministry of Defence and other armed forces Ministries have heard her plea for more helicopters? They are clearly available to the armed forces in many countries, not just ours, and they should be sent as quickly as possible. Can the Secretary of State ensure that that happens?
Will the Department also look at the reasons for the cyclone and the flooding, and decide whether there is not a case, in the longer term, for giving more serious

29
consideration to the need for reafforestation of much of the hinterland of both river systems, as well as a better system to give early warning of cyclones hitting the coast of Africa? There is a very good cyclone warning system in the Caribbean and the north Atlantic.
Clare Short: I will certainly talk more to my Ministry of Defence colleagues. We will consider where helicopters can be brought into theatre, but we have already discussed that, and currently they are too far away to get there quickly.
I have asked the question: are we having more cyclones and flooding? Everyone understands that global warming implies more and more such events throughout the world and more such disasters, but the advice that I have had from my officials is that it is not so much that more disasters are taking place, but that more and more people are living on frail, dangerous land, so that the number of people who are hurt by disasters is becoming greater and greater.
I do not think that deforestation is a problem in Mozambique. It is in many other countries. But I agree with my hon. Friend that we need better early warning and emergency response systems, particularly in countries that are prone to disasters. Clearly, there will be lessons for Mozambique after the disaster is over.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I accept my right hon. Friend's argument that organisation is what is required and that money is not an immediate issue, but it is obviously an issue in the long term—some of the points have just been made—and it has been an issue for Mozambique in the past.
In that context, there is growing demand in the House for some consideration of the Tobin tax: a tax on international capital speculation. Is it not time to move forward on that matter to ensure that problems such as Mozambique's can be tackled and handled in future?
Clare Short: A lot of money will be needed for the reconstruction of Mozambique, but Mozambique has frail capacity. It needs—it is doing it—to build the capacity of its administrative system, so that it can deliver reconstruction and spend the resources that are available. We and others have a growing resource to provide and Mozambique has reserves that it will, I hope, be able to spend very quickly, once the disaster has resolved itself.
The Tobin tax is a very interesting proposal, but if we are ever to get there it will take time, as all the countries of the world will have to agree to impose the tax. Although it is an attractive idea, how long will it take to achieve international consensus to introduce it? It is worth looking at, but in the meantime, we need to deploy the £50 billion in the worldwide Overseas Development Administration more effectively, and persuade our publics to put more into backing good reformers such as Mozambique, so that we can help the poorest countries in the world to grow out of poverty, which they could with more support.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Like many hon. Members, I pay tribute to the courage of the Mozambique people in dealing with the problems. In the recent election, one driver who was trying to deliver ballot boxes in Sofala province found that the whole of a road had been swept away by a very short, sharp shower.
30
When we talk about frail infrastructure, we are talking about communities that are often completely cut off from other communities; certainly, every year, Sofala is cut for months at a time.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the longer term, the banked railway system, which was destroyed in the civil war, will be vital to the reconstitution of Mozambique's infrastructure? Will she give the House an assurance that she recognises that and that the Government will do whatever they can to ensure that the infrastructure in Mozambique will be much more proof against such events than it has been in the past?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Mozambique is a very large country with lots of land and virtually no roads. Many people live in desperate poverty and cannot get their produce to market or their children to school, or reach the health facilities that there are. We are working in Zambesia province to create local capacity to build rural roads. We need more of that throughout Mozambique, so that the economy can be built up. Roads are needed so that people can grow crops and increase their incomes. We are focusing on that.
On the railway, I do not have any detailed expert knowledge, but we are working with the World bank to help Governments to put in place feasibility studies, regulatory systems and so on, so that countries such as Mozambique can attract private sector investment. They need big investment in infrastructure to improve their economic development.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could we hark back to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)? The erosion is not taking place in Mozambique itself. The trouble starts in Zambia, Zimbabwe and, above all, South Africa, with much irresponsible felling. Do not the South Africans have a moral responsibility, as their rather callous use of forests has caused much of the problem in the first place?
Clare Short: I defer to my hon. Friend's expertise, although I do not know whether my natural resource advisers would agree with his analysis. There is no doubt that some of the flood waters are coming from Zimbabwe and South Africa. As we all understand, however, there has been a major change of Government in South Africa. Therefore, if there has been irresponsible felling, the current South African Government are not responsible for it. We have to help all the Governments in the region to gain the capacity to prevent disasters, to restore the environment and to overcome the type of environmental degradation caused by irresponsible felling.
As I said, I did a careful analysis of events in central America. That analysis revealed that events there were less a matter of disasters being more frequent, and more a matter of ever more people living on very frail lands. Those people were therefore terribly vulnerable when there was a disaster. We have to act on both those issues.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is my right hon. Friend genuinely convinced that—in the light of recent experiences, and certainly in the light of the past five or 10 years—the United Nations is capable of dealing with emergencies? Should it not now reprofile some of its

31
current budgets and money? What does she think of the idea of emergency task forces, which was pressed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the administrative capacity and efficiency of the United Nations is wanting. As he will know, however, Kofi Annan is leading on trying to make the UN's systems more efficient. Those systems—which were built to cope with the cold war and all the divisions in the international system—are ponderous and bureaucratic. However, we are now living in a different world, and the systems need to be much more efficient and speedy. We need major improvements throughout.
We have been working to strengthen the United Nations emergency system—including the UNDAC team—that has been developed to move into countries such as Mozambique and to help those countries to call on international assistance. We think that that work is going well. However, my hon. Friend is generally right to say that the UN system needs lots of help to be much more efficient. It is not as good as it should be.

Business of the House
4.6 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With the leave of the House, I should like to make a short business statement about the business for Wednesday 1 March.
The business will now be, first, a motion to approve the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges; followed by Second Reading of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill; followed by Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [HL]. That is to be followed, at 7 o'clock, by an Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day, first part], when there will be a debate entitled "Tax Cuts and Public Services", in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Sir George Young: The Opposition have no difficulty with that change of business, but I should like to ask two quick questions. First, if for whatever reason the House has inadequate time to debate either or both of the two Government Bills by 7 o'clock, am I right to assume that the Government will not seek to secure a Second Reading of one or both Bills? Am I also right to assume that the Government will not suspend the 10 o'clock rule?
Secondly, will the Leader of the House say who—in the absence, on ill-health grounds, of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges—will be moving the motion on the Committee's report?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks that it will not be possible to deal with any of that business, nor can I give him any undertaking that the business will not be proceeded with after 10 o'clock. He also asked who will deal with the business on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I anticipate that, in the circumstances of the Chairman's ill health, the deputy Chairman will deal with it.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Today's Order Paper contains a suggested amendment, tabled by me, to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. It deals with a matter of concern to teachers across the country, but has not been debated by the House at any point in the Bill's progress, in either the previous or the current Session. Will the Leader of the House provide, at this late stage—today—for a debate on that important matter?
Madam Speaker: Order. If the Leader of the House wishes to respond to that point, of course she must do so. However, the point deals with a matter that was not included in her business statement, and the hon. Gentleman was rather mischievous in raising it. A business statement is a business statement, and it did not deal with today's business.

ROYAL PARKS (TRADING) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Clelland.]
Question agreed to.

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.]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 February], That this House approves the 1999 Defence White Paper (Cm 4446).—[Mr. Hoon.]
4.9 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Doubtless your office will have told you about this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is unlikely to be able to be here. What is the technical situation regarding moving the amendment?
Madam Speaker: The mover does not have to have his name attached to the amendment. Any hon. Member can move the amendment, but I note that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken in the debate, so it will have to be someone who is to speak today.
4.10 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I pay tribute to the late hon. Member for Romsey, Michael Colvin. Hon. Members of all parties will, I know, be shocked and saddened by the news of the tragic fire at his home last week. The House will recall that he served with great distinction as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence from 1995 until the general election in 1997, and continued to play an important role in the Committee after that. Indeed, hon. Members will recall that only last Tuesday, on the first day of this debate, he spoke for 25 minutes and remarked that he had been sorry to leave the Committee. We are all saddened that his contribution is lost not only to the Committee but to the House, and our thoughts are with his family.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I would like to follow that up and say how shocked and horrified Conservative Members were to see the pictures and to understand, finally, by the weekend, that Michael Colvin and his wife, who were both much liked in the party, had perished in the fire. It is especially poignant for me as I listened with interest to his speech and had a small conversation with him afterwards about some points that he raised and also about his hopes and desires for defence and his involvement in it, notwithstanding the fact that he was no longer to be on the Select Committee.
34
I agree entirely with the Minister's comments. Michael Colvin was liked and respected throughout the House, and especially by his friends and colleagues. During the past few days I have read in newspapers that he never made it to ministerial office, as though that were some badge of dishonour. I am sure that it was not meant like that, but I want to say for the record that, for us in the House and for the general public, being a Back Bencher who is good at the job is just as important as being a Minister, if not more so. That is a badge of honour that he takes with him.
Mr. Spellar rose—
Mr. Terry Davis rose—
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are in debate, so the Minister must respond to one intervention before taking another. We must carry out our proceedings properly here.
Mr. Spellar: I am sure that the House fully endorses the comments of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith).
Mr. Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I associate myself with the tributes that have been paid from both Front Benches. Michael Colvin was a man of great personal charm and distinction. I had the honour to serve with him on the Defence Committee for seven years, during which time I got to know both him and his wife. We will remember him in his prime last Tuesday. His passing is something that the whole House will regret very deeply.
Mr. Spellar: The late hon. Member for Romsey was prominent not only in the Defence Committee but in the Council of Europe, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) is also a prominent member.
Mr. Terry Davis: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. As he said, Michael Colvin was a member of the delegations to both the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. As leader of the delegation, I offer the sympathy of all its members to the family of Michael and Nichola Colvin.
Michael Colvin was highly respected in the House for his knowledge, expertise, experience and interest in defence matters. In recent years, as a member of our delegation, he had become equally respected at international level. Indeed, very recently he was elected the leader of federated group of Conservatives and Christian Democrats in the Western European Union Assembly. That was evidence of the respect in which he was held by the members of the Conservative and Christian Democrat groups. He was also widely respected by members of other political groups.
I served on the same Committees as Michael Colvin and we got to know each other through travelling together to meetings. He embodied the saying that, although people on the other side of the House may be opponents, they are not enemies. The whole delegation will also miss Nichola Colvin, who often came with Michael to our

35
meetings and took a great interest in the work of the delegation. She was a lively person and we shall all miss both of them very much.
Mr. Spellar: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate, he outlined how we are moving ahead on the objectives of the strategic defence review. I shall fill in some of the details, describing the problems that we have faced and the considerable efforts that we have made to rectify them, as well as relating how they tie in with the Government's broader objectives and how we are breaking down departmental barriers to achieve real results.
I had hoped—and still hope—to spend some time dealing with personnel issues and highlighting our successes with our policy for people. However, I shall have to divert briefly to deal with some of the nonsense generated by a media facing a dearth of news last week with Parliament in recess.
Let us be clear that there are problems with some programmes. Let us also be clear that the structure that we inherited in 1997 was not satisfactory for dealing with them and did not get the best out of the Ministry or industry. That is why we brought in smart procurement, which is starting to have an impact. It does not resolve all the problems overnight, but let me put them in perspective.
We have had a number of reports identifying weaknesses with the SA80, some of which date back to the Gulf war. There have been a number of modifications, but that is the case with all weapon systems, including the much-vaunted M16. We await a report shortly on further improvements after extensive tests and shall move rapidly on those findings, but the SA80 is still a capable and particularly accurate weapon.
On Tornado upgrades, we all recognise that there is a constant battle between improved systems to detect planes and improvements to avoid detection. That can involve new planes or upgrades to existing planes. The systems work at the edge of electronics and information technology. It is true that the new GR4 needs more work to integrate its system. It is not true that we do not have a capability to use smart bombs. We do, as we demonstrated in Kosovo.
We are also addressing problems with the Army's battlefield communications systems. We have never denied that the existing Clansman radio system was past its sell-by date. There have been a number of reports on that, including from the Defence Committee. It was an excellent system when it was introduced in the 1970s, but it is long overdue for replacement by the Bowman system.
Bowman was 75 months late when we inherited it in 1997 and slipping further by the day. That is the sort of slippage that smart procurement is designed to avoid. We have stopped the culture of delay and slippage and have managed to reverse some of the delay on Bowman, bringing forward the delivery of the personal radio element of the project. We applied a specific, short-term solution for operations in Kosovo by procuring state-of-the-art communications systems for our forces off the shelf. That ensured that our forces had the capability that they needed at the time that they needed it.
36
We are not just solving existing problems. Our closer partnership with industry, through smart procurement, has enabled us to save money that can be spent on new and increased capability for our armed forces. The Government have embarked on a massive programme of investment in new, world-beating equipment. In the past few months we have announced the construction of the airborne stand-off radar system, early development contracts for future aircraft carriers and destroyers, more Seawolf and Rapier air defence missiles, an upgrade of engines for the RAF Harrier aircraft and the development of the new multi-role armoured vehicle. That amounts to £1.7 billion of investment. It is the clearest possible demonstration of our commitment to make sure that our armed forces are equipped to the highest standards.
That investment in world-class equipment—the envy of many other forces—will revolutionise our front-line capability. The Apache attack helicopter will transform the British Army's battlefield capability. The Challenger 2 tank is already doing so. Eurofighter will provide the RAF with a capability that it has previously only dreamed about when it enters service in 2002. Work has already started on the design of the future aircraft carriers, the first steel has been cut for the new Astute class nuclear-powered submarines and our attack submarines will be equipped with the Tomahawk land attack missile.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. Across the board, the Government are introducing new equipment that will revolutionise the reach, punch and mobility of our armed forces.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: When does the Minister expect to be in a position to announce the choice of missile for the Eurofighter?
Mr. Spellar: Shortly.
Then we had the nonsense about ships being tied up over Christmas. I should certainly hope that ships were tied up then, so that our sailors could spend that period with their families. It was also said that our ships had been told to travel slowly as a cost-saving measure. The Royal Navy has a responsibility to manage its fuel and public money carefully, and ships are instructed to travel at the most economic speed, as needs dictate. Those instructions are laid down in Queen's regulations, which state:
Except when exercising, or where for other reasons a high speed is obligatory … the most economical speed … is to be employed when making passage from port to port or between harbour and exercise area.
Those instructions were last updated when the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was Armed Forces Minister.
I want to make it clear to the House—and in particular to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and to the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton)—that no additional instructions on the speed of Royal Navy ships have been issued by the Government. No changes have been to monthly fuel allowances, nor to the normal travelling speeds of Royal Navy ships. However, I also assure the House that ships on operational tasks will always be allocated enough fuel, and will travel as fast as they need to.
Understandably, there has also been much in the media recently about the current situation in Kosovo. I know that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) intends to

37
speak on that subject, Madam Speaker, if he catches your eye. We remain concerned about the continued level of violence and tension in Kosovo, and committed to securing a peaceful and fully integrated society. In consultation with the Foreign Office, we are providing 30 Ministry of Defence police officers to the international police force of the United Nations mission in Kosovo. That will be the first element of a total of 60 extra UK police officers, in addition to the 60 who are already serving with UNMIK.
I must also deal with the wildly alarmist media reporting today about the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. It is nonsense to suggest, as one of the tabloid newspapers did rather hysterically this morning, that it gives soldiers a new right to sue their commanding officers. Like anyone else in the country, members of the armed forces can sue someone—including their commanding officer, or the Ministry of Defence more generally—for false imprisonment. That right is already based in common law, not legislation, and is not newly introduced by the Bill.
We have approached the Armed Forces Discipline Bill in a way that upholds service discipline. The proposals in the Bill have been carefully developed, with the services, specifically for that purpose. We have made it clear that because of the need for operational considerations to remain paramount, the Bill has been designed to work in all circumstances. It also preserves the authority of the commanding officer.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the question of discipline. What are the circumstances surrounding the recent court martial involving Leading Radio Operator Mark Johnson, who was found not guilty of sexual harassment? Before the trial, the Ministry of Defence had agreed to pay compensation amounting to tens of thousands of pounds to the Wren involved in the incident. What sort of precedent does that set for armed forces discipline? What does the case say about the future interaction between discipline and the rights of armed forces personnel to take action outside the services?
Mr. Spellar: It would have helped if the hon. Gentleman had given me notice of the details of that question; I might then have been able to give a more considered reply. I shall give him it in writing.
Having been diverted to deal with media hype, I shall now turn to the main theme of my contribution this afternoon—how we are looking after our people.
This Government came into office determined to place people at the centre of British defence policy and planning. We did so because of what we ask of our service personnel—ultimately, we may require them to sacrifice their lives—and because, following the end of the cold war, defence had not been properly adapted to the realities that we face today. So we launched the strategic defence review, which quickly identified that, as a Government, we must get right the way we look after our single most important resource—our people.
The strategic defence review White Paper acknowledged that when it stated:
The challenges of the future will make it even more critical that we are able to recruit and retain the brightest and best for the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence.
Hence, our policy for people remains our highest priority short of actual operations, because without the right people, we cannot achieve all the other things
38
necessary to modernise Britain's defence. People are the bedrock of that capability. Without them, all the high-tech kit in the world will never fulfil its potential. Because service families are directly affected by what happens in the front line, we are doing more for them too.
Mr. Syd Rapson: At the end of the previous debate on defence last Tuesday, my hon. Friend was cut off in full flow. He had been about to reply to the points that I had raised, and I hope that by the end of today, he will be able to reply properly, because they involve people, and that is what matters.
Mr. Spellar: It sounds extremely painful. As I was going to say to my hon. Friend at 7 pm last Tuesday, I take on board his points on the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, Fleetlands. I am looking into the matter; we will be in correspondence with him about it and also with the representatives of the workers concerned.
Last year, 25,000 people joined the armed forces, making it the best recruiting year since the beginning of the decade. That achievement was all the more remarkable, given that it took place against the backdrop of a strong and healthy economy and the lowest unemployment figures for 20 years, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Some 16,000 people joined the Army, some 5,000 joined the Royal Navy and approximately 4,500 joined the Royal Air Force. That is a tribute to all those involved in recruitment.
Recruiting people is good, but retaining them for longer remains a challenge. Last year, because we recognised the impact that the operation in Kosovo had on the home lives of service personnel, we introduced further enhancements to the operational welfare package.
We increased the free telephone allowance for people deployed on operations from 10 minutes to 20 minutes per week, having already raised it from 3 minutes the previous year, and we have dramatically increased e-mail availability. We have also taken significant steps to ensure that the telephones actually work.
We introduced guaranteed periods of leave for those returning from operations. This means that personnel in the Army who have been away on operations for longer than six months will get 20 extra days leave when they get home.
We have been determined, too, to modernise the facilities available for our personnel when they are away from home. However, the key to retention is also keeping commitments at a manageable level. Wherever possible, we are reducing overseas commitments as rapidly as we can. We have already brought back significant numbers of personnel from Kosovo and Bosnia—more than 10,000 in all. In the Gulf, we have more than halved the number of personnel deployed during the past year or so, from a peak of 3,000 to 1,200. In the Falklands, we have reduced the size of the garrison from more than 2,000 to about 1,650.
We have a trial under way to help get satellite television to ships at sea that are fitted with the appropriate receiver equipment. In addition, we are planning to upgrade the communication infrastructures in Portsmouth and Devonport naval bases so that Sky and terrestrial television are available to all ships and submarines alongside.

39
Internet e-mail facilities are now fitted to all capital ships, frigates and destroyers and a growing number of minor war vessels. On average, aircraft carriers receive up to 1,000 messages a week from families and friends of the ships' companies. That has been very well received; it is clearly a significant growth area, to the extent that internet terminals have been installed in all naval community centres and sailors and families advice bureaux, so that relatives without computers at home can exchange e-mails with those serving in ships equipped with the facility.
Another important, and sometimes forgotten, aspect of retention is recognising the impact that service life can have on families. That is why we set up the service families task force, because not all the issues that we would like to address fall within the control of my Department. The service families task force is about working closely with other Departments in a joined-up way to address the particular problems of access to education, health and employment experienced by service families because of their necessarily mobile life style. In particular, I pay tribute to my fellow Ministers in other Departments who have provided valuable impetus to progress.
The task force has already achieved some notable successes. In education, the needs of service children are now recognised in the code of practice on schools admissions. As a result, Service Children's Education, a Ministry of Defence agency, is now in attendance on 16 local admission forums in areas where there are large numbers of service children.
In health, 24 incentive schemes have been established to encourage national health service dentists to take on service families as patients in areas where they had great difficulty in finding places in NHS practices.
In employment, we have made it easier for service spouses to claim jobseeker's allowance where they have to give up their job when their service partner is posted.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Minister report on the number of persons recruited for the defence medical services and the number who have left, or have given notice of premature, voluntary retirement, since the Government proposed, in December 1998, to close the only tri-service hospital at Haslar?
Mr. Spellar: The Under-Secretary of State for Defence will deal with that point in his reply.
We have also streamlined claiming procedures for child benefit for service families moving to and from Northern Ireland, to reduce the delays that some had experienced. I am pleased to announce that the Department for Education and Employment is taking action to ensure that the children of service personnel will now be eligible for student loans, with effect from the academic year beginning in September 2000, irrespective of where their family is, or has been, posted.
We are determined that our forces should be more representative of the society that they exist to defend, and should be able to recruit the best across the board. I am pleased to report to the House that the armed forces continue to make good progress in equal opportunities.
40
The three services are working hard to convince more young people from ethnic minority communities of the advantages offered by service careers; recruitment figures are rising significantly. More than 70 per cent. of the posts in the Navy and Army, and 96 per cent. of the posts in the RAF are open to women. I am sure that hon. Members were pleased by the positive media coverage of the recent open day of the Household Division at Windsor, at which the Army was able to announce a big rise in recruits from ethnic minority backgrounds.
I now turn to the contribution our reserve forces make to operations. They have consistently provided about 10 per cent. of the manpower for the UK contribution to NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia, since operations commenced in December 1995. At present, more than 800 reserve forces personnel are engaged on operational duties in the former Yugoslavia and at other locations at home and overseas. All have been volunteers, and many have completed more than one tour of duty. I am pleased that they speak highly of the reserve mobilisation facility at Chilwell and of the services that it provides.
When I visited British forces personnel in Bosnia at the end of January, I was able to meet a number of reservists, all of whom are making a valuable contribution, working hand-in-hand with our regular forces. They all told us that they found what they were doing worthwhile; it was also clear that their contribution is highly valued by their regular counterparts.
Only last week, 88 reservists returned from an operational tour of duty in Kosovo with the Royal Green Jackets. Those soldiers came from an enormously wide range of occupations—a chauffeur, a postman and a sawmill worker to name but three—and all had contributed fully to the great success enjoyed by the Royal Green Jackets in doing their difficult job in Kosovo. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in thanking all those involved.
In our debate last week, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green suggested that, because a high proportion of the members of the Territorial Army deployed in the Balkans are infantry, our decision on the future size of the TA infantry was clearly wrong.
In fact, the proportion of infantry required in the Balkans is slightly lower than the proportion of TA infantry in the TA as a whole. The reason why the proportion of infantry actually mobilised is higher is because of the shortage of other, more specialised arms. Thus, rather than showing our decision on the TA to be wrong, the hon. Gentleman demonstrated why we were right to increase the emphasis in the TA on the more specialised arms.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: That is an extraordinary argument to make on infantry, because the Government cut the engineers in the TA by an enormous and equivalent proportion. The engineers are doing operational tours of six months on and six months off because of the demands on them in the Balkans.
Mr. Spellar: We should look at the increase in the other specialised arms—where we need to focus our emphasis and to direct equipment.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister reconsider his figures, in view of the fact that he has stated

41
that 40 per cent. of the soldiers in the TA and reserves deployed to the Balkans in the first nine months of last year were infantry? As he knows, the infantry form only about a fifth of the whole TA. Will he also tell us why the signals, whom he quoted as an example of expansion, have experienced a substantial cut in the number of their permanent staff?
Mr. Spellar: The emphasis on equipment is moving towards specialities such as the signals. The hon. Gentleman realises the difficulties that we have in the full-time forces and in the reserves because of the expansion of the communications industry. We need to focus on the specialised arms because we need to redress the balance. His point demonstrates the validity of our case rather than the contrary.
Of course, it is not only the Army that relies on the support of its reservists. There are currently some 200 reservists working on full-time reserve service alongside their Royal Navy counterparts, filling gaps and relieving stretch both ashore and afloat. Often they are the face of the Royal Navy in the community.
Mr. Tom King: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Spellar: No, because I fear that we shall overemphasise one point. Certainly, during the November ceremonies, reservists fulfil the role that I have described at innumerable sites all over the country.
Mr. Duncan Smith: It is a bit rich for the Minister to mention something that I said in last week's debate but fail to deal with exactly the same point when it was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I said that 40 per cent. of the Territorial Army's deployment had been infantry and the Minister knows that that figure does not lie with the proportion of infantry in the Territorial Army. Will he now answer the point that my hon. Friend and I have made?
Mr. Spellar: The point is that we need a higher percentage of the reserve forces who come from the specialised arms. We very much value the contribution made by the infantry, but we want a greater contribution to come from the specialised arms. That is precisely the point and that is why we shifted the emphasis in the TA more towards the specialist arms rather than to the infantry.
Mr. Tom King: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Spellar: No.
I now come to the Air Force. We have recently concluded trials of reserve aircrew as part of our strategy for introducing reservists to the front line. We have sought to ensure that their training and specialist skills are relevant for the front line. I am pleased to tell the House that the trials have been a considerable success and that 57 of the 72 reservists trialled achieved a level of aircrew competency appropriate for the front line. That is no mean feat. Those aircrew will help to address any shortages of regular crews for peacetime and operational tasks. We have implemented schemes to employ reservists on Hercules and Puma aircraft, and work is in hand to employ reserve aircrew on all other aircraft types.
42
We do not rely only on the willingness of individual members of the reserve forces and their families to volunteer for service. We also depend upon the support of their employers. We will continue to work to secure and keep their support. To date, more than 6,000 employers have committed themselves to be supportive employers. We recognise that it is not always easy for a business when a key member of staff is away, and we are most grateful to those employers who are able to release their staff.
Of course, employers also get a good deal from employing reservists. Their military training gives them skills and qualities that benefit the companies for whom they work. Both employers and the Territorial Army Voluntary Reserve Auxiliary Committee were fully consulted about the TA mobilisation study.
I have already paid tribute to the excellence of our front-line forces. However, we all recognise that they could not do their job without thoroughly reliable logistic support. Our armed forces must be provided for across their full range of requirements in the field.
The strategic defence review concluded that we need
a better, more streamlined, and more joined up way of providing support to the front line
and, since the newly created chief of defence logistics took on budgetary and management control of the current single service logistics areas 11 months ago, excellent progress has been made in creating a new unified logistics organisation.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend that the logistics systems that the British armed forces use are very efficient and effective. Has he considered how effective they can be in providing humanitarian assistance, which is increasingly demanded around the world? In particular, what sort of assistance can the British armed serves give rapidly to Mozambique?
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will recall the considerable assistance that we were able to provide in Belize and Guatemala because we happened to have forces in theatre in that region. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development outlined today, there is a problem about the distance to be travelled and the time scale for providing help to Mozambique. Discussions regularly take place between our two Departments, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and international agencies, and co-ordination and communication have improved considerably. However, we should recognise that constraints are imposed by the physical location of equipment.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Minister speaks of constraints, but are they not largely of the Government's making? If they had fulfilled their intention of acquiring heavy lift cargo aircraft for the Royal Air Force, the helicopters could perfectly well have been put on board and been in theatre in Mozambique within 24 hours.
Mr. Spellar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience, knows that even in that context the matter would not be that simple. We are considering heavy air lift. We also have vessels in the Gulf, but I am advised that it would take some six days sailing to get them into

43
the area. In Belize, we were able to take ready rapid action, which was welcome, because we had assets in the area. He would recognise that that is not always the case and rapid reaction is not always feasible.
The new unified logistics organisation will assume full responsibility for logistic support to all three services on 3 April this year. Its goal is to free up resources from the logistic area while still delivering first-class support, to help to pay for increased front-line capability.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister confirm that the White Paper establishes that the SDR contained financial flaws that are now coming home to roost? The commitments that the Government have made do not match up with the financial resources available to the MOD to deliver on them.
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with that interpretation. I am describing the way in which we are delivering SDR precisely by using our resources and assets more efficiently and effectively to provide investment for our armed forces.
The chief of defence logistics has inherited a dedicated and professional work force. He is now building on that solid foundation to provide logistics worthy of our armed forces in the 21st century. The main opportunities offered by the creation of the defence logistics organisation will come from managing on a defence-wide basis. That will allow a new, defence-based approach to the delivery of outputs. Defence logistics means one inventory, one management system, one business improvement programme and one process, with joined-up systems to support joint forces. Achieving all that must enhance, and not undermine, operational support during the transition process.
I shall highlight some of the considerable progress that has already been made since the creation of the defence logistics organisation. After less than 12 months, the DLO is driving forward a major improvement programme under the umbrella of the lean support chain initiative. That programme not only incorporates the best of the previous single services joint support initiatives but takes forward a number of new ones.
Lean support will introduce a step change in stock holding and in repair and maintenance practices. More than 40 business improvement projects are envisaged, half of which have already been started. Key initiatives include adopting a vendor-managed inventory for vehicle parts, a more systematic review of repairable holdings and development of joint relationships with suppliers to drive down costs.
Stock holdings are also being reviewed with an intention to move towards a demand-led system. That will be based on the assumption that stocks should be held only when they cannot be regenerated within the readiness time of the forces that they support.
Integrating similar systems will be a key part of making cost-effective support possible. Integration will provide for greater commonality of approach across the defence logistics area, enhancing efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Minister explain why, in the drive for cost-effectiveness, his
44
Department has for nearly 18 months stonewalled Repaircraft plc in my constituency, which has offered a far more effective means for the CVR tank life extension programme, and has refused to offer the company a chance to tender for a contract that has been given almost exclusively to Alvis Vehicles Ltd?
Mr. Spellar: I shall certainly look into that matter.
Mr. St. Aubyn: The Minister might have answered my letters by now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members cannot take a conversational approach to the debate.
Mr. Spellar: I do not recall sending a letter, but one may have been sent by one of my predecessors. I shall consider what progress can be made. We greatly value the contribution made by small and medium-sized enterprises within the defence industrial base. Equally, however, we consider arrangements for through-life support, which often involve prime contractors—although they sometimes employ smaller contractors to fulfil part of the work. We shall need to look at the matter, and I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman on it.
We are achieving the provision of more effective support through application of sensible processes and common practices across defence logistics. The defence logistics organisation is also a major player in the implementation of smart procurement. Increasing emphasis is being placed on whole-life cost estimates, with the DLO pioneering an approach that will provide better advice to the integrated project team and MOD decision makers.
We need joined-up information and joined-up systems. Those are essential to the delivery of the best possible service to the front line, implementation of lean logistics, success in driving down the level of stocks held, and achievement of delivery of stocks as far forward in the supply chain as possible. That underlies the MOD's determination to drive forward the e-business agenda and to be at the forefront of modernising government.
If we are to support our front-line forces in the way that they deserve, we will need steadily to transform our business, join up the MOD's internal business electronically, replace inefficient paper-based systems and deliver a lean logistics support chain. We need to create a single view of our inventory, track assets to and from the front line and around the repair loop, deliver material exactly where and when it is needed, and create transparency in identifying where in the supply chain value is added.
That is why we place such a strong emphasis on the introduction of the defence electronic commerce service—DECS—which will be provided as a commercially managed service under a public-private partnership. We hope to announce our preferred partner in the next month, and to start to roll out our programme in the summer. DECS will provide us with an electronic gateway to our trading partners—indeed, it will be the very environment in which we shall share business with them—so that the MOD presents a modern e-business face to the world.

45
Such services will help to fulfil one of the SDR's central themes: to make every pound spent on defence count towards our front-line capability, which in turn contributes to defending Britain's interests worldwide. We should not forget that we can do that within a budget of only 7 per cent. of the public purse. There has been too much waste in the past and we are putting that right, not least through smart procurement and the improvements to logistics that I have mentioned.
Let us not forget what the money buys us. It buys us world-class armed forces which, man for man and woman for woman, are the best in the world. It buys us state-of-the-art equipment—such as Tomahawk, Apache and Eurofighter—which is the envy of most other forces. It buys us the ability to intervene as a force for good throughout the world, such as in the Balkans, the Gulf and East Timor. It gives us confidence that our interests and our people are protected around the globe 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—indeed, 366 days this year. That represents an outstanding achievement and says much about all personnel in the Ministry of Defence—service and civilian alike.
It is a pleasure and a privilege to be the Armed Forces Minister and to be part of a ministerial team that is delivering good management of our defence. That is why I have no hesitation in commending the White Paper to the House.
4.48 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: Before I say anything else, it is right for me to observe—it will not have escaped the attention of many hon. Members on both sides of the House—that something is profoundly wrong. The Secretary of State for Defence is not here, and has absolutely no excuse for not being so because the Government decide the legislative programme. Moreover, his absence follows a discourtesy on the first day of our debate last week, when the Treasury Bench was left bereft of any Defence Minister for certain periods, which brought forth a well-deserved rebuke from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. David Clelland: Get on with it.
Mr. Davies: I will not get on with it; this matter is vital, not merely to defence but to the entire proceedings of our House and, indeed, to our constitution. Not a month—scarcely a week—goes by without a reminder of the contempt with which the new Labour Government treat Parliament. They have become so arrogant, so bloated with their enormous majority, that they no longer care what Parliament thinks or does.
It is clear that the Secretary of State for Defence has no interest in what might be said this afternoon by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, be they Back Bencher or Front Bencher. That is a disgraceful state of affairs. Unless we record our sense of outrage at how the House is being treated, the Labour Government will continue to get away with such behaviour.
Mr. Spellar: I might have expected that sort of approach from the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), whose views on Europe are known, but, given his views, I am sure that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will be pleased to
46
learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had to attend a meeting today with his fellow European Defence Ministers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important that my right hon. Friend is there to represent our interests, or has he already been taken over by his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green?
Mr. Davies: The Minister has got it completely wrong, and I am amazed that the Labour Government have Ministers who are so unsure of their duties. Ministers' duties to the House of Commons take absolute priority over all other duties.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Defence had considerable notice of the meeting in Portugal, which he apparently prefers to attend this afternoon. He could easily have had a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons and rearranged today's debate. Perhaps these events are merely the product of new Labour incompetence: if so and if, at the last moment, the Secretary of State found himself caught short, he should at least have apologised to the House.
Mr. Tom King: May I reinforce my hon. Friend's comments? I complained officially about the timing of the debate, because it was most unsatisfactory that the first day should be on Tuesday and the second today. I was told that the timing could not be shifted, because it fitted in conveniently with Minister's other engagements and would enable them to attend.
Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend underlines the sorry state of affairs to which the House has come after two and three quarter years of Labour government. In addition, I was pretty shocked to notice that the Minister for the Armed Forces would not take an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is an extremely distinguished former Secretary of State for Defence. That, too, makes it absolutely clear that the Government do not want to listen to what Parliament has to say, especially not those Members of Parliament who know a great deal more about the subject than they do.
The right approach to the debate is to look at the strategic defence review itself. The first paragraph of the first chapter states:
The Strategic Defence Review … By modernising and reshaping our Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century … will give our Services the firm foundation that they need to plan for the long term.
This country has a right to expect action that accords with those brave words. The events of the two and three quarter years of Labour government make it clear that those words are the ones by which the Government will be condemned.
Instead of creating a "firm foundation" for our armed forces by "modernising and reshaping" them, the Government are in the process of losing control over the important procurement programme. As the first day of our debate made clear, they are quite incapable of formulating any clear policy on two essential strategic matters: the ballistic missile issue and the future of Trident. In addition, they have committed themselves to a budgetary process, which, if continued, will mean that the armed forces face a diminishing flow of resources in years to come. That can only lead to the fatal emasculation of our defence capability.

47
I have said that the Government are in danger of losing control of the procurement programme. In spite of the complacent words uttered by the Minister for the Armed Forces this afternoon, I insist that my statement is strictly accurate. It is not my judgment—I have been in my present role for only three weeks. It is the judgment that emerges from the National Audit Office report into the defence procurement programme, which makes it clear that something nasty happened to the development of the procurement programme between 1997 and 1998. That is shown by a graph. The average delay in the 25 major procurement projects, which was 32 months in 1993 and which fluctuated but never went up or down by more than 10 per cent. from the mean until 1997, has risen since the Government came to office and is now 43 months—a rise of 20 per cent. and much the biggest rise in the series.
In case the Minister is inclined to argue that that is due to the fact that certain new projects have come into the programme and the comparison is therefore unjust, the National Audit Office anticipated that. Paragraph 3.9 on page 28 of the report states:
For those 10 projects common to the 1993 and 1998 Reports, estimated slippage has risen from an average of 36 months to 57 months.
That represents an even worse state of affairs.
If the Minister is minded to argue that those are all technical issues and that Ministers cannot be expected to go into the workshops and work on the lathes, or go into the labs and sort out complicated technical problems—"Not our fault, guv"—the typical line from the Labour Government, let me quote to him from paragraph 3.11 of the report, which states:
Since 1993, four factors have dominated delays: technical difficulties, budgetary constraints, project definition and the collaborative process… Comparison between years shows that all factors now give rise to more delay than they did in 1993, but that the "technical difficulties" factor has grown by only around 10 per cent., while the other categories show delay increasing by up to 100 per cent.
Those other categories are budgetary constraints, project definition—or rather, failure of project definition—and the failure of the collaborative process, all matters on which there has rightly been a great deal of press comment recently.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that between 1993 and 1997, the Conservative party was in government?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman had better read the document or listen to what I am saying. He will see that there were fluctuations in the delay, sometimes up and sometimes down, until 1997. The fluctuations were never more than 10 per cent. from the mean. After 1997, there was a qualitative jump. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that.
Moreover, the National Audit Office comments:
In other manufacturing industries, "time to market" has generally shortened as new technology has facilitated design and development processes. Figure 17 shows no such trend is evident in defence procurement.
It is clear that there is a serious problem in defence procurement, and the Minister's complacency in his speech this afternoon was thoroughly unwarranted and inappropriate.
48
I shall deal with some of the matters that the Minister covered—for example, the SA80 rifle. It is true that the SA80 rifle has been around for a long time and was originally procured by a Conservative Government. A Conservative Government recognised that there were problems and, between 1995 and 1997, set out an investigation programme, the results of which were available to the present Government.
What have the Government done about it for the past two and three quarter years? Nothing at all, because apparently they consider the rifle a thoroughly satisfactory weapon. Only last week, when the Secretary of State for Defence graced the House with his presence, he described it as
a capable and highly accurate weapon—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1393.]
Mr. Paul Keetch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He might have referred to the Defence Committee report of June 1993—again, while the Conservatives were in government. That report stated:
This delay could have had disastrous consequences and we look to the Ministry to ensure that it does not happen again.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what happened between 1993 and 1997?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The project was originally conceived under the previous Labour Government. The great question is what this Government have done and whether they acknowledge that there is a problem since they took office in 1997. They appear to believe that there is no problem and that the rifle is a capable and highly accurate weapon. Last week, the Secretary of State said that it may have some problems in extreme conditions, but Kosovo does not constitute extreme conditions. It is not an arctic, super-hot or tropical area.
The Minister should listen to our troops, who have to use the SA80. I hope that the Minister read an article in The Times on Saturday, which quoted a 26-year-old lance corporal, who said of the SA80:
To be honest, it is useless, it falls apart on you.
Another lance corporal, aged 23, agreed:
There are terrible malfunctions. Everyone knows it is a weapon that you couldn't rely on in a real war.
The article continues:
The British squaddies were frustrated because yesterday morning they were given an order not to discuss the SA80 with the press after revelations in The Times yesterday.
That is sinister. The article goes on:
At first they refused to talk about the weapon, which was strange because the British soldiers in Kosovo usually have an opinion on everything. But by last night, they were ready to speak out. "It's weird, because in the past they always told us to say to the press what you think is true," a squaddie said. "This is the first time in Kosovo that they have told us not to talk to the press."
Clearly, the Government are extremely worried about the matter and are trying to prevent the views of our troops in Kosovo from being heard.
Does the Minister believe that The Times invented those quotations? If he believes that, he should say so. If The Times did not invent them, we are considering an extremely serious matter. The Minister should consider

49
what he will do about it. He should come to the House to explain the action that he will take instead of trying complacently to slither over the matter.
Mr. Spellar: Before the hon. Gentleman suffers a paroxysm of over-excitement and hysteria, I must point out that if the weapons system is so deficient, he should take up his criticisms with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who was formerly an Armed Forces Minister for a considerable period of time. The deficiencies, which are apparent in extreme heat and dust, were revealed during the Gulf war. There were questions about whether the deficiencies constituted systemic weaknesses or isolated problems. Perhaps it took too long to decide.
More recently, major work was undertaken between our experts and the manufacturers, Heckler and Koch. They are also working on a remediation programme, about which they will report. We are taking action, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that the weapons system is deficient, and not a capable and highly accurate system—as the Secretary of State rightly describes it—that has some problems, he is criticising the previous Administration.
Mr. Davies: It is a disgraceful abdication of responsibility for the Minister to claim that, although he is Minister for the Armed Forces, the problems lead to the door of previous Governments. As for my becoming excessively excited, does the Minister know what happens in battle to a soldier whose rifle jams? Is not that an appallingly serious consideration? We should take it extremely seriously and the Minister should tackle it. He should be in a position to come to the House to explain the measures that he will take to prevent such a tragic outcome.
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman's position is extraordinary. If his accusations are justified, he is claiming that, between 1991 and 1997, his colleagues sent British troops into engagements with defective equipment. If that is what he is saying, he criticises the previous Administration. The system has considerable merits, but also deficiencies. We and the manufacturers are doing something about it.
Mr. Davies: So far, the Minister has completely failed to say what he is doing about that, but the House and the Army are entitled to know. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will tell us a little more when he sums up the debate.
Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I must continue, because the SA80 is one of the issues that have attracted an exceptional amount of media interest. There are many more. What about the Tornado GR4 upgrade programme? I wrote to the Secretary of State when the BBC broke the story last Wednesday, but of course I have had no response to my letter or to parliamentary questions on other procurement matters that I tabled some weeks ago. I shall set out the perfectly reasonable questions on this matter, to which Parliament is entitled to an answer.
50
Is there any truth in the BBC's report that £1 billion of taxpayers' money has been spent and that the effect has been not to upgrade but to downgrade the GR4s, because they cannot operate the laser smart bomb mechanism? When did those problems come to light? In the media last week, the Government appeared to say November 1998. Was that the moment when Ministers became aware of them? If so, what action have the Government taken since? After all, that was 18 months ago. Is a business plan in place to address the problem? If so, may we know what it is? Can we also be told the additional cost of remedying whatever deficiencies have emerged? Who will pay that—the taxpayer or the contractor? Those are straightforward questions.
Mr. Spellar rose—
Mr. Davies: I shall give way, but we do not want some new Labour gimmick, slogan or brush-off. We want serious, businesslike answers to serious questions.
Mr. Spellar: I hoped that I had done that in my opening remarks, but I shall amplify them. There is a constant battle between those on the ground who are trying to detect aircraft with radar systems and aircraft that are trying to avoid detection. Development is constant as technology advances. Therefore, to improve the aircraft's stealth capabilities, major complicated work is being undertaken to upgrade from GR1 status to GR4.
Mr. Davies: I know that.
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman says he knows that, in which case his remarks are even more extraordinary. That work is at the edge of electronic and information technology. It is absolutely right that, towards the end of 1998, there were some difficulties in integrating the new radar systems and the thermal imaging and laser designation technology. As a result, the Ministry of Defence and the manufacturers have been working together on proposals to rectify them, and they believe that they are on the way to achieving that. The programme is still within the time frame and the budget of the original proposals.
Furthermore, we have always retained the GR1 capability for TIALD bombing, as we showed in Kosovo. At that time, had we reached a point at which there was a danger of not having sufficient aircraft as a result of the upgrade programme, we would have slowed down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspect that the House is beginning to forget who is addressing it. These remarks are very interesting and know that the question needs answering, but the Minister will remember that he is intervening.
Mr. Spellar: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
For that reason, the programme will be on time and within budget, as far as we can ascertain. It will deliver that capability, once we have the work done. That happens in upgrade programmes regularly.
Mr. Davies: The Minister is entirely to blame for last week's media outcry. Had he volunteered that information to the House, as he should have done, there would have

51
been no need for the press to cause such a great stir because we would have known the facts in advance. I hope that he takes that lesson on board.
Mr. Thomas Graham rose—
Mr. Davies: I am being generous, but I shall give way. Then I must press on.
Mr. Graham: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was interested in the point that he made about sending letters to the Ministry of Defence and not receiving a reply. As the Member of Parliament for West Renfrewshire, I represent Bishopton royal ordnance factory. I am sick and tired of writing letters to arrange a meeting to which Ministers do not reply. The Minister told me last week that I would have a meeting. It has been a full week since then, and hundreds of workers in Scotland still face the dole. Enough is enough. It is time that the MOD replied speedily to Members' letters.
Mr. Davies: We could hardly have had a more revealing intervention than that.
I shall move on to other procurement programmes that have not yet been the subject of a press outcry, but perhaps they should be. We may get some clear answers this afternoon—but maybe not. One of them is the TRACER programme. It is said that the United States has withdrawn from that programme. Is that correct? If so, where does that leave the TRACER project? Will we proceed with it ourselves, and if so, what will the incremental cost be? If not, what will we do about a new generation reconnaissance vehicle? What are the Government's plans?
This is an extremely important matter and, once again, Ministers are reluctant to give Parliament the facts and to give an account of themselves as they are required to do in a parliamentary system. We shall draw our own conclusions from the fact that the Minister is not leaping to his feet now to give me an answer.
What about BROACH? Will the Minister confirm that Lockheed Martin have been awarded a contract for the penetrating warhead for the US air force air-to-air cruise missile system, despite a 1998 memorandum of understanding with the Department of Defence that made it clear that British Aerospace was the preferred contractor? Is that true? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) seems to think that this is extremely funny. He seems to think that military procurement, the waste of taxpayers' money and the question whether all these elaborate promises in the document are a lot of eyewash are funny. I suppose that he is one of these new Labour politicians who think that one can survive on a diet of spin doctoring. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a serious matter. We are discussing the future of our defence forces and the circumstances in which men and women wearing uniform will be exposed and at risk of their lives in combat.
Mr. Hancock: On the question of spin, I am interested in the spin that the hon. Gentleman attempted to put on the SA80. Is he aware that, in 1993, section and platoon
52
commanders considered that, had the enemy put up more resistance in the Gulf, casualties would have been suffered because of weapons stoppages. The Conservative Government's response to the Defence Committee at that time was that:
the criticisms were carefully investigated. It was concluded that stoppages were largely attributable to incorrect maintenance … Some units had not been employing the correct lubrication and cleaning procedures.
The hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Government accepted that cleaning materials were responsible for the gun going wrong. Is he seriously telling us that all the blame is now on the Labour Government's shoulders? That cannot be right.
Mr. Davies: We know perfectly well that, when the Government are really in trouble, their Liberal Democrat allies try to come to their rescue. That was a completely irrelevant intervention. I have already stated that that weapon had a number of problems that the Conservative Government addressed. In any case, even if that were not so, it is irrelevant to the responsibility that the present Government bear for the armed services of the nation and for the equipment procurement programme. If the Government wanted to argue that this was such a hopeless weapon that it should be junked, they could have done so when they came to power. Instead, they not only took over the programme, but they have gone round saying that this is a capable weapon. They believe in it, but the troops in the field clearly do not.
Mr. Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
New Labour and its Liberal Democrat allies may not want me to talk about BROACH, but I intend to do so. Is it true that a contract has been awarded to Lockheed Martin in breach of a memorandum of understanding with this country? Is it true that the performance specification was reduced at the last moment by Boeing and the Department of Defence to allow the Lockheed Martin weapon to compete? British Aerospace had, in good faith, been working for years on a more sophisticated double-stage warhead. It that true, or is it not?
Is it true that the Government themselves are so upset and humiliated that they have instructed Sir Robert Walmsley and our ambassador in Washington, Sir Christopher Mayer, to protest? They have not told Parliament about it, but apparently they are instructing our ambassador in Washington to make a great fuss. If it is true that we have been treated in this fashion, where does that leave the much-trumpeted agreement signed in Munich by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Department of Defence? Is it not worth the paper on which it is written, or is it a legally binding obligation on the United States Administration? Has it been ratified by that Administration? Has it been ratified by Congress? Let us have some answers on BROACH.
I could speak about a good many other procurement programmes, but I shall deal with just one: the joint strike fighter programme. I can see that the Minister for the Armed Forces is not enjoying this; he is trying to engage in a completely artificial conversation with his neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State, in the hope of getting out of answering my questions.

53
The joint strike fighter programme is extremely important. There is a rumour abroad that, although we shall be sharing the full range of our vertical take-off and landing and very short take-off and landing technology with the Americans, they will not be sharing the full range of their stealth technology for the aircraft with us, and the aircraft made available to us will therefore be stealthed to a lesser degree. In other words, our aircraft will be less effective, and our pilots more vulnerable, than their American counterparts. Is that correct, or is it not?
I warn the Minister that, if that is really the line that the Government intend to pursue, such invidious discrimination would be an obnoxious, humiliating and unacceptable solution.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am listening to all the questions that my hon. Friend is asking, to which he is receiving no answers. Is he aware that, like the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham), I wrote to the Ministry more than three months ago about a company in my constituency and its attempts to bid for a tender for a contract. I have still received no more than an acknowledgement from the Minister and his Department. Is that not yet another example of the way in which none of our complaints are treated seriously?
I cannot judge the cost to the Ministry, but I know that the contractor that it has chosen is charging more than £500 for each of the plastic straps, while my constituency company would charge only 54p. That is how lacking in smartness the Ministry's procurement programme is.
Mr. Davies: That was another revealing intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for it.
Providing a firm foundation for national defence, which the Government have promised to do, means being absolutely clear about the key strategic issues of the future. Last Tuesday—and, indeed, in Defence questions—my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made it plain that the Government do not know where they are going in regard to anti-ballistic missile defence. That is extraordinary, for a host of reasons. One is that this is one of the great issues of the moment; another is that we may be implicated directly in any United States ABM defence programme because of the Fylingdales facility. The third is that, most extraordinarily, the Secretary of State actually said during Defence questions on Monday:
the United States Administration have made it clear that one of the specific considerations that they will take into account—
in relation to ABM defence—
is the reaction and attitude of the allies.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1224.]
President Chirac has made absolutely clear where he stands on the issue, as was pointed out last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. The Government seem incapable of doing the same.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge rose—
Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us what his Government's attitude is to ABM defence, and what they are saying to the US Administration, I will give way to him. I see that he is not going to answer, so I am
54
afraid that I am not giving way to him. However, I will give way to any Minister who cares to set the record straight.
Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made it clear on Tuesday, the first day of the debate, that the Government are not playing straight with the country, or else are not clear in their own mind about their attitude to our nuclear deterrent. He asked the extremely pertinent question: are the Government still committed to the Kaufman doctrine, which came in when the Labour party abandoned unilateralism in the 1990s—the doctrine said that we would keep our nuclear weapons so long as anyone else kept theirs—or have they gone to something rather different?
The Ministers of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Neath (Mr. Hain), used a very different formulation recently; it was also quoted in last week's debate. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said:
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.]
That is extremely different. It may be that the Government are prepared to give up our nuclear weapons while some other countries have nuclear weapons; that is the essence of it.
The Secretary of State for Defence made a slightly different formulation. He added the phrase, "give up our nuclear weapons without endangering our security interests," but that is a subjective, not objective, criterion. It means that, if a Minister determines that our security interests can allow us to give those weapons up, we will do so, so there is complete obscurity. There is complete muddle where there should, above all, be complete clarity. Deterrence depends on clarity and credibility, and it is one of the most primordial aspects of defence policy.
Not only is the Government's defence procurement policy in a mess; not only are they incapable of formulating clear strategic long-term policies, contrary to the promises that they glibly make in their documents, but they are presenting the country with a long-term budget plan for defence that makes it absolutely clear that they will be able to fulfil none of their aspirations.
The figures are graphically set out in the Library document on defence statistics, which shows that, in 1999–2000, the current financial year, defence spending in real terms will fall by 3.4 per cent; that next year it will fall by 0.1 per cent.; and that the year after, 2001–2002, it will fall by 1.8 per cent. There is that cumulative fall in the resources to be made available to defence in real terms.
There is an even bigger fall in the share of gross domestic product that goes on defence. By the end of the Labour Government's term of office, it will be down to 2.3 or 2.2 per cent., which is the European average. That includes countries such as Luxembourg, Denmark and Belgium, which are not famed for their enormous defence effort. That is something that the Government cannot get away from. They are trying to get away from it in the most bogus fashion. First, they say that there will be efficiency gains. That claim was completely exploded by the Defence Committee, which showed that the Government not only do not have a list of the supposed efficiency gains, but are trying to claim as an efficiency

55
gain—I think that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) discovered it when he was on the Committee—the closure of RAF Ash. My hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) discovered during the Select Committee proceedings—which are all in the excellent report—that the Government were trying to claim, as an efficiency gain by them, savings from the closure of RAF Laarbruch by the previous Government under the "Front Line First" proposals. It is obvious that the efficiency gains are bogus.
Anyone with a business background will recognise the inexorable logic of it. The Government cannot go on achieving efficiency gains indefinitely at an arbitrary level—they say 3 per cent. per annum—because there are diminishing returns for efficiency gains. And one certainly cannot make efficiency gains with a declining budget, because declining budgets cause diseconomies of scale. The Minister's point on efficiency gains was, therefore, thoroughly bogus.
Before the Minister says that the previous, Conservative Administration also cut defence spending—I know that he will try to make that point in reply—I remind him that the previous Administration faced a fundamental and structural change in the threat that we face: the collapse of the Warsaw pact and the end of the cold war.
Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way, but I am trying to move matters on.
The Government have faced no such structural change, let alone threat reduction. On the contrary, in the past two or three years, the world seems to have become a more dangerous—not less dangerous—place. We have had Desert Fox, Kosovo, East Timor and other developments that could not possibly have been predicted. Against that background, the course on which the Government have launched themselves is thoroughly irresponsible.
We have a Government who are incapable of managing effectively their procurement programme; who are unwilling—even if they were able, which I doubt—to give clear information to Parliament on essential matters; who find it impossible to define their own strategic views on key issues, such as anti-ballistic missiles and use of nuclear weapons; and who are providing a financial future for the United Kingdom's armed services that will constrict ever further the resources that our forces need for the future. They are not a Government with whom it is safe to leave the future of our armed forces or of our national defence.
5.26 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I was touched by the generous obituaries offered by my colleagues for our good friend Michael Colvin. He served on the Defence Committee since July 1992. In 1995, he became the Committee's Chairman, and, after the 1997 general election, he served as my deputy Chairman. Last month, he left the Defence Committee. The death of Michael and his wife is a tragedy not only for his constituents and his constituency association, but for Parliament and the House of Commons Defence Committee. I should like to express the Committee's commiseration and sadness.
56
Michael Colvin's contribution in monitoring the Executive was immense. He was obeyed, even in a trench or in a tent. He was so elegant, but also so wonderful—partly because of his military background—in expressing to members of the military how much the Committee empathised with them. He was a splendid Chairman.
I was not able to hear Michael Colvin's final speech, in which he complimented the Defence Committee almost as though he were describing the end of one phase of his life. He said:
I am sorry to have left the Committee.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1444.]
If only we had realised that not only had he left the Committee, but that he would be leaving Parliament and life. The death of Michael and his wife is a matter of immense sadness to me. I am still stunned by the news. However, his memory will for ever live strongly and positively in my mind.
Michael Colvin always stressed the Committee's importance in providing, and always sustaining, constructive criticism and consensus. A couple of months ago, a friend of mine, who is not of the Government, said to me, "Tell me, George, what's DERA?" I explained that it is the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. He asked, "How will the Government come out in your report on it?" I winced. He asked, "How about the Territorial Army? Your Committee has been pretty hot on it. How does the Government come out on the TA?" I not only winced, but grimaced, and looked even more ugly. He ran through a list of Committee reports, which are either forthcoming or already published, and, on each subject, he asked, "How does the Government come out on it?" Each time I said, "Pretty awful." Finally, he turned to me and said—I shall expunge the expletive—"George, whose blanking side are you on?" That was the ultimate compliment, because it showed that our Committee had put aside political partisanship. We did not say what the Opposition or the Ministry of Defence wanted us to say. We told it like it was.
Many of the reports produced under Michael Colvin's chairmanship were very critical of the Conservative Government, and that tradition, which began 20 years ago, is being maintained. He paid tribute to the staff, the advisers and everyone involved with the Committee, and we are all deeply grateful.
I shall not follow the example of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). My voice would not allow it and I am not on stimulants. I shall propose a new word for the dictionary: the verb "to Gazza", meaning to attempt to inflict physical damage on an adversary and end up maiming oneself.
I am delighted that many of our reports are tagged. I was in Moscow when the debate took place last week, but I note that there were 54 references to our Committee, almost all of them very favourable. Our report did not include Kosovo, on which we are producing a major report; the European security and defence identity, on which we are producing a substantial report; or any detail on equipment, because we are producing a major report on that. What we did was good, and I am proud of it.
In our report, we discussed defence reporting to Parliament, which has certainly improved in quantity, and we are asking for an improvement in quality. We expressed some reservations about the Secretary of State's

57
comment that the White Paper might not be produced annually. We went into enormous detail on overstretch. A previous report said:
In terms of broad policy, there is little new in the … White Paper
and expressed the hope that there would be more in the next one. But that enthusiasm and aspiration were not realised. That was a 1985–86 report. Some White Papers have lacked content.
Our report goes into great detail on overstretch, undermanning and the difficulties of recruitment and retention. I look back and see an enormous number of reports in the past 20 years commenting on just that. One said:
It appears self-evident to us that matching resources to tasks is becoming increasingly fraught, stretching both crews and vessels to unwise levels even during peacetime … It is our view that this shortcoming poses a serious, and potentially fatal, threat to the long-term security of this country.
That was not our most recent White Paper report, but one from 1992–93. The criticisms of overstretch have been made many times before.
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: No, I am so sorry but I have only 15 minutes. I am so very, very sorry.
The 1992–93 report also says that
our case that chronic overstretch will be the normal state of affairs within the Army unless the Government's restructuring proposals are modified does not rest on the assumption that the additional deployments in Northern Ireland and Bosnia will themselves necessarily be extended.
Those are very critical comments on what happened under the previous Government, so the idea that the crisis began on 2 May 1997 is so absurd as to be laughable.
Our Committee has made critical comments on the defence cuts, but those did not begin on 2 May 1997. If we had continued the downward spiral of defence cuts from 1983 to 1997, there would be nothing in the defence budget to spend. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford should examine carefully what happened before he became defence spokesman and before the Labour Government came to office.
Our Committee said:
Our concern that there might be difficulties in managing the Defence Budget into the 1990s has as a result of our inquiry turned into the strongest suspicion that there will indeed be considerable difficulties leading to cancellations, slowing-down of acquisitions and the running-on of equipment beyond its economic life-span. The evidence we have received from the Ministry has not allayed our fears.
That was from a 1984–85 report. Another quotation is:
We cannot recommend the 1996 Statement on the Defence Estimates to the House unless Ministers make clear in the debate that this year's Statement will not again be undermined by further defence cuts in the 1996 Budget or by any other means.
The Committee chaired by Michael Colvin said the following in a report on defence spending in 1996–97:
The case for the restoration of some of the cuts made as a result of Options for Change and Front Line First is well made, but we are now promised instead a period of stability at the present level of funding. We insist that the defence spending plans set out in the 1996 budget must at least be maintained in real terms in future years. Any further reduction would jeopardise the defence of the realm.
That was when the Conservatives were in government.
58
Much has been made of the Government's procurement failures by the press, Opposition spokesmen and service men. Headlines over the weekend included "Ministry of Disasters" and "MOD bungles cost taxpayers £6 billion in 10 years". Looking at the last National Audit Office report published under the Conservative Government, I came to the conclusion that the delays were long and the situation was serious. The argument of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is on a par with Jack the Ripper blaming the police for not having solved his crimes.
For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I have devised the A to Z of Tory procurement policy, showing what the Go0vernment inherited and have to deal with. It starts with Apache, which is a long programme. The first one will be delivered in 2000. Having visited Pristina airport, I have some questions about how effective they are. The AWACS—the airborne warning and control system—offset agreement also comes under "A". The situation was hopeless. "B" stands for Bowman—a disaster that began under the previous Government.
"C" stands for the common new generation frigate. It was cancelled—thank God—after bad management by the previous Government. The ships automated command system—CACS—was reported on in 1986–87 and it was rubbish. The 1990–91 report refers to HMS Challenger—a sea bed operation vessel that was flogged off. "D" stands for DROPS—the demountable rack off loading and pickup system. That was a scandal that we had no time to investigate.
"E" stands for EH101, which was a story of delay. Eurofighter was expected to be introduced to service in the mid-1980s, but it will be 2005 before the first squadron is introduced. "F" stands for Foxhunter radar. Concrete was stuck into a Tornado's nose to simulate the radar. "F" also stands for Fearless and Intrepid, which were introduced in 1965 and 1967. The Defence Committee said in 1984–85 that it was about time that they were replaced Albion and Bulwark will come into service in 2003.
"G" stands for the GR1 and GR4 Tornado. The Tory response is "not our fault". "H" stands for Hercules replacement, the C130J, which was a bit of a disaster. "I" stands for Istar intelligence, which was criticised. "I" also stands for the improved UK air defence environment, which was the subject of a very critical report in 1989–90. "J" stands for JSTARS—the joint surveillance target attack radar system. We should have bought that for ASTOR—the airborne stand-off radar.
"K" stands for KFOR, which has had many equipment failures. "L" is for LAW80, which is a wonderful weapon, but unfortunately the Russians developed a new tank and the missiles bounced off them. It was the fault of the previous Government. "M" stands for the merchant marine for defence purposes. This Government have remedied the chaos.
"N" stands for Nimrod 2000. If the air frames last their full lifetime, they will be older than me. "0" is for HMS Ocean. It was a compromise that could not continue when it went out on its first voyage. "P" stands for Phoenix, which should mean coming out of the ashes into the sky. The previous Government reversed that classical trend. "Q" is for the married quarters and their sale. I am ashamed. "R" is for Rapier field service C. It was not a

59
success initially. "R" also stands for the reliability and maintainability of defence equipment, which the 1989–90 report said was extremely disturbing.
"S" is for the SA80 rifle. Again the story is "not our fault". I defy anyone to look at the situation and say that it was not the Tories' fault. "S" also stands for Sea Harrier, whose mid-life update criticised it for being very slow. The Sea Wolf and Sea Eagle missiles also received criticism.
"T" stands for Tornado. Its 1968–69 feasibility study found that it was a good aircraft that had taken a long time. That is more than can be said of the Tornado F3 upgrade, done by the private company Airworks, which almost destroyed half the Air Force. "U" stands for the Upholder class submarine, a good vessel flogged off to the Canadians. "W" stands for Westland—enough said. "X" stands for the unknown examples that must exist, but which I could not remember. "Y" stands for Yarrow, which was almost destroyed by the previous Government's policies. "Z" stands for Zircon, the satellite about which information was withheld by the previous Government.
I hope that I have partly convinced the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that year one, when all chaos began, was not 1997. It is wrong to put the blame in one place; the matter is too complicated. I hope that smart procurement has addressed the issues seriously, and that the imperfections manifest to anyone willing to read about them will be reversed. Only time will tell.
I commend the report of the Defence Committee to the House. It is an extraordinarily good report, bearing in mind the number of staff and advisers that helped in its production. I am excessively proud of it.
Those of us who go to the funeral or memorial service for Michael Colvin will have heavy hearts. We will thank him profoundly for all that he did, and remember him and his beautiful and vivacious wife very fondly.
5.42 pm
Mr. Tom King: I am pleased to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). All hon. Members will appreciate his warm and sincere tribute to Michael Colvin, a dearly loved colleague whom the House will miss very much. Friday morning's announcement of the tragic deaths of Michael and his wife will have shocked us all.
It is an extraordinary feeling to begin the second day of a debate without Michael Colvin, whose contribution to the first day's proceedings was exactly what one would expect—well informed, concerned, and passionately interested in the subject. It is a measure of his standing in the House—he became Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence in 1995, and so had to speak for hon. Members of all parties—that he had just recently been made chairman of the European group. That was typical of the respect and admiration in which he was held.
It is one of the sadnesses of this House that awful accidents from time to time happen to people whom one has got to know extremely well. For example, over the door into the Chamber, I can see the coat of arms of another colleague, Airey Neave, whom we lost 20 years ago. We shall remember Michael Colvin as an hon. Member of outstanding quality and integrity.
60
As a former Secretary of State for Defence, I have tended to observe a certain self-denying ordinance or reticence when it comes to taking part in defence debates. It is eight years since I handed over my responsibilities, and the present Secretary of State is the fourth since I held office. I was intending to welcome him to his post, as this is the first time he has taken part as Secretary of State in a debate on the defence White Paper. It is a pity that he is not here. The report from the Select Committee on Defence is sufficiently important to merit a two-day debate, and I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that he should have been here for this important occasion.
I complained officially about the days chosen for this debate. I was told that these were the only days when Ministers could attend, and that the debate was being arranged to suit their convenience. I do not think that the Secretary of State's absence shows courtesy to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence who, like me, had reasons for not speaking on the first day of the debate.
People such as the hon. Member for Walsall, South and I can occasionally contribute; we have been here before. A lot of the problems are not new—there is a desperate continuity about them—as the hon. Gentleman very fairly said. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I had to grapple with the demands that I made and the problems of overstretch that they caused our forces. If I asked for another battalion for Northern Ireland, the challenges and difficulties that I knew that would pose were clearly put to me by Lord Younger, the then Secretary of State for Defence.
It is important that Ministers take seriously the contribution of right hon. and hon. Members. For example, there were lessons to be learned about the SA80 after the Gulf war. I remember hiring an Antonov aircraft in the Gulf war and the debate that that launched about the need for improvement of heavy lift. One looks around and wonders why it is not possible to make rather faster progress. We have moved all the way from the Gulf war to the Mozambique statement this afternoon, when the access to heavy lift would certainly have made a significant contribution in humanitarian terms. The problem is still unresolved.
My concern is that the Ministry of Defence faces some serious problems. I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and his colleagues on an excellent and interesting report. They did not mince their words. I think that the Chairman may have decided that he would in his speech recover some ground with his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman talked about the concerns of the Select Committee in a number of areas.
I congratulate the Secretary of State; he has been the recipient of very rapid promotion in the Government. However, I do not think that it has been a promotion for the Ministry of Defence. I do not recall a time when the Secretary of State for Defence was the most junior member of the Cabinet. I happen to believe that that matters, and I think that it will matter in the comprehensive spending review, when the pecking order and the weight that the various Secretaries of State carry will be very important.
I also have some sympathy for the Secretary of State. There is an illusion that Lord Robertson left behind a golden legacy after his time as Secretary of State

61
for Defence. He has lived up to Lord Callaghan's comment about Chancellors of the Exchequer. There are two kinds—those who leave in disgrace, and those who get out in time. I would certainly put Lord Robertson in the latter category. He may have got out in time, but he has left his successor some difficult problems, which the Select Committee report spelled out.
In the time available to me, I should like to comment briefly on the European situation—the European security and defence identity. The attempt to bring defence within the European Union is not new—it was going on for all the years I was at the Ministry of Defence. I remember the attempts of the Franco-German brigade and the French to seduce us away from the military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There is much to be said for closer European co-operation in defence matters. There will certainly be areas, as we know, in which the Americans do not want to get involved. However, the issue must be handled with great sensitivity and care. I have heard enough exchanges across the Chamber—quotes from Strobe Talbott, and so on—trying to justify either side's position, to know that it has been handled rather clumsily, and that there are real risks and worries about it in Washington.
We are talking here about NATO and about the Ministry of Defence. There is another element, not directly part of the MOD, in which our connection and very close relationship with the United States is essential to the security of our country. I will say no more about it, but as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I know the value of that intelligence link. If there were too casual an approach to the Americans, and the impression were given that everything we wanted that was otherwise available from the United States could be found in Europe, that would be a very dangerous state of affairs.
The Chairman of the Select Committee is right to point out that overstretch is not new. The matter was of great concern to me when I was Secretary of State. When we considered the "Options for Change" White Paper, we tried to establish two-year tour intervals. However, because of a sustained period of unreasonable demand—as the Select Committee pointed out in a telling phrase—the situation is now vastly more critical and damaging than I can ever recall.
We are told that the average nights out of bed are now 31 per cent. for the First Armoured Division, and that the Royal Engineers and the Royal Signals Corps now have tour intervals of six and seven months. We can always get the Army to do something for a short time—its members will always stand to attention—which is one of the great wonders of our services and a tribute to them. However, we cannot expect them to undertake such duties over a sustained period. The overstretch problem must be corrected. It was described by the Select Committee as the most urgent one facing the armed forces.
Various considerations come into play. We all pay tribute to the quality of our armed forces. That is built partly on good organisation, but especially on good training. If we have to cancel training exercises, because of stretch and the budgetary pressures, we shall be living on borrowed time. We shall be sending our armed forces into situations for which they will not be properly trained. That is extremely serious.
62
There are real problems of recruitment and retention. Recruitment is looking better, but retention is worrying—as the Minister pointed out. However, what hit me between the eyes was the statement made by the Secretary of State that we should reach full complement by 2005—in five years' time. When anyone told the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, that a project would not be profitable or rewarding in years one, two and three, but that it would be viable in years four and five, she used to say, "Years four and five never come". To say that there will be a full complement by 2005 actually means that we shall not be up to full complement in the next three years. That is as far as one can honestly forecast. That statement was extremely worrying.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. King: I am up against time, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way.
The Select Committee talked about irksome duties. I examined that matter in Northern Ireland. The amount of time that regiments spend on guard duties for themselves takes away from their operational time. That matter is worth further consideration.
In Prime Minister's questions, when people criticise cuts in defence expenditure, I have occasionally bitten my tongue when the Prime Minister makes the extraordinarily silly remark that, in effect, "You made cuts, so why can't we?". That is as relevant as if a tailor cut a suit, made some adjustments and removed some cloth, and then someone else said, "I know exactly how to be a tailor; you cut a bit off everybody's suit," so he cuts a bit more off. There is a right size and a wrong size.
At the end of the cold war, we made reductions under the "Options for Change" White Paper. That was right. We reduced the number of our forces in Germany. That was right because the Germans would not have wanted so many of them to stay there. At that time, the Labour Opposition were calling for far greater cuts. However, we cannot keep on making cuts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)—in last Tuesday's debate—made the point that efficiency savings can be made once, perhaps even a couple of times, but they cannot be made year after year. What is an efficiency saving? It is the determination of the Treasury to obtain 3 per cent. more, with no idea of where it is to come from. The Treasury are active enough to spell out exactly where cuts should be made and to challenge different programmes. However, at the end of the day, there is the wonderful catch-all that the figures are agreed—but it still wants 3 per cent. on top.
As the Select Committee pointed out, the proportion of Government expenditure on defence now is as low as it was during the appeasement era of the 1930s; and any further cuts would cause the whole strategy to unravel. The reason I wanted to contribute to this debate what little background and experience I may have accumulated during the years that I held certain responsibilities is that the defence situation is as grave as I have ever known it. That is partly because of an admirable willingness to help in some troubled and tragic parts of the world.
However, the pressure on our armed forces cannot be sustained. They are overstretched and underfunded. The basis on which the forecasts have been made—especially

63
with the built-in efficiency savings—means that the programme will be unsustainable and it will unravel. When that happens, I do not know how easily we will ever redeem it.
5.56 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: For several years, Michael Colvin was president of the Palace of Westminster rifle club. I am captain of that organisation. The Members and staff who belong to the club would not forgive me if I neglected to add their tributes to the sterling service that Michael gave for a long time.
Many tributes have been made—they were stunning; I do not have the eloquence to match them. Michael and Nichola did not need eloquence; they were eloquence and elegance personified. They displayed great humanity, compassion and care for everyone who crossed their path. They will be greatly missed.
I apologise to the House for my absence on the first day of the debate. With other colleagues, I was taking part in four days of consultations at NATO, in Brussels, with the North Atlantic council and the European Parliament, on NATO matters. Most of my comments today will be made from a NATO point of view; I am vice-president of the NATO parliamentary assembly and vice-chairman of its defence and security committee. I am also a member of the joint monitoring group of the permanent joint council.
Before I went to Brussels, I spent 10 days in America visiting the east and west coast with the NATO parliamentary delegation. We were bombarded on two issues: national missile defence, which has already been referred to as anti-ballistic defence; and, of course, the European security and defence identity—ESDI. It is ironic that the Americans criticise us for not consulting them on ESDI and we criticise them for not consulting us on NMD.
I thought that our task with ESDI would be fairly easy, and that I would only have to explain to those fairly myopic Americans that the matter was simple; they had asked us to carry it out over a period of time and we were doing exactly what they had prompted us to do. Certainly, since the first meetings that I attended—in Antalya in 1987—they have said every year that we have to do better in Europe. However, when we did better, they criticised us. I thought that to explain that would be sufficient.
It was not, however. The anxiety was too strong. It was only when we visited the Rand Corporation on the west coast that I found people saying the same things as me. I heard the same views as I had expressed on the Hill, at the White house, at the National Security Council and the State Department. It was only then that I realised that I had not considered the matter closely enough. I had to get inside the minds of the Americans to find out where their anxieties came from.
Any anxieties that the Americans may have had about Europe were made infinitely worse by the comments that Baroness Thatcher made on a visit there. Some of her views were very reasonable. For example:
As the Kosovo conflict showed, and as the figures for defence spending confirm, European defence capabilities are lagging dangerously far behind those of the United States.
64
That is eminently sensible and perfectly accurate. She added:
This is particularly true in the vital area of military technology.
That point is as plain as the nose on one's face and it is absolutely right.
However, Baroness Thatcher said that there would be a problem because
The impulse towards developing a new European defence and separate European armed forces has little to do with the fact that Europe is cutting its defences while America is increasing hers.
It has even less to do with any serious European response to the global dangers of proliferation, which can only be properly met by ballistic missile defence.
I am afraid that a big question mark must be put against that view. She added:
No. The real drive towards a separate European defence is the same as that towards a single European currency—namely the utopian venture of creating a single European superstate to rival America on the world stage … This has been a long-standing French aspiration.
That is not only lunacy, but it is dangerous lunacy. It is also grotesquely inaccurate, as was her remark that it was superficially splendid that Europe had taken an interest in its own defence.
Such comments are less than helpful if one is seeking to develop a more mature alliance within NATO. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was also less than helpful when he quickly followed that visit with similar remarks. They do not help relations with America and they certainly do not help them with the French.
America and France have a particular relationship, as we do with France. An American Congressman passed me a note in Brussels last week which said that the French had forgiven the Germans for defeating them twice in the past century and for suppressing them, but they were unable to forgive the Brits and the Yanks for liberating them on each occasion. There is a degree of humour and, I suppose, of accuracy in that comment, but it does not help to come out with nonsense that exacerbates relations.
As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, there is no doubt that we must treat the ESDI proposals with great sensitivity because the Americans are greatly concerned about, and do not fully understand, them. They are afraid of the role of the European Parliament and the European Union and they would like to know the difference between one and the other. The Commission is also hanging around and the Americans do not understand its role—but why should they be any different? I myself sometimes do not understand the difference between the various bodies. However, the Americans are afraid that that form of democracy will intrude into their defence commitments and responsibilities. What they need are clarity and transparency.
The Americans are not the only ones who want clarity and transparency. When I returned from America, I attended a briefing by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which was held for our delegations to NATO, the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I found even greater and more specific anxieties among my colleagues of all parties who are members of those bodies. If British delegates to the Council of Europe and to the Western European Union have even stronger anxieties about the ESDI proposals than do the Americans, we can be sure that the delegates to those bodies from other

65
countries will have similar anxieties. It is therefore most important that we open up the debate to the most transparent and comprehensive exchanges.
We are told that Mr. Solana and Lord Robertson meet twice a month for breakfast. I am pleased about that; I am sure that it does wonders for their well-being. However, I am not sure what it does for compatibility between European nations, non-NATO European nations, non-European NATO nations and our American cousins and the Canadians. There is much that must be made plain and laid out on the table, and we must begin to do that in an open and candid manner.
One of the suggestions that I wish to make is that all NATO nations—whether European or not, and whether members of the European Union or not—should be given a droit de regard. Regardless of their size, all NATO countries—from Iceland to the United States—should have that right, but no NATO nation should have the right of veto. That is important; it might not be a bad starting point.
If Europe is to mean anything as a collective defence entity without north American elements, we shall have to place less emphasis on territorial defence forces. That will immediately cause people to become a bit anxious, so let me be clear about what I am saying. We all seem to have our own national form of Swiss guard to defend our own national form of Vatican. That is the best way I can think of to express my point. What is required is a much heavier emphasis on a combined and balanced joint task force capability. Until we achieve that—with each national Government having sovereignty over its own forces but agreeing to come together to operate in a combined fashion—we shall have much to worry about.
I do not know whether national missile defence was mentioned on the first day of the debate, but its mission statement says that it is a development that will protect the 50 states of the union. However, the concept relies on three early warning stations, with many others feeding off them. One is in Shemya off the Alaskan coast, and it is American. Another is at Thuli air base at the north of Greenland and it is Danish; while the third is at Fylingdales in north Yorkshire—not a million miles from my constituency or that of any other hon. Member.
The Pentagon thinks that there is a credible threat. If there is a credible threat, there must be a credible attack. If any attack is to be credible, what are to be the primary targets? By definition, the early warning stations must be among them. So hon. Members will have to persuade their electorate and their constituents that they may be targets in the defence of the 50 states of the union. There is nothing new in that. People in Fylingdales in north Yorkshire have known that Russia has had them in its sights all along.
However, there is a bit more to it now. National missile defence is not aimed at Russia or China. There is no problem there; we have a stand-off and that is great. It is aimed at rogue states and mad scientists. The system is aimed at Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong II—and who is the fellow in Libya? [Horn. MEMBERS: "Gaddafi."] The system is aimed at Mu'ammar Gaddafi and anyone else we can think of who might command some authority in a rogue state.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Ron Brown.
Mr. Cook: I did not realise that he had such potential, although one never knows what might happen in Scotland these days.
66
We tell our constituents, "We have an agreement with the Russians, and the Chinese are no threat, but the lunatics could well be directing intercontinental ballistic missiles at your warning station." We will have a problem selling that to the electorate.
Furthermore, it does not matter whether or not we have an early warning station because a missile has to take off, travel and re-enter, and somewhere along that path it has to be identified and met "bullet on bullet", as the Americans say. That means that we must be able to detect it very early. If the missiles meet in transit and the strike is effective, there is the potential for serious fall-out, whether the missiles have a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. We all know of the problems caused by strontium 90—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has had his time.
6.11 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who each have extensive military facilities in their constituences.
Before I turn to the White Paper, I want to deal with the situation in Kosovo. As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, I was in Kosovo two weeks ago. On Mitrovica, there is no doubt that the basic soldiering skills that we employed in our sector of Kosovo were not employed in the northern sector. The basics of searching a flat and installing decent roadblocks—activities that, sadly, we have 30 years' experience of in Ulster—were not done by the French in that sector, and there was a large build-up of arms that have been used.
There is a wider problem in Kosovo in that our forces rather ambiguous remit, which the UN mission in Kosovo police will also have when the full complement arrives, means that frequently when criminals are arrested, they are held for one or two nights in detention and then released. I hope that the Government will assess the problem and that the UN will get to grips with the fact that people who have committed serious crimes need to be kept in detention, because that is not happening at the moment.
I turn now to the White Paper, which is a rather limited document. We hoped to have something approaching a progress report on the strategic defence review, but sadly we did not get that. We welcomed the SDR's emphasis on an expeditionary strategy, rapid deployability and mobility. We have seen from the Kosovo crisis that the assumptions made in the SDR were true. However, the expeditionary strategy that underpins the SDR means that our forces must be kept in a high state of readiness so that they can respond quickly to a crisis.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the problems of strategic lift, which has not been addressed with enough urgency. At present, we could not deploy the joint rapid reaction force quickly enough to meet the likely requirements of the new strategic environment. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, we cannot even get helicopters to Mozambique.
The MOD urgently needs to pursue new options for the short-term strategic airlift programme, because the progress of the long-term programme is halted by a lack

67
of progress on the short-term programme. The SDR committed the UK to a force projection strategy, so we need the ability to project force, and fast. We do not have it.
Since the publication of the SDR, 4,500 troops have continued to be deployed in Bosnia, and we have undertaken operations in Kosovo, East Timor and Iraq, as well as deploying an extra 2,000 soldiers to Northern Ireland during last summer's marching season. Overstretch is perhaps the most pressing problem facing our troops, and the White Paper has not addressed it satisfactorily.
In the period leading up to the performance report, two major UK exercises were cancelled due to operational over-commitment, and a further eight NATO and UN exercises had to be cancelled because troops scheduled to take part in them were on operational deployment. That is bound to have a negative impact on our forces' training and morale. Cancellation of exercises can quickly reduce capability because forces need to be trained in all aspects of war fighting. Britain's armed forces can maintain their status as among the best in the world only if they continue to be trained to the highest levels.
The MOD has spent millions on its recruitment policy in the past few years, and as the Minister said, the initiative has had some success. In 1996–97, the RAF's intake was just 2,684, and that increased in 1998–99 to more than 4,000. However, there is still a large gap in all services, particularly the Army, between the trained requirement and the trained strength of the force.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned the disparity with reference to the Secretary of State's remarks last week. The trained requirement of our Army is 105,300, but the total strength in 1999 was only 99,700. The Secretary of State said last week that the requirement will be achieved by 2005, but many people believe that it will take far longer—31 years was suggested.
I suspect that the problem is not so much recruitment as retention, and we should consider why people leave the armed forces. There is no point in investing large sums in training personnel if they decide to leave a couple of years later. The recruitment level for fast jet pilots, for example, is now running at over 100 per cent. of the target, but the retention level is well below the target. It would cost the Government much less to offer sensible, practical retention measures than it does to maintain the current situation, which is obviously causing a huge strain on our defence budget.
We have to examine the underlying factors that are causing service men and women to end their careers. As hon. Members have already said, personnel are increasingly expected to spend prolonged periods away from home on operational duties. That problem is not new, but it is increasing and it is not about to change. We therefore need to concentrate on ways of keeping morale high among our troops, improving conditions for service families and maintaining a constant standard of training for our personnel across the board.
Measures must be taken to improve morale and make sure that our investment in our personnel does not go down the drain. Relatively small enhancements in welfare
68
support for service personnel and their families can cause a disproportionate increase in morale. We welcome the extension of free telephone calls for personnel and the introduction of periods of post-operational leave, which compensate personnel who have had to leave their families for extended periods. We welcome the service families task force and the learning forces initiatives, but there is still much more to do. The SFTF meets on an ad hoc basis and is not particularly accessible to service families.
In the continuous attitude survey for service leavers, the most frequently cited reason for people leaving the services was the effect of service on family life. In the 1999–2000 Christmas and new year period, 35 per cent. of the Army's trained strength was serving abroad, which is an increase of 3,500 personnel on the same period the year before.
There are no minimum consistent standards for the provision of welfare for our service families. The families of the 1,400 personnel based at the Warminster garrison can use two playgroups, a creche, a mother and toddler group and a youth group. However, the families of the 7,698 personnel based at Catterick have no such facilities.
First and most importantly, the MOD needs to build welfare into its policies as a key target and set minimum consistent standards that can be applied to all our garrison bases. The SFTF needs to meet much more frequently and should revamp its priorities to include measures such as a national audit of base facilities, to ensure that there is a common standard throughout the country. It should appoint a families officer for every base to ensure that proper advice is given on jobs and local schooling and housing.
It would be all too easy for the Government to cut into those already fragile welfare support networks and educational and recreational facilities in trying to meet the much-talked-about 3 per cent. efficiency savings, which were also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater. We all know the problems associated with the Government's 3 per cent. annual efficiency savings. My main concern is that what the MOD might classify as an efficiency saving is, in effect, a cut. Two exercises have been cancelled this year due to constraints. That will affect our training and morale.
As costs are cut in response to budget reductions, the Government have been unable to produce sufficient evidence that they are not simply doing less with less money. The 3 per cent. efficiency savings have been described as challenging. It is time that the scheme was abandoned, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife said last week.
The smart procurement initiative was one of the three main themes of the strategic defence review, and was seen as a way of making procurement "cheaper, faster, better", with savings of £2 billion to be guaranteed over 10 years. Although we appreciate that the bulk of those savings will be made towards the end of that period, there seems to be a lack of clear evidence of any significant progress as a result of SPI. The proposed savings have been described as unrealistic by some military leaders.
Major procurement projects are running, on average, 43 months late, and costs overran by £1.3 billion in 1998 alone. Only two projects are expected to meet their original in-service date. As has been mentioned, the National Audit Office report found that 60 per cent.

69
of equipment accepted by the MOD did not meet the operational requirements, and identified £60 million of costs over a five-year period associated with such equipment.
We have heard much in this debate about Tornado and the SA80. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made some exciting comments about his A to Z. It is true that the problem is not new, but we see more and more examples of military blunders by the MOD. Eurofighter costs have overrun by at least £1.36 billion, but it is due to enter service in 2002, three years behind schedule. Challenger 2 cost £1 billion more than expected.
I have seen both weapons in the past few weeks, and they are impressive, but we must get things right, and there is little evidence that smart procurement is enabling us to do so. I should make it clear that I and my colleagues hope that SPI succeeds, but we need to know the criteria by which to judge its success. The Government need to tell us soon, so that the House and the country can make an informed judgment on whether it is working.
In last week's debate, the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) spoke with his usual passion about the proposed closure of the Royal Ordnance factory in Bishopton in his constituency. It appeared that he wanted a meeting. Other hon. Members have also claimed that questions and letters have not been answered.
The White Paper calls for the retention of British military capability and intellectual property rights. The site in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is the only one in the country of sufficient capacity to enable significant integration of Royal Ordnance facilities. Some of the documents that have been leaked—I have seen some of them—suggest that if Bishopton closes, we shall have no alternative but to buy our propellants from either Alliant in America, at greater cost, or Somchem in South Africa, with all the security implications that that would entail. I hope that the Minister will make a significant comment on the issue.
Our armed forces risk their lives on our behalf in extreme operational circumstances, but in return we so often give them substandard equipment, cancelled training exercises, poor living conditions, long periods of separation from their families and poor operational welfare support. We expect the best from our service men and women, and in return they should be able to demand from us the best possible equipment, training and support. The White Paper is little more than a public relations exercise. There is a glaring absence of detailed defence analysis and no real interest in the progress of the SDR. It is a sad document. Our armed forces deserve better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
6.24 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: Inevitably, there have been several references to Michael Colvin's last speech in this House a week ago. In it, he dealt with several points, including the European security and defence identity. The same issue was raised by my
70
on. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson). I shall concentrate on the ESDI and deal with two aspects of it.
The first aspect was mentioned by several hon. Members. There has been much talk about the risk of damage to our relationship with the United States of America. Often, not enough attention is paid to the risk of damage to our defence relationships with other European countries. There has been reference to the effect of the ESDI on our relationships with Iceland, Norway and Turkey—members of NATO that are not members of the European Union—but we have developing defence relationships with other countries that are members of neither the EU nor NATO.
In the Western European Union, this has been a most interesting aspect of what has happened during the past 10 years. The WEU is not restricted to the 10 member countries, or to 15, 18 or 21 countries. Altogether, it increasingly involves 28 countries. As all members of our delegation to the WEU Assembly know, debates there include representatives from the Parliaments of those 28 countries. Indeed, we understand that, at the meetings of the ambassadors every two weeks, high-level discussions occur between not 10, 15, 18 or 21 but 28 countries. As a result, there is a gradually developing and evolving defence relationship, which should be welcomed.
Many hon. Members recognise that Europe constitutes more than the 15 member countries of the EU or the 15 plus the six applicant countries whose negotiations are a long way down the road. In fact, at least 28 countries are recognised as being in Europe and want to be involved in peacekeeping operations. Many have sent contingents to operations such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo. Indeed, the operation in Albania a few years ago involved contingents from countries that are in neither the EU nor NATO.
In development of the ESDI, there is a great risk of excluding such countries. That is not to say that we should oppose the ESDI; we should ensure that countries that have become gradually involved over the past decade in our defence arrangements, particularly peacekeeping, continue to be involved—and more and more deeply—because we can benefit from their contributions. They include several that only 10 years ago were among those that had signed up to the Warsaw pact, and, indeed, some that were part of the Soviet Union. We can only gain from their increasing involvement in security and defence arrangements in Europe.
When dealing with the issue in his winding-up speech on Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces missed the point. It is clear, after reading carefully his remarks in Hansard, that he was talking only about non-European Union countries that are members of NATO. There is a wider Europe, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will describe what the Government propose to do about all 28 countries and not just the 15 member states plus Iceland, Norway and Turkey. Important though those three countries are, the others also need to be considered. That brings me to the second aspect.
The involvement of the countries to which I have referred not only at intergovernmental level but in the Assembly of the WEU is beneficial not only to us but to them. Members of their Parliaments attend meetings,

71
take part in committees—as well as the Assembly—and engage in discussions, debate and sometimes arguments with us and our allies. They feel that they are getting to know us; it is a confidence-building measure. Their parliamentarians learn that we are not bad people and we begin to realise that their concerns are genuine, to understand them and to think about what can be done to provide reassurance. There are great benefits to be derived from the involvement of Members of Parliaments on a genuinely pan-European basis.
A further benefit arises from the fact that the WEU Assembly provides the sole form of democratic or parliamentary scrutiny. I emphasise the difference between scrutiny and accountability. Most of us are pleased that the Government have emphasised that, under future arrangements pertaining to the ESDI, accountability as far as the British Government are concerned will be to the House. However, that is not the point. The point is that there should also be parliamentary scrutiny of the joint institutions and the provision of assets for the ESDI. That cannot be done by the House—even its worthy Select Committee on Defence. It should be done jointly, collectively and co-operatively and involve the representatives of the Parliaments of other countries.
I am not arguing that the WEU Assembly should be preserved in its current form. There are many things wrong with it and it could be improved. Members of the delegation could make several useful suggestions to improve the functioning, the membership and even the name of the Assembly. However, that is not the point. The point is to ensure that, with the development of the ESDI, parliamentary scrutiny continues. That means scrutiny by Members of this Parliament and Members of the Parliaments of all the countries involved with the ESDI and those that are associated with its peacekeeping tasks and provisions.
I urge the Government not only to ensure that our colleagues from countries that are not members of NATO or of the EU continue to be involved, but that there is a machinery for co-ordination and liaison and that joint scrutiny of joint institutions is preserved, extended and developed at pan-European level.
There has been severe criticism of the WEU, but, after a few years as a member of the WEU Assembly, I know that, if the WEU has failed, its failure is not a failure of the Assembly, but a failure of the intergovernmental relationships within the WEU—the decisions that have or have not been taken by European Governments. The biggest problem faced in European peacekeeping operations has not been the failure of equipment or of the people who serve in Europe's armed forces, but the failure of Governments' will to use them.
6.33 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I join right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in expressing my condolences to Michael's family and my deep appreciation of all that he did. The quality of his that stands out most in my mind is not his expertise, but the quiet way in which he expressed his views and the strong resolve that lay behind them.
I hope that it will not bore the pants off the House, but I, like both previous Labour speakers, want to talk about the European security and defence identity. With the hon.
72
Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), I have visited large chunks of America as part of the NATO parliamentary assembly and, in Brussels, met members of the EU committee on foreign affairs, common security and defence policy—we have had a real going over.
In last week's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) expressed, with his customary intellectual vigour, the considerable doubt felt in this country and in the United States about the real meaning and objectives of ESDI. The name itself begs many questions. If I were to refer to the British defence identity, I might be asked whether I was discussing an idea—strong on vision, weak on substance. The change of name from the European security and defence identity to European security and defence policy—that is what we are supposed to call it now—is welcome, because it will help us to measure the extent to which the EU means business.
I confirm what the hon. Member for Stockton, North said about a common thread running through our discussions with representatives of Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon and all the think tanks that we visited: what is ESDI? They asked whether it was concerned solely with directing a new structure, rather than with getting down to the hard core of defence expenditure and genuine collaboration. Underlying those doubts, the question put to us at every meeting was whether we could provide reassurance that Europe's long-term intention was not to detach itself from the United States and so weaken, and ultimately dissolve, the NATO partnership.
In last week's debate, hon. Members quoted European sources that supported the concerns expressed by our American friends. We should not doubt that the feeling of unease is not confined to a small minority of Members of Parliament or of the general public, but is experienced by the people of many other countries, including the United States. The people we met sought reassurance about a European resolve to maintain NATO that went beyond mere words of comfort. In short, Europe's intentions will carry conviction only if Europe addresses its defence deficiencies.
If there is little sign of a resolve to increase defence expenditure—I do not know whether any country intends to do that—the United States expects that, at the very least, current weaknesses will be redressed through better use of existing resources. That is not too much to ask. It means avoiding unnecessary duplication and poses a challenge, not only to Governments, but to defence industries on both sides of the pond. The defence industries in both America and Europe face the same problem of trying to decide who should pay for what and who should supply what.
As our late colleague, Michael Colvin, who served the House with great distinction, said last week, the United States is not alone in expressing such concerns. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) pointed out, the new structure will affect the non-EU members of NATO and EU members who are not members of NATO. The decision has been made, but it is only fair to remind our American allies that the end of the cold war gave rise to a demand for a re-evaluation of NATO's role, our role and that of all the other countries; there had to be a change. NATO's adaptation

73
included recognition of the need for, and greater support for, a more coherent and distinct European defence contribution.
After all, at NATO's 1996 summit, it was intended to build an ESDI within the alliance. Simultaneously, a revitalised WEU became the defence arm of the EU and the European pillar of the alliance. What happened? The WEU was called on to undertake only a few relatively modest operations. As the right hon. Member for Hodge Hill asks, whose fault was that? Was it the fault of Governments? In retrospect, it was a grave mistake. A revitalised WEU might have led to effective co-ordination and strengthened Euro-NATO co-operation, without arousing many of the anxieties and doubts about the EU's long-term intentions.
Since that time, the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam have provided further evidence of the determination to have a more active and coherent European common security and defence policy. As we know, that led to the appointment of Javier Solana as the EU's high representative, and the incorporation of the Petersberg tasks. Initially, those had been adopted by the WEU; we took them over. That initiative, preceded by the St. Malo declaration between Britain and France, implicitly and effectively bypassed the WEU and made it clear that Europe would develop the capacity for autonomous action, backed by its own credible military capabilities, where NATO was not, as a whole, engaged. I know from my visits to the United States that that came as quite a surprise to those in the US Government. It was mitigated to some extent by British officials, who said that it implied no radical change.
It is little wonder that at Cologne in 1999, the EU took historic steps towards establishing its own military capabilities for the first time, and at Helsinki the EU asserted that, prior to an EU decision to conduct EU-led military operations where NATO as a whole was not engaged, there would be a NATO right of first refusal. Can the Government confirm that they are right behind the concept that NATO should have the right of first refusal—a point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) last week?
Should we be highly critical of the EU decision to deploy 50,000 to 60,000 troops? It is difficult to be critical, provided that that does not result in a split between the EU objectives and those of NATO. Some US policy analysts have asked whether the prospect of EU missions without NATO participation is an indication that the creation of ESDI within NATO has failed. How else, they argue, can one explain why NATO's EU members would support the creation of a distinct defence capability within the EU? We have embarked on a mission in which, like it or not, the UK can and should play a constructive part. It is not enough to be critical.
Finally, on national missile defence, I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, North. It is easy to dismiss that as a nationalistic, isolationist reaction of the United States to an undeniable threat. However, I believe that we should proceed cautiously. Such a decision should not be taken hastily. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was right to put the matter on the agenda for discussion, which should take place calmly, recognising that it has important implications not only for the United States, but for our own security.
6.42 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: There has in the past been a stereotyped view of the defence community as pickled in the values of 40 or 50 years earlier, introspective, and so ignorant of changing circumstances and suspicious of new ideas. Whatever the truth in the past, that stereotype is far from true about our Army, Navy and Air Force today. They are part of the mainstream of life in Britain and probably the most effective military force in the world.
Ministers are to be congratulated on the policies set out in the White Paper, which are family friendly, promote the education and training of individuals and provide for equal opportunities without discrimination. Life in the services is seen as either a long-term career or a constructive and attractive period of personal development for young men and women.
Not only is that policy the right way to treat people, but it is good for service morale and recruitment. Making our armed forces an integral rather than a detached part of British society results in their being better understood and appreciated by the people whom they serve.
There are bound to be differences between service and civilian life, but a determination is expressed in the White Paper to compensate for the adverse differences and to be a good employer for service men and women and their families. We can all endorse with pride what is being done on our behalf as employers of the nation's armed forces.
The strategic defence review, which is the foundation of the White Paper, was far from ignorant of changing circumstances. Major war in north-west Europe, which for 40 years was the primary focus of military planning, training and technology, is the least likely operation, now that the cold war has ended. As the White Paper states,
in the post-Cold War strategic environment we are increasingly likely to face new and often unexpected operational challenges.
Those changed circumstances are essentially in two categories. The first involves nuclear and, to some extent, biological and chemical weapons. The second requires conventional armed forces to be able to deploy quickly to unfamiliar places, to deal with unpredictable situations, usually acting in concert with allies. I shall discuss these two sets of circumstances in the remainder of my speech.
The White Paper is virtually silent on the large numbers of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons that are still ostensibly part of the defence arrangements of the US and Russia, and to a lesser extent of Britain and France. The progressive reduction of these nuclear armouries, which was foreseen in the START treaties, has stalled, with little disarmament achieved or foreseen. The reduced sense of urgency brought about by the end of the cold war is false security. A new initiative is required.
That impasse has also undermined the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Progress in nuclear arms reduction by the US and Russia was an important inducement to smaller countries to forgo nuclear weapons. Now, as the White Paper makes clear, under the heading "New threats and challenges", dangers from the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their potential delivery systems are a notable cause for concern. The missile launches by India and Pakistan last April are particularly disturbing.
The White Paper goes on to refer to the threat from maverick states using weapons of mass destruction as part of a terrorist arsenal in what are called "asymmetric threats".

75
All that frankness in the White Paper is admirable, but nothing is said about what should be done. The belief is expressed that
no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK and its interests will exist for some years.
That is comforting, but should not we be using those years to prepare some defence?
Have not we come to a time when we must recognise that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty may fail, and that it would be wise to prepare for that? In the only reference to any counter-measure to a maverick attack, the White Paper states that
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.
It is all rather offhand, as though we were trying to humour the USA.
The scheme proposed by the US has been dubbed "son of star wars" after the scheme once proposed by President Reagan in order to keep out a soviet missile attack. That project collapsed because of expense and the likely technical infeasibility of countering a mass attack by the full menagerie of nuclear weapons, and because, if successful, it would have created instability in the east-west strategic balance.
That does not necessarily discredit current US proposals directed at keeping out two or three missiles, not a mass attack. If some such system could be successfully developed, it could underpin rather than undermine the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. States that do not yet possess nuclear weapons might be offered protection under the shield if they renounced them. The system would not be hostile towards Russia. Indeed, Russia and the European Union might share the same protective umbrella.
There is no basis for saying that the current US proposals are the right answer, but the threat exists. It is identified in the White Paper and by the US Government. It should not be ignored. The phrase in the White Paper—
the USA are consulting closely with us—
hardly sounds like a dynamic search for a solution on our part. It behoves us in Europe, just as much as the US Government, to seek positive means to counteract a threat from maverick states and to underpin nuclear non-proliferation.
I shall move now to my second category of operations, in which conventionally armed forces need to deploy quickly to unfamiliar places, to deal with unpredictable situations in concert with allies.
In this context, the European defence identity agreed at the Helsinki European Council is to be welcomed. It provides for a highly mobile force to be drawn together from each country's NATO forces and enables action to be taken where US interests are not involved. Similarly, the joint rapid reaction force, bringing together army, navy and air force contributions, is a positive response to the new circumstances that must be the focus of defence planning.
However, I am puzzled by the role of the 386 Challenger 2 main battle tanks in any operation that requires rapid deployment by sea and air. Challenger 2 is likely to be precluded from many operational areas simply
76
because available bridges will not take its weight. Are not heavy main battle tanks unsuitable for rapid reaction forces? If they move by sea, they arrive after airborne troops; if they travel by air, the required aircraft are immensely expensive. When they arrive, by whatever means, their range and manoeuvrability is limited.
What is the role of Challenger 2 in the next 10 years? What will rapid reaction forces do for armoured support? That may not be an easy problem to solve, but the White Paper should acknowledge the difficulty and the need to revise Army force structure for the new role.
The essence of the new flexible operational concept is what the White Paper describes as deployability. Without means of deploying fully equipped forces quickly and easily, the new strategy cannot be implemented.
The proposal to provide a six-vessel strategic sealift through a private finance initiative with the industry is imaginative. Given that contracts can be exchanged next year, it makes good sealift capability relatively quickly.
Existing RAF transport aircraft are all old and need replacing. They are unsuitable for a key role in the rapid deployment of forces. The White Paper currently gives no estimate of when the problem will be overcome; it simply promises a decision in the near future. That is a relaxed approach to the pivot of the strategic concept.
Without urgent replacement of the RAF's transport and refuelling aircraft, a strategy of timely flexible response is not an operational reality. Paragraph 40 of the White Paper makes that point, albeit a little less starkly. It states:
We cannot ö deploy the JRRF quickly enough to meet the likely requirements of the new strategic environment.
If that profound weakness is to be overcome within current defence spending, it may mean some revision of RAF or perhaps naval force structure. If so, how much RAF strike attack and offensive support capability is to be given up to provide essential improvements in the RAF's strategic lift?
That question cannot be left to various factional interests in the Ministry of Defence to fight about. It requires not a manana approach, but "action this day" if the new defence strategy is to be fully operational in the near future.
The main Royal Navy contribution to flexible deployment appears to be two of the three amphibious ships, Fearless, Ocean and Intrepid, with some contribution from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Those ships can be moved to the area of operations as an emergency develops and sit over the horizon without political commitment to an operation until the last minute, when their impact can be immediate. The diplomatic and operational advantages are not matched when forces move by air. Any future ability to redeploy forces is likely to need a combination of strategic airlift and amphibious capability. They are complementary, not alternatives.
The White Paper is excellent in setting out policy on defence personnel and is to be applauded for that. Its analysis of the new threats to this country is frank, far-seeing and in keeping with the world as we perceive it. However, it is unsatisfactory in establishing how and when we will be in a position to implement the new strategy.
The White Paper suggests a rigid attachment to existing force structures that precludes reallocation of resources and reorientation of forces to match the new strategic

77
concept. That is shown by the incompatibility of Challenger 2 with the new strategy and the inability to restructure the RAF to put greater emphasis on modern transport aircraft.
The strategy cannot be implemented by retaining unchanged the equipment and force structures of the cold war and adding demands to fulfil the new strategy. The new strategy demanded radical rethinking. The reconfiguration of the armed forces to match the strategy demands no less.
While the armed forces go through that process of readjustment, it is right for the House to be kept regularly informed of progress. I support the view of the Select Committee on Defence that there are strong arguments for an annual defence White Paper.
6.55 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I start by joining colleagues from both sides of the House in paying tribute to Michael and Nichola Colvin. Michael Colvin chaired the Select Committee on Defence when I was Minister of State for the Armed Forces. His courtesy and consideration, as well as his firmness and profound knowledge, had a deep impact on me. We all mourn the loss in the most tragic circumstances of someone who brought great expertise to his subject. I shall not say anything further; the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is the current Chairman of the Select Committee, said it all.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Many tributes have been paid to Michael and Nichola for their work in Parliament. I inherited most of Michael's former constituents, and I want to place on record that the kindness that Michael and Nichola showed me and continued to show other new candidates was exceptional. It can truly be said of them that they were
lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided.
Mr. Soames: I could not do better than that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for all of us.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his prompt flight back from Portugal. It is astonishing that he was not here for the beginning of the debate, which is one of the most important defence debates of the year. His absence was a gratuitous insult not only to the House but to the armed forces. However, it is good of him to spare us a little of his time this evening.
I pay a warm tribute to the armed forces, especially service families, and to the civilian staff of the Ministry of Defence who work alongside service men and women and without whom the show could not go on. We owe them all a great debt.
Having read the extremely inadequate and deplorably produced White Paper, which makes no effort to make defence or its problems interesting, exciting or relevant, and consists of a turgid series of essays, the Secretary of State's first task is to get more money. As he knows, there are unacceptable shortfalls in many of the top-level budgets. It is disastrous that the right hon. Gentleman should have to cancel exercises, and that the fuel allocations for ships are not substantial enough. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, on top of real cuts in the defence budget, 3 per cent.
78
efficiency savings are not sustainable or realistic after the substantial savings that have been made year after year, including during the time when my party was in power.
I am delighted that recruiting is improving, but significant problems remain. They will prove difficult to overcome. Retention remains a serious and unresolved issue. I hope that the Government now understand that what seemed easy in opposition is a relentlessly difficult problem. Related problems include the critical issues of morale, families, married quarters and pay, especially for those on active service, and the perennial problem of busy, overstretched armed forces and the difficulties consequent on that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that the Select Committee report is damning. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will pay careful attention to it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) rightly pointed out, the Government's problem is that the strategic defence review was claimed to be an exercise in matching resources to commitments. However, as we warned at the time, resources have been cut and commitments have increased. That was calculated against an unpublished Foreign Office baseline, which, like the so-called ethical foreign policy, becomes less credible by the day.
I hope that the House realises—and that Ministers will come to realise—the ghastly damage that the Treasury has wrought on British defence interests in the past few years, including when we were in power. It has behaved towards the armed forces as though it were determined to undermine them—and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater rightly said, it is not far off doing so. The Secretary of State must fight the battle for them and see off the Treasury.
I want to say a word or two about kit. There are major problems in the procurement budget and the report of the hon. Member for Walsall, South laid out a saga of the most serious problems that have occurred over the years. I make no attempt to explain them—the contracts are immensely complicated and very difficult—but I warmly congratulate him on the way in which he handled some buffoon called Stourton on the "Today" programme the other day. He giggled like a schoolgirl as he tried to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the SA80 and the Tornado were the most difficult problems in the procurement budget when many others are far more serious.
I am not an expert and I do not understand some of the technical and complex difficulties, but the House and the public should be aware that most of our equipment is excellent: soldiers have never had better or more suitable clothing; the Challenger 2 main battle tank is the best of its type in the world; the Warrior is the most superb battle taxi and the vehicle of choice for all infantry on the battlefield; the Apache helicopter is the most formidable piece of equipment; and the AS90 gun is a fantastic and remarkable piece of kit, as is the light gun. It would be ridiculous for the public to run away with the assumption that the forces' kit is in a parlous state, although there are some serious deficiencies.
The SA80 rifle represents an unhappy state of affairs, but that is being rectified. I do not wish to brag, but I am an extremely good shot with a rifle and I have, on many occasions, pumped large numbers of rounds straight into

79
the bull with an SA80. It has problems, but they are being fixed and it is a good piece of kit. It is bad news for the House to be under the impression that our soldiers' equipment is wholly inefficient. It is not, but there are glaring omissions and they have to be sorted out.
I understand from the Secretary of State's remarks that he intends to make changes in the way that training is carried out. I make no complaint about them—I do not know what they are—but I want to say a word or two about training and discipline, which are very important. It is true, not an idle boast, that the British Army is, man for man, the best fighting force in the world. In the Falklands, in the Gulf and, most recently, in Bosnia and Kosovo, its enemies and allies have been truly amazed at the fitness, determination, courage and professionalism of British soldiers. Why are they so good? The answer is simple and, I suspect, not well understood outside the armed forces. In no other army in the world can a soldier depend on the men around him in the way that one can in the British Army.
From Waterloo to Alamein and from Goose Green to the Euphrates and Kosovo, British soldiers have proved time and again that they can face tremendous odds and triumph. If one asks a solider what is the key to that confidence, he will immediately answer, "Training and discipline." It is therefore a matter of the first importance that the system that produces young men and women of that calibre must not be altered in such a way that it produces but pale imitations of what is required. Ministers must not drag the Army into being a mirror image of the society that it serves, for the services have a totally different and separate ethos—one of discipline and service. Ministers must realise that, however disagreeable it may be to contemplate, the essence of military training is to prepare soldiers to fight in a bloody, frightening and exhausting war.
Young men and women may need to be called on to use all their reserves of physical and mental stamina. They therefore require intense physical training, drill and strict discipline. That sometimes leads to people wanting to leave the forces. That has always happened and always will, but among those who remain will be those who will be able to cope with the exceptional demands of modern combat. The danger that faces the Army in making changes to training is that if it gets it wrong, those who come through the system will not be up to the task.
On the question of Europe, I want the Government to know that the proposals and the way that they are being handled represent very bad news indeed. Let us start at the beginning. None of us disagrees with sensible, useful, straightforward co-operation on defence matters with our European partners. We all favour that, and Europe should do more—the previous Administration were clear about that—but our activities have to remain very real. Therefore I must ask for assurances, as I have not yet had them from Ministers, that the proposals will not lead to the undermining of the cohesion, unity and credibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We regard the proposals as they stand as dangerous.
I wholly agree that we have hidden behind United States military power for too long. It would welcome Europe doing more, but our efforts must be for real and not what has become standard, windy European rhetoric. I do not believe that our Government want a European
80
army, although clearly Mr. Prodi does, and they need to amend title V of the European Union treaty explicitly to rule out the involvement of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice and thus retain full control of our armed forces, enabling us to make the arrangements that we want with the countries with which we want to make them. It is clear that we need to press ahead with those arrangements in a sensible framework, but it is extremely important that we acknowledge and understand the concerns being expressed by our friends and allies in the United States. One cannot but be conscious of the deep unease of some knowledgeable and experienced Senators and Members of the House of Representatives and it is essential that the Government persuade them of the case.
The plan, I gather, is to create a force of 60,000 men on 60 days' notice, but the Government must define its tasks much more clearly. Crisis management could well mean real fighting, in which case what is the arrangement for reserves? I hope that the Ministry of Defence is thinking carefully about the hazards as the fighting effectiveness of ground forces—which represents a problem because of the nature of multinational operations—must not be undermined. Achieving that effectiveness is much easier for the Navy and the Royal Air Force. How many men will be in training behind the 60,000 for roulement purposes? The point that has to be made is that the new proposals need to be low on rhetoric and high on substance, which is a thoroughly non-European proposition.
This country is incredibly lucky with its armed forces. The Secretary of State has a high responsibility and we all pray that he gets it right.
7.8 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I add my tribute to the late Michael Colvin and his wife. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) eloquently put into words much of what those of us in the House who knew him have been feeling over the past few days. I have happy memories of visits to the Balkans made with Michael and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), when we saw all those qualities that have been mentioned. He was well informed, committed and determined, and he communicated those qualities with the greatest charm, which endeared him to people not only in the House but everywhere in life.
We have limited time this evening and I want to deal with two subjects: the defence budget and the European defence policy. After my experiences over the past 18 months and before, I pay tribute to the dedication, loyalty, commitment and professionalism of our armed forces. I have always believed that, too often, they are asked to carry more than their fair share of the burden of this nation's defence and foreign policies and its values and standards. I certainly feel that today. They are trained to be effective, to take orders and to act on behalf of others, and, in my experience, they do so without protestation. However, I believe that we ask too much of them and we must carefully consider whether our policies are the right ones and how we can carry them out.
I have been a little disappointed by some of the debate because party politics have entered into our discussions. These issues are far more important than short-term

81
political bickering. The defence of our nation is crucial to our population. Politicians of whatever colour have a great responsibility for the defence of our people, and should not allow themselves to be diverted by short-term political bickering.
I realise why the Conservative party argues that the Government are not doing enough, that they are not acting in time and that there are not enough resources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South said, it is as though history began in May 1997. We should debate the far more serious issues that face us rather than make points across the political divide.
Politicians throughout the world have a great responsibility not to demand more from their armed forces than they are able to deliver, in whatever country they are deployed. Politicians have too often forgotten the well tried military doctrine that when considering whether to make an intervention, we must first decide whether it is a just cause, whether it can be won, what the costs will be in resources and especially in people, and whether they will be proportionate to the other considerations. Those tests are too often ignored by the international community. Decisions have been taken in good faith with the best of intentions—to defend democracy wherever it may be—without taking the time to assess the consequences over a period and how we will be judged against those tests.
The international community has not yet understood that decisions must be taken much more quickly than they were taken during the cold war, which lasted for 30 or 40 years. In those days, before an intervention took place much thought was given to the consequences. The west thought about what the Soviets or the Chinese would say, and whether it would add to or ease international tension. If we were to act without the United Nations, we thought about the response of the other side. If we were to act within the United Nations, we considered what we had to take on board before we went to the Security Council for its approval.
There was time to consider those matters during the cold war, but now we often do not have that luxury. When faced with an aggressor, an oppressor or someone who is acting against the interests of democracy worldwide, we often have to make a much more speedy decision. The international community must give greater thought to these issues in the various forums, whether it be the United Nations or NATO.
A principal consideration is whether we have the resources to prosecute an action for a cause that we feel is just. We often forget that over the past 10 years, £7.7 billion has been taken out of our military budget. Similar figures have been taken out of the budgets of other countries with which we have alliances to defend democracy. I am not sure whether any more can be taken out of those budgets to enable us to defend democracy and to intervene when we believe it is necessary.
That is not an excuse for not making efficiency gains. I think that we can make efficiency gains. There is a learning curve, and there are better ways of doing things—logistics, stock control and other important activities of our military forces can be made more efficient. Improvements can be made, and the incentive should be that the MOD is allowed to keep any gains for investment in whatever it believes to be important in the years ahead, and which Parliament endorses.
82
There is a much deeper question to consider than the short-term party political bickering. If, over the next 10 years and beyond, we face the same amount of requests for intervention that we have had over the past 10 years, will we be able to fulfil the task that we have set ourselves with present resources, even with the gains that we may obtain from efficiency savings? I have grave doubts about that. We may not be able to make the right decisions on what needs to be done to obtain justice and to defend democracy, because we will know that we do not have the resources to carry through a just war—it must be won and the cost must not be disproportionate. We must think about the safety of the people on the ground taking the military action. Considerations about training and preparing for the future are crucial, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said.
NATO and European Union countries, and all countries that believe in a democratic world, will face those problems in the period ahead. The House must take more time to consider this issue—it will be one of the items in the Budget in a few weeks time.
My second point is whether there should be a European security identity. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that a European security identity does not convey much, but a European security defence policy does. I am disappointed, but I realise why some members of the Conservative who veer to the right or who want to appease the right try to make everything travelling in a European direction appear to be alien to British democracy. Those who take that view have misjudged the importance of a European policy on defence, which is to cement and reinforce the cross-Atlantic policy on defence.
There are two views of Europe in the United States. One is that Europeans are going down their own track, want to do their own thing, will break away from the alliance and will have their own policy, even furth of Europe, as they say in Scotland. They are worried about that, as strong believers in NATO. Other Americans say that it is high time that Europeans, some of whom have stronger economies than the American economy, pay a bit more to defend democracy worldwide, and make a bigger contribution to NATO. When one visits Washington, the inevitable question one is asked is, "What does the defence of Pristina have to do with the defence of Texas?" That must be explained.
Europe must recognise that in this interrelated world, if Europe makes a larger contribution to the defence of the democratic world that will not weaken or break up the NATO alliance, but will strengthen it. I do not believe that NATO can be strengthened in the long run unless Europe—that crucially includes the United Kingdom—is prepared to make a greater contribution.
Those are the key issues that affect us. We must ask ourselves not whether there should be a European security policy, but how we can make that policy effective. At what pace should change take place? Who will contribute which capability, and will there be specialisms? How will the troops who will serve Europe and NATO be commanded? What will the political management structure be in the longer term, especially as more countries join NATO and the European Union? What are the implications for the procurement of equipment? How will future suppliers of equipment accommodate the need for a greater integration in the use and consistency of that equipment? How can non-NATO European Union

83
countries make a contribution to particular efforts? How can non-EU members of NATO make a greater contribution to Europe's defence?
Those questions are crucial, and hon. Members who are interested in foreign policy and defence matters should concentrate their minds on them rather than have a futile and somewhat anachronistic argument about whether there should be a future close linking of armed forces in Europe. Surely common sense tells us all that, if we have common goals in a democratic Europe and if we are to maintain that political integrity, we shall often have to have a pretty common view of how things should develop in this world.
We understand why the Secretary of State had other commitments today, and we are very pleased that he is able to attend the debate. In the period ahead he will have to deal with many of these crucial issues, and more.
We look forward to the Government's response. The Government have my support for the strategic defence review, which I believe puts us on the right road towards meeting a number of the demands to which I have referred. There will be hiccups, but I think the House continues to believe that the defence of the nation is above party politics, and will give support where it is due to the Government of the country.
7.21 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: As always, I shall be extremely brief.
With the death of Michael Colvin, the House has lost one of the dwindling band of Members who have served in the military and seen active service. That is a loss not just to the House, but to the armed services. It is not the Government's fault that no Minister—indeed, I think, no member of the Government—has served in the military; that is an inevitable effect of the peace dividend and the victory that was won in the cold war, partly through the steadfastness and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform over 50 years. I think, however, that because of the Government's relative inexperience in these matters, it behoves them to connect more closely with the military at all levels—not only with service chiefs, but all the way down—and to listen to what they have to say.
On Saturday morning, I shall address the annual convention of RAF wives in Tidworth, and on Saturday night I shall address a gathering of specialists from the defence medical services. I wish that I could convey to both groups the message that I knew their concerns were being attended to, and that I knew attention was being paid to the problems of overstretch from which both have suffered. I am not sure I can do that, but I know that the world in which I have operated in past years—the world in which I have seen the British military close up at the sharp end, performing magnificently; as I have said before, they are the best little army in the world—is much more dangerous than the more predictable world in which I grew up, when people trained initially not on an SA80 but on a Lee Enfield rifle.
Today's edition of the Daily Mail contained a remarkable piece by General Sir Peter de la Billière about discipline, and the possible effect of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill on the armed forces. While I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for lending me one of their seats
84
on the Standing Committee, I shall speak not for them but for myself, and for what I believe to be the interests of serving soldiers.
These are important issues. We have a duty of care, as service chiefs have a duty of care. It is vital that we exercise that duty, and I trust that we will. Ministers have produced for us, on paper, their smart procurement, their new programmes and their new formations. That is fine, but they must also pay attention to some of what is already in place.
I make no apology for referring again to the deficiencies and unaccountability of the MOD's own police force, which is a problem that must be addressed. Ministers must look at the handling of the Tony Geraghty case, the handling of the Colonel Wylde case and, above all, the handling of the Stankovic case. It is two and a half years since that man was arrested. He was never charged, and the investigation cost, officially, £266,000. In fact, it cost more than £1 million of taxpayers' money in terms of the time of serving officers and the sacrificed alternatives—that is, the work that they would otherwise have done.
At the end of it all, the man is still serving. His career is mined; he has spent all the money he has, and some of the money he does not have, to try to defend himself; and what has he got back from the armed forces—from the Army legal fund? Not one penny. I should like to hear from the Secretary of State how Major Stankovic will be compensated, and, if he is not to be compensated, what that says to us about the duty of care.
Last Friday I had the honour of addressing cadets at Sandhurst: indeed, the honour not just of addressing them but of listening to them. What fine young men and women they were—a little older than their predecessors of a generation ago, because 80 per cent. are college graduates. They are prepared to serve: they are prepared to make sacrifices and commitments, and to face the dangers. We, the employers, must be worthy of them. We must have a system that is worthy of them—and I am not sure that we have such a system.
7.25 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
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.
I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who cannot take part in the debate because his wife is in hospital and he is with her.
Because of the shortage of time, I intend to speak about only two issues, the proposed national missile defence system and Kosovo. In June this year, President Clinton will make a decision on the requirement of an NMD system, intended to protect the United States from a limited number of ballistic missiles that it believes might be launched by rogue states such as Korea and Iran.

85
Clearly, if such a deployment went ahead it would have far reaching implications for many countries, including ours. The most immediate implication is that the US would contravene the anti-ballistic missile treaty as it stands, which I think should concern us all.
At a recent meeting of NATO parliamentary members in Brussels, it was clear that opinions in the US about the proposed modification of the treaty differed greatly from those in Europe—and it was not just the French who were alarmed. Russia, of course, has a major interest in the treaty, and its initial reaction to the change is hostile. By contrast, both the Senate and the House of Representatives have approved it by huge votes. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution supporting the "inviolability and integrity" of the treaty, which I consider fairly encouraging, but it is clear from the votes in the US that the Americans are determined to go ahead with some form of national missile defence system. That means that the rest of the alliance, and, indeed, the wider international community, need to engage in a serious political dialogue with them.
From a NATO point of view, this is not a good time to start tearing up treaties. That would put stress on existing treaties, stop START 2, and almost certainly lead to a new arms race. As most of us would agree, the ABM treaty is the cornerstone of arms control. I also think we are entitled to ask the United States why it wants to proceed in this way. Countries in Europe will be left with no defence, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)—although I am afraid that his speech was truncated for reasons of time. It is worrying that the United States will be able to deploy nuclear weapons that could be intercepted above our heads, in the stratosphere. Science tells us that we will be perfectly safe, but having observed science during my many years on this earth, I am not terribly convinced. I certainly need more convincing.
We should also consider the perceived threat from North Korea, which can barely feed its own people. Would it not be better to intensify the diplomatic efforts that are already being made to return it to the family of nations? Another rogue state that has been mentioned is Libya, but we have just resumed diplomatic relations with Libya, and the news from Iran has been rather good of late. Iraq is struggling to survive. We should question the threat, and ask whether it is really serious.
What about the long-standing theory of deterrence? Why does it not work for rogue states? I do not think that there is a threat from there, but clearly they would face complete annihilation if they targeted any western democracy. It leads us to ask who is pushing the buttons on that one. It is time we had a debate in the Chamber, because it is not only the Opposition who want to know the Government's attitude to the ABM treaty. I would like to know it as well; I think that other Back Benchers would too.
I turn to Kosovo. I have read the debate last week. I could not be here as I was in Brussels with NATO, but I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who suggested that Kosovo is on the brink of disaster. I am on record as firmly opposing the Government's going to war with NATO against Yugoslavia. I said that it would make things far worse for everyone in Yugoslavia. I personally think that I have been vindicated by the appalling events that have unfolded since NATO conducted its so-called
86
humanitarian war—a war to end ethnic cleansing, which did not start until the bombing started, and a war in which NATO decided to become the air force for a bunch of terrorists.
Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Mahon: I am sorry, I have only 15 minutes and I do not intend to give way.
The terrorists were led by Agim Ceku, the ethnic cleanser of the Krajina, and Hashim Thaci, a man with blood on his hands who has successfully organised the cleansing of more than 250,000 Serbs, Montenegrins, Roma, Bosniaks, Jews and others from Kosovo, under the nose of KFOR troops, who are there supposedly to protect them.
In October, I too visited Kosovo. I found that, apart from Bernard Kouchner, everyone on the ground agreed that that ethnic cleansing was organised by the Kosovo Liberation Army under Thaci's command. That view is reinforced by a growing body of evidence from sources such as Amnesty International, whose latest report at the end of December said that
violence against Serbs and other minorities (including moderate Albanians) was still increasing and pointed to a failure by the UN Mission to protect human rights. Amnesty is concerned that the UN Mission and KFOR appear reluctant to take steps to bring the KLA to justice.
There have been nearly 500 murders since KFOR took over Kosovo and thousands of house burnings, yet not a single KLA leader has been referred to the war crimes tribunal. Why? During that period, there has been no statement to the House about what has been happening to the minorities. No serious Government-initiated debate has taken place.
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe report on human rights violations in Kosovo, which was published in December, confirms that, since KFOR entered the province in June, there has been a systematic ethnic cleansing campaign. The report says:
Kosovo Serbs, Roma, Muslim Slavs and others have been targeted by elements of the Kosovo Albanian population for expulsion, harassment, intimidation, house-burning, abductions and death. It highlights two horrific trends; the targeting of vulnerable elderly Kosovo Serbs and the increasing participation of juveniles in human rights violations, underlining the growing intolerance that has emerged within the Kosovo Albanian community.
The report contains many witness statements concerning KLA involvement in the violence both before and after the demilitarisation deadline of 19 September, including most recently by members of the so-called Kosovo Protection Corps.
The OSCE concludes that, despite denials by the KLA leadership,
it seems clear that the extent of KLA involvement is of such a nature and scope that the question of explicit or tacit involvement by the leadership require close examination by the International Community.
I could not agree more.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has confirmed that 250,000 people have been driven out of Kosovo since June. The historian Paul Polansky, who lived among the Roma in Kosovo between July and November last year, has documented the discrimination against Romany people by the UN, NATO and major aid

87
agencies. After calling attention to a lack of medical facilities, food and security, he was threatened with expulsion by the very agency that had invited him there: the UNHCR.
Polansky points out that, prior to NATO's war, the Roma lived in integrated settlements. Now they are being ethnically cleansed because of the colour of their skin. The eminent broadcaster and journalist Jonathan Dimbleby confirmed what is happening to the Roma, under the noses of NATO, in the excellent television documentary "A Kosovo Journey." Those who supported the war should watch it.
The Jewish leader, Cedomir Prlincevic, president of the Jewish community in Pristina, was driven out by the KLA when two dozen armed men broke into his family's apartment. He says:
My mother who is 80 years old suffered a heart attack because it reminded her of 1943 when Hitler's SS units broke into her apartment in the same way.
It is a bitter irony that while the rest of Yugoslavia remains a genuinely multi-ethnic society, in Kosovo, where NATO presides, attempts to create an ethnically pure state by terror is proceeding apace. We need a debate on what has been happening there while NATO has been in charge.
The House must debate the situation in Mitrovica, where some remaining Serbs appear to be making a last stand. In October, I visited Mitrovica bridge. I talked to our forces and to French forces. I have talked to other people since. Everything I have read and everyone to whom I spoke in Brussels last week supported the view that the latest trouble in Mitrovica was started when the KLA threw a grenade at a UN bus and killed two elderly Serbs. Then the Serbs killed the Albanians. We then got the stand-off and the big push at the bridge.
I disagree with the Secretary of State, who said that the incident was good natured. It did not look like that on television. We should thank our soldiers for their very good efforts at the bridge to stop what could have been a very nasty situation.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I want to make it clear that I was quoting the colonel who appeared on television. He used the expression "good natured". I did not have any independent view of the events. I rely simply on what he saw and described.
Mrs. Mahon: It did not look like that on television. We should stop casting aspersions at French troops, who have had a terrifically difficult job.
What did surprise me—it is worth mentioning—is the fact that Lord Robertson, now Secretary-General of NATO, almost went into war mode when that event occurred. It is wrong that the Albanians have had to leave their homes—let me get that on the record—just as it is wrong for anyone else to be ethnically cleansed, yet we have heard no statement about 250,000 Serbs and other minorities being expelled. There have been no notions of regret there.
Now Kouchner suddenly wants to reintegrate Albanians. I believe that, with that integration, the KLA will go back into northern Mitrovica. The Serbs will again
88
be expelled or killed. There is no doubt about that. Reintegration is wrong at this time. It seems that the Serbs are not allowed to defend themselves at all. All of a sudden, there are big meetings when it happens to the Albanians.
The French, who, as I have said, have had a most difficult job, have been seen as too pro-Serb. We should remember that, the other week, two of their soldiers were injured by Albanian extremists. If that carries on, sooner or later, some of them might be killed, so they deserve our admiration and should not be smeared. As I have said, Kouchner is determined to move Albanians back across the river. I think that that will be a disaster.
Even more dangerous is the situation on the border between Kosovo and Serbia. I recommend that my hon. Friends read Jonathan Steele's article in The Guardian today. Of course, he is no friend of the Serbs. He supported the NATO bombing and still does, but he points out:
The new trouble spot is the south-western corner of Serbia which is largely populated by Albanians. Former members of the KLA have started to operate in the border villages, carrying guns, wearing paramilitary uniforms and attacking Serb police in an apparent bid to provoke a Serb reaction and NATO help.
If that scenario sounds familiar, it is because exactly the same situation prevailed in Kosovo before NATO intervened. What is more, the same—successful—tactics have been used before, after which NATO became the KLA' s air force.
I should like to give Stephen Glover the last word on the subject. In an article entitled "How we are aiding the ethnic cleansers", he wrote in Saturday's edition of the Daily Mail:
Despite assurances, the truth is that despite the high-flown rhetoric about a multi-national Kosovo, NATO has disgracefully failed the Serbs—this has been a dreadful betrayal as well as a denial of the Serbs' human rights.
He continued:
American sources within NATO are up to their old trick of demonising Serbs—accusing those in Mitrovica of receiving guns from Belgrade as though they might be expected to defend themselves with pea-shooters—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Time is up.
7.41 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: Perhaps because both my grandfathers were parsons, I feel moved to preface my remarks with a text. It reads:
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 ö Will he—
the Secretary of State—
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.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1448.]
Those wise last words are the ever-relevant and classically fitting parliamentary epitaph of our late hon. and gallant Friend, Michael Colvin. His political wisdom was a measure not of his specialist knowledge alone, but of his profound personal experience, human sympathy and understanding, and willingness to listen as much as to speak out.

89
Michael bore his military professionalism lightly. His formative years as a cadet at Sandhurst, and later in the Grenadiers overseas—at Suez, in Cyprus and in Berlin—set him apart as someone who spoke only when he knew his subject. Few of us understood the international and industrial dimensions of defence better than he did.
The phrase defence diplomacy is often used today. Michael, and his inseparable Nichola, made friends for Britain wherever they went. Their untimely and tragic death impoverishes all of us.
Just recently, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force proudly celebrated its 75th anniversary. In my own constituency, the reformed 600 (City of London) Squadron held an impressive parade at its home base, at Royal Air Force Northolt. The parade was to mark its reformation from the merger of No. 1 and No. 3 Maritime Headquarters Units of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
Only last Thursday, 24 February, Hillingdon borough council awarded the freedom of entry to the borough to Royal Air Force Northolt. The year 2000 is the 60th anniversary of the battle of Britain, in which Royal Air Force Northolt played such a heroic part. The battle of Britain would not have been won without the auxiliaries, who constituted one third of the pilots engaged.
When I hear that the Royal Air Force is 20 per cent. short of fast-jet pilots, I wonder whether the lessons of Air Force history have been learned. I am not being churlish. No. 1 Maritime Headquarters Unit of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force did a marvellous job, and its previous commanding officer, Wing Commander Edna Partridge, was an exceptional commanding officer of it at RAF Northolt. Belatedly, the importance of wider use of reservists to British air power is being recognised—in headquarters manning at home and overseas, ground defence, intelligence, helicopter support, aeromedical evacuation, and, last but not least, flying duties.
I remember making my maiden speech, 30 years ago, on getting the Royal Auxiliary Air Force flying again. Sometimes a political idea has a long germination period. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister of State make it plain today that auxiliary pilots will now be able to fly again in all aircraft types. I believe that no service specialisation should be precluded to the auxiliaries. They are so cost effective.
I hope, too, that we shall see more Royal Auxiliary Air Force-formed units again. I think that 600 Squadron is a very good example of such a unit. I see the Minister nod. In Scotland, 603 Squadron has recently reformed. There are, therefore, precedents for such units.
I suggest that we start with heavy lift transport aircraft. One of the best legacies of the previous, Conservative Government was the Reserve Forces Act 1996. I suggest that we use that legislation to employ the Ukrainian heavy lift Antonov 124 aircraft of an existing British air carrier, manned by auxiliaries under the sponsored Reserves scheme. The aeroplane has double the payload range of the Boeing C17 and can carry seven Apache helicopters, to the C17's three. I doubt whether the Royal Air Force, with its budget, could find more than two C 17s—which is hardly a viable inventory.
As for the A400M, it does not have the volume to take even a single main battle tank. The Antonov can carry two such tanks. The A400M also would not be available
90
until 2007. I believe that the Mozambique floods have shown us the clear necessity for the United Kingdom to possess a heavy lift capability now.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am very concerned that the hon. Gentleman is willing to throw away 62,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. I agree with him on the Antonov 124, but just wonder whether he has considered the fact that the A400M is being designed to meet the procurement need, and that carrying a battle tank is not one of the requirements.
Mr. Wilkinson: I understand that, and shall try to amplify the argument in the remaining remarks that I have to offer the House.
The transport fleet should be based on two types—the existing C-130J, which has a huge British industrial component, and the Antonov. To do so would leave funds to spare, to maintain the Royal Air Force's fighting capability with the joint strike fighter, which will be crucial to re-equip both the Royal Air Force Harrier fleet and the Royal Navy's Harrier aircraft—which are now operated jointly, under Joint Force 2000. It would also enable funds to be available for more support helicopters, which we need right across the board for all three services, not least for the Royal Marines, to replace their commando Sea King helicopters. Moreover, the Eurofighter Typhoon—if it is to be an effective fighting aircraft well into the next century—will require a beyond visual range air to air missile system.
I regard those capabilities, put together, as more important than providing funding for the A400M. If Airbus Industrie needs to develop new projects, I suggest that the funding should be devoted to the A3XX rival to the Boeing jumbo jet successor.
In short, the Government's rhetoric on the Royal Air Force Reserves needs to be translated into ever more vigorous action. However, the Government are making tentative steps in the right direction. I am pleased about the formed units starting again, and that more personnel are being recruited. More can and should be done. Sometimes, we forget the wealth and diversity of skills and talents in the civil community, waiting to be deployed, especially among the youth who perhaps have insufficient opportunities in the big cities in which they live.
This is the information age—the electronic age. There are skills aplenty in those fields in the civilian community that could be deployed in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. If we do so, the service as a whole will benefit and the current overstretch of Royal Air Force personnel will diminish.
7.50 pm
Mr. Jamie Cann: Conservative Members have talked about capability. I believe that the strategic defence review and the White Paper have led to a capability that we have not had for many years, and certainly for two decades: the ability to be on the ground in brigades, serviced and covered by air, in two different theatres for six months at a time. The overstretch caused by Northern Ireland has prevented that for a long time.
I welcome the fact that, after about 20 years, we have stopped pretending that we have aircraft carriers and are proposing to replace the Fearless and the Intrepid with

91
craft that will carry up to 40 or 50 aeroplanes. A lot of Conservative Members have talked for a long time about replacing them, but they never got round to doing it. Labour has nothing to apologise for in its defence programme.
Unlike the odd Conservative Member and some Labour Members, I am proud of what we have done in Bosnia and Kosovo. I am proud that we were prepared to step in and stop genocide. I am afraid that I do not worry too much about minor losses—it is a terrible thing to say—among civilians, when we prevented hundreds of thousands of such losses, getting people off the mountainsides and back to their homes in Kosovo. It is only a shame that between ourselves and the United Nations we have not managed to get as many people home in Bosnia as we should have by now; but that concerns not the defence forces but the way in which we organise ourselves in the European Union and the UN.
Neither the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) nor anyone else in the House has ever managed to tell me what else we could have done. We intervened and saved lives, and I am proud of that. Some lives were lost but, unfortunately, since the days of jousting in about 1300, it has been impossible to fight a war without some civilians being killed. Who can tell me that we as a nation and NATO as a whole did not do the absolute maximum, at the risk of our own people's lives, to ensure that as few civilians as possible were killed? I am sorry that some colleagues are not as proud as I am of what we did.
The anti-ballistic missile treaty has been mentioned. I am not sure that it has anything to do with the White Paper but, as the subject was not ruled out of order, my response must also be in order. The Americans are proposing to tackle a distinct threat posed by the fact that nations such as Libya, Iraq and Syria, through technology developed in China and North Korea, will soon be able to put a missile into this country. That missile could contain a nuclear warhead, chemicals, nerve gas or whatever else someone such as Saddam or Gaddafi can come up with.
The Americans want to put a missile site in Alaska with 100 interceptors that can stop that happening to them, and they are prepared, if we pay our share, to put the same facility in northern Europe to stop it happening to us. I believe that £3 billion spent over 10 years among all the EU states is not a bad investment to stop anthrax being spread in Southwark, for example, where I live in London.
The proposal has nothing to do with Russia or China. Russia has 4,500 ballistic missiles of which perhaps 1,500 are operational. The scale of operation that the Americans are proposing cannot stop those, but it can stop the rogue missile: if five interceptors are fired at it, one will probably get it. The proposal is eminently sensible and we should go along with it. I am sure that if the people of Halifax were told about it seriously—if any press were attending this debate, for example—they might even agree to it, too.
People have talked about a nuclear strike. We are not about to launch a nuclear strike against Baghdad—we are a civilised nation, for goodness sake—but we have to take defensive measures against rogue states. Nuclear strikes have not happened for 50 years, with the Mexican stand-off between huge powers—I was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for one whole year—and, frankly, that has served us well.
92
I think that we should arm all our 10 submarines with Tomahawk missiles. They should be offshore supporting every task force that we have. They can reach 500 miles inland, and 80 per cent. of the world's population and nearly every capital city other than Moscow are in that range. They are a wonderful back-up for our forces.
I believe that the strategic defence review and the White Paper were right and that the Defence Committee was right to support them. Those who would call the Falkland Islands the Malvinas at the first disagreement are wrong. Both Government and Opposition Members should support the motion.
7.59 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I join others in paying a brief tribute to a remarkable colleague. Michael Colvin was the last member of the Defence Committee to have served in action—coincidentally in an operation in which my father took part. He was a distinguished colleague, a very kind man and a good friend to many of us on both sides of the House. The way in which he and Nichola died is, as many have said, a tragedy that the whole House mourns.
The White Paper states:
the principles and conclusions of the Review—
the strategic defence review—
are proving as robust and well-founded as we expected them to be ö the success of our forces in Kosovo
shows this. I shall argue that our experience in Kosovo and the equally important operation in Chechnya point to the opposite conclusion.
The original SDR document said:
there is today no direct military threat to the United Kingdom or Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a threat.
That contrasts with a document published last year by the United States commission on national security, set up by the President with the support of Congress, which says:
America will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland, and our military superiority will not entirely protect usöStates, terrorists, and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and some will use them. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.
What a contrast between the complacency of the SDR and the realism of the American approach.
I wish to argue that, for that fundamental reason, the SDR was wrong to put all our eggs in the basket of an expeditionary approach, and that that approach, such as it is, is much too narrowly focused. At the end of my speech I shall touch briefly on the three horsemen galloping through the armed forces: budgetary cuts, the European security and defence identity and political correctness.
The White Paper makes much of Kosovo. It is too early to judge the success of the operation, although I share many of the concerns that some Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), have expressed about it. However, two aspects of the Kosovo operation are relevant to the future of our armed forces.
The first is that if Slobodan Milosevic had held out for another two or three weeks and we had had to go in, we would have been in dire straits. We would have had very quickly to persuade at least three of our major allies,

93
including America, to join us in that operation. Those who are aware of the delicate state of relations between the White House and Capitol Hill at that time will understand the considerable difficulties that that would have entailed. The French and Germans were also showing little enthusiasm.
For Britain, having to send in troops would have meant calling up between 15,000 and 25,000 reservists, many from units threatened with cuts or in the course of downsizing—a dreadful word—as a result of the outcome of the SDR. That hastily slung together force—originally designed for a different purpose as a peacekeeping force—would have been sent in with winter coming on within weeks for a task for which it was ill equipped. We were very lucky that Milosevic collapsed when he did.
That brings me to the second aspect, which is Russia's role. Whatever the balance of factors that led Milosevic to cave in, there is no doubt that Russian pressure was one of them. We miserably failed to acknowledge that. Indeed, had General Jackson obeyed his orders from Wesley Clark, we would have gone out of our way to humiliate the Russians.
I have been privileged to go to Russia twice in the past four years. During my visit last year with the Defence Committee, I was struck by how bitter and marginalised Russians across a range of political views feel. We have moved from Kosovo dominating television news to Chechnya dominating it. There is some truth in Russia's accusation against us of hypocrisy. Of course we are right to criticise some of what has happened in Chechnya, such as the barbaric looting of some civilian areas and villages long after any fighters have passed through and the treatment of some of the Chechen prisoners. However, at no point have I heard loud voices from the west acknowledging that, as the legitimate Government, the Russians were entitled to restore the rule of law in Chechnya, which was the greatest centre of the organised crime that now controls almost half the Russian economy.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Brazier: I cannot because of the time constraint.
We killed 500 innocent civilians, which was a remarkably small number in the circumstances, in our bombing of Kosovo. When we criticise the Russians for the 30,000 civilians whom they have killed in Chechnya, let us remember that, while there have been many deaths that should not have occurred, they did not have the benefit of smart bombs and they had to fight in much more difficult territory—built-up areas that could not be overcome simply with air power.
Faced with blanket condemnation from the west, Russian foreign policy is moving into three grooves, all of which would be familiar to some extent to analysts from the 19th century. The first is a resurgent fear of the west. I supported the reunification of Germany, but the Russians can see NATO creeping towards them and they hear Mr. Prodi say, as he did in Latvia last week, that we should extend article 5 to members of the European Union. He said:
Any attack or aggression against an EU member would be an attack or aggression against the whole EU.
What message does that send to Russia about the Baltic states joining the EU?
94
The second strand developing in Russian foreign policy is that it is looking for friends where it can. Even a year ago, analysts were openly talking at cocktail parties in Moscow about the fact that Russia was selling nuclear and other technologies of mass destruction to third world countries, most notably Iran. The third strand is that it has become clear that the one thing that distinguishes Chechnya from Kosovo and the western attitude towards Belgrade from the western attitude towards Moscow is that one country has nuclear weapons and the other does not. That has been noticed in Washington, where it is believed that 28 third-world countries will have a nuclear capability in the next five to 10 years.
I am proud to serve under the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. In his excellent speech to the Royal United Services Institute after the strategic defence review, he said that we had not yet seen a strategic security review, which would have
to address the problems of "asymmetric" threats: terrorism, possibly using crude chemical and biological weapons ö the other weapons which the weak may choose to deploy against the strong.
He went on to point out:
SDR has not sufficiently addressed the problems of dealing with asymmetric threats
or the critical role that reserves should play.
We should remember the Japanese subway bombing. A similar event could happen in our underground, involving thousands rather than dozens with the effective use of chemical weapons. For nearly 30 years, up to 18 battalion-sized units—we only have 40 infantry battalions in the regular Army and 15 in the Territorial Army—have been stationed in Northern Ireland. That should remind us of the dangers of a serious terrorist threat armed with weapons of mass destruction against this country. Yet the Government, for the first time, have offered the House estimates that specifically rule out defending the home base for the foreseeable future.
In America, 177 units of the National Guard have been formed with a specialist nuclear, biological and chemical monitoring role. Behind their 10 regular Army divisions, there are 13 National Guard divisions. Those divisions can be used for home defence, supplying the vast manpower-intensive effort involved in searching for terrorists. They can also be used—and this brings me to my secondary point about the shape of our expeditionary capability—to back the United States' expeditionary capability. At this very moment, the American sector in Bosnia is under the command of the National Guard's Black Horse Divisional Headquarters, from Texas.
National Guard and US Marine reserve units have also been used to huge effect in the Gulf and in subsequent operations, supplying tanks, artillery, fast jet fighters and engineers. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his comments on the Royal Auxiliary Air Force; we need some flying units to be formed, and then we will be in business.
Our armed forces are in danger of becoming great at fighting wars elsewhere, but unable to protect the home base. Also, however, our ability to sustain an operation at a distance is extremely weak, as to do so requires reserves of manpower, equipment and formed units. The European defence initiative is supposed to be sustainable for only a year, and that just about epitomises the muddle in the thinking that produced it.

95
Finally, I shall say a few words about the three horsemen that I mentioned at the outset. Much has been said about the figures that show the collapse in funding, but a few examples will show how bad the situation is. The programme of exercises has been greatly cut—inevitably—because of overstretch, but there was too little money left in the budget even to fund the few remaining high-intensity exercises that were planned.
I have spoken about the married quarters problem for 13 years, on and off, and the House has heard me with tolerance. A total of £l1 million has been taken off the married quarters repair programme, so what message does that send to our armed forces families?
At a dinner in Chatham last week, I was told of one result of the pursuit of efficiency savings. The authorities there are unable to repair the gymnasium, with the result that only half of it is in operation. What does that say about the fitness of our soldiers?
The second of the horsemen is the European security and defence identity. Several hon. Members have spoken so well on this subject that I shall not repeat their words, but I would remind the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson)—who has left the Chamber—that although many Americans would welcome European countries doing a bit more with regard to defence, they do not mean engaging in separate operations, but that we should spend a bit more. While the ESDI is going on, most of our continental partners are still slashing their defence budgets. Most notable among them is Germany, whose defence spending has been reduced to 1.3 per cent. of gross domestic product.
There is no money, we are getting increasingly tied into a muddled relationship with Europe, and the last of the three horsemen, the ethos of the services, is under attack. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) put the problem so well that I shall not repeat his words, but I have a question for the Government, who want to give the armed forces the values of today's civilian society. Do they think that those civilian values include physical fitness, discipline and self-sacrifice? Yet, without those values, an army is nothing.
8.14 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: I want to take up the point about the European security and defence identity. Members of the Select Committee on Defence visited Brussels three weeks ago. From our discussions, and the contributions made by Ministers in evidence sessions, it was clear that there are two versions of the ESDI. The first is the paranoid, hysterical version that we have heard from the Opposition Benches, both Front and Back. The second is the real version, and can be found in the transcripts of the documents dealing with the Petersberg tasks.
The ESDI is about crisis management, and getting better use of resources in Europe. At NATO and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, we were told that it was not a question of extra resources. The problem was that, although 2 million troops are available in Europe, it is not possible to deploy them in such a way that up to 40,000 will be available at any one time. The ESDI will ensure that 50,000 troops will be capable of being deployed, for a period of six months, after which
96
another group of the same size will be available for deployment. That rotation will mean that there will need to be about 150,000 troops available for deployment or for sending to operational theatres in the continent of Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has already referred to the need for some European countries to shift away from the mentality of territorial defence. With existing resources, it should be possible for various countries to achieve a much more effective deployment of military forces. British military experts and their counterparts at SHAPE are trying to work out the mechanics involved in that.
I am pleased that the Government are at the forefront of the initiative, and are telling other countries that we will continue the contributions that we have made to operations over recent years. The French have also contributed to various operations, although to a lesser extent because their conscription system makes involvement more difficult for them. The initiative will require a significant change in the way that the German armed forces work, while other countries will also make a contribution.
That second analysis of the nuts and bolts of the ESDI contrasts sharply with the hysterical words of Tory Members.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gapes: No, I do not have time. I may give way near the end of my remarks, if there is some time left.
There have been interesting contributions from Conservative Front-Bench Members. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is just about to leave the Chamber. I do not mind if he does leave, but—judging from a remark that he made today and from his speech last week, which I read carefully—he seems to be advocating a breach of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
That position is not taken by the American Administration, but by the right wing of the Republican party. The division in the United States over national missile defence or theatre missile defence is clear. The Clinton Administration consider that any changes to the treaty must be brought about either in ways that are consistent with the existing ABM treaty, or which are agreed after negotiations with the Russians. Up to now, the Clinton Government have not advocated a unilateral breach of the ABM treaty.
America's Republican-led Congress has passed resolutions that did not make President Clinton completely happy, but the nature of the American political system meant that he was forced to go along with them. I am worried lest statements made in this House or elsewhere in western Europe are seized on by right-wing forces in the United States that are unilateralist and which oppose the coalition and the international agreement. The right wing of the Conservative party therefore fosters the global unilateralism of the right wing in the United States, with the aim of undermining the transatlantic co-operation that those of us who are Atlanticists—whether of the left or the right—wish to foster to build the collective security that will be so important to the European continent in the future.
I am very pleased with the report from the Defence Committee which I have joined only recently. It highlights a number of areas of concern. It raises issues about which

97
there is more for the Government to do. However, at least we have, for the first time, an itemised breakdown of ethnic recruitment to our armed services. The Select Committee has been pressing for such a breakdown for 15 years. We can see that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are not doing very well, and need to do better. We can press for a strengthening of recruitment so that our armed forces can reflect more accurately the society that they serve.
I should like to take up the point of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) by saying that I believe it important that our armed services have more women and a more representative cross-section of people, not just at the level of the ordinary squaddie but right the way through the structures. When we, like the American armed forces, have a Chief of the Defence Staff who is from an ethnic minority, we will be able to say that we have eradicated the problems that have arisen over many years in armed forces recruitment and retention.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. On a lighter note, and by the same token, would he say that the fact that we had a female Prime Minister means that we eradicated the problem of women's representation in Parliament?
Mr. Gapes: I do not wish to go down that road, except to say that I had far more confidence in General Colin Powell and his judgment, both military and political, than I ever had in Baroness Thatcher's.
There are some difficult and worrying developments. Paragraph 47 of the Select Committee report points out that arms control and disarmament have not gone well over recent years. We have seen the failure of the Americans to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. We have seen the potential difficulty regarding a growing proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the tests in India and Pakistan. The non-proliferation review conference that is due to start in April will, as I understand it, be extremely difficult. Pledges made a few years ago about measures for further disarmament are not being fulfilled because of the United States and Russia not ratifying the START 2 negotiation treaty. That means that we have a blockage—an impediment—to any further development of nuclear disarmament negotiations. That is a very serious problem, and if there is a breakdown in the relationship between the United States and Russia over the anti-ballistic missile treaty, that augurs badly for the future not just of the relationship between those two very powerful countries but of European defence and security. The issue needs further consideration in the House, and I am pleased that the Select Committee has said that it will be given that consideration.
Finally, I concur with all the remarks made about Michael Colvin. I did not know him as well as some other people did, but I always found him a most amenable and intelligent man. He is a great loss to the House.
8.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: To continue in the same vein as other right hon. and hon. Members, I associate myself with, and endorse, the tributes that have been paid to Michael Colvin. He and Nichola were good friends to me for 25 years or so. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I grieve at their death and I shall miss them very greatly indeed.
98
I shall be selective and brief. When the Secretary of State opened the debate on Tuesday, he eulogised smart procurement. In reply, a number of my hon. Friends expressed the grave doubts and cynicism that exist on these Benches. To any dispassionate, objective observer, many aspects of procurement under this Government remain profoundly unsatisfactory—a sorry and all-too-familiar saga of delayed decisions on programmes that are essential to the effectiveness of our armed forces and, almost invariably, massive cost overruns. Although the Government talk of modernised systems of procurement, the supporting evidence is very patchy. With chapter 5 of the White Paper in mind, particularly the recognition of
the interdependence between nations and companies
mentioned on page 44, I shall focus on just two procurement programmes. I acknowledge that what I say will be coloured by constituency interests.
The Eurofighter Typhoon enters front-line service in 2005. It will be armed with Raytheon advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles—AMRAAM. These are to be superseded from 2008 by the new beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile—BVRAAM. Bids for the BVRAAM were submitted to the Ministry of Defence as long ago as May 1998, and the overdue decision has yet to be announced. Given the £16 billion investment in the Eurofighter, few people would deny that it is essential that the aircraft is equipped with the best possible missile to ensure that it can provide future air supremacy and superiority for our forces. Obviously, the possession of the best possible missile will considerably boost the aircraft's export potential.
It was precisely to meet that end—to provide the best possible missile—that Raytheon Systems Ltd., Shorts Missile Systems and the Basingstoke-based Thomson Thorn Missile Electronics, teamed up with a wide range of other British and European companies. They offer the extended-range air-to-air missile—ERAAMplus. I wonder whether it has been sufficiently appreciated that ERAAMpIus can be provided for about half the Ministry of Defence BVRAAM budget of £900 million by merging the BVRAAM requirement with the ongoing United States AMRAAM development programme. That would be a good start for a Government seeking to make £2 billion in savings over 10 years through smart procurement. It would bring the United Kingdom full access to United States air-to-air technology, as well as ensuring interoperability in future coalition operations, for the simple reason that the United States uses ERAAMplus.
What interests me from a constituency point of view—many other right hon. and hon. Members share this interest—is that about two thirds of the work for the ERAAMpIus programme will be undertaken in the United Kingdom. If we throw on top of that the 50 per cent. of work that will be done in the United Kingdom for the American missiles and the export potential, it can be understood why the ERAAMpIus programme will create and sustain some 3,000 jobs in United Kingdom companies.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend understand the risk of fitting a foreign missile to

99
a domestic aeroplane? The United States might withhold supply of the missile if we wanted to sell the Eurofighter Typhoon to other countries.
Mr. Hunter: I am well aware of that argument; as my hon. Friend knows, it has been well rehearsed. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not pursue it again, because of the shortage of time. I acknowledge that it is often made.
There is a second programme in which it will be interesting to see whether the Government put into practice the policies and principles on procurement set out in the White Paper. I refer to the procurement of a successor identification friend or foe system. It is widely acknowledged that Raytheon Systems in Harlow—not in Basingstoke—has been at the forefront of that technology for more than 50 years. The company has put together a bid that offers immense advantages to the UK defence industry as a whole. About 85 per cent. of all identification work would be done in the UK; there would be 45 UK subcontractors, five of whom would—hopefully—be in Basingstoke.
Those two programmes—the extended-range air-to-air missile and the Raytheon SIFF solution—would bring substantial advantages to the UK defence industry as a whole. It will be interesting to see whether the Government can live up to and deliver the expectations that they have raised.
I make my concluding comments in the light of chapter 4 of the White Paper, "People in Defence". In relation to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State said that
the Government cannot and will not contemplate anything that suggests any equivalence between the security forces and terrorists ö there is no way in which such equivalence would be acceptable.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1397.]
Those are reassuring words. I hope that they carry weight. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence realises that the Government have created a credibility problem in relation to those matters. The present, interminable inquiry into the shootings in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday is offensive to the Army and unnecessary. Initially, it was to have been held under conditions that would have endangered the lives of soldiers on duty that day. It is a public relations gimmick designed to appease Irish republican terrorism and is thus a disgrace.
The Government have already shown that, to appease terrorism, they are prepared to play politics with the honour of a regiment and to sacrifice the magnificent RUC. My accusation is that, as they have already shown such disdain and disregard for some of those in the forefront of the fight against terrorism, they have only themselves to blame if some people fear that they are capable one day of doing the same again, even if it is not their declared intention at present.
8.32 pm
Laura Moffatt: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. I cannot possibly make my speech without saying a word or two about Michael Colvin, whom I considered to be my hon. Friend. He was a delightful Member. I speak on behalf of women Members, because my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and I were the first two women ever to serve
100
on the Select Committee on Defence. After more than three decades, the Committee was a boy zone—to say the least—so it was a tricky one for us to join. Michael Colvin was delightful. He complimented us on our contribution to the Committee not only in the Chamber, but privately. I shall never forget that, because he made our service to the Committee much more special—he made us feel valued. I shall remember him always. I cannot imagine the pain that his family is going through.
When one joins the Defence Committee, one comes with no baggage; one has no preconceptions—unfortunately, one has no experience either. However, through that Committee I have learned much about the work of the defence industry and of our forces. It has been the most rewarding part of my work at the House of Commons and has given me an enormous grounding. I have learned how much the world of defence is changing. When I hear hon. Members talking as though defence and our armed forces should be kept in aspic—they should never change, develop and modernise—that seems a great shame. I find it fairly astonishing that a Government such as this, who are prepared to meet the challenges of a modern world, are greeted with derision.
Although I do not have enormous experience of the subject, I am aware that the view that everything terrible with defence procurement has happened since 1 May 1997 is complete and utter nonsense. Those who give evidence to the Defence Committee put that argument to bed very quickly. We have faced difficulties with defence procurement over the past two decades and we now have to reap a terrible reward.
If our armed forces are our most precious commodity, they need to be valued. There is no question about that—we must ensure that they are valued. From the visits that the Select Committee has made, we know that they like to be busy, but that they do not want to be overstretched. They like to be rewarded for what they do, and they do not want us to undervalue them. Therefore, it is important that we understand their needs. That is the challenge.
I have listened to speeches in the House that have suggested that it could undermine our armed forces if we were ever truly to embrace equal opportunities in relation to race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, social background and—this is the most difficult for hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, to accept—sexual orientation. I do not know how many Members have heard of, or are fans of, the comic Ali G. He is truly wonderful and I advise them to obtain his video "Ali G Innit". Major General Kenneth Perkins MBE, DFC appears in it and Ali G asks him, "What about gays in the armed forces?" One of the most decorated members of the armed forces says, "There have always been gays in the armed forces. If you want to make a problem of it, there's going to be a problem. If you don't, it'll be fine." That is the best way forward. Given the advice that officers in the armed forces have been given, the challenge can be met and we can have armed forces of which we can be proud and which are still able to carry out their duties.
Recruitment is on the increase and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has told us how well we are doing on that. Retention remains a difficulty, although the problem is not as bad as it was. We have seen all sorts of ways in which retention can be improved. They include helping families—an issue in which I am especially interested—improving education for people in the armed

101
forces and extending leave after they have been away. All those measures will help with job satisfaction and will make being in the armed forces more worthwhile.
On a recent visit to Kosovo, I was amazed to see the awful conditions in which some of our men and women lived. I was there for only a couple of days, but if I had to live in those conditions, I would have given up long ago and come home. Our armed forces were living under canvas and using chemical loos. The Committee Clerk, Carol Oxborough, and I were so cold one night that we could not sleep, but we did not dare complain because of the awful conditions in which our service personnel were living. Did they once complain about what they were doing? They did not, because they felt valued and were working in the community.
We heard much in the press about the dreadful delays in the provision of temporary field accommodation. However, we spoke to members of the armed forces about that accommodation and they told us that they did not want to stay in it. They said that they liked being where they were in the heart of the community. They could protect and assist people and do the job for which they were trained. It is important that we make our armed forces feel that they are doing the job that they want to do.
Like most Members, I am interested in people in the armed forces, but I came to the subject of defence through having to deal with procurement issues in my constituency. I have listened to the debate and it seems that the procurement industry is changing enormously. Some say that, in the next decade, we will have only three major defence companies in the whole western world. If that is true, it makes complete nonsense of the old allegiances, and we can no longer sustain arguments about whether everything that the Americans do is wonderful or whether all our actions are wonderful and we should ignore the Americans.
I sound a word of caution about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency: the MOD should ensure that DERA follows its advice on procurement, and no action should put that at risk.
I turn now to defence medical services, on which I have most empathy and feel most pain. As a nurse, my visit to Royal hospital, Haslar, which was under threat of closure, and my understanding of how those people were feeling will remain with me, although I completely support the view of the MOD and defence medical services. The situation reflects what is happening in the NHS throughout the country. More than 70 trusts are having to make decisions to ensure that all their people work on one site and that they get the right expertise and mix of cases. All those issues were affecting Royal hospital, Haslar, as they affect Crawley hospital in my constituency, so I can empathise with the staff at Haslar and their sense that everything would fall to pieces if the hospital closed.
There can be a bright future for the defence medical services, and that future must be with the new centre for defence medicine. However, I urge the MOD not to delay in setting up that centre, otherwise there will be no confidence that the defence medical services will have the expertise and training that they need to care for members of the armed forces. Their difficulty will be getting the right case mix, making sure that secondary care is working and ensuring that personnel get the specialist care that they need to operate in the field.
102
I very much hope that, if ESDI goes ahead, it will apply to medical services. I should like there to be much more co-operation in peacekeeping and in conflict resolution, so that there are centralised hospitals with staff working together, rather than each nation having its own hospital. Medicine is a universal language and translates easily into joint working. If ESDI means anything, it means an improvement in our medical services, not only in secondary care for people here but in the care of those in the theatre of conflict.
8.43 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: This has been an extremely interesting debate, and like everyone else I should like to start by paying my tribute to Michael Colvin. As many hon. Members have said, he was an outstanding and unfailingly courteous man. Unfortunately, I could not attend last week's debate because I was dining with a senior RAF officer, but I read Michael Colvin's contribution and it was, as ever, extremely well informed. He had immense knowledge and a deep love of the subject, as well as a deep love of his country and the countryside.
I had the great pleasure of staying a night with Michael Colvin and Mrs. C—as he always used to refer to his wife—at Tangley house, which they adored. It was not only a lovely house but a lovely home, where two wonderful people lived. It is a great loss for the country, the constituency and the House.
As several hon. Members have suggested, the White Paper is rather short, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said, it is not very well put together at that. By contrast, the Select Committee report is extremely informative. It is packed full of information that is notably absent from the White Paper and which is normally set out by the MOD when it produces the defence estimates. It is a shame that that was not forthcoming in the White Paper.
The deficiencies in the White Paper are more than amply made up for by the report of the Select Committee, under the leadership of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). The report is a damning indictment of the Government's handling of our defences. Above all else, it is clear that there has been a relentless decline in the Treasury's commitment to funding the services to the extent necessary to match the Government's aspirations of playing their part on the world stage. There is no doubt about the commitment of our troops, but there is doubt about the Treasury's commitment to sustain the required investment in order to ensure that we are able to deploy our troops when the Government wish to do so. It is apparent that that is what the Prime Minister, who wishes to project power, wants.
It is a matter of great concern when the Select Committee concludes that the finances of the Ministry of Defence are inadequate and continually declining. By contrast, the United States defence budget is increasing, although levels among our continental partners are mostly on the decline, too.
It is important that we are able to raise investment so that there is the necessary training, because we cannot predict our obligations. The one thing that we know in matching resources to commitments is that we do not know what our commitments might be. If we want to ensure that we are ready to meet unexpected commitments, we must will the means by which our assets can be made available and our resources suitably deployed.

103
I shall make one brief comment on Europe. I do not think that there is a great deal of disagreement across the Floor of the House about the need for European countries to get together to ensure at least some co-operation, so that if European countries, including ourselves, wish to become involved in some situation, but the United States does not, we have the means to do so.
There is nothing revolutionary in such a suggestion. Indeed, in her famous Bruges speech in 1988, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, with whom I had the privilege of working, said:
It is to NATO that we owe the peace that has been maintained for over 40 years.
She went on to say that it was important that European nations commit themselves to strong defence. At the time, of course, we still faced the Soviet threat. She continued:
We should develop the WEU, not as an alternative to NATO, but as a means of strengthening Europe's contribution to the common defence of the west.
That point has been echoed by several of my hon. Friends. To go further, allowing the European Union to drive a wedge between ourselves and the United States would be damaging and must be resisted. Therefore, I do not support Mr. Prodi's desire for a European army. There is a world of difference between the comments of my right hon. and noble Friend and what Mr. Prodi is saying.
I want to raise several other issues, and I shall be brief on each. It would be inappropriate not to mention the question of morale. Representing a military constituency, I am aware of the strains on families as a result of our troops continuing commitments. The Government ought to reflect on the issue. It is no good just saying that the recruitment figures are good news. They are welcome, but the Minister should be much more worried about the serious problem of retention. It is one thing to recruit new people, who have cost nothing at the point of arrival in the services, but a haemorrhage of people in whom a substantial amount of public money has been invested, who have undergone the training and are voting with their feet by leaving, is wholly different.
The fact that the Royal Air Force is short of 95 fast-jet pilots is indicative of the problems facing only one service. That the Army is about 5,000 troops below strength, with no likelihood of that deficiency being made up until 2005, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) explained, is also a serious matter.
The Government should reflect on the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the ethos of the armed services. I shall not rehearse all the arguments that I have made previously on the question of homosexuals in the armed forces and related issues. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) said that she thought that the services should reflect society. The job of the services is not to reflect society, but to defend this country, and they have been singularly successful in so doing. The armed forces are one of the few institutions in this country that command universal respect. There is a good old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't mend it."
There is grave danger attendant on undermining the ethos of the services. Service men and women are special people—they are the only people who write their contracts in blood, the only people who put their lives at
104
risk day in, day out, doing their job for their country. It is appropriate that we should understand the values, ethos and traditions that form part of the services. All those members of the Defence Committee who have visited various military installations throughout the country know well the important role those values play in the services way of life.
I attended a boxing match in the Maida gymnasium in Aldershot last Thursday. Watching two regiments slugging it out was a remarkable experience. Theirs was a truly gutsy performance, and they displayed tremendous sportsmanship. Those qualities, which we have seen deployed on the streets of Kosovo, were demonstrated in that gymnasium.
I am concerned about the issue of rapid deployability. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised the question of heavy lift. The Government have a problem with the joint rapid reaction force, in particular the need for that force to be able to react rapidly. I am not sure that they have addressed the issue, other than by the commissioning of ships. It is absolutely essential that we achieve the heavy lift requirement needed to make good our commitment to deploy such forces rapidly.
If the Apache attack helicopter is to be a key part of that rapidly deployable force, and if, as the Defence Committee pointed out in a previous report, a regiment of 16 Apache attack helicopters brings with it no fewer than 220 support vehicles, I am not sure whether we have the rapid reaction force we ought to have. The Government must address that matter with greater speed. Two C 17s alone are not the answer to the problem.
The hon. Member for Crawley spoke about DERA, whose headquarters are in my constituency. It is not fair to DERA to leave it in a state of limbo. I and my party are opposed to the proposed public-private partnership. I am extremely concerned that DERA's research budget is being cut each year with no alternative being put in its place. The hon. Lady is right to say that DERA's job must be to provide independent expertise to the MOD, to ensure that the MOD is not ripped off by its suppliers.
However, it is also extremely important that DERA retains the confidence of the United States of America, with which it collaborates. As DERA's chief executive, Sir John Chisholm, has made clear to me, unless we put investment in research, we shall have nothing to offer the United States. DERA is in a state of limbo and we have to do something to resolve it. My preferred solution would be to scrap the proposed PPP and to restore investment in research to previous levels.
I have three final points. The first concerns Meteor—the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), it is a local matter for me, as BAe Systems has its headquarters in Farnborough. I have seen what happened in the past when we have been at the mercy of the United States—for example, when a missile is supplied by the US on an air frame or platform made by us. We must make sure that we are not in the same position again, where the US Congress can veto defence sales from this country.
That brings me neatly to my second point—defence sales, which have not been mentioned so far in the debate. They form an extremely important part of our defence posture. Our domestic requirements do not provide

105
sufficient economies of scale to enable us to get the production runs, save at prohibitive cost. The only way that we can get the best equipment from our factories for our own use is by promoting defence sales. That gives us not only the production runs, but the advantage of being able to help our friends. If our friends suddenly turn out to be enemies or become unacceptable, perhaps we should withhold sales of spare parts, as we should be doing with Zimbabwe. We should not sell that country a single further spare part.
Finally, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said about the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I have friends and constituents who are former members of the Parachute Regiment and who were involved in that tragedy 30 years ago. It is grotesque that the Prime Minister has set up the inquiry entirely to appease republican sentiment in Ireland, and that the Ministry of Defence is spending vast sums of public money to cover the legal costs of the men seeking representation before the inquiry. What the Prime Minister has done is unfortunate and deeply damaging to everyone concerned. It has reopened old wounds and has no prospect of doing anything other than prolonging the trauma for many of those involved in the tragedy.
8.57 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I know that others want to speak in the debate so, in view of the time, I shall limit my remarks to just one subject—cluster bombs and Kosovo.
I do not believe, however, that the subject of nuclear weapons has been properly aired during the debate. The United Kingdom, Russia and the United States are developing policies that make it easier to use nuclear weapons, or to use them earlier in a dispute. Whatever the contorted logic that has led to that policy position in those countries, I do not believe that the majority of people in the UK or the other countries favour a policy to facilitate the use of nuclear weapons. I hope that we shall return to that debate in due course.
On cluster bombs and Kosovo, the situation in the former Yugoslavia had got to the stage where military action was justified, but the methods whereby some of the military strikes were carried out were questionable. The decision to drop weapons only from above 15,000 ft meant that the risk of casualties among allied pilots was reduced, but made the number of casualties on the ground far greater. Many of those casualties were civilians.
The objection is a matter not just of policy, but of physics. From 15,000 ft there is an appreciable delay—30 or 40 seconds—before a dropped bomb hits the ground. That means that a bomb may move from its target because of unexpected wind conditions, or there may be a change of circumstances on the ground, such as movement of civilian trucks or trains.
That is not the only limitation caused by the physics. From 15,000 ft it was impossible for pilots to confirm absolutely that their targets were not civilian vehicles. That led to many casualties.
The use of cluster bombs added a further level of indiscriminate use of military force. It is clear that the RAF was not ready to use these weapons under the operational conditions of Operation Allied Force. That is apparent from the trials that had to be held at Luce bay on 6 and 7 April 1999. If the RAF had been ready,
106
the trials would not have been needed. The greatest difference between using those weapons in Kosovo and during training is the height from which they are dropped. British cluster bombs—BL755s—were designed to be dropped from a much lower height than 15,000 ft.
The use of the weapons that we are considering had several consequences. The bomblets were scattered over a wider area than if they had been dropped from a lower height. It has also been alleged that deployment from a greater height meant that more bomblets did not explode when they hit the ground. That created an even bigger long-term hazard.
I have asked a series of parliamentary questions on the subject. The Ministry of Defence claimed that the height at which cluster bombs were dropped made no difference to their failure rate, which remained at 5 per cent. The RAF is not the only user of the BL755. Those weapons were sold to the former Yugoslavia and used by the Serbs against Croatia. The Croatian Government claimed that the failure rate for sub-munitions on the weapons used against them was nearer 7 per cent.
The difference between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. may not seem great, but the RAF used more than 500 BL755s in the Kosovo operation. Each BL755 carries nearly 150 sub-munitions. The extra 2 per cent. would mean another 1,500 unexploded bombs in Kosovo.
It is important to make some form of independent assessment of the way in which the weapons behave in practice. No matter how good the case for military action, we have a moral duty to ensure that it does not have an appalling legacy.
The lessons of Kosovo must be learned. The use of cluster bombs should be properly and frankly assessed, and not whitewashed to justify the operation. I accept that the cost of reducing the risk to civilians may entail taking greater risks with the lives of armed forces personnel from this country and those of our allies. However, it is not right unnecessarily to slaughter many thousands of civilians because the risk to an individual pilot is slightly greater.
Doing the right thing is sometimes neither cheap nor without risk. However, that is the price for doing the right thing unless we are prepared to put more civilians, including those for whom we are supposed to be acting, at greater risk of losing their lives.
9.2 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I join others in expressing my deep regret at the deaths of Michael Colvin and his wife Nichola. I knew Michael Colvin for nearly 30 years, from when he was first elected to Hampshire county council. During my time as leader of that council, he and the late former Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, Stephen Milligan, were usually the only Members of Parliament who readily supported the council when necessary. Michael Colvin supported many ventures in the county of Hampshire. He will be missed here, in his constituency, and in Europe, and I stress that Hampshire has lost a staunch supporter. I am sure that the county will at some stage want to record its regret at his death and its deepest appreciation of the part that he played in its life.
Michael Colvin made many interesting interventions during the time that I served with him on the Select Committee on Defence, not least in the battle to save

107
Haslar hospital. He, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—who did not serve on the Committee—and I were instrumental in pushing through several of the final recommendations, which have left the door open for the Ministry of Defence to be able to save Haslar hospital. The Save Haslar campaign is very much alive, and it would be good to hear the Minister say something positive about the future of the hospital.
It is regrettable that I am speaking in a defence debate on the same day as I received a letter from the Minister for the Armed Forces that states that constituents' jobs are again on the line. In the letter, the Minister states that a review has identified efficiencies that can be made at the defence munitions depot as Gosport, and that up to 30 per cent. in manpower savings will have to be made in the next four months. That represents several hundred jobs in the Greater Portsmouth area—once again, jobs that we can ill afford to lose. Over the past century, they have been filled by men and women who have given loyal service in defence of the realm, and neither they nor their futures should be forgotten in the debate. The strategic defence review and the White Paper have come together, but they are littered beyond belief with financial inadequacies.
The Kosovo situation has been referred to today and last week. Like many Members, I have visited Kosovo more than once, and for a long time it has appeared to me that many people in that province see KFOR as the enemy. Sadly, as many Members predicted, the Kosovo Liberation Army will grasp any opportunity to push its political view. It wants a fully autonomous Kosovo, but if it cannot achieve that, its second-best option—which is probably the worst—is a Greater Albania. That may take longer to achieve, but it is the KLA's long-term aim. Any Member who has talked to representatives of those who hold the guns in Kosovo over the past few years knows that that is what they were fighting for and I believe that, before long, we shall be confronted with open hostility to our forces and others.
Lord Robertson recently made it clear to a meeting of the Western European Union at which all NATO Ministers were represented that 10 years was an optimistic appraisal of the time it would take to achieve any sort of solution in Kosovo. Once again, no real end-plan was in sight and no political solution offered, at either last week's NATO meeting or the WEU meeting the week before. That must be extremely worrying to everyone who cares about peace in Europe and in the world.
The lessons of Bosnia are there for us to learn, and those who have visited it recently will know that people have not put sectarianism behind them. There are still several different communities, investment goes into businesses on an ethnic basis—Muslims do not invest in non-Muslim businesses—and Bosnia consists of the old and the very young. All the well educated young people, who might have brought the country together, are long gone and many have no intention of ever going back. The same will be the case in Kosovo if we are not careful. Not enough effort has been put into thinking through the end result or learning the lessons of Bosnia. Sadly, a heavy price is still being paid.
I spent part of this morning with the Croatian ambassador and a constituent from a neighbouring constituency. We were talking to the Croatian authorities
108
about the death of his son—a young British soldier serving in Bosnia who was killed when he was attacked by Serbs while on leave in Croatia. We were trying to get justice so that the British Army would represent the father at the trial, but sadly no help has been forthcoming except to transport him there. He needs advice about what is going on in the court. Why has he been unable to get greater assistance from the Prime Minister and successive Defence Ministers? For goodness sake, I ask the Ministry of Defence to give the family some peace of mind and the legal representation in the court proceedings that they desire.
The White Paper exposes a number of flaws in a range of topics. They are not discussed, but the Defence Committee report has exposed the deficiencies and, as Members have said, the evidence given to us provided a clear example of that. In one way or another, £20 billion of taxpayers' money has been thrown away and two thirds of the 65 major weapons systems valued at more than £10 million went over budget and were significantly delayed. The Bowman communication system was an absolute disaster—money haemorrhaged and we still have not achieved a satisfactory solution.
I was interested when the Minister of State talked about the success of the Tornado upgrade. At the beginning of his speech he said that upgraded Tornados had flown bombing missions to Kosovo and to Serbia and had dropped smart bombs.
Mr. Spellar indicated dissent.
Mr. Hancock: The Minister shakes his head, but hon. Members should read Hansard tomorrow. That is not borne out by the evidence of people who spoke to aircrews who went to Kosovo. They did not fly modified Tornados with smart weapons on them in missions in Kosovo. If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall willingly give way.
Legions of times, disinformation has been the order of the day. The arguments over the rifle were ludicrous. The Conservatives cannot opt out of their responsibility for that. The issues surrounding the Eurofighter must still be causing great alarm in the MOD, given the overruns and delays on that project. Whether the plane will achieve what we expected as a military weapon is debatable.
Many hon. Members referred to individual procurement projects in which the MOD has been involved. I should like to raise the issue of the Charm project: a weapon that the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham), who spoke about Bishopton, would be keenly interested in, as are my constituents who work at Portsmouth Aviation, given the shabby way in which they have been treated. I still await with interest the response to questions that I have tabled.
The Minister failed to answer questions about training and exercises, either when he was challenged at the Dispatch Box or during his presentation. In the past 12 months, eight naval exercises, 20 army exercises and 12 RAF exercises have been cancelled. The Royal Marines deployment of 800 men to Norway to get much needed training has once again been abandoned.
No one has mentioned the two new aircraft carriers. We are led to believe that the JSF multi-role fighter will not be produced in the form first suggested. That will considerably change the design of the two carriers.

109
Some hon. Members may be more concerned about the names of those carriers and where they are to be based—I make a plea for Portsmouth—but I believe that the important thing is to discover whether the MOD still intend to deliver on those two carriers for the Royal Navy. What type of planes will fly from them? If we are to believe the Americans, planes will have to have a range of at least 500 miles if they are to defend a carrier properly. What type of carrier are we going to produce, and what will that do to the budget?
The problem of morale will not be satisfactorily resolved. I accept entirely that much is being done in the MOD, but the real issue is how all this will be paid for. I was delighted that more is being done for family welfare, and I share the Minister's conviction in that regard. However, there is more to be done. Married quarters need to be upgraded, despite the fact that tens of millions of pounds are to be spent. The Government have been told that they need to spend hundreds of millions to bring that stock up to the required standard.
People will have to be paid well to remain in our armed services. The shabbiness of the White Paper and the SDR is that financing and commitments will not be matched. That will mean further overstretch, badly procured defence or a severe weakening of our personnel's ability to do the job that we want them to do. None of that can be right. We need a properly financed and planned defence strategy, with commitments that we can live up to and a personnel provided with the right equipment for the right job.
9.14 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I echo the tributes paid to Michael Colvin, who was truly a gallant and honourable gentleman. I also express my deep sympathy to his family, and that of his wife.
Let me begin with people, and echo the tributes that have been paid to our armed forces. As the first line of the White Paper says,
Britain's Armed Forces are among the best in the world.
They do us proud. I also want to mention the service families who, time and again, have demonstrated their commitment and support through thick and thin, especially during the past 12 months.
As the White Paper rightly says, the quality of our people is the single most important component of Britain's defence capability. Those people give us the critical edge that leads to success. I welcome the measures included in the policy for people: they must remain a priority, as the White Paper recognises. That is certainly the view of the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, who recently gave a presentation to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. It is published in this month's edition of the institute's journal. The general said:
expectations have been raised and if we do not deliver on people issues we will never again enjoy the credibility of the average Serviceman and woman. This is my number one priority, as without our people we are nothing.
That says it all.
I also want to comment on defence support. I welcome the efforts that have been made to make smart procurement just that: smart, efficient and rapid. I am well aware that things were hardly efficient under the last
110
Government, but I would not say that everything is perfect now. In my constituency, Rosyth dockyard has not been pleased by the delay in the decision on the Sonar 2087. Hon. Members will not be surprised that I will not allow a defence debate to end without paying tribute to the dockyard, to HMS Caledonia, to DERA Rosyth and to all the personnel involved, who are trying to give service to their country.
Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Squire: I am sorry, but I must decline, because I know that at least one other hon. Member wishes to speak.
The White Paper also deals with NATO and European defence. In the same presentation and article, entitled "Bringing the Armed Forces into a New Millennium", the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, said:
There is an argument that a strong, more assertive Europe will undermine NATO. I think that is wrong. A Europe that remains allied to the US simply because of its own weaknesses is of limited value. Europe's weakness to provide for its own security interests is more damaging to the transatlantic relationship than an strong Europe with the greater influence in decision making that would go with a greater military contribution to the Alliance.
That puts the case brilliantly, as we would expect from our Chief of the Defence Staff.
Finally, I want to refer to the chapter of the White Paper that refers to a safer world. It focuses on some of the issues raised by Kosovo in relation to our strategy for the future. I look forward to a full debate on Kosovo, and the issues and lessons that it raises, when the report of the Select Committee on Defence is published, so I shall touch on only one or two points now.
The White Paper says that we should consider how we deal with the "asymmetric warfare" engaged in by adversaries who cannot compete in conventional warfare, and makes it clear that Slobodan Milosevic is a perpetrator of that form of defence. I give my full support to the whole area of defence diplomacy, particularly the outreach programme with Russia. Without going into detailed comments on some of our concerns about human rights abuses in Chechnya, all of us would agree that the Russian armed forces have been poorly trained and poorly treated for many years. It is in all our interests to try to improve that.
Again, I hope that we can have a fuller and specific debate on the whole area of international peacekeeping: the importance of humanitarian efforts, what should be done by the military and what should be done by civilian personnel. The problems in Mitrovica highlight and underline that well. I quote General Sir Michael Jackson, who in a recent journal highlighted the different roles that our soldiers are expected to play. He said:
We have soldiers living in Serb apartments where they are isolated. We have permanent guards in all Orthodox churches and monasteries without which they would be burnt and bombed. We even escort little old ladies to the bread shop to buy their bread, but on the way a Kosovar Albanian teenager will give the sign of throat-slitting to her face. In terms of what outside intervention in the sense of soldiers, and policemen and civil administrators can achieve, what this tells me is that there is a limit: we're talking about people's attitudes, people's perceptions.
He sums up clearly some of the conflicts in peacekeeping efforts, but also how right we are to be proud of our armed forces. I again pay tribute to them. It gives pleasure to us

111
all to see them putting their lives at risk to try to give life, safety and hope to civilian communities throughout the world.
9.22 pm
Mr. David Heath: The previous time I spoke in a defence debate, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) accused me of having been got at by the Fleet Air Arm, and I happily admit that I had been, as Yeovilton is in my constituency. Since then, I have been got at by the entire Navy. I have been a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and have spent a year being got at, from the First Sea Lord to the newest recruit. Therefore, I will unashamedly speak about the Royal Navy today, although briefly, I hope.
The Defence White Paper carries us very little forward from the strategic defence review, but it has reinforced the primacy of the navy's role in carrying forward the expeditionary policy, the platform for power projection, which the navy essentially provides for our armed forces. I was happy to have the opportunity to go to the eastern Mediterranean to watch and to join in amphibious operations during the summer on HMS Ocean and HMS Fearless. Indeed, it almost felt like home from home. I think that I met more of my constituents on HMS Ocean, on which 40 Commando was embarked, than I would normally in a surgery. That was in marked contrast to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who accompanied me. He did not manage to find one constituent on the whole thing and thought that it was a set-up.
That reinforced the essential element of projection, which HMS Ocean as a ship and the amphibious task group could provide. It also reinforced the great danger that the MOD faces of being scuppered by the Treasury. The MOD's capital plans, which are encapsulated in the White Paper, may not come to pass. It is essential to have HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, which we will have, I believe, but it is equally essential to have the two new aircraft carriers. Undoubtedly, the Treasury is the greatest threat to those carriers.
I believe that, soon, the Ministry of Defence will be considering commissioning a second HMS Ocean, because the indispensability of that very important asset will very quickly be recognised. While I was on HMS Ocean, a standard joke was that there was no prospect of it coming back to Britain for Christmas, because it would never be more than a day's sailing from Podgorica. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) would have been disappointed if I had not mentioned Montenegro at least once the debate.
Nevertheless, we shall have to come to terms with the aspirations and ambitions of politicians, in the form of the Prime Minister and Ministers at the Ministry of Defence and at the Foreign Office, and with the capital that is available to us. Subsequently—if we are to do effectively the jobs that we want to do—some pretty important decisions will have to be taken, for example, on carrier-borne aircraft, which was mentioned earlier in the debate, and on the marinisation of an attack helicopter.
I should like also to deal briefly with the armed services' humanitarian role—which was dealt with earlier today, in the statement on Mozambique. I believe that we
112
will increasingly be asking our armed forces to perform such a role, which is not a replacement for their primary role—to fight. A warship should not be put in jeopardy because it is carrying humanitarian supplies. Nevertheless, could we not do more to equip the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, including the RFA Fort George and the RFA Fort Victoria, with a better range of humanitarian supplies, to be included in their standard inventory and used in an emergency?
I also had the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland, to see the work that the Navy is doing there. I have only one question on that work, as I do not want to get involved in a discussion on the appropriate level of military strength in Northern Ireland. I know that serious consideration is being given to the future of the Northern Ireland patrol. If those ships—such as HMS Dulverton, which I had the pleasure of visiting—were not there, patrolling the area between the Carlingford Lough and Belfast and giving their assistance to the civil authorities in the Celtic sea, with what would they be replaced? Would they be replaced by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, by Customs and Excise, or by some other body? I do not think that it is possible to replace them.
I should like to take one very brief moment to mention a parochial issue, on which the Minister will not be able to give me a reply. Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton is very important to my constituency. I have failed to argue successfully for Joint Force 2000 to be based there, and failed to argue successfully for the Joint Helicopter Command to be based there. There has been investment in buildings there, but that is always worrying in the context of the Ministry of Defence, as we do not know what will happen next.
Could the Minister give me some indication of the future of RNAS Yeovilton, and tell me about the satellite station at Ikon, which causes almost more problems with aircraft noise than Yeovilton itself? Will the station be necessary after the Harriers move away?
As I know that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) wishes to speak, and think that he has a couple of minutes to do so, I shall sit down.
9.28 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I should like quickly to deal with contracts and the need for jobs. The short-term heavy lift project is extremely important in that context.
The Antonov 124–100 would allow a £300 million saving, which could be used to fund the important contract for the BVRAAM system. We hope that a part of that contract will include the Meteor, which is important to constituents across the United Kingdom. The jobs that would be involved in the Meteor programme are crucial. If the programme does not proceed on an indigenous, European basis, we shall not only lose the expertise of those constituents, but be beholden to the Americans for ever. It is therefore important that the Meteor programme is favoured by the Government. I hope that Ministers will take on board that point.
The A400M is another very important contract. We are seven years away from delivery of that aircraft, which involves 62,000 jobs across the United Kingdom. The expertise necessary for the project has been used successfully within Airbus Industrie, and it could be transferred to a military use. The crucial factor is not the 62,000 jobs created by the A400M project, but

113
the project's technology spin-offs, including wing technology, which could be used for the next generation of Airbus. The technology is crucial if we are to compete with the Americans and the giant size of the competing American company. If we do not back good old British procurement now, we shall really be beholden, once and for ever, to the Americans. There is nothing wrong in using the Americans, but there is a danger of losing our expertise.
I look forward to our two aircraft carriers being big enough to use Eurofighter, as otherwise we will be struggling, especially if all the other projects go out of the window. It is crucial to ensure that the carriers can take all our serving aircraft.
I hope that our thanks will go to armed forces personnel serving throughout the world. A big thank you goes to the Gurkhas and the Royal Marines who were sent to East Timor, and to the rest of our armed forces—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force—who are engaged in operations throughout the world. We must congratulate them.
9.30 pm
Mr. Robert Key: Many tributes have been paid to my honourable and gallant neighbour, Michael Colvin, and his wife. Because he was my constituency neighbour, I would like to add mine. Almost everything has been said that could be said, but I want to add one thing. We grieve, but there is something else: Michael and Nichola were just such fun. We should not forget that. With his unfailing courtesy, generosity, chivalry and cheerfulness in adversity, he was beholden to no man and to one woman: Nichola.
In all my nearly 17 years in the House, I have never known such concern and bewilderment about what is going on in defence. We have even managed to attract the attention of the tabloid press. That is unheard of for defence, in which matters normally swim along. This is not the short-term political bickering that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said it was.
I thank the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who, with his usual courtesy in following the conventions of the House, sent me a telephone message to say that he is not here because his wife is in hospital. We wish her well.
I accept that there has been huge progress in embracing changes and challenges. There have been challenges and changes in the ministerial team, too. The new Under-Secretary is very welcome to our debates, as is the Secretary of State. Will they measure up to their predecessors in the affection of Her Majesty's forces? Indeed, will they measure up to the warm affection and respect in which the Minister for the Armed Forces is held throughout the armed forces?
The Defence Committee, of which I was a member for some years, has produced a devastating report—one of the most hard-hitting of a hard-hitting series—overseen by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). It was so extraordinary that we will vote against the motion. We will do so in support of our armed forces, of their families, who follow the flag, and of thousands of scientific, industrial and administrative civil servants. We will do it as a warning to the Government that, in the strategic defence review, they raised great expectations—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said—that they are failing to deliver.
114
This is not party political bickering—there remains strong cross-party consensus on the importance of defence in the nation's affairs—but it would be a dereliction of our duty if the Opposition failed to say that enough is enough. We are not alone, as we have seen in the Select Committee report.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) set the tone by speaking of the gravity of the defence situation and the fact that the position is unsustainable. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said in his excellent speech, we face an extraordinary situation in that there has been no progress report on the strategic defence review. I hope that he will have the courage of his convictions and vote with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex used all his experience and passion in his excellent speech, expressing the doubts that a growing number of people have.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) spoke about his concerns. I am delighted that he will be serving on the Standing Committee considering the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. I shall be there too and I look forward to hearing his contribution. I look forward to seeing him at Tidworth on Saturday at the RAF wives conference—the airwaves conference. We shall have to work hard because, once again, there will be no Minister present in support of the RAF wives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has come to a judgment on a number of procurement issues. He has that luxury on the Back Benches. It is impossible for an Opposition Front-Bench team to come to a judgment on a procurement issue, because we know neither the financial details nor the security implications. However, we are fully briefed. We are delighted that we are kept on our toes by the remarkable British, north Arnerican and other defence procurement interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) saved me a great deal of time with his comments, particularly about asymmetric threats and chemical and biological weapons. I should like to echo his comments and amplify them slightly. The strategic defence review had just two paragraphs—numbers 101 and 102—on the subject. The joint nuclear, biological and chemical regiment has its headquarters at Winterbourne Gunner but is stationed at Honnington. We hoped that the document, on "Defending against the threat from biological and chemical weapons", would say something exciting, but it did not. It was another relaunch, taking the art of spin to new levels. It had 49 new words. It said that spending would be increased from £70 million to £80 million a year, but other than that there was nothing new in the glossy brochure.
I shall not embarrass Ministers by listing the detailed deficiencies in the system, but it is not joined-up government. There is no tasking between the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. There are no secure communications between Honnington and Winterbourne Gunner. There is very little logistic support. Then, of course, there was the letter from Land Command to all commanding officers saying that chemical and biological weapons training at Porton Down was too expensive, so they should go elsewhere and fudge it on the cheap. The Government are neglecting our home defence and we have rumbled them. They should not be proud of that.

115
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) spoke with clarity and passion about the situation in Northern Ireland. I agree strongly with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke about the declining defence budget and particularly about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the headquarters of which is in his constituency. It is crucial to the success and safety of our armed forces. The longer that the Government dither, the greater the number of questions that will arise and the fewer answers there will be.
The argument is moving backwards. DERA was a privatisation too far for the Conservative Government, largely on security grounds. We now have Lord Robertson's legacy—a £250 million promise to the Treasury that is putting at risk all that DERA stands for. Will we have a research DERA with a core function and 3,000 or 4,000 people plus a privatised DERA with 8,000 or 9,000 people? It is not that simple, as Ministers must realise. Just one example of that is at Boscombe Down. DERA's testing organisation is not a research body. Its purpose is to establish the fitness and airworthiness of military aircraft and systems, but it is facing three showstoppers. First, it cannot privatise without resolving the status of its military airfield. A public-private partnership implies new income, presumably from civil aircraft, but Boscombe Down is exempt from the air navigation orders. The second showstopper is that, whether the future of the organisation is public or private, there will be a need for a minimum investment of £150 million for new aircraft and systems, without which it cannot do its duty.
The third and by far the most important showstopper is that the testing organisation is currently working on the C130J, the Chinook and the Apache. Once again, the issue raises our relations with the United States. The 1,100 people at Boscombe Down include 180 uniformed personnel, who are at the cutting edge of flying operations. They are tightly integrated into trials teams. That raises two points. First, this is a military airfield, with military aviators and engineers. Secondly, it is imperative that there continues to be unfettered access to sensitive United States military and industrial bases. It is hard to see how that can be achieved under private ownership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury also raised the question of families. I have never known forces families to be so angry. Normally, they follow the flag, they are quiet and they dislike disturbing the chain of command. They are loyal and they look after their own folk. So why, despite policy for people, has so much upset been caused to loyal groups such as the Army Families Federation, which is now becoming known as "Army Families Furious"?
A recent report from the federation stated:
There appears to be considerable ignorance at the level of the top decision makers of the strength of feeling that any further cuts in the Defence Housing Executive future funding would create among service personnel and their families. Every possible effort must be made to minimise the irreparable damage that this ignorance is doing to the morale of service personnel and their families wishing to live accompanied.
If Ministers are sore about that, they should remember that I am merely the messenger. It is the Government who have the problem. However, we shall vote against this
116
White Paper for other reasons too. A new doctrine is creeping into the Ministry of Defence. When the Secretary of State was considering the compulsory mobilisation of the Territorial Army to sustain peace support operations in the Balkans, he received advice from civil servants that included advice on funding. He was told:
The additional cost of the mobilisation of the engineering and logistics squadron would be of the order of £3.5 million, for which no provision exists at present. This is, however, one of the elements in the package of proposals aimed at alleviating the effect of overstretch on the armed forces currently being discussed with the Treasury. Any decision to mobilise would have to be dependent on agreement by the Treasury to meet the additional costs involved.
I have asked around and discovered that this is the first time that a Government considering putting troops into action have said, "First we must ask the Treasury." That is a dangerous new doctrine.
Then there is the question of the substantial improvement in the number of recruits. Last week, the Secretary of State told the House that the Government
anticipate that full complement in the Army would be achieved by 2005.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1397.]
That appeared to be good news, but unfortunately, in another paper, the Army's head of personnel advised that it was more likely that full complement for the Army would be achieved only in 31 years. Whom do we believe?
As if that were not enough, we find the following chilling and terrible indictment in the report by the Select Committee on Defence on the Ministry of Defence's annual reporting cycle:
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 of the SDR they are certainly beginning to wobble alarmingly. The Department's finances should be rebalanced in the 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 why the Opposition will not support the White Paper tonight, and why we accuse the Government of a dereliction of duty. The Government might score a majority among Labour Members, but they will find that a lot of people are asking questions about their competence to run the Ministry of Defence and to conduct the future defence of this country.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): May I offer my own sincere but, I am sure, inadequate tribute to Michael Colvin, a man whom I held in the greatest respect? I read his last speech with great interest on my return last week from a visit abroad, where I was supporting the Defence Export Services Organisation.
We have, with a few notable exceptions—rather than have interventions, perhaps people could just assume that they are among the notable exceptions—faced the usual barrage of whingeing from the Tory Benches. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has left his flotation tank to join us again. He has perfected the whinge fortissimo. I have no military experience, but I felt for a moment this afternoon as if I were under fire—until I realised that, of course, the hon. Gentleman was firing blanks.

117
What have we not had this afternoon? We have had no recognition, even grudging, of the many advances that we have made in less than three years. We have had no apology for the Conservatives' collective guilt for the mess that we inherited in 1997. We have had no understanding that the world has changed and that we must follow suit. We have had no constructive thinking at all. The Conservatives are bereft of imagination and ideas; they can only carp and criticise from the sidelines, with their usual distasteful combination of crocodile tears and synthetic rage.
I should like, in the short time available to me, to try to answer as many as possible of the points that have been raised in the debate. First, I wish to speak about two issues that are my direct responsibility—medical services and housing. I cannot give the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) the exact answer that he would like on medical services, but I shall be willing to provide it in as accurate a form as possible in writing, if he so wishes. However, I can assure the House that, given my background in public health, I have every intention of devoting as large a percentage of my time as possible to getting the medical services back on track. Having looked at the evidence before me, I am quite convinced that that process has already begun.
Despite serious manpower shortages, the defence medical services are meeting all their operational commitments. Some reservists are being used in operational posts on a voluntary basis. As has been recognised by many speakers, the main problem is the retention of experienced personnel. Recruitment into training is generally satisfactory, but the direct recruitment of fully trained medical officers is difficult, and few have so far been recruited. We are, however, seeking new ways of meeting the regular and reserve medical manpower requirements. We are undertaking that work in close consultation with the Department of Health and the national health service.
Enhancing the operational capability of the defence medical services was an important theme of the strategic defence review. An additional £140 million has been made available for additional personnel and equipment over the four years from 1998–99 to 2001–02, with further funding continuing in subsequent years. As I have said, recruitment problems are a cause of continuing concern, but we are tackling them energetically and innovatively. When the centre for defence medicine opens next year, I am sure that it will provide a beacon with which to attract more and high-quality candidates into the service.
On service accommodation, there are problems. I hate to carp again at the Conservatives, but those problems are largely due to them and the fire sale that they held under the auspices, I believe, of the current hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). We have been trying to remedy that state of affairs ever since, and have conducted several reviews of the situation. We have been requested to assess the feasibility of adopting a co-ordinated approach to the improvement of single living accommodation, which is already producing benefits. We have set up steering groups and surveyed the estate. Generally speaking, we have set out a platform from which to move forward.
The latest initiatives in Government procurement must be adopted in managing the improvement of the estate. Public-private partnership and prime contracting are
118
considered to be the most appropriate procurement options for consideration. We are using private finance initiative arrangements to provide new builds for housing outside the Annington Homes-owned estate. Contracts placed to date are at Lossiemouth for 279 properties, Yeovilton for 88 properties—(Interruption.] I thought that that would get some attention. I shall write to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about his other points, because I do not have time to deal with them now. As I was saying, there are contracts for 145 properties at Cosford and Shawbury and for 164 properties in central Scotland.
Two further projects are under way. The first will provide accommodation for Bristol, Bath, Portsmouth and Shrivenham, and the second will be for Wattisham. The quality of housing provided through the PFI has so far proved to be very good.
On NATO and Europe, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in shaping a policy that will ensure that Europe pulls its weight, both in NATO and by allowing the EU to act when NATO, as a whole, is not engaged. We have ensured that the focus of the debate is on strengthening capability. Europe's armed forces need to be modernised.
On the basis of UK proposals, EU member states signed up to concrete defence performance targets at Helsinki. We secured agreement to an approach whereby a small capability to support defence decision making will be developed in the EU, while the bulk of capability for planning and conducting European-led operations will be drawn from the resources available to NATO.
The initiative will not undermine NATO, nor will it establish a competitor to NATO. Strengthening European military capability will strengthen NATO overall. The Americans support our initiative and have signed up, in NATO, to developing practical means of assistance, including the presumption that the EU would have access to NATO assets and capabilities. In Helsinki, it was explicitly stated that that does not mean a European army—we support that. Improving the quality of existing armed forces will allow us to put together the right mix for specific EU or NATO-led operations.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) and others mentioned the problems posed by asymmetric warfare. We have had to address that matter, which causes great concern. The pace of the advance of technology is such that potential adversaries may conclude that they can hope to achieve their goals only through unconventional methods—that is what is meant by asymmetric warfare. We are alive to those threats. Forward-looking threat assessments inform our planning processes to ensure that we are adequately prepared to deal with asymmetric threats.
We are fully committed to nuclear non-proliferation and the goal of nuclear disarmament, as set out in the strategic defence review. We are working for a constructive non-proliferation treaty review conference. Nuclear proliferation remains a concern; maintaining the NPT is obviously essential to preventing proliferation. The next step is to begin negotiations on a treaty to ban production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons.
Much hot air and some good sense has been expressed on the US national missile defence system. The Government continue to value the anti-ballistic missile treaty and want it to be preserved. Amendments to the treaty are a matter for the United States and Russia. We

119
hope that the discussions that are now in progress between those countries will reach a successful conclusion. We must remember that the treaty has already been amended twice. President Clinton will not decide on deployment before next summer. His decision will be based on the US analysis of the threat, technological feasibility, cost and international security considerations.
We monitor closely both the threat and the technologies available to guard against ballistic missiles. Our work will enable us to take an informed decision on whether to acquire such capability, should it become necessary to do so in the future.
Overstretch and undermanning have been a problem, especially when we were engaged in major operations in Kosovo—that is no secret. Several measures have been taken to mitigate the impact on service personnel of the present overstretch, including improvements to the operational welfare package. For example, there is now a guaranteed period of post-operational tour leave for those returning from operations. Recent enhancements to the families concessionary travel scheme give the families of personnel deployed on operations from an overseas base a wider range of choice when planning their return to the UK. Other improvements to the operational welfare package have been covered in detail during the debate, so I shall not return to them.
The subject of reduced commitment was raised. Where we can make reductions, we do so as soon as possible. We bring people home as soon as we can. The proof of that is that, between the spring of 1999 and the spring of this year, our numbers in the Balkans will be down by 10,000. We have also seen reductions in deployments in the Gulf and the Falkland islands. The percentage of Army personnel preparing for, committed to, or in recovery from operations was, at one stage, at 47 per cent., but it is now down to 28 per cent., which is lower than the figure that we inherited.
Recruitment is now buoyant. It is at its best level for 10 years in all three services. I am confident that we are taking steps to address the admittedly serious problems of the loss of trained personnel.
On the savings and benefits of smart procurement, we are continuing on track to deliver the savings target of £2 billion of equipment costs over 10 years. I can give the House examples of specific targets that are included in that. The integrated project team—IPT—for the sensors avionics and navigation system has identified 7 per cent. savings through life as well as time and performance improvements. The Brimstone IPT' s gain-sharing, on a running contract, with both sides saving from the flexible approach by the end user, has achieved a modest cost saving to date, with a potential for far more significant cost benefits through further application of the gain-share approach. The attack helicopter IPT has identified 30 per cent. savings in in-service logistics up to about £100 million a year. I could go on, but I think that I have given a flavour of the fact that smart procurement is working.
We believe that some form of private-public partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will improve value for money while retaining
120
access to world-class science and research and encouraging greater agility and innovation. We must recognise that, in the modern age as knowledge expands, it becomes impossible for any single organisation to continue to cover every aspect of technological development. Choices have to be made and it is important that we get the best value for money and the best results from the investment that we are making, and will continue to make, in military research. DERA is a key to the provision of the United Kingdom's defence capability, and it is important that we get the right solution. For these reasons, we recognise the importance of allowing sufficient time to work issues through to provide confidence in the final decision.
Many other points have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made a plea for compensation for Major Stankovic. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but that is not in our minds. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) praised auxiliary pilots and referred to recruitment in the auxiliary and voluntary sector. We certainly seek to improve that. I have a great deal of sympathy for what he said about the redevelopment of those squadrons.
Many other points were covered. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is in his place, and I must thank him for offering me the use of his fatigues. They are probably the only set in the House that would fit me. I even enjoyed some of his speech from what I can remember—that is a first.
Many comments were made about procurement. Given the delicate situation that many of our procurement projects are in, it would not be proper to comment on them other than to stress that we shall take decisions as soon as is practicable. I know that, given the effort that is going into the matter, the correct decisions will be made at the appropriate time.
During our debates today and last week, the Government have set out to the House what we are doing to modernise defence and to make sure that our world-class armed forces are able to meet the challenges that they will face in the future, so that they continue to act as a force for good around the world. Recent events in Kosovo have shown once again how accomplished our service people are in going about their difficult work firmly and fairly. We owe them a great debt.
We are at the forefront of an ambitious programme of change. We are not doing that for the sake of it, but because reform delivers results. The strategic defence review is on track. It is already more than 40 per cent. complete and it is delivering results that will allow our armed forces to meet the challenges not of the past, but of the future.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 340.

Division No. 88]

[10 pm

AYES

Dalyell, Tam

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Skinner, Dennis

Hopkins, Kelvin

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Mr. John McDonnell and

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 149.

Division No. 88]

[10 pm

AYES

Dalyell, Tam

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Skinner, Dennis

Hopkins, Kelvin

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Mr. John McDonnell and

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

121

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Cummings, John

Alexander, Douglas

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Allan, Richard

Allen, Graham

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Ashton, Joe

Darvill, Keith

Atherton, Ms Candy

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Atkins, Charlotte

Davidson, Ian

Austin, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Baker, Norman

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ballard, Jackie

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

Banks, Tony

Barnes, Harry

Dawson, Hilton

Barron, Kevin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bayley, Hugh

Denham, John

Beard, Nigel

Dismore, Andrew

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dobbin, Jim

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Donohoe, Brian H

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Doran, Frank

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Drew, David

Benton, Joe

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bermingham, Gerald

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Berry, Roger

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Betts, Clive

Edwards, Huw

Blizzard, Bob

Efford, Clive

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Ennis, Jeff

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fearn, Ronnie

Brake, Tom

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Brand, Dr Peter

Fisher, Mark

Breed, Colin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Flynn, Paul

Buck, Ms Karen

Follett, Barbara

Burden, Richard

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Fyfe, Maria

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Galloway, George

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Gardiner, Barry

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gerrard, Neil

Cann, Jamie

Gibson, Dr Ian

Caplin, lvor

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Casale, Roger

Godman, Dr Norman A

Caton, Martin

Godsiff, Roger

Cawsey, Ian

Goggins, Paul

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Chaytor, David

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Chidgey, David

Graham, Thomas

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Grocott, Bruce

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Grogan, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hain, Peter

Clelland, David

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clwyd, Ann

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Coaker, Vernon

Hancock, Mike

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hanson, David

Cohen, Harry

Harvey, Nick

Coleman, Iain

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Colman, Tony

Healey, John

Connarty, Michael

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Cooper, Yvette

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Corbett, Robin

Hepburn, Stephen

Corston, Jean

Heppell, John

Cousins, Jim

Hesford, Stephen

Cox, Tom

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Crausby, David

Hill, Keith

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hinchliffe, David

122

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Moffatt, Laura

Hoey, Kate

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hood, Jimmy

Moore, Michael

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hope, Phil

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Morley, Elliot

Howells, Dr Kim

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

Hoyle, Lindsay

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Mountford, Kali

Hurst, Alan

Mudie, George

Hutton, John

Mullin, Chris

Iddon, Dr Brian

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jamieson, David

Oaten, Mark

Jenkins, Brian

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Olner, Bill

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

O'Neill, Martin

Öpik, Lembit

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pickthall, Colin

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Pike, Peter L

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Plaskitt, James

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pollard, Kerry

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pond, Chris

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Pope, Greg

Keetch, Paul

Powell, Sir Raymond

Kemp, Fraser

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Khabra, Piara S

Purchase, Ken

Kidney, David

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Kilfoyle, Peter

Quinn, Lawrie

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Kirkwood, Archy

Rammell, Bill

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Rapson, Syd

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Raynsford, Nick

Laxton, Bob

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Lepper, David

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Leslie, Christopher

Rendel, David

Levitt, Tom

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Linton, Martin

Rooney, Terry

Livsey, Richard

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rowlands, Ted

Love, Andrew

Ruane, Chris

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ryan, Ms Joan

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Salter, Martin

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Sanders, Adrian

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sarwar, Mohammad

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Savidge, Malcolm

McNamara, Kevin

Sedgemore, Brian

McNulty, Tony

Sheerman, Barry

MacShane, Denis

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWilliam, John

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Martlew, Eric

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

Maxton, John

Snape, Peter

Meale, Alan

Southworth, Ms Helen

Merron, Gillian

Spellar, John

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Squire, Ms Rachel

Miller, Andrew

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mitchell, Austin

Steinberg, Gerry

123

Stevenson, George

Tynan, Bill

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Walley, Ms Joan

Stinchcombe, Paul

Ward, Ms Claire

Stoate, Dr Howard

Watts, David

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Webb, Steve

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

White, Brian

Stringer, Graham

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wicks, Malcolm

Sutcliffe Gerry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Taylor, Ms Dai (Stockton S)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Temple-Morris Peter

Willis, phil

Wills, Michael

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Winnick, David

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Timms, Stephen

Woodward, Shaun

Tipping, Paddy

Woolas Phil

Touhig, Don

Worthington, Tony

Trickett, Jon

Wray, james

Truswell, Paul

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wyatt, Derek

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Tellers for the Noes:

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Mr. Mike Hall and

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Division No. 89]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Alexander, Douglas

Allan, Richard

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Allen, Graham

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cann, Jamie

Ashton, Joe

Caplin, lvor

Atherton, Ms Candy

Casale, Roger

Atkins, Charlotte

Caton, Martin

Austin, John

Cawsey, Ian

Baker, Norman

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ballard, Jackie

Chaytor, David

Banks, Tony

Chidgey, David

Barnes, Harry

Clapham, Michael

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Bayley, Hugh

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Beard, Nigel

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Benton, Joe

Clelland, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Clwyd, Ann

Berry, Roger

Coaker, Vermon

Betts, Clive

Coffey, Ms Ann

Blizzard, Bob

Cohen, Harry

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Coleman, Iain

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Colman, Tony

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Connarty, Michael

Brake, Tom

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Brand, Dr Peter

Cooper, Yvette

Breed, Colin

Corbett, Robin

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Corston, Jean

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cousins, Jim

Buck, Ms Karen

Cox, Tom

Burden, Richard

Crausby, David

Burgon, Colin

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Cummings, John

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

124

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Darvill, Keith

Howells, Dr Kim

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Davidson, Ian

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

Humble, Mrs Joan

Hurst, Alan

Dawson, Hilton

Hutton, John

Dean, Mrs Janet

Iddon, Dr Brian

Denham, John

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Dismore, Andrew

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dobbin, Jim

Jamieson, David

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jenkins, Brian

Donohoe, Brian H

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Doran, Frank

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Drew, David

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Efford, Clive

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Ennis, Jeff

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Feam, Ronnie

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Fisher, Mark

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Flint, Caroline

Keetch, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Kemp, Fraser

Follett, Barbara

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Foster, Don (Bath)

Khabra, Piara S

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Kidney, David

Fyfe, Maria

Kilfoyle, Peter

Galloway, George

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Gapes, Mike

Kirkwood, Archy

Gardiner, Barry

Kumar, Dr Ashok

George, Andrew (St lves)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Laxton, Bob

Gerrard, Neil

Lepper, David

Gibson, Dr Ian

Leslie, Christopher

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Levitt, Tom

Godman, Dr Norman A

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Godsiff, Roger

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Goggins, Paul

Linton, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Livsey, Richard

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Graham, Thomas

Love, Andrew

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Grocott, Bruce

Macdonald, Calum

Grogan, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hain, Peter

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Hancock, Mike

McNamara, Kevin

Hanson, David

McNulty, Tony

Harvey, Nick

MacShane, Denis

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Mactaggart, Fiona

Healey, John

McWalter, Tony

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

McWilliam, John

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mallaber, Judy

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Heppell, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hesford, Stephen

Martlew, Eric

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Maxton, John

Hill, Keith

Meale, Alan

Hinchliffe, David

Merron, Gillian

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hoey, Kate

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hood, Jimmy

Miller, Andrew

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Mitchell, Austin

Hope, Phil

Moffatt, Laura

125

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Moore, Michael

Moran, Ms Margaret

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Morley, Elliot

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

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

Snape, Peter

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Spellar, John

Squire, Ms Rachel

Mountford, Kali

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mudie, George

Steinberg, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Stevenson, George

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stinchcombe, Paul

Oaten, Mark

Stoate, Dr Howard

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Olner, Bill

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

O'Neill, Martin

Stringer, Graham

Öpik, Lembit

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Organ, Mrs Diana

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Palmer, Dr Nick

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pearson, Ian

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Perham, Ms Linda

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pickthall, Colin

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pike, Peter L

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Plaskitt, James

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pollard, Kerry

Timms, Stephen

Pond, Chris

Tipping, Paddy

Pope, Greg

Touhig, Don

Powell, Sir Raymond

Trickett, Jon

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Truswell, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Purchase, Ken

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Quinn,Lawrie

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Tynan, Bill

Rammell,Bill

Vis, Dr Rudi

Rapson, Syd

Walley, Ms Joan

Raynsford, Nick

Ward, Ms Claire

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Watts, David

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Webb, Steve

Rendel, David

White, Brain

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Wicks, Malcolm

Rooney, Terry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Ruane, Chris

Willis, Phil

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wills, Michael

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Winnick, David

Ryan, Ms Joan

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Salter, Martin

Wise, Audrey

Sanders, Adrian

Woodward, Shaun

Sarwar, Mohammad

Woolas, Phil

Savidge, Malcolm

Worthington, Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

Wray, James

Sheerman, Barry

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Wyatt, Derek

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mr. Mike Hall and

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Amess, David

Blunt, Crispin

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Boswell, Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Baldry, Tony

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Brady, Graham

Bercow, John

Brazier, Julian

126

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Browning, Mrs Angela

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Burns, Simon

Madel, Sir David

Butterfill, John

Malins, Humfrey

Cash, William

Maples, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Chope, Christopher

May, Mrs Theresa

Clappison, James

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Collins, Tim

Moss, Malcolm

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Nicholls, Patrick

Cran, James

Norman, Archie

Curry, Rt Hon David

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Ottaway, Richard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Paice, James

Day, Stephen

Paterson, Owen

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Pickles, Eric

Duncan Smith, Iain

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Prior, David

Evans, Nigel

Randall, John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Faber, David

Robathan, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Robertson, Laurence

Flight, Howard

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fox, Dr Liam

Ruffley, David

Fraser, Christopher

St Aubyn, Nick

Gale, Roger

Sayeed, Jonathan

Garnier, Edward

Shepnard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gibb, Nick

Shepherd, Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Gray, James

Soames, Nicholas

Green, Damian

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Greenway, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Hague, Rt Hon William

Streeter, Gary

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Swayne, Desmond

Hammond, Philip

Syms, Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hayes, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

Heald, Oliver

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Horam, John

Thompson, William

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Townend, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Tredinnick, David

Hunter, Andrew

Trend, Michael

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Jenkin, Bernard

Viggers, Peter

Johnson Smith,

Walter, Robert Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wardle, Charles

Key, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Wells, Bowen

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Whittingdale, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Wilkinson, John

Lansley, Andrew

Willetts, David

Leigh, Edward

Wilshire, David

Letwin, Oliver

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Lidington, David

Yeo, Tim

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tellers for the Noes:

Loughton, Tim

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

and

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the 1999 Defence White Paper (Cm 4446).

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The 22nd of the remaining orders and notices on the Order Paper is a motion standing in my name that makes a suggestion to the other place concerning an issue that affects teachers throughout the country who might be accused of offences under the Bill. Given the concern that has been expressed to me by teaching unions on this important matter—which has not been debated at any stage during the consideration of the Bill in either this or the previous Session—would you advise me whether it can be considered before a vote on Third Reading?
Madam Speaker: I have of course noted that the hon. Gentleman has tabled what is known as a suggested amendment under the Parliament Acts. It appears among the remaining orders and notices, but he must understand that I am bound by the Order of the House of 7 February under which the House must proceed directly to the Third Reading of the Bill.
Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished. Under that Order, I am required to put the Question forthwith, so the hon. Gentleman cannot make his proposal to the House. He can, of course, divide the House if he wishes.
Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 117.

Division No.90]

[10.29 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Brand, Dr Peter

Alexander, Douglas

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Allan, Richard

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Alien, Graham

Buck, Ms Karen

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Burden, Richard

Ashton, Joe

Burgon, Colin

Atherton, Ms Candy

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Atkins, Charlotte

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Austin, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Baker, Norman

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Ballard, Jackie

Banks, Tony

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barnes, Harry

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Barron, Kevin

Caplin, lvor

Bayley, Hugh

Casale, Roger

Beard, Nigel

Caton, Martin

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cawsey, Ian

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Chaytor, David

Bercow, John

Chidgey, David

Berry, Roger

Clapham, Michael

Best, Harold

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Betts, Clive

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Blizzard, Bob

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Boswell, Tim

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Clelland, David

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Clwyd, Ann

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Coaker, Vermon

Brady, Graham

Coffey, Ms Ann

Brake, Tom

Cohen, Harry

128

Coleman, Iain

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Colman, Tony

Hood, Jimmy

Connarty, Michael

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Cooper, Yvette

Hope, Phil

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hopkins, Kelvin

Corston, Jean

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Dr Kim

Cox, Tom

Hoyle, Lindsay

Crausby, David

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cummings, John

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hurst, Alan

Curry, Rt Hon David

Hutton, John

Dalyell, Tam

Iddon, Dr Brian

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Darvill, Keith

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jamieson, David

Davidson, Ian

Jenkin, Bernard

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jenkins, Brian

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

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dawson, Hilton

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Denham, John

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Doran, Frank

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Duncan, Alan

Keeble, Ms Sally

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Edwards, Huw

Keetch, Paul

Efford, Clive

Kemp, Fraser

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Ennis, Jeff

Evans, Nigel

Kidney, David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Kilfoyle, Peter

Fabricant, Michael

Kirkwood, Archy

Feam, Ronnie

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Flint, Caroline

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Flynn, Paul

Laxton, Bob

Follett, Barbara

Lepper, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Levitt, Tom

Fyfe, Maria

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Galloway, George

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gapes, Mike

Linton, Martin

Gardiner, Barry

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gerrard, Neil

Llwyd, Elfyn

Gibson, Dr Ian

Love, Andrew

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McAvoy, Thomas

Godman, Dr Norman A

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Goggins, Paul

McDonagh, Siobhain

Golding, Mrs Llin

McDonnell, John

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Grocott, Bruce

McNamara, Kevin

Grogan, John

McNulty, Tony

Hain, Peter

MacShane, Denis

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McWalter, Tony

Hancock, Mike

McWilliam, John

Hanson, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Harvey, Nick

Mallaber, Judy

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Healey, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Martlew, Eric

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Maxton, John

Heppell, John

Meale, Alan

Hill, Keith

Merron, Gillian

129

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Moffatt, Laura

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

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Southworth, Ms Helen

Moore, Michael

Spellar, John

Moran, Ms Margaret

Squire, Ms Rachel

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Steinberg, Gerry

Morley, Elliot

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mountford, Kali

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mullin, Chris

Stoate, Dr Howard

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stringer, Graham

Oaten, Mark

Stuart, Ms Gisela

O'Neill, Martin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

Organ Mrs Diana

Temple-Morris, Peter

Palmer, Dr Nick

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pearson Ian

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Perham, Ms Linda

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Pickthall, Colin

Timms, Stephen

Pike Peter L

Tipping, Paddy

Plaskitt, James

Touhing, Don

Pond, Chris

Trickett, Jon

Pope Greg

Truswell, Paul

Powell, Raymond

Turner, Sir Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Prior, David

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Purchase Ken

Ward, Ms Claire

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Watts, David

Quinn, Lawrie

White, Brian

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Rammell, Bill

Wicks, Malcolm

Rapson, Syd

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Raynsford, Nick

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Rendel, David

Willis, Phil

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Willis, Michael

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Winnick, David

Ruane, Chris

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Wise, Audrey

Ryan, Ms Joan

Woodward, Shaun

Salter, Martin

Woolas, Phil

Sanders, Adrian

Worthington, Tony

Savidge, Malcolm

Wray, James

Sedgemore, Brian

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Wyatt, Derek

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mr. Mike Hall.

NOES

Amess, David

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Blunt, Crispin

Baldry, Tony

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

130

Brazier, Julian

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Browning, Mrs Angela

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

May, Mrs Theresa

Butterfill, John

Moss, Malcolm

Cann, Jamie

Nicholls, Patrick

Cash, William

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Ottaway, Richard

Paice, James

Chope, Christopher

Paterson, Owen

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Pickles, Eric

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Randall, John

Cran, James

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Robathan, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Robertson, Laurence

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

Day, Stephen

Rowlands, Ted

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Ruffley, David

Duncan Smith, Iain

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

St Aubyn, Nick

Faber, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Flight, Howard

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Fox, Dr Liam

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Fraser, Christopher

Gale, Roger

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Garnier, Edward

Soames, Nicholas

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gray, James

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Green, Damian

Steen, Anthony

Greenway, John

Streeter, Gary

Grieve, Dominic

Swayne, Desmond

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Syms, Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hammond, Philip

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hayes, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Heald, Oliver

Thompson, William

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Townend, John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Tredinnick, David

Horam, John

Trend, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Tynan, Bill

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Viggers, Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Johnson Smith,

Wardle, Charles

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Waterson, Nigel

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Wells, Bowen

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Lansley, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Letwin, Oliver

Wilkinson, John

Lidington, David

Wilshire, David

Livsey, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Loughton, Tim

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Luff, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tellers for the Noes:

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mr. Edward Leigh and

Malins, Humfrey

Dr. Julian Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Parking (Disabled People)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I bring to the attention of the House a subject that is scarcely controversial. It is not my intention either to berate or to tease the Government beyond a very small degree, because it is not a subject on which party feelings run high. I wish to probe a little further what the Government intend to do to assist disabled people to enjoy the right that they have acquired to park in places that are barred to the rest of the public.
For many disabled people, this is a precious right. Disability, particularly severe disability, often means that the disabled person cannot walk far. Local authorities throughout the country have provided disabled parking spaces with the intention of making it much easier for disabled people to go about their business. There is a strong sense among disabled people that many of those spaces are wrongly used. They are taken by people who have no disability and unscrupulously park in their place, thus causing them to travel long distances, which they cannot easily do.
To some extent, that is more perception than reality. My local authority, for example, carried out a survey with the assistance of the police and found that, on the whole, the misuse of disabled parking spaces was not as bad as disabled people perceived it to be. That was encouraging. However, a significant numberof the people who were found using those spaces had an orange badge, but were using them improperly because they were carrying out functions for a disabled person, not themselves. The rules have changed. They should not do that any more. It is clear—I hope that the Government will remember it—that the message that carrying out a function on behalf of a disabled person does not allow people to use a disabled parking space is not well understood.
My next point, which is where the Government need to show their colours, is that my local authority has discovered that the law does not allow either the police or, in our case, parking attendants—wrong parking there has been decriminalised, so the supervision of parking spaces is carried out by parking attendants—to insist on being shown details of the orange badge. That is absurd. We provide disabled people with a special privilege, but anyone who abuses it can refuse to show the badge. That is clearly a failure of the law.
The Government know this. In May, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) secured a debate on a different aspect of disabled people's parking. The Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), said:
The badge design already has a photograph of the holder, but we have not yet been able to introduce the legislative changes to provide the enforcement authorities with the powers to inspect badges.
I should very much like the Minister, in his reply, to tell us whether the Government have found time in the legislative timetable to give that necessary power. Without it, the orange badge scheme is really deeply flawed.
132
The Minister went on to say:
we have made it clear that we shall introduce the necessary legislation to allow inspection of badges as soon as parliamentary time allows.—[Official Report, 5 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 919.]
One of the principal purposes of this debate is to discover whether the Government will now—please—introduce that particular legislation. We desperately need it.
On 1 January 2000. a blue badge was introduced. The badge is a tribute to the European Union, in that it will entitle disabled people who are eligible to privileged parking right across the European Union. It is another thoroughly good example of the value of the European Union.
My disabled friends in Maidstone and elsewhere are entirely right to complain that, now that they have been given the privilege, it is not open to anyone to challenge someone who is abusing it. Nevertheless, in the legislation—this is rather curious—there is a provision that, if someone commits an offence, he or she can be fined £1,000. However, to be fined £1,000, it has to be proved that that person has committed an offence three times. As one is not allowed to inspect an orange badge, it is quite difficult to see how one could prove that someone has broken the law. I believe that it would be very much better—I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say—if we had a much smaller penalty that could be enforced on the first offence.
I have just suffered from the fact that I committed a parking offence in my local authority, in London. Subsequently, I was away on parliamentary business, and suddenly realised that, rather than being able to pay half the fine within 10 days, I now have to pay double the fine. Although the figure is not colossal, it is sufficiently large to make me wish that I had not incurred it. Nevertheless, I think that it would be very much better, instead of having a notional £1,000 fine for those who have committed three offences, to have a £100 fine that could be levied on the spot. I think that it would discourage people from abusing these privileges.
This is a very simple debate. We are only asking for the Government, if they have not already found time in the legislative timetable, to commit themselves to providing powers for both the police and anyone else empowered by the local authority to police parking arrangements to inspect the badges. The Government should also make it possible for the local authority or police to levy on the spot a small fine if people are found to be breaking the rules.
I should like the Minister also to say that the Government will encourage an education campaign among those who care for disabled people, so that they realise that they cannot use the orange badge to go collecting prescriptions or whatever. Although that is a perfectly benign reason for breaking the law, if we allow such a loophole, it will be too easy to cheat. Moreover, ultimately, it would be disabled people who suffered.
I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
10.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I begin, as is usual, by congratulating the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on

133
securing this debate. I should also like to express my gratitude, and that of the House, to him for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject.
Parking for disabled people, particularly the orange badge scheme, is certainly one of the most controversial matters that I have to deal with as Minister with responsibility for mobility issues. It seems that everyone has a view on how the scheme should work, on who should have a badge, and, indeed, on who should not have one. Too often, in arguing about the detail, we tend to forget the enormously important purpose of the scheme: to enable severely disabled people to be independently mobile.
For many severely disabled people, the private car is the only viable transport option, but its value would be greatly reduced, if not lost entirely, if disabled motorists were unable to park as close to their destination as possible. Research demonstrates very clearly that the mobility range of severely disabled people can be as little as 50 m, so even having to park 100 m or so away from a workplace or shops may make the journey extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible.
The orange badge scheme is vital to people with severe disabilities, enabling them to participate in the day-to-day activities that non-disabled people take for granted. My concern is to ensure that the scheme operates efficiently and effectively to deliver real benefit to those disabled people to whom mobility it is essential.
Before I turn to the specific concern raised by the hon. Gentleman, it may be useful to remind the House of the background and scope of the orange badge scheme. The scheme was first introduced in 1971 and it has been reviewed twice since then, most recently in 1992. Eligibility for an orange badge is governed by regulations that have been subject to wide public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
To qualify for a badge, a person must be in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or a war pensioner's mobility supplement; use a motor vehicle supplied by a United Kingdom Health Department; be registered blind; have a severe disability in both upper limbs, driving regularly but being unable to turn a steering wheel by hand, even if that wheel is fitted with a steering knob; or have a permanent and substantial disability that means being unable to walk or having considerable difficulty in walking. That last category is known as the discretionary criterion.
From that list, it will be evident that eligibility is, in principle, fairly tightly controlled. Despite that, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of badges on issue over the past decade, from 929,000 to 1.7 million: an increase of more than 80 per cent. That total bears no relation at all to the proportion of the population who are disabled—about 10 to 12 per cent.—nor is the growth supported by a corresponding increase in the number of cars over the same period, although I recognise, of course, that not all badge holders will be drivers.
It is also worth noting that two thirds of the badges issued fall under the discretionary criterion. Generally, that means that a general practitioner or other medical adviser will have supported an application.
With such an increase in the number of badges, it is important that eligibility continues to be tightly controlled to ensure that the scheme does not become so oversubscribed as to minimise or even negate the parking
134
benefits to badge holders. At present, orange badge holders may park free of charge and without time limit at parking meters and pay-and-display on-street parking; may be exempt from limits on parking times imposed on other users; and may park on single or double yellow lines for up to three hours in England and Wales and without time limit in Scotland.
The increase in the number of orange badges in circulation has prompted much concern, not least from our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—the majority of whose members are disabled people. It submitted a report to me, recommending that we review the scope of the scheme with a view to tightening eligibility and revising administration.
I recognise that DPTAC's recommendations have arisen from genuine concern about the effectiveness of the scheme. After careful consideration of the recommendations and the results of a survey of local authorities administering the scheme, I announced on 18 November 1999 that a full review will take place this year. I agreed that a review was necessary to ensure that the scheme continues to serve its fundamental purpose: to enable severely disabled people to park close to their destinations.
Mr. Rowe: I understand the Minister's concern about the number of badges, but my more limited concern is that, even with the new badges with photographs, there is no obligation to show whose photograph it is. I hope that the review will take that point into account.
Mr. Hill: As I shall explain, the review will certainly deal with enforcement. I shall address some specific remarks to the right of inspection of photographic evidence, but I think that it will be for the convenience of the hon. Gentleman and the House for me to put the enforcement considerations into the wider context of the imminent important review.
The review process will be wide ranging. We shall look at the eligibility criteria as well as the administration and enforcement of the scheme. I have already mentioned the high proportion of badges issued under the discretionary criterion, often with the support of GPs. This is a particularly difficult area and there is no doubt that practice varies widely on who will be given a badge and who will not. One area that the review will consider is whether the use of the discretionary criterion is a fair and appropriate process.
At the other end of the spectrum, I get a great deal of correspondence on behalf of people who have been refused a badge, for example because their disability is not permanent or because they fall just short of the eligibility criteria. It is right for the review to look at the whole issue of eligibility. We need to see whether we have got the balance right between ensuring that the scheme is available to those who need it most and stopping it becoming totally oversubscribed with people for whom it is an undoubted convenience but perhaps not a necessity.
The administration of the scheme also varies widely across the country. The majority of local authorities operate the scheme through their social services departments, while others use their highways department. The number of badges issued in different authorities also varies much more widely than demographic or geographical factors could

135
explain. It is important to examine how local authorities run the scheme and whether there are any alternative ways in which it might be administered.
The third major element of the review will be to look at enforcement. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, it is a controversial and difficult issue. Resources will always be an issue, but we must aim to give the enforcement authorities the best possible tools at their disposal to enable them to do an effective job. Without good enforcement, the temptation to abuse the scheme is great and the reputation of the scheme as a whole suffers. Most importantly, the consequence of abuse may be that the parking spaces that severely disabled people need will not be available to them. The review will be carried out in close consultation with all the parties concerned in the scheme and, crucially, with disabled people.
The abuse of the scheme and the powers available to deal with it are the hon. Gentleman's specific concerns. Abuse of the system continues to be a concern for local authorities. Under the existing system, enforcement officers can issue penalty charge notices to non-disabled people who park in disabled spaces designated by a local authority order or give a fixed penalty notice to offenders at on-street parking places. The police or local authority may even decide to prosecute. Those powers apply only to on-street parking. In private car parks, it is for individual operators to safeguard the use of orange badge spaces.
I appreciate that there is no guarantee that there will always be someone available to deal with each instance of abuse, but it is open to members of the public to report vehicles not displaying an orange badge when parked in an orange badge bay to the police, local traffic wardens or parking attendants. The hon. Gentleman is right to observe that there is no specific power for enforcement officers to require badge holders to produce their badges for inspection so that the photograph can be checked. However, some police officers and traffic wardens ask to see badges to check the photograph or verify that the details have not been tampered with. We are aware of a series of roadside checks that were carried out by the local police in Rochdale to establish the validity of orange badges being used. We have also been notified more recently about an exercise being undertaken by the local police in Weston-super-Mare to clamp down on the misuse of orange badges.
Disabled people have made it very clear to us that they welcome being asked to verify that they are the legitimate user of a badge. The vast majority of badge holders will willingly allow their badge to be inspected. However, we recognise that there is a case for all enforcement officers to have the power under the law to demand this, particularly in cases where it is suspected that the badge is being misused. We are therefore seeking a suitable legislative opportunity to make this change. I confess to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent that we are still seeking that opportunity, but the effect of the review has rendered the search for that opportunity more compelling.
Mr. Rowe: Would not the Transport Bill, which is a huge portmanteau measure, provide just such an opportunity?
Mr. Hill: I still bear the wounds of the castigations that I suffered—rightly or wrongly—in connection with the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I understand that that is the largest piece of legislation passed by the House since the Government of India Act 1935. There was great discontent at the level of amendment to that measure, and I think that there would be a certain hesitation—to put it no more strongly—to add significantly to measures that are already large. However, I shall bear the suggestion in mind.
In the meantime, if the police, traffic wardens or local authority parking attendants suspect that an offence is being committed, they can take down the details on the front of the badge, such as the serial number, and contact the issuing authority concerned. The maximum fine on conviction for misuse of the orange badge by a non-disabled person is £1,000. That is in addition to whatever penalty may be imposed for the parking offence.
I have noted with interest the suggestion from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent of a graduated system of penalties. I shall study that very seriously.
The orange badge scheme is, without doubt, a key element in the independent mobility of many severely disabled people. Without the badge, many people would be unable to go about their day-to-day business. It is therefore vital that the eligibility criteria, administration and enforcement of the orange badge scheme are tightly controlled so that adequate parking is available to those disabled people for whom it is an essential part of daily living.
I am therefore most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government's position.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Many of the disabled people to whom I speak are responsible users of the orange badge system, and they want the problem resolved as quickly as possible. I am sure that the experience of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is the same. The problem gives them a bad name because it brings the system into disrepute. Does the Minister therefore agree that speed is of the essence?
Mr. Hill: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, and all hon. Members will know, from constituency experience, the strength of feeling on this issue. It is interesting to note that the driving force behind the review, which offers an opportunity to examine the arrangements relating to orange badges globally but in a timely fashion, is DPTAC, the statutory disabled body. There is no doubt about the commitment of people with disabilities to get the system right, in terms of eligibility, administration and enforcement.
I shall conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent for this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that the needs of severely disabled people for appropriate and convenient parking are properly safeguarded.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rathgael School
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the board at Rathgael School are(a) men and (b) women. [110451]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are five board members, all of whom are men.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of staff at Rathgael School have taken time off work as a result of stress-related illness in the last 10 years; how many have done so on more than one occasion; and how many of those staff who have taken time off on more than one occasion have sued the Juvenile Justice Board at Rathgael. [110449]

  Mr. Ingram
  52 staff have taken time off for stress-related illness in the last 10 years. 23 have taken time off on more than one occasion. None has sued the Juvenile Justice Board.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to appoint a new Board at Rathgael School; and for what reason it has not yet been appointed. [110452]

  Mr. Ingram
  Steps to appoint a new Board at Rathgael will not begin until the outcome of the Criminal Justice Review is known.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible for the arrangements for appointing a new board at Rathgael School. [110453]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for these appointments.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of staff at Rathgael School went on sick leave as a result of assault by children at the school; and how many days were lost each year as a result of such assaults in the last 10 years. [110448]

  Mr. Ingram
  Over the past 10 years, 290 members of staff at Rathgael Juvenile Justice Centre went on sick leave following an assault by children. The information regarding the number of days lost each year as a result of such assaults in the last 10 years is not available.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers, social workers, casual staff and night supervisors have been assaulted by children at Rathgael School in the past 10 years. [110447]
  2W
  Mr. Ingram
  The information is as follows:

  Teachers: 34

  Social Workers: 217

  Casual Staff: 26

  Night Supervisors: 13

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants there are on the board at Rathgael School; and what are their(a) grades and (b) religious affiliations. [110450]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are five civil servants on the Board at Rathgael. Their grades and religious affiliations are as follows:

  (a) One grade A, three grade B1's, one grade B2

  (b) Three Protestants and two Roman Catholics.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111611]

  The Solicitor-General
  In the Crown Prosecution Service, 100 per cent. of paper and documents procured and specified for use by the CPS are recycled. It is assessed that 80–85 per cent. of waste paper, documents and card is presently collected for recycling.

  The use of recycled paper in the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is not quantified, but staff are encouraged in both departments to use electronic media where possible, to save paper by double sided printing and to place used paper in bins for recycling.

  The Serious Fraud Office does not currently use recycled paper for its documentation, because of problems experienced in trials to date. It does seek to maximise the recycling of waste paper, but cannot quantify its use of recycled paper as a percentage of total paper used. It is anticipated that the amount of paper consumed within the department will be reduced with the developing use of electronic media for the transfer of cases to the Crown court. Two cases have been successfully transferred in this way so far, and, principally through the implementation of the DOCMAN project, it is hoped to build on these numbers.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  A3 (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the roads-based A3 Hindhead study will report; what is the cost of the project; what plans he has to include a local planning conference as part of the study; when he plans to visit Hindhead; and if he will make a statement. [110200]

  Mr. Hill
  The A3 Hindhead study is expected to report in autumn 2000. The Regional Planning Body will advise the Secretary of State on the way forward in the light of
  3W
  the study's conclusions and recommendations. The cost of the bored tunnel solution was estimated at the time of the Roads Review as being £110 million. Sufficient funds have been put aside from the Highway Agency's budget to cover the cost of the current study. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to include a local planning conference as part of the study process. However, the study is to be undertaken in an open and inclusive manner ensuring that the voice of the local community and other interests are heard. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport met the right hon. Member on 13 September, when they discussed all the principal issues associated with the problems on the A3 at Hindhead. He undertook to visit the area when his diary permitted.

  Pollution (Yeovil)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring of key pollution indicators takes place at sites within the Yeovil constituency; and if he will make a statement. [110804]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department published a set of indicators for a strategy for sustainable development for the UK last December1. In that report, almost all of the environmental indicators are presented at a national level and there are only a few which are based on site information. One of these is the water quality headline indicator of rivers of good or fair quality (H12) which is derived from measurements at thousands of river quality monitoring sites across the UK. The location and quality of water at sites in the Yeovil area can be found in the "What's in your backyard" section of the Environment Agency's website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

  This section also shows the location and emission details of sites which are regulated by the Environment Agency under the integrated pollution control regime. Data on emissions for these sites and large combustion plants are used in the compilation of the indicator of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions (P3). The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory can be found at the following web address, which is funded by my Department. The address is: http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual

  The headline air quality indicator of days of moderate or higher air pollution (H10) and the indicator of concentrations of selected air pollutants (P1) are based on data from air quality monitoring sites, but there are no pollution monitoring sites funded by my Department within the Yeovil constituency. Monitoring does take place in the wider region of South-West England and further information can be located under the "Frequently Asked Questions" section at the following web site address funded by my Department. The address is: http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual

  Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 requires local authorities to review and assess the current and likely future air quality in their areas. Where a local authority considers that one or more of the air quality objectives, as prescribed in regulations, is unlikely to be met by the required date, it must declare an air quality management area, covering the area where the problem is expected. It must then draw up an action plan setting out the measures it intends to take in pursuit of the air quality objectives in
  4W
  the area. The Secretary of State has reserve powers to require local authorities to take action where they are failing to make sufficient progress.

  The Yeovil constituency is covered by South Somerset District Council, who are working with three other authorities, Mendip, Taunton Deane and West Somerset, on a joint air quality review and assessment in their areas. They submitted a Stage 1 report to the Department for consultation in February 1999. South Somerset have indicated that the area of Yeovil has been identified as having potentially significant sources of nitrogen oxides and this will be investigated further in their Stage 2 report, which they are currently working on.
  1 Quality of life counts: indicators for a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom, DETR, 1999, ISBN 1 85112 3431

  Public Transport (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to encourage people in rural areas to use public transport; [110776]

  (2) what plans he has to improve access to bus services in rural areas. [110777]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government are committed to improving bus services in rural areas. The 1998 Budget provided an additional £50 million a year for three years for rural public transport in the UK as a whole. This was increased by £10 million a year for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 in the 1999 Budget.

  In England, the majority of this funding, £32.5 million per year, is being allocated to local authorities through the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant. Over 1,800 new and enhanced bus services were supported in the first year. We have also given support to 104 innovative rural transport schemes, totalling some £28 million, from the Rural Bus Challenge competitions. There will be at least one further Challenge competition.

  Rural areas also receive assistance for public transport, including modes others than bus, through two schemes administered by the Countryside Agency. The Rural Transport Partnership scheme provides support for partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors to develop and implement transport strategies for rural areas. The Rural Transport Development Fund encourages the provision of innovative solutions to local transport needs in rural areas, meeting the start-up costs of new services and providing revenue support to services in danger of being lost.

  The Transport Bill now before Parliament contains a range of measures to ensure that public transport plays its full part in an integrated transport policy, in town and country alike.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [110687]
  5W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information on ethnic origin in the Civil Service is collected on the basis of self-declaration and 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 in the senior civil service who have declared themselves to be of ethnic minority background.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department collects information by postcode on the location of road accidents involving pedestrians. [111065]

  Mr. Hill
  The locations of injury accidents involving pedestrians are recorded by Ordnance Survey grid reference and are not analysed nationally by postcode.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 523W, on London Underground, if he will list the principal causes of the failures of rolling stock, indicating the number of failures in each category. [111593]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. To provide the principal causes of the failures of rolling stock, indicating the number of failures in each category would incur disproportionate cost.

  Thames Water
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the steps taken by Thames Water to prevent leaks, with particular reference to the timescale for changing all lead pipes in street areas(a) in Leyton and Wanstead and (b) elsewhere in London, including those from mains to house stop-cocks; if he will indicate for each London constituency the amount of such piping which is deemed to need changing; how much Thames Water (i) has spent on this in each of the last five years and (ii) it is committed to spend in the next five years; and if he will break down (i) and (ii) by (1) Leyton and Wanstead and (2) other London constituencies; what incentives Thames Water provides to home owners to change old pipes; and if he will make a statement. [111273]

  Mr. Mullin
  The new Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) tightens the standard for lead in drinking water from its current 50µg/1 to 25µg/1 by 25 December 2003 and to 10µg/1 by 25 December 2013. Where action is necessary to meet these standards, water companies will first treat water to reduce its ability to dissolve lead from pipes, or will optimise that treatment where it is already in place. Replacement of company lead pipes will be needed where water treatment fails to achieve the standards—mainly in soft-water areas. This will become fully apparent only after optimised treatment has been in place for some months. Water companies have no 6W
  responsibilities for the pipework within the property boundary, which will remain the responsibility of property owners.

  Thames Water has met targets for leakage reduction for 1997–98 and 1998–99, reducing leakage over that period by 29 per cent. Under targets set by the Director General of Water Services, this should be reduced by a further 24 per cent. by March 2001.

  Information about spending on leakage and lead pipe replacement is not publicly available, and would need to be requested from Thames Water. However, in Ofwat's publication, "1998–1999 Financial Performance and Expenditure of the water companies in England and Wales", Table 26 states that a total of 86,850 communication pipes were replaced by Thames between 1990–91 and 1998–99.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111598]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  About 99 per cent. of all printing procured through my Department's Print Procurement Unit is on recycled paper, containing at least 75 per cent. post consumer waste. Use of recycled paper by staff generally reached 50 per cent. in 1998–99. Recycling schemes now cover 80 per cent. of staff. Further action is planned to increase the use of recycled paper and to promote improvements in recycling paper and other items.

  Rail Connections (Electrification)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of electrifying the North Wales mainline; [111429]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the (a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of completely electrifying the main rail connection between London and Dublin via Holyhead. [111430]

  Mr. Hill
  The possibility of electrifying the North Wales line was investigated as part of the plans for the West Coast Main Line upgrade and it was considered that the expense of doing so could not be justified by the current or potential rail traffic over this line. Railtrack are committed to work which will increase the line speed considerably and some of this work has already been carried out. Both First North Western and Virgin Trains, who are the main operators over this route, are in the process of introducing new rolling stock, with tilting technology in the case of the Virgin Trains, and this will enable the line speed to be raised to between 90 and 100 mph over many sections.

  Aircraft Altitude (Heathrow Approach)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the minimum permitted altitude of aircraft approaching Heathrow from the west(a) 5, (b) 10, (c) 15 and (d) 20 miles from Heathrow. [111260]

  Mr. Mullin
  The requirements for aircraft approaching Heathrow Airport to land are specified in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).

  Aircraft approaching Heathrow to land from the west are individually directed by air traffic controllers at West Drayton, and for noise mitigation purposes may not descend below an altitude of 2,500 feet before being established on the Instrument Landing System (ILS) localiser, which corresponds to the extended runway centreline. The ILS also includes a radio signal describing a 3° final approach descent gradient (or glidepath) along the extended runway centreline. The ILS glidepath reaches an altitude of 2,500 feet at approximately 7½ nautical miles (nm) from touchdown. At night (between 2300–0700 local time) aircraft are required to intercept the extended runway centreline no closer than 10 nm from touchdown (approximately 3,000 feet). In general, the altitude of an aircraft on final approach to Heathrow would be ca. 6,000 feet at 20 nm out, ca. 4,500 feet at 15 nm out, and ca. 1,500 feet at 5 nm out.

  Precautionary Principle
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on the application of the precautionary principle included in Article 174 of the EC treaty and principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on the environment and development. [111426]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's policy on application of the precautionary principle is based on the Rio Declaration, and is set out in Chapter 4 of the Strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK, "A better quality of life" (page 23), a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House.

  Heads of households of non-pensionable age who were not in paid work1

  Percentage

  Region

  Social rented

  1996–97 Private rented

  Social rented

  1997–98 Private rented

  Social rented

  1998–99 Private rented

  North East

  66

  n/a

  64

  251

  63

  n/a

  North West (including Merseyside)

  66

  47

  64

  47

  64

  48

  Yorks and Humber

  58

  40

  60

  41

  57

  40

  East Midlands

  58

  42

  58

  33

  57

  34

  East Midlands

  61

  37

  56

  31

  55

  33

  East

  53

  35

  49

  27

  45

  27

  London

  63

  40

  59

  36

  56

  36

  South East

  48

  34

  51

  27

  49

  25

  South West

  55

  34

  53

  30

  53

  30

  England

  60

  39

  58

  35

  56

  34

  1 Estimates from the Labour Force Survey Spring and Autumn Quarters. The figures are subject to sampling variability.

  2 Three years data have been combined to give reliable estimates for the private rented sector in the North East to overcome sample size limitation. Thus an average for 1996, 1997, and 1998 is shown under 1997. This calculation is not possible for 1996–97.

  8W
  A better quality of life specifies the precautionary principle as one of the 10 guiding principles and approaches that the Government will take account of in policy development. Based on the Rio Declaration definition, the Government's definition makes it clear that precautionary action requires assessment of the costs and benefits of action, and transparency in decision making. It also sees precaution as being relevant beyond environmental damage, to include affects on animal and human health.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to empower local authorities to have recourse to the precautionary principle in Article 174 of the EC treaty when assessing planning applications from telecommunications companies to erect mobile phone masts within highly populated areas. [111425]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Article 174 of the EC treaty applies only in respect of policy-making at the EU level, and not to policy-making by individual member states.

  Housing
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the Housing Green Paper. [111661]

  Mr. Mullin
  We will publish a Housing Green Paper this year aimed at ensuring everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. The Green Paper will be fully consultative and we hope as many people as possible will take the opportunity to let us know what they think of our proposals on the future of housing in the 21st century.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of heads of non-pensioner households in(a) social housing and (b) private rented housing were not in paid work in each region in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [111517]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following table provides the available estimates from the Labour Force Survey of the percentage by region of heads of household who were below pensionable age and not in paid work.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the anticipated liability is of the Highways Agency with respect to blight and compulsory purchase of property, associated with the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road; and what the basis is for that calculation. [111690]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency is responsible for the purchase of land under blight and compulsory purchase provisions, and it retains the ownership of all land and properties needed for the BNRR scheme. All the costs that the Highways Agency so incurs will be fully reimbursed by the concessionaire, Midland Expressway Limited.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide an itemised estimate of the cost to the public purse of widening the M42 section of the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [111691]

  Mr. Hill
  A previous estimate for the Department's share of the reconstruction costs for widening the M42 near Water Orton was £20 million. That was a preliminary estimate at an early stage in the design process, and it has since been revised. A fixed sum of £18 million has now been agreed with MEL.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the annual liability is of(a) the Highways Agency and (b) other Government departments to the private sector, including Midland Expressway, for any delays in the construction of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road and associated work caused by the Highways Agency or other Government departments; and what is the basis of such calculations. [111676]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no such liabilities.

  M25
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of resurfacing the M25 between junctions 8 and 10 in porous asphalt. [111815]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Crispin Blunt, dated 28 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question about the estimated cost of resurfacing the M25 between junctions 8 and 10 in porous asphalt.
  We estimate that it would cost in the region of £14m to resurface this section of road using porous asphalt. This estimate excludes a 3 ½km section in the Leatherhead/Ashtead area at junction 9, which is already surfaced with porous asphalt.

  Funding Inequalities (Education)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with Education Ministers with 10W
  respect to inequalities in the levels of funding per pupil between different local education authorities across the country; and if he will make a statement. [111971]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend has had a number of discussions with Education Ministers on a range of issues relating to the financing of education. The distribution of grant is the subject of a review, announced in our White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". We expect to publish a consultation paper in the summer.

  Heavy Goods Transport
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of heavy goods transport on the roads. [112319]

  Mr. Hill
  The latest available figures are for 1998 when heavy goods vehicles travelled 32 billion vehicle kilometres in Great Britain, accounting for 7 per cent. of all motor traffic. During the same period, 152 billion tonne-kilometres of freight were moved, and 1,630 million tonnes of freight were lifted, by heavy goods vehicles.

  Serco
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the number, (b) the length of contracts, (c) the details of the service involved and (d) the location of contracts entered into by his Department with Serco. [111784]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department has no contracts with Serco.

  I understand from Railtrack that the main contracts, past, present and anticipated, between Railtrack and Serco are as in the following table:

  Title

  Scope

  End date

  National Weedspray Services

  Weed spray of the national rail network

  Ended

  Major Station Cleaning Contract

  Cleaning of 14 major stations

  April-June 2000

  Rail Property Maintenance RT99

  Maintenance of property in the north of England and in parts of Wales

  July 2000

  On-Track Infrastructure Monitoring Services

  Operation of several instrumental train combinations running across the national network collecting data on the tail infrastructure

  April 2001

  Infrastructure Maintenance Contract

  Maintenance of Railtrack"s infrastructure in the east Midlands

  Award imminent from 1 April 2000 for 5 years

  Eurostar
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations he intends to hold, and with which interested parties, on the consultants report into the viability of Eurostar Services north of London. [111808]
  11W
  Mr. Hill
  None. The consultants consulted widely with local and regional authorities and groups. It is for the British Railways Board now to consider the report as part of its review of its plan for international through services.

  Non-domestic Rates (Consultation)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will abolish the requirement on local authorities to hold annual local consultation meetings with business rates payers; [111794]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the usefulness of the compulsory annual local consultation meetings between local authorities and business rates payers regarding national non-domestic rates. [111793]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We will be considering the future of the consultation duty under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as we develop proposals on the local authority-business partnership arrangements that will be required before local authorities can raise a supplementary local rate. Policy on this was set out in the 1998 White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". We shall be consulting further on the details before introducing the necessary legislation.

  In considering the future of the existing duty, we will also be taking account of the findings of the research into the duty published by the Department of Environment "Local Partnerships—A Research Review of Local Authorities' Statutory Duties to Consult with Business" (1997). In addition, we will also be making use of research commissioned by this Department, which is to be published shortly, about business perceptions of local government and local government involvement with the business community.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will institute regular consultations between his Department, local authorities and business rates payers regarding national non-domestic rates. [111795]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We hold meetings periodically with representative business organisations, at which the Local Government Association is represented, to discuss matters of concern to ratepayers.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions chaired a meeting on 7 September to discuss how to handle the effects of the non-domestic rate revaluation this April. The review group, which we established last month to consider how the revaluation system can be improved, includes representatives from the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Local Government Association, as well as officials from this and other Departments, the National Assembly for Wales and the Valuation Office Agency. There are also regular ad hoc contacts at official level.

  This system of consultation works well, and we intend to continue with it.

  West Sussex Coastal Strip
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the economic status of the West Sussex coastal strip. [112088]
  12W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Public Examination of the Draft RPG, held last year by an independent Panel, considered representations and evidence from a range of organisations and individuals. It included discussion specifically about the economic situation along the Sussex Coast.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what grounds the West Sussex coastal strip is no longer to be accorded priority status for special economic support. [112252]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  SERPLAN (the London and South-East Regional Planning Conference) proposed a number of Priority Areas for Economic Regeneration in Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East (Draft RPG9). The strategy and proposals in Draft RPG9 were the subject of a Public Examination last year. The independent Panel who held that Public Examination recommended that a more targeted area of the Sussex coastal area be identified as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration. The Secretary of State is considering both SERPLAN's proposal and the recommendation of the Panel and will shortly be publishing "Proposed Changes to Draft RPG" for public consultation.

  Virgin Trains
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the compatibility between the condition of carriage arrangements employed by Virgin Trains in respect of loss or damage resulting from delays, and the customer service requirements placed on Virgin Trains under their franchise or by the Rail Regulator; and if he will ask the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority to examine this matter. [112016]

  Mr. Hill
  The National Conditions of Carriage, overseen by the Rail Regulator, govern all rail journeys regardless of the train operator involved. In addition, train operators are required by their franchise agreements to publish a Passenger's Charter, which provides compensation for passengers whose journeys are delayed for reasons within the control of the industry. The arrangements for compensation must be no less favourable than they were under British Rail.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the increases in(a) cash and (b) real terms in the uniform business rate income (i) from and (ii) that is given to (1) each local authority in England and (2) in England as a whole for the years (x) 1997–98 to 1998–99, (y) 1998–99 to 1999–2000 and (z) 1999–2000 to 2000–01. [111926]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have placed the information in the Library. The tables contain information in respect of the amount given to authorities for all years listed in the question. Information on amounts paid in by authorities is so far available only up to 1999–2000.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated council tax increase for each local authority in England in 2000–01. [111925]

  Ms Armstrong
  It is for local authorities to set their own council taxes. I have made no estimates of increases.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 710W, what percentage of the compost used in his Department's estate gardens is peat; when use of peat compost will be phased out on his Department's estates; and if he will make a statement. [111950]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department does not keep central records on the use of peat or organic wastes within its buildings or gardens. However, as I indicated in my answer on 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 710W, the Department's Greening Operations Policy statement applies to all parts of the Department including its Executive Agencies and Government Offices for which DETR has property management responsibility. I can confirm that peat use has already been phased out within the three headquarters buildings.

  Local Deprivation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities designated or part designated for(a) Objective 1 and (b) Objective 2 status, indicating how each of them ranks on the Index of Local Deprivation. [111791]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Erica Oil Spill
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will implement the recommendations in the Friends of the Earth report on the Erica oil spill relating to transportation of maritime cargoes; [111922]

  (2) if he will review Government policies on the transportation of maritime cargoes to take account of the Erica oil spill of 12 December; and if he will make a statement; [111921]

  (3) if he will discuss with other EU member states changes to strengthen MARPOL regulations by including stricter regulations for older vessels, and regulation of flags of convenience; and if he will make a statement. [111924]

  Mr. Hill
  Transport of maritime cargoes is an internationally regulated business and accordingly my Department is already in discussion with counterparts in the relevant international and European organisations to determine a practical programme for enhanced protection against maritime pollution. The Friends of the Earth report on the Erika oil spill is being taken into account in that consideration, as is the potential benefit of improved collective enforcement of the MARPOL Convention and 14W
  other relevant regulations. The case for additional international regulations is also being assessed by the Government and neighbouring administrations.

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to continue the rural bus subsidy grant beyond 2000–01. [112405]

  Mr. Hill
  The Rural Bus Subsidy Grant, which was first introduced in 1998–99, has been of significant benefit to people in rural areas. In its first year it provided for over 1,800 new or improved rural services. I am therefore very pleased to announce our decision to continue the grant for English local authorities for a further three years beyond the initial period which ends in March 2001. The grant will be continued at least at its current level.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2000,Official Report, column 754W, on how many occasions since May 1997 he has notified research contractors in writing that their project has been identified as being sensitive as provided for in clause 15.3 of his Department's standard research contract, indicating the subject in each case. [111652]

  Ms Quin
  No central records of the use of such notifications are kept. However, given the nature of most of the Department's research, the numbers will have been very small. The standard contract does not give the Department powers to prevent public statements by contractors unless such a statement would jeopardise the commercial exploitation of intellectual property. As is made clear in clause 15.5, the purpose of clause 15.3 is to ensure that the Minister has prior knowledge of a statement being made on a potentially sensitive matter relating to research which he is funding.Extract from Standard MAFF Research Contract
  15. Publication and disclosure
  15.1 Subject to the provisions of conditions 15.3, 15.4 and 15.6, the Contractor shall endeavour to make information about, and results from the Project generally available, and may do so provided he acknowledges in any public statement the financial support of the Minister and of the Co-funders.
  15.2 Subject to condition, 6.5, the Minister shall have the right to disclose, copy or otherwise distribute to the public or use in any way any information arising out of the Project or comprised in any work relating to the Project, as he sees fit.
  15.3 Where the Project, or any matter related to it, has been identified as being sensitive by:
  15.3.1 the Contractor or the Co-funders, or
  15.3.2 the Minister, as notified in writing to the Contractor or the Co-funders, the contractor or the Co-funders shall give written notice to be received by the Minister at least 10 working days before any planned public statement or other disclosure relating to the Project, providing details of the information proposed to be disclosed, the reason, and the medium of disclosure.

  15W
  15.4 The Contractor or Co-funders shall notify the Minster immediately if approached by the media about the Project. The Contractor or Co-funders shall notify the Minister immediately if approached by anyone about a matter related to the Project which is considered sensitive by the Contractor or Co-funders in accordance with condition 15.3.
  15.5 For the avoidance of doubt, the notifications required by conditions 15.3 and 15.4 are for the purposes of informing the Minister or the Contractor or Co-funders (as the case may be) and are not designed to interfere with the issue of any public statement.
  15.6 Where the carrying out of the Project results in, or materially contributes to the creation of Intellectual Property which the Contractor or the Minister considers may be suitable for commercial exploitation, no disclosure of information may be made by the Contractor or the Co-funders which would jeopardise such exploitation.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fur farms are licensed; if he will list their locations by county; and if he will make a statement. [111014]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: As at 16 February 2000, there were the following mink farms in England:

  County

  Number of licensed mink farms

  Cornwall

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Lancashire

  5

  Northumberland

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  Total

  13

  As you know, the Government introduced a Bill on 22 November to fulfil its pre-election pledge to prohibit fur farming. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill will prohibit in England and Wales the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. I understand that the Scottish Executive will be introducing their own legislation to ban fur farming in Scotland.

  Meetings
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to meet individual hon. Members to discuss farming issues within the next two months. [111298]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: I discuss farming issues with many hon. Members on a variety of occasions.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is on accepting requests to meet(a) privy councillors and (b) other hon. Members to discuss farming issues. [111297]
  16W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: I have discussed farming issues with many right hon. and hon. Members on a variety of occasions.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individual hon. Members(a) have requested a meeting with him to discuss farming issues, (b) he has refused to meet to discuss farming issues and (c) he has held meetings with to discuss farming issues, since his appointment. [111296]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: I, and other MAFF Ministers, accommodate many requests from hon. Members to discuss farming issues.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the United Kingdom Register of Organic Foods Standards has made with re-examining UK standards relating to contact with genetically-modified crops, with special reference to(a) insect pollination and (b) bee-keeping. [109323]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Neither European Community legislation nor the standards approved by the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) allow the use of genetically modified material in the production of organic food. No standards have been set in relation to the adventitious presence of such material, although EU legislation provides a procedure for a maximum limit to be determined.

  UKROFS has established a working group to consider how best to reflect in UK standards the provisions of the EU regulation on the presence of GM material in organic produce. It is also participating in discussions between the organic and GM sectors under the chairmanship of MAFF officials with a view to identifying practical means of protecting the interests of both. These discussions are addressing questions relating to the separation of GM and organic crops and are taking account of research on cross-pollination by insects and bees.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to reply to the letter of 20 December from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, concerning problems his constituent has had with an IAACS/MAFF inspector. [111131]

  Ms Quin
  I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tween on 21 February.

  Diversification
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to support farmers who wish to diversify within farming. [111270]

  Mr. Morley
  The England Rural Development Plan describes how Government intend to use the European Community co-funded measures in the Rural Development Regulation to support farmers wishing to diversify within farming. Of the £1.6 billion seven-year programme, £152 million will fund a new Rural Enterprise Scheme to encourage diversification; £44 million will fund a new
  17W
  Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme to encourage innovation and achieve added value for primary produce, and £22 million will go towards providing targeted training to support these and other schemes in the Plan.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111612]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) Current estimates are that around 10 per cent. of documentation used by the Ministry is made from recycled paper. Procurement staff and environmental managers are looking to increase this percentage substantially subject to performance, cost and supply availability considerations. The Ministry's Greening Operations Strategy includes objectives to use recycled paper comprising genuine post-consumer waste.

  (b) This information is not recorded. The Ministry's approach to waste management is set out in its Greening Operations Strategy and is based on the three "Rs", with "Recovery" (ie recycling, composting and energy recovery) following "Reduce" and "Re-use" as the preferred options for reducing waste sent to landfill. Schemes to recover waste paper are in place at over 95 per cent. of the Ministry's (including its Executive Agencies') key sites (those where there are over 50 staff) covering approximately 95 per cent. of staff.

  Subsidies (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of subsidy payments to farmers for organic conversion in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since their inception; and if he will make a statement. [111411]

  Ms Quin
  Information at lower than county level is available only at disproportionate cost. At a county level, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 201W.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers received subsidy payments in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [111442]

  Ms Quin
  Information at below county level is available only at disproportionate cost. Information is held by agricultural holding. The number of holdings receiving subsidies in Shropshire is as follows:

  Year

  Numbers

  1992

  681

  1993

  3,089

  1994

  3,595

  1995

  3,473

  1996

  3,551

  1997

  3,459

  1998

  3,413

  The low figure for 1992 reflects the fact that the only subsidy available in that year was Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance.

  Marine Animal Bycatch
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are the Government's plans for monitoring marine mammal bycatch in United Kingdom fisheries in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–2003; [110967]

  (2) how many dedicated observers were employed by the Government to monitor the incidental take of marine animals in UK fisheries in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; what (1) sectors and (2) percentage of UK fisheries this monitoring covered; and how much was spent on such observer programmes in the last year for which figures are available. [110966]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: My Department has agreed to fund the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) to place observers at sea for 300 days in each of the years 2000–01 and 2001–02. They will be monitoring cetacean bycatch in the South western and Irish Sea set net fisheries and in pelagic trawl fisheries.

  Details of the observers assigned to the specific monitoring of cetacean bycatch in the years quoted are included in the following table:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number of observers

  6

  4

  12

  Days at sea in gill net fleet

  356

  375

  104

  Percentage of fishery covered

  1.7

  22

  20.6

  Days at sea in pelagic trawl fleet

  0

  0

  30

  Percentage of fishery covered

  —

  —

  20.5

  1 Two more observers are working the Cornish Hake fishery on an EC funded project. MAFF funding supports the management of the project

  2 Estimate

  SMRU's total budget for the monitoring work funded by MAFF in the three-year period between 1997 and 2000 was £275,398.

  Farms (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dominant farm type for each parish in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [111072]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Parish

  Dominant farm type (predominant farming activity in the parish)

  Acton Burnell CP

  General cropping

  Alderbury with Cardeston CP

  Dairy

  All Stretton CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Astley CP

  Cereals and other

  Atcham CP

  General cropping

  Bayston Hill CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Berrington CP

  General cropping

  Bicton CP

  Dairy

  Buildwas CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Cardington CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Church Preen CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Church Pulverbatch CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Condover CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Cound CP

  General cropping

  Cressage CP

  General cropping and cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Ford CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  19W

  Parish

  Dominant farm type (predominant farming activity in the parish)

  Frodesley CP

  Dairy

  Great Hanwood CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Great Ness CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Harley CP

  Cereals

  Hughley CP

  1—

  Kenley CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland) and mixed

  Leebotwood CP

  Dairy

  Leighton and Eaton Constantine CP

  Dairy

  Little Ness CP

  Other

  Longden CP

  1—

  Longnor CP

  Dairy

  Minsterley CP

  Dairy

  Montford CP

  Dairy

  Pimhill CP

  Dairy

  Pitchford CP

  Cereals

  Pontesbury CP

  Dairy

  Ruckley and Langley CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Sheinton CP

  Dairy

  Shrewsbury CP

  Other

  Smethcott CP

  Dairy

  Uffington CP

  Dairy

  Upton Magna CP

  General cropping

  Westbury CP

  Dairy

  Withington CP

  Dairy

  Wollaston CP

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  Woolstaston CP

  Cattle and sheep (LFA)

  Wroxeter and Uppington CP

  General cropping

  Suppressed to prevent discourse of information about individual holdings

  Note:

  This data relates to main holdings only ie minor holdings excluded

  Source:

  June 1998 Agriculture and Horticultural Census

  The table indicates the farm type with the most main holdings in each parish. Further information on the farm types is available from "The Digest of Agricultural Census Statistics 1993".

  Broiler Chickens
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage the broiler chicken industry to give a higher priority to selective breeding of broiler chickens so as to reduce leg disorders, strengthen legs and increase walking ability. [110771]

  Mr. Morley
  Breeding companies select for a wide range of traits and I am aware of no evidence to suggest that leg strength is not accorded sufficient priority. However, since the Farming Animal Welfare Council reported on broiler welfare in 1992 we have taken a range of measures to address leg weakness, including an extensive research programme and improved training for veterinarians conducting welfare inspections. The industry itself is conducting a survey of leg health, the results of which it is reporting to the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [110730]
  20W
  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry has had a policy since 1993 to substitute the use of peat with suitable alternative organic wastes such as compost, manure, leaf mould, bark chippings or coir. Advice on how to replace or minimise the use of peat has been circulated to all MAFF sites. The policy was updated in June 1999 and applies to all sites where the Ministry is responsible for grounds maintenance, including those of its Executive Agencies. We will be using the Green Ministers' Biodiversity Checklist (which encourages the use of peat substitutes and which is due to be published early in March) to raise awareness and to reinforce further our policy. The Ministry has specification clauses included in its contracts covering this issue.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [110681]

  Mr. Morley
  One member of the senior civil service (SCS) in MAFF has declared himself to be from an ethnic minority background. Two MAFF staff who have declared themselves to be of ethnic minority background are currently on secondment to SCS posts in other Government Departments. Both are men.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the recent representations he has received regarding EU regulations to control nitrate in(a) surface water and (b) ground water in the UK. [110536]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department has received two recent representations from industry organisations about general implementation of the EU Nitrate Directive as part of the Review of Regulatory Burdens on Agriculture.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss(a) the economic state of the agriculture industry, (b) the high value of the pound sterling and (c) supermarket prices. [110532]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Meat Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on the cost burden that faces the UK meat industry in comparison with other EU countries; and if he will make a statement. [110534]

  Ms Quin
  A large number of representations has been received from Members of Parliament, industry organisations, individual meat plant operators, farmers, consumers and others about the cost burden facing the UK meat industry in comparison with that in other member states.
  21W
  The Government have, on a number of occasions, made clear to the European Commission its concerns over the lack of transparency in the charging arrangements applied in other member states and itsdoubts as to whether such charges are being set on a common basisthroughout the European Union, in accordance with Community Law.

  We have passed to the Commission copies of both our own survey of meat inspection charges in other member states and the Meat and Livestock Commission's report on meat inspection charges and other enforcement costs. These have been published and copies are available in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend the Minister and officials continue to press the Commission to carry out a thorough investigation of the way in which the EU Charges Directive has been implemented in all member states and to establish the level of inspection charges in each country.

  At the same time, the Government do recognise the difficulties faced by the industry and has acted on the concerns of the meat industry over the impact of increased inspection costs. As the hon. Member will know from my right hon. Friend the Minister's announcement on 20 September 1999, charges for Specified Risk Material controls will now not be imposed before 2002–03 at the earliest. In addition, on 1 December 1999, he announced that Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) hygiene inspection charges for the whole of 1999–2000 were to be held at the level fixed for 1998–99. This will result in a saving to the meat industry of some £7 million in charges in 1999–2000. We also gave a commitment that the rates of MHS hygiene inspection charges in 2000–01 will not rise by more than the rate of inflation above the levels charged in 1999–2000. These measures represent a considerable cost saving for plant operators.

  The cost burden faced by the industry was one of the main issues considered by the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group, whose report was published on 13 December 1999. Of its 35 recommendations, 32 have been accepted, or are under further consideration, including the establishment of a small task force to explore all the issues surrounding a "capping" approach to charging. This is being pursued urgently.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110147]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry's Greening Operations Strategy, which was updated and re-published in June 1999, has among its key aims to conserve resources and minimise waste by reducing the use of materials from non-renewable resources and to ensure that any products derived from nature, such as paper and timber, are derived from sustainable resources and comply with EU and international trading agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
  22W
  To help meet these aims the Strategy includes objectives to use recycled paper comprising genuine post-consumer waste and to ensure that any virgin pulp used in its manufacture comes from sustainably managed woodlands. It also, for example, requires the introduction of procedures to ensure as far as possible that timber and timber products come from sustainable resources by requiring documented proof or, if available, independent valuation under an internationally recognised certification or ecolabelling scheme.

  As part of continuing efforts to raise awareness and promote best practice across Government the Ministry is represented on inter-departmental groups concerned with the procurement of timber and paper and, in addition, is a member of The Sustainable Office Forum which is a cross-industry group interested in improving ogranisations' environmental performance through consideration of issues in forestry papermaking, recycling and printing.

  Remploy
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what Remploy products his Department has purchased in the last three years. [109940]

  Mr. Morley
  In the last three years, the Ministry has purchased office furniture, packaging, packing and filing materials to an approximate value of £154,310 (excluding VAT) from Remploy.

  Agricultural Development Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Agricultural Development Scheme. [109794]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) on 2 February 2000, Official Report, columns 640–42W.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [109873]

  Ms Quin
  In addition to the contacts that have taken place in the regular Agriculture Council meetings, five Ministerial bilateral meetings have been held with our Austrian counterparts during the period 1995–99. The dates of these and the subjects discussed at the meetings held since May 1997, are shown in the table.

  Date

  Subjects discussed

  24 November 1999

  EU enlargement

  Rural development

  BSE

  11 September 1998

  Agenda 2000/CAP reform

  Agrimonetary proposals

  Animal welfare

  Date-based export scheme

  Energy crops

  Fishery control regulations

  23W

  Date

  Subjects discussed

  20 July 1998

  Agenda 2000/CAP reform

  Agrimonetary reform

  Animal welfare

  Date-based export scheme

  Wine

  Organic farming

  Forestry protection

  EU-wide SRM controls

  19 November 1997

  Agenda 2000/CAP reform

  Preparation for UK presidency

  Banana regime

  BSE

  Chocolate directive

  Energy crops

  Fisheries

  12 June 1996

  —

  Nil in 1995

  —

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [109898]

  Ms Quin
  We are no longer proceeding with plans for an Anglo-Austrian seminar on rural development for applicant member states under the auspices of Technical Assistance Information Exchange (TAIEX), as a follow-up to an earlier Anglo-Austrian seminar in November 1999.

  Animal Slaughter
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to(a) the European Commission and (b) the French Government about the slaughter of animals as part of the annual Eid-el-Kebir festival in France; and what was the (i) date and (ii) nature of these representations. [109745]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I wrote to Commissioner Byrne on 9 February 2000 expressing the concerns of many British people at the outdoor slaughter of sheep in France during Eid-el-Kebir, and urging him to take steps to secure compliance with the laws of the European Union relating to this and other animal welfare concerns.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials in his Department are currently on gardening leave. [108424]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: One staff member, an Administrative Assistant, is currently absent on full pay awaiting a medical assessment.

  Chicken Imports (Thailand)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many chickens were imported from Thailand in each of the past three years; what assessment he has made of the quality of the feed 24W
  given to such chickens; what health problems have arisen from consumption of Thai chicken products; and if he will make a statement. [108110]

  Ms Quin
  UK imports of chicken from Thailand in 1997 to 1998 and in January to November 1999 were as follows:

  Tonnes1

  £ million

  1997

  Carcase meat

  3,784

  7.6

  Preparations

  2,131

  6.4

  Total

  5,915

  13.9

  1998

  Carcase meat

  7,216

  11.1

  Preparations

  6,760

  17.2

  Total

  13,976

  28.3

  19992

  Carcase meat

  9,767

  14.1

  Preparations

  9,724

  24.0

  Total

  19.491

  38.1

  1 Product weight

  2 January-November

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  No live chicken imports into the UK from Thailand were recorded during this period.

  Responsibility for approving countries from which poultry meat may be imported into the European Community, and for collecting information on practices within those countries to aid decisions on approval, rests with the European Commission. In deciding whether to approve countries, the Commission must, in particular, take account of information on the state of health of the livestock, other domestic animals and wildlife; the provision of information on incidence of certain diseases; the country's rules on disease prevention and control and how these are organised and implemented; the structure of the veterinary services; and legislation on the use, authorisation, distribution and marketing of substances which might be administered to livestock. The quality of feedstuffs used is not a specific consideration.

  Thai chicken products have not been directly implicated in outbreaks of foodborne illness reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) of the Public Health Laboratory Service. Should it be evident that any animal product from any country of origin will pose a serious threat to human or animal health, safeguard action can be taken in accordance with EU veterinary rules.

  Pig Industry (EU Aid)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to meet European Commissioner Franz Fischler to discuss the issue of aid being provided to pig farmers to assist with the additional welfare costs imposed on the industry. [111154]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Minister has many discussions with Commissioner Fischler on all manner of topics. The

  25W
  Minister and I discussed state aids in the pig sector with Mr. Fischler in the margins of the Agriculture Council on Monday, 24 January. The Minister, and Mr. Fischler held further discussions in the margins of the NFU AGM on Tuesday, 1 February. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 1 February, any investment by Government must be linked to long-term change in the structure of the industry. It must also be part of an agreed overall strategy; to this end, my officials are in touch with the National Pig Association and others. Further communication with the European Commission will follow the outcome of these discussions.

  Farmer Suicides
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives are being pursued(a) to reduce suicides among farmers and (b) to investigate the stress levels of farmers. [110531]

  Ms Quin
  A MAFF official has been seconded to work for two years as Deputy Director of the Rural Stress Information Network, an authoritative source of information and advice on initiatives to combat rural stress.

  Staff working at or for MAFF's Regional Service Centres have received guidance to ensure that where their work brings them into contact with distressed farmers they know how to deal with the situation and instigate any follow up. Free business advice is also made available to distressed farmers referred to MAFF by the Samaritans or social services.

  The Department of Health has funded research in this area, the results of which were published in a report in 1998 called "Suicide and Stress in Farmers" available in the Library of the House.

  Livestock Imports (BSE and TB)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on how many cases in each of the last two years of(a) BSE-infected material and (b) TB-infected material have been discovered to be in livestock imported into this country; and if he will list the country of origin for each case. [107380]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: In the last two years, there have been two cases of BSE in imported livestock. One was an animal imported from France in 1994 and the other an animal imported from the Netherlands in 1996. Because of their long stay in the UK, it is not possible to determine whether the animals became infected before or after importation.

  With respect to TB, in 1998, 10 cattle imported into Great Britain from Ireland were disclosed as reactors to the tuberculin test at a 60-day post-import check test. The figure for 1999 is seven, all from Ireland.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the names of those representatives of his Department present at the meeting at which the reintroduction of the ban on the sale of beef on the bone was discussed, details of which were confirmed in a leaked internal Welsh Assembly document. [107237]
  26W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: The Government do not comment on leaked documents nor on internal policy discussions.

  Live Animal Exports
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the regulations for inspection of live animals destined for export, enabling the Ministry to nominate which local veterinary inspector should examine a particular consignment, as announced in 1997, will be brought into effect. [102599]

  Mr. Morley
  We are in discussion with the Scottish and Welsh Administrations about the implications of carrying forward the proposals of which these changes form part, in the light of the views expressed in response to our public consultation exercise last year.

  Peat
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department's policy is on the purchase and use of peat for its own operations and activities; and what performance targets his Department has set to reduce current peat use. [103011]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry's policy on all slow renewables such as peat is to substitute them with suitable organic wastes such as compost, manure, leaf mould, bark chippings or coir. This policy is included in MAFF's Greening Operations Strategy, which was updated and reissued in June 1999.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102373]

  Ms Quin
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

DEFENCE

  Property Management Market Test
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of the British Army (Germany) Property Management Market Test. [112047]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following rigorous competition, Garrison Works Alliance (GWA) is to be awarded a contract to provide elements of Property Management for the British Army in Germany over the next five years. Garrison Works Alliance is an in-house organisation with commercial management support from Laing Management.

  RAF
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to enhance the participation of the Air Training Corps in the recruitment process of the Royal Air Force. [112134]
  27W
  Mr. Spellar
  None. Although we are pleased that members of the Air Training Corps (ATC) often go on to become high quality recruits for the RAF, the ATC is a national youth organisation, not a recruiting agency of the RAF.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent guidance he has issued to improve the relationship between air cadet organisations and the Royal Air Force. [112083]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Air Cadet Organisation and the Royal Air Force have long enjoyed a good relationship and continue to work closely together on a wide range of activities.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on how the Air Training Corps contributes to the recruitment process of the Royal Air Force. [111875]

  Mr. Spellar
  Although the Air Training Corps (ATC) is not a recruiting agency, it is an important source of high quality recruits for the RAF. 16.1 per cent. of the overall intake during Financial Year 1998–99 were ex-air cadets, as the table shows.

  1998–99

  Entry into RAF

  Actual Ex-ATC and CCF(RAF)

  Percentage Ex-ATC and CCF(RAF)

  Officers

  533

  252

  47.3

  Airmen aircrew

  84

  34

  40.5

  Ground airmen

  3,682

  407

  11.0

  Total

  4,299

  693

  16.1

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions are made available to (i) departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department, for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g)job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contract, (1) child care allowances, (m) careers' leave and (n) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [108847]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given her by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 15 February 2000,Official Report, columns 519–22W.

  The following provisions exist for Departmental staff and staff working in executive agencies of the Ministry of Defence:
  (a) Maternity Leave
  18 weeks for all women in accordance with the Maternity and Parental Leave Etc. Regulations 1999. Those with at least one year's established service may have a further period of unpaid leave up to an overall total of 52 weeks.
  (b) Maternity Pay
  Women who have completed 26 weeks service by the 15th week before the expected date of confinement qualify for statutory maternity pay for 18 weeks. Women who have at least
  28W
  one year's established service will in addition qualify for occupational maternity pay which guarantees them full pay for the 18 weeks.
  (c) Paternity Leave
  Five days special paid leave at or about the time of their baby's birth. All staff qualify except casual staff.
  (d) Parental Leave
  13 weeks unpaid leave for each parent after one year's service and for each child born or adopted on or after 15 December 1999, in accordance with the maternity and Parental Leave Etc. Regulations 1999.
  (e) Flexible Working Hours
  Flexible Working Hours schemes are operated widely, and their use is encouraged. There are no specific eligibility requirements save that there should be no adverse effect on the efficiency of the Department.
  (f) Part-time work
  This is encouraged, subject to the needs of the particular post. There are no specific eligibility requirements.
  (g) Job-sharing
  This is encouraged, subject to the needs of the particular post. There are no specific eligibility requirements although job share partners would need to be compatible given the nature of this working arrangement.
  (h) Leave to care for sick children
  Special leave, either paid or unpaid, may be granted for the care of sick children in accordance with the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to time-off for dependants).
  (i) Home-working
  Home-working is available as an alternative working pattern subject to the needs of the organisation, the equipment required, security implications and health and safety.
  (j) Term-time contracts
  This is encouraged, subject to the needs of the particular post. There are no specific eligibility requirements.
  (k) Annual hours contract
  These are available where irregular hours are a key feature of the post.
  (l) Child care allowances
  No formal child care "allowances" are currently provided. Financial support is given through subsidised workplace nursery places and places in holiday playschemes.
  (m) Career Break Scheme
  Career breaks may be offered for a period of up to five years. Applicants must have a good work and attendance record.
  (n) Career Leave
  Up to three years special unpaid leave is available to pursue a course of study of benefit to the MOD and the future career of the officer concerned.

  Collaborative Programme (USA)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those items of military equipment which are part of a collaborative programme with the USA. [109857]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  29W
  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Christopher Gill, dated 28 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about those items of military equipment which are part of a collaborative programme with the USA. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The list of military equipment which are part of a collaborative programme with the USA is shown below.

  Collaborative Defence Projects

  Nations Involved

  Sea Gnat Decoy

  United Kingdom, United States, Denmark

  M483A1 Artillery Shell

  United Kingdom, Netherlands, Turkey, United States

  Multiple Launch Rocket System Phase I

  United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany, Italy

  Harrier AV8b/GR5/7

  United Kingdom, United States

  Joint Striker Fighter-Concept Demonstration Phase

  United Kingdom, United States

  Multifunctional Electronically Scanned Radar (MESAR) 2 Technology Demonstrator Programme

  United Kingdom, United States

  Joint Tactical Information Distribution System

  United Kingdom, United States

  Directed Infra Red Countermeasures

  United Kingdom, United States

  NAVSTAR Global Positioning system (GPS)

  United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United States

  NATO Improved Link Eleven

  United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, United States

  Intercooled Recuperated Gas turbine Engine (WR21)

  United Kingdom, France, United States

  Co-operative Outboard Logistics Update

  United Kingdom, United States

  Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System

  United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, United States

  Universal MODEM for Satellite Communications

  United Kingdom, United States

  Surface Ship Torpedo Defence

  United Kingdom, United States

  Future Tank Main Armament

  United Kingdom, France, Germany, United States

  Future Ground Based Air Defence

  United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, United States

  Lightweight Mobile Artillery System (LIMAWS)—Howitzer

  United Kingdom, Italy, United States

  Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER)

  United Kingdom, United States

  CONDOR-Covert Night/Day Operation of Rotocraft

  United Kingdom, United States

  Chinnook Low Maintenance Rotor Head

  United Kingdom, United States

  30W

  Collaborative Defence Projects

  Nations Involved

  Future projects under negotiation (subject to national approvals)

  Technology, Equipment and systems development for Environmentally Sound Ships and Naval Installations of the 21st Century

  United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, United States

  Programmable Integrated Ordnance Suite: Technology Demonstrator Programme

  United Kingdom, United States

  Laser Vibrometry: Technology Demonstrator Programme

  United Kingdom, United States

  TRACER
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the United Kingdom will continue with the development of the TRACER system if the United States ceases to participate; [110141]

  (2) what contractual provision exists for compensation to be paid in respect of incremental costs incurred by the United Kingdom in the TRACER programme in the event of the United States' withdrawal from the programme; [110142]

  (3) how much money the United Kingdom has (a) spent on and (b) committed to the development of the TRACER programme to date. [110143]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Quentin Davies, dated 28 February 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence on the TRACER programme. These matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  On the question of contractual provisions in the event of US withdrawal from the programme, the collaborative arrangement with the United States on the TRACER programme is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Whilst the framework of the MoU allows for the programme to progress through to a Production Phase, neither the UK nor US Government has made any formal commitment beyond the current Project Definition phase. Accordingly, compensation would not be payable should either nation decide not to proceed beyond the current phase. However, as is normal for collaborative programmes, provisions have been made in the MoU which would allow the remaining nation to continue to the end of the current phase in the event that either partner withdraws prior to completion of it. Specifically the MoU requires that 'The terminating Participant will pay all Contract modification or termination costs that would not otherwise have been incurred but for the decision to terminate'.
  On the question of whether the United Kingdom will continue with the development of the TRACER system if the United States ceases to participate, I should confirm that the Project Definition phase, a phase to which the United States and the United Kingdom remain committed, is not due to finish until July 2002. At the end of the Project Definition phase, the programme will be formally reviewed, taking account of all relevant factors, before a decision on how the TRACER requirement might be pursued is made.
  On the question of programme costs, UK expenditure to date on the TRACER programme is around £39M. We currently estimate the overall cost to the UK of the Project Definition phase to be £130M.

  Weapons Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what criteria the Minister will decide between the BVRAAM European guided missile and the USA's AMRAAM; and if he will make a statement. [111012]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence gave him on 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 554W.

  A400M Programme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will take into account the Airbus Industrie partners' track record of delivering military aircraft programmes in the assessment of the A400M proposal; [111339]

  (2) what account has been taken of Airbus Industrie's track record of delivering aircraft (a) on time, (b) on specification and (c) to cost in the assessment of the A400M proposal; [111338]

  (3) how many A400Ms would have to be ordered by his Department for a viable programme to be sustained. [111336]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 28 February 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked if he will take into account the Airbus Industrie partners' track record of delivering military aircraft programmes in the assessment of the A400M proposal; what account has been taken of Airbus Industrie's track record of delivering aircraft on time, on specification and to cost in the assessment of the A400M proposal; and how many A400Ms would have to be ordered by his Department for a viable programme to be sustained. These matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  I can confirm that our assessment will take account of the track records both of Airbus Industrie itself, and, in the military sector, of the Airbus Industrie partners.
  The viability of the A400 programme will depend on the offtake of several nations. We continue to discuss with our partners and Airbus Military the effect of the total offtake on visibility and costs.
  Since there is a competition in being it would be inappropriate for me to go into detail at this time. We continue to aim to announce a decision on this programme in the early part of this year.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact upon the United Kingdom's defence collaboration and wider strategic relations with other European partner nations should the A400M programme not proceed. [111337]

  Dr. Moonie
  In deciding how to meet our future air transport requirements, we will take into account a range of factors, among which will be any implications for our international defence relations.

  Cancelled Exercises
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the exercises in 1999 involving(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the RAF from which units or equipment were withdrawn in
  32W
  advance of the planned exercise, indicating in each case (i) the name of the exercise, (ii) the equipment or units withdrawn (iii) the estimated cost to his Department had the equipment or unit taken part, (iv) the actual cost after withdrawal and (v) the reason for withdrawal; and if he will make a statement. [111675]

  Mr. Spellar
  As the information requested is lengthy, copies have been placed in the Library.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 1231, what was the amount of ammunition provided to each of the armed services for training purposes in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [111787]

  Dr. Moonie
  The overall provision levels of ammunition have remained constant. However, I am withholding specific information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Staff Targets and Requirements
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the seventh annual edition of the compendium of current staff targets and staff requirements. [111969]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our aim is to publish the updated Compendium in April.

  Indonesia (Arms Exports)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of arms exports from the UK to Indonesia in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999. [112328]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information for 1997 and 1998 has been published in the Strategic Export Controls Annual Report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Corresponding information for 1996 and 1999 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 607W, (1) if he will release the document containing individuals' names and medical records taken from the Nancekuke study; [111699]

  (2) what factors underlay the decision taken in 1999 not to release the individuals' names and medical records contained within the study concerning illness at Nancekuke. [111701]

  Dr. Moonie
  The document requested is being withheld under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Privacy of an Individual).

  The document containing information on individuals' names and details of their medical records for the study of sickness and absenteeism among employees at Nancekuke is held by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) who decided not to release it as disclosure would

  33W
  breach those individuals' right to privacy. As required under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, due account was taken in reaching this decision of the nature of the information, the conditions under which it was supplied and the possible public interest in disclosure.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 554W, what estimate he has made of the cost of identifying all archived files relating to defence activities at Nancekuke. [111700]

  Dr. Moonie
  Files are stored in the Ministry of Defence archives in a variety of means, generally, by date of review and, within that, by branch. This method of storage ensures that a systematic review programme, consistent with the procedures recommended by the Public Record Office, is in place. On review, records are assessed on the basis of continuing administrative and potential historical value. Records falling into the latter category are transferred into the custody of the Public Record Office and generally become available to researchers after 30 years, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Act, 1958 and 1967.

  The volume of files under 30-years-old, their method of storage and the absence of thematic and computerised indexes would mean that the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Capability
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) objectives and (b) present work programme of the Defence Capability Initiative; and if consideration of theatre-wide missile defences forms part of that programme. [111356]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The Defence Capabilities Initiative (DCI) aims to improve NATO's defence capabilities in order to ensure the effectiveness of multinational operations across the full spectrum of Alliance missions, with a special focus on improving interoperability among Alliance forces (and, where applicable, between Alliance and Partner forces).

  The DCI addressed five key areas where NATO has identified shortfalls and deficiencies in force capabilities (deployability and mobility; sustainability and logistics; effective engagement; survivability of forces and infrastructure; and command and control).

  The UK strongly supports the DCI. It reflects both the work that we undertook in the Strategic Defence Review and the emerging lessons learned from Kosovo. Successful implementation of the DCI will also assist the achievement of the European Headline Goal, agreed at Helsinki in December 1999. We welcome the progress that has been made so far, and look forward to further substantial capability improvements.

  The DCI includes consideration of Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence. UK policy remains as set out in my answer to my hon. Friend on 9 December 1999, Official Report, column 594W.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress there has been in the National Radiological Protection Board study on the incidence of multiple myeloma among UK nuclear test veterans. [111689]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to report that work on the study into the incidence of multiple myeloma in the nuclear test veteran population is under way. The first meeting of the independent Oversight Committee took place on 8 November 1999, at which matters such as methodology, scope and timetable were agreed. An observer from my Department and another from the British Nuclear Test Veterans' Association were present. It was originally intended that the study should examine only the incidence of multiple myeloma. However, the Oversight Committee has recommended that, as the information will be available, the scope of the study should be extended to cover other causes of death and other forms of cancer. My Department accepts this recommendation.

  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) have begun to gather the necessary data from military and other national records and the data collection phase is expected to complete by the middle of this year. Thereafter, the data will be validated and analysed. The NRPB report will then be peer reviewed and the findings published early next year in a suitable scientific journal. This is slightly later than was first envisaged and is due essentially to the NRPB's existing commitments and the time taken to constitute the Oversight Committee.

  Chinook Crash (Mull of Kintyre)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusion investigators reached about the possibility of an unforeseen technical malfunction that would not have left any physical evidence as having occurred in the final flight of RAF Chinook ZD576 on 2 June 1994. [108759]

  Mr. Spellar
  The initial stage of the Board of Inquiry acknowledged that an unforeseen technical malfunction, which would not necessarily have left any physical evidence, was a possibility and could not be discounted. They concluded however that technical failure was unlikely to have been the direct cause of the accident, although they considered it possible that a technical malfunction or indication could have provided a distraction to the crew.

  None the less, after careful consideration of all the available evidence the RAF Board of Inquiry concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate rate of climb to safely overfly the Mull of Kintyre, and the actions of the crew were thus held to be the direct cause of the crash.

  Through-deck Carriers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average annual cost is of maintaining and manning a through-deck carrier. [109861]

  Mr. Spellar
  The average cost of maintaining a through-deck carrier is currently assessed at some £17 million per annum. In addition the average cost of the ship's company is around a further £17 million per
  35W
  annum, although such costs vary according to the phase of the ship's operating cycle. For example, while in refit the ship's company would reduce significantly, with the associated average annual manning cost reduced to some £2 to £3 million.

  DERA
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2000,Official Report, column 744W, on DERA, what assumptions have been made about the size of the credit to the defence budget. [109351]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: For strictly planning purposes we have assumed that a Public Private Partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will generate a credit to the Defence Budget; the actual size of any credit will ultimately depend on the PPP option chosen. No final decision on this has yet been made.

  Departmental Functions (Food)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all food served at his Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. [109769]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Food served up for departmental functions comes from a variety of domestic and non-domestic sources. Food supplied to the Ministry of Defence must meet our quality standards and comply with relevant United Kingdom, European Community and other legislative requirements, including prescribed welfare standards, which govern home and imported products.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the costs and benefits of defence exports to the UK. [110319]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government believe defence exports foster a healthy, technologically capable and competitive UK Defence Industry. Competition for defence contracts has helped to stimulate efficiency in UK firms to the benefit of our own defence needs while enhancing their ability to innovate and compete successfully in international markets. Defence exports can also contribute to international stability by strengthening bilateral and collective defence relationships. MOD officials are currently working, with independent academic support, on an assessment of the costs and benefits of defence exports to the UK for completion later this year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many questions for written answer he replied to by means of a letter placed in the Library rather than by a substantive answer in the Official Report in session 1999–2000 to date; and if he will make a statement. [110638]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 15 February 2000, my Department had received 465 questions for written answer in the current session. Of these, 15 were replied to by means of a letter placed in the Library of the House.

  Contractors
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those defence contractors which have been(a) instructed not to submit invoices for defence equipment and supplies until after the end of the current financial year and (b) have been asked to accept that payment will not be made until then. [110553]

  Dr. Moonie
  No defence contractors have been instructed not to submit invoices until after the end of the current financial year. The MOD routinely enters into agreements with its suppliers to promote commercial relationships which benefit both parties. Details are commercially confidential between us and individual companies and are consequently being withheld under Exemption 7a2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Our arrangements are freely entered into by both sides.

  Communications Equipment (Balkans)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the additional communications equipment supplied to army units in the Balkans is compatible with the BOWMAN specification. [110841]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are fundamental differences in the capabilities of the communications equipment being supplied off-the-shelf to army units in the Balkans and that being procured by the BOWMAN project.

  The equipment being supplied to units in the Balkans will mostly be installed in fixed locations and will provide a wide area network in support of peacekeeping operations. BOWMAN has a much wider scope. It seeks to provide mobile, tactical, war-fighting communications, to a military specification, for use by all three Services. In order to be suitable for a hostile environment, the BOWMAN military communications system must be capable of operating without being dependent on a fixed, static infrastructure.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the figures provided by his Department for the number of BL755 cluster bombs used during Operation Allied Force include bombs(a) used during (i) training and (ii) trials and (b) dumped at sea following aborted missions; [111077]

  (2) which types of aircraft operated by Her Majesty's Armed Forces used BL755 cluster bombs during Operation Allied Force. [111078]

  Mr. Spellar
  RBL755 cluster munitions, the medium altitude variant of the weapon, were used by RAF Harrier GR7 aircraft during Operation Allied Force. During the operation, (i) none was used for training, (ii) 12 were used in trials and (iii) none was jettisoned at sea following aborted missions.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111596]
  37W
  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, it has been the Ministry of Defence's policy to use recycled paper wherever it is practicable.

  RAF Accidents
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the causes of the accidents involving(a) a Chinook HC2 in Oman in 1999, (b) an RAF Harrier GR7 in Coldstream in 1999, (c) an RAF Jaguar GR1 in Moray Firth in 1999 and (d) an RAF Tornado F3 in Torness in 1999; what steps have been taken since with regard to each case; and if he will make a statement. [111460]

  Dr. Moonie
  Each of these RAF aircraft accidents is the subject of an ongoing RAF Board of Inquiry. I am unable to comment at this stage about the cause of any of these accidents.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the level of the damage to(a) the Tornado F3 that crashed in Torness in 1999, (b) the RAF Jaguar GR1 which crashed in Moray Firth in 1999, (c) the RAF Harrier GR7 which crashed in Coldstream in 1999 and (d) the Chinook HC2 which crashed in Oman in 1999; what was the cost of the damage in each case; and if he will make a statement. [111461]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the first three of these accidents, the aircraft was destroyed beyond economic repair. The approximate cost of the aircraft involved was as follows:

  (a) Tornado F3 that crashed near Torness power station: £25 million

  (b) Jaguar GR1 that crashed in the Moray Firth: £10 million

  (c) Harrier GR7 that crashed in Coldstream: £16 million

  The Chinook HC2 that crashed in Oman is repairable, but the extent of the damage is still being surveyed.

  Boarding School Allowance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the boarding school allowance money the MOD spent in the independent sector in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and what proportion is forecast for 2000. [111140]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total cost of Boarding School Allowance (BSA) and the estimated amount of money spent by MOD on Independent Schools during the academic years 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  11999–2000

  Total cost of BSA

  59.831

  59.205

  58.999

  61.846

  Estimate for STABIS Schools2

  3.920

  3.847

  4.332

  5.167

  Estimate for Independent Schools

  55.911

  55.358

  54.667

  56.679

  Percentage

  93.45

  93.50

  92.66

  91.65

  1 Average for the year based on Autumn Term only

  2 State maintained boarding schools

  Equipment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all legally binding agreements relating to the supply of defence equipment or services his Department has with foreign Governments. [111484]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: There is a range of Government to Government supply arrangements, as described in the Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls for 1998 (page 128). Sales agreements covering disposal to overseas governments of UK Services' surplus equipment are legally binding. Other Government to Government arrangements are set out in Memoranda of Understanding and Letters of Offer and Acceptance. While we treat the latter as binding on the Government, they are not legally binding agreements.

  Trident
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department plans to take following the ruling by Sheriff Margaret Gimblett on Trident in October 1999. [111520]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The Lord Advocate has referred Sheriff Gimblett's judgment to the High Court of Judiciary for its determination. It would therefore clearly be inappropriate for the Government to comment on it at this stage. The United Kingdom's minimum nuclear deterrent is consistent with international law.

  Low Flying Training
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the Air Force's low flying training programme. [112304]

  Dr. Moonie
  Military low flying training is kept under continuous review.

WALES

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111608]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department operates a purchasing policy which gives full weight to environmental considerations in the procurement of all goods and services. 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.

  Information is not held centrally on the percentage of recycled paper in documentation which was produced externally, but which is used by my Department.

  My Department has a staff of 39, and a correspondingly small production of waste paper. We do not therefore keep formal records of waste recycled, but we recycle paper as a matter of routine.

  Child Abusers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date an urgent search was ordered in Wales for those people named in the Waterhouse report as being unsuitable to work with children. [111368]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The National Assembly for Wales e-mailed a letter dated 15 February to local authorities, health authorities and trusts in Wales on the morning of 16 February.

  Traffic Flow (Shotwick)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions concerning the need for improved traffic flows at the Wales-England border at Shotwick; and if he will make a statement. [107421]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have made no such representations. I understand that the Highways Agency are carrying out a study of the A5117 Deeside Park Junctions, which includes the junction at Shotwick. Progress will continue to be monitored closely by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Functions (Food)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if all food served at his Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. [109771]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: All food served at departmental official functions is provided by an external caterer registered on the list of approved Government hospitality suppliers, and obliged to meet all legal requirements and relevant regulations governing the procurement and preparation of food and related activities.

  Central Government Expenditure
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of Government expenditure and revenue in Wales, updating the Welsh Office assessment of 1994–95 made in January 1997. [111615]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No update of the report "Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales 1994–95", which was produced in January 1997, has been undertaken.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings he has attended in the past six months with the Prime Minister to discuss Objective 1 funding for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [111687]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I see the Prime Minister regularly to discuss a number of issues.

  Advertising Budget
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average cost of issuing a media release from his Department in 1999. [110268]
  40W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: The average cost of sending out a press notice from my Department in 1999 was something in excess of £40 for each press release.

  Health Authority Funding
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned, to assess the impact of amending the formula for funding health authorities in Wales since 1997. [110943]

  Mr. Hanson
  In February 1997, the Welsh Office set up the Resource Allocation Working Group (RAWG), comprising Welsh Office officials and NHS representatives. The purpose of the group was to evaluate the existing formula for allocating health resources and, if appropriate, recommend an alternative method.

  The group took account of many factors and recommended that a modified version of the English Department of Health method should be used. This method took account of socio-economic variables.

  Following this an analysis was undertaken to quantify the financial impact of applying the RAWG recommendations and it became apparent that it would exacerbate the financial problems faced in the NHS. At the same time the Department of Health announced a review of the English formula. In view of that, changes were postponed.

  Since 1 July 1999, the responsibility for the allocation of health funding has become the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales, and I understand that they have recently decided to set up a technical group and a steering group to review the NHS revenue allocation formula.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the future of sub post offices in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [111796]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary and colleagues in Whitehall to discuss a range of issues that affect Wales. Postal services have not been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My officials have also had a number of discussions with their counterparts on the Government's proposals to move to an automated credit transfer system that will assure a safer, modern and efficient way of paying benefits, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  In addition, the Prime Minister announced on 21 October 1999 that the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) in the Cabinet Office is to carry out a study on the post office network which will seek to identify the contribution made by post offices to the viability of local communities. Close independent monitoring of the post office network will ensure that proposed closures which would create significant problems of access to post office counter

  41W
  services, including in rural areas, are taken up with the Post Office, which will then be able to investigate how access needs can best be met.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of businesses in Wales that, as a result of the rates of revaluation which will take effect in April 2000, will(a) have an increase in their rateable value, (b) have a decrease in their rateable value and (c) will have no change in their rateable value. [112305]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Business rates revaluation in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 538W, for what reasons he has not placed a copy of the standard contract for research services in the Library. [111651]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A copy of the standard contract for research services, which for my Department are the same as for the National Assembly for Wales, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with his departmental colleagues and the First Secretary concerning the progress of the New Deal in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [109678]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions concerning New Deal with colleagues in central government and the Assembly. I am pleased to note that up to the end of November 1999 well over 17,000 people in Wales had secured jobs through New Deal and 4,941 employers in Wales had signed up to support New Deal.

  Theatre in Education
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will deposit in the Library the bids of(a) Theatre Iolo and (b) Gwent Theatre for the provision of theatre in education; and if he will make a statement. [105169]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Contact Court Orders
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many resident parents have disobeyed court orders for contact by non-resident parents with children; and what penalties were imposed for disobedience in the latest year for which statistics are available. [111918]

  Jane Kennedy
  We do not have information about how many residents have disobeyed court orders for contact by non-resident parents with children, or what penalties were 42W
  imposed for disobeying orders. Failure to comply with a contact order can ultimately render a person liable to being fined or imprisoned for contempt. However, before imposing such a penalty the court would give careful consideration to the consequences for the child of imprisoning or fining the parent with care of that child.

  Family Courts
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what plans he has to establish family courts in England and Wales; [111889]

  (2) what recent representations he has received in favour of establishing family courts in England and Wales; [111890]

  (3) what studies he has commissioned into the costs and benefits of establishing family courts in England and Wales. [111891]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Children Act 1989, which came into effect in October 1991, introduced a unified family court system in England and Wales including the Family Proceedings Courts (Magistrates' Courts), County Courts and the High Court. From the beginning of 1999 to date I have received one representation suggesting changes to this system. No studies have been commissioned into the costs and benefits of establishing another system of family courts in England and Wales. There are no current plans to change the set up of this unified system.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to collate information on the number of cases in which judges have been asked to consider a public interest immunity certificate. [111677]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department currently has no plans to collate such information.

  National Insurance Commissioners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) reports and (b) publishing starred decisions of the National Insurance Commissioners (i) in loose leaf format, (ii) in bound format and (iii) on the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [111391]

  Jane Kennedy
  The publication of reported decisions is currently under review and the estimates of costs are not known.

  (i) At present the Commissioner's office only publishes reported decisions in loose-leaf format. Not all starred decisions are reported. There are normally 100 starred decisions a year of which normally about 50 are reported. The DSS publish decisions in loose-leaf form and I am therefore unable to give an estimate concerning cost.

  (ii) Reported decisions have not been kept in bound format since 1990. Until then bound volumes of reported decisions were published every two years but this was judged to be uneconomic. Improved arrangements for publication of reported decisions are currently being discussed with the DSS and commercial publishers.
  43W
  (iii) At present the costs of publishing decisions on the Internet are borne internally from existing budgets by the Court Service Agency.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many official visits the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) has paid to the United States since his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary; what was the location of each visit; who he met; and what subjects were discussed. [110911]

  Mr. Lock
  I have made one visit to the United States of America since my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary, where I had the meetings set out in the following table. I also visited Winnipeg and Ottawa, and details of the meetings I held there are also set out in the table.

  The purpose of my visit was to meet experienced practitioners in the USA and Canada to discuss the successful operation of criminal defence services, and the use of salaried defence advocates.

  This forms part of the policy making process for the development of the Criminal Defence Service in England and Wales, the first stage of which will be implemented in October 2000. I will be consulting with professional bodies and other interested parties on the detail of our proposals in the coming months.

  Location

  Subject

  Los Angeles

  Michael Judge, Public Defender

  Setting up and running publicly funded criminal defence services, different models of public defence services, ensuring quality services for defendants, monitoring mechanisms, training and development of public defender lawyers and staff, attending court hearings

  Robert Kalunian, Assistant Public

  Defender

  Adolfo Lara, Assistant Public

  Defender

  Public Defender Office

  Management Board

  Penny Van Bogaert, Assistant

  Deputy Public Defender (Resources)

  Trial lawyers, Paralegals and Investigators from the Public Defender"s Offece

  Portland, Oregon

  Ann Christian, Oregon State

  Setting up and running publicly funded criminal defence services, different models of public defence services, ensuring quality services for defendants, monitoring mechanisms, training and development of public attending court hearings,judicial views on service provided by public defence services

  Judicial Department, Head of Indigent Defence Services

  James Hennings, Metropolitan

  Public Defender, Portland

  Ross Shepard, Lane County Public

  Defender

  Managers and Trial Lawyers,

  Multnomah County Defender Office

  Judge Frantz, Principal Criminal

  Judge, Portland

  Ron Williams, Attorney in charge of drug treatment programme,

  Metropolitan Public Defender's Office, Portland

  Group of Private Attorneys contracted to do public defence work

  Seattle

  James Crane, Office of Public

  Setting up and running publicly funded criminal defence services, different models of public defence services, ensuring quality services for defendants, monitoring mechanisms, training

  Defence, king County, Washington

  Robert Boruchowitz, Public

  Defender, King County

  Managers and Trial Lawyers, Office of Public Defence, King County

  44W

  Location

  Subject

  Daniel Sattenberg, Chief of Staff,

  and development of public defender lawyers and staff, judicial views on service provided by public defence services

  King County Prosecutor"s Office

  Judges from King County Criminal

  Courts

  Winnipeg

  Gerry McNeilly, Executive Director,

  Setting up and running publicly funded criminal defence services, different models of public defence services, ensuring quality services for defendants, monitoring mechanisms, training and development of public defender lawyers and staff, judicial views on service provided by public defence services, operation of civil courts, Narey reforms, legal aid expenditure and control, public service agreements, policy co-ordination across Government

  Legal Aid Manitoba

  Managers and Trial Attorneys,

  Legal Aid Manitoba

  Judge Judith Webster, senior criminal judge, Provincial Court

  Gord Mackintosh, Manitoba

  Minister of Justice and Attorney General

  Ottawa

  Morris Rosenberg, Federal Deputy

  Setting up and running publicly funded criminal defence services, different models of public defence services, ensuring quality services for defendants, monitoring mechanisms, training and development of public defender lawyers and staff, implementation of the Human Rights Act, constitutional reform, judicial appointments policy, Law Commission, policy research projects

  Minister of Justice

  Janice Charette, Senior Assistant

  Deputy Minister

  Officials from Department of Justice, from legal aid research division, judicial affairs division, research and statistics division

  Senator Gerald Beaudoin

  Mr. John Godfrey MP

  Elizabeth Mulholland, Senior

  Adviser, Prime Minister's Office

  Professor Errol Mendes, University of Ottawa

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  HOC Commission Meetings
  Angela Smith
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Commission met in the last 12 months; when it next will meet; and if he will publish the minutes of the Commission's meetings. [112024]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  During the last 12 months, the Commission has met on:1999

  15 March

  17 May

  28 June

  5 July

  12 July

  19 July

  4 November

  6 December

  13 December

  2000
  21 February

  The next meeting is on 6 March 2000. It is not the practice of the Commission to publish its Minutes, but it is considering ways of improving the distribution of information about relevant decisions to Members.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what provisions of the UN Convention on the non-navigational uses of trans-boundary waterways have implications for his consideration of ECGD support for the llisu dam. [111697]

  Mr. Caborn
  The provisions of the Convention as a whole are relevant to our consideration of ECGD support for the Ilisu dam. The UN Convention has yet to enter into force. However, the UK supports the principles of the Convention and intends to sign and ratify in due course. We encourage all countries to abide by the principles of the Convention, as we do.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in his consideration of projects seeking ECGD support, for what reasons he seeks the views of the Department for International Development; and if he will make a statement on this matter in connection with the Ilisu dam. [111696]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD seeks the views of DFID and other interested Whitehall Departments (including FCO, DTI and DETR) as appropriate when considering applications for export credits cover. This is in order to ensure consistency of policies, for example the White Paper on International Development makes it clear that the full range of the Government's policies affecting developing countries, including environment, trade, investment and agricultural policies should take account of its sustainable development objectives.

  The consultation between ECGD and the Department for International Development (DFID) is carried out in a number of ways. DFID is a member of the Export Guarantees Committee and in this capacity sees high value applications for ECGD support in certain markets as a matter of course. DFID are also involved in assessing the productive expenditure implications of all applications for ECGD support for business in Heavily Indebted Poor Countries and countries who are eligible to borrow from the World Bank on International Development Association terms.

  With regard to the Ilisu project, at the beginning of last year DFID provided advice on the environment and resettlement aspects of the project and how these concerns could be addressed. Since the commissioning of the studies on these issues, DFID' s involvement has declined significantly, as Turkey is not one of their key development partners.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has asked the World bank for its assessment of the merits of the Ilisu dam. [111698]

  Mr. Caborn
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not asked because at this point in time the World bank has not been asked for its opinion of the project by the Turkish authorities.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employers have been reported by 46W
  minimum wage inspectors for paying less than the national minimum wage in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom, broken down by size of firm. [111436]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The following data refer to all complaint cases passed to the network compliance teams by the minimum wage helpline for inspection and subsequently closed at the end of January 2000. Data on information where non-compliance was detected by minimum wage inspectors in the course of their targeted inspection visits will not be available until late March. I will write to my hon. Friend when that information becomes available.

  Number of employees

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1–10

  58

  692

  11–100

  71

  635

  100+

  13

  220

  Total

  142

  1,547

  Arms Brokering
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) in relation to the conduct of arms brokering from the United Kingdom, what research his Department has(a) carried out and (b) commissioned to ascertain (i) what countries are buying arms by such arrangements, (ii) how much business is transacted with each country and (iii) if the countries involved are on the UN embargo list; [111420]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on controlling the conduct of arms brokering from the United Kingdom; [111432]

  (3) what assessment the Government have made of the number of (a) UK nationals and (b) non-UK nationals who are involved in conducting arms brokering from the UK. [111418]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government already have powers to control trafficking and brokering under the United Nations Act 1946 where this is necessary to implement a binding UN Resolution. Additionally, 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 (Cm 3989), 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 and other controlled goods to destinations subject to any form of embargo and the supply of 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 are reviewing the White Paper proposals in the light of comments received. In the course of this review, we are examining the information available from both public sources and internal Government sources

  47W
  about trafficking and brokering activities conducted in the UK or by UK nationals abroad, and this is being taken into account in the review. The Government have not commissioned external research on this issue. We 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 the responses received.

  Shareholders
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to allow(a) Limited Liability Partnerships and (b) their (i) partners and (ii) shareholders to hold shares in companies to which they are supplying services. [111348]

  Dr. Howells
  Restrictions on the holding by a service provider of shares in a client company relate to the nature of the service rather than to the type of entity through which the service is delivered. In other words, the general rule would be that any such restrictions placed by statute or by a regulator on a company or a partnership would apply equally to a Limited Liability Partnership.

  For example, the conditions applying to the appointment of auditors operating as LLPs will be governed by the Companies Act 1989 (which will be applied to LLPs by regulation) and by the byelaws and ethical guidelines of the appropriate supervisory body. These byelaws preclude an audit firm—and this would include LLPs—from reporting on any company in which it or any partner has a beneficial investment.

  An LLP will not have shareholders.

  British Coal Pensions
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the(a) assets and (b) liabilities of the former British Coal Pension schemes; [111089]

  (2) if he will list the number of former mineworkers aged (a) 40 to 50, (b) 50 to 60, (c) 60 to 70, (d) 70 to 80 and (e) over 80 years who are in receipt of pensions from the former British Coal Pension schemes. [111088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  These are matters for the Trustees of the coal pension schemes. I have asked them to write to my hon. Friend direct.

  Supermarkets
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Competition Commission's report on competition in the supermarket sector; and if he will make a statement. [111383]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 21 February that the deadline for the Competition Commission to complete its report on the supply of groceries from supermarkets has been extended from 7 April to 31 July. The Commission advised that more time was needed to complete the inquiry.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each wages council in each year from 1970 to their abolition, the years when wage awards were not uprated. [111326]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Low Pay Commission is established on a permanent basis; and if he will make a statement. [111659]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Low Pay Commission was placed on a statutory base in November 1998 following the commencement of provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Government have announced that they will ask the Commission to monitor the national minimum wage and produce a further report, including whether there is a case for an increase and if so to what level, by July 2001. Professor George Bain has accepted the Prime Minister's invitation and agreed to continue to chair the Commission.

  Miners Pension Scheme
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many trustees of the Miners Pension Scheme are employees of his Department; and what reports they have submitted to him concerning the current actuarial review of the scheme. [111574]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Five of the 10 members of the corporate trustee body of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme (MPS) are appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in his role as guarantor to the Scheme. One of these five Secretary of State appointees is a Departmental official. I have received no reports on the actuarial review of the MPS which, I understand, is still under way.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will use his powers under the Miners Pension Scheme to enable the scheme's trustees to reduce the retirement age of working miners to the age of 50. [111507]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Trustees of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme are currently awaiting the results of a recent actuarial valuation. They will no doubt consider a wide range of options for allocating any surplus which emerges for distribution to beneficiaries. These could include retirement terms for all deferred members of the Scheme including working miners. I shall consider any proposals that the Trustees may make.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in respect of matters where telecommunications and broadcasting issues converge. [111496]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The forthcoming Communications White Paper will deal with the changes in regulation required as a result of the

  49W
  convergence of the telecoms and broadcasting industries. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport have joint and equal responsibility for this work.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list, for each year from 1997 to 1999,(a) those countries in receipt of defence-related contracts covered by the ECGD, (b) the United Kingdom companies involved in each of these contracts, (c) the goods covered by each contract and (d) the financial value of each contract. [108765]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The second table contains details by country and value of the cover which ECGD has provided in support of defence business in each of the last three years.

  The types of goods covered, broken down by category of equipment, are included in ECGD's Annual Report and repeated in the table:

  Percentage

  April 1997-March 1988

  April 1998-March 1999

  April 1999-January 2000 (provisional)

  Aircraft

  31.0

  60.0

  27.5

  Ancillary

  1.3

  2.0

  0

  Artillery/Missiles

  16.4

  1.0

  42.0

  Naval vessels

  0.3

  35.0

  0

  Radar/Communications

  15.0

  1.0

  10.9

  Vehicles

  36.0

  1.0

  19.6

  The further detail the hon. Gentleman requires is a commercial confidence.

  Value of ECGD guarantees issued in support of defence-related contracts 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Botswana

  12

  —

  —

  Brazil

  —

  29

  —

  Brunei

  —

  580

  —

  Chile

  —

  —

  2

  Egypt

  9

  —

  —

  Germany

  1

  —

  —

  Greece

  19

  —

  5

  India

  —

  14

  —

  Indonesia

  17

  9

  —

  Italy

  —

  2

  —

  Korea, Rep. of

  62

  20

  —

  Kuwait

  56

  —

  30

  Lithuania

  3

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  —

  15

  123

  Oman

  1

  21

  204

  Qatar

  183

  —

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  225

  1,000

  —

  Singapore

  19

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  4

  —

  Thailand

  27

  —

  —

  Turkey

  36

  —

  208

  UAE

  10

  —

  —

  United States

  —

  7

  —

  1 to 31 January

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to exclude renewables which produce below 500 kw from regulations that currently apply to larger producers of power. [111492]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: Companies which generate and supply less than 500kw of electricity from any source, including renewable sources, are not subject to licensing requirements under the Electricity Act at present. We are currently consulting on changes to the relevant Order to relax the present requirements.

  International Price Comparisons
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons the survey results of international price comparisons were not published on 11 February; and if he will make a statement. [111631]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The survey on International Price Comparison was commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry. The publication of the report was not subject to Parliamentary protocol. The report was published on Sunday 13 February and copies were made available from the Department.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which journalists attended the briefing session at his Department on 11 February about the results of the survey on international price comparisons. [111636]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: Consumer and Lobby journalists from the national Sunday papers, the Press Association, BBC, UN, Sky and IRN.

  Austria
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what change(a) his Department and (b) British Trade International has introduced as a result of the Government's new policy towards bilateral relations with Austria. [111633]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: As a result of sanctions imposed by the 14 EU member states, Ministers will have no bilateral contact with the Austrian Government. There will be no bilateral ministerial visits to or from Austria. Ministers will not receive the Austrian Charg" in London. Along with our other EU partners, the UK will not support Austrian candidates for positions at international organisations.

  These are bilateral measures by the 14 individual countries. The agreed measures are not intended to affect trade.

  North Sea Oilfield
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the membership of the Government task force on the tax and employment aspects of North Sea oilfield decommissioning; when the task force began its work; and when it will report. [111350]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The Government have not set up a task force on North Sea oilfield decommissioning. However, the oil and gas

  51W
  industry has set up a North Sea Decommissioning Group to take forward a range of industry cooperation and other issues which emerged from the conclusions of a number of workgroups set up by the Oil and Gas Industry Task Force which reported in September 1999. The Decommissioning Group's membership, which comprises representatives from a number of industry bodies including the UK Offshore Operators Association and the Oil and Gas Producers Association, includes representation from my Department. No deadline has been set for the Group to complete its work. General matters of taxation and employment are being considered by workgroups within PILOT (the second phase of the Oil and Gas Industry Task Force) which will continue to meet during the year. More information about the ongoing work of PILOT can be found by accessing the PILOT website at: www.dti.gov.uk/ogitf.

  End of Life Vehicles
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the cost of the End of Life Vehicle Directive to the UK motor industry. [111127]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) on 21 February 2000, Official Report, column 715W.

  Offshore Wind Power
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what target he has set for the percentage of UK electricity to be generated by offshore wind power by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [111128]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The Government have adopted the target for 10 per cent. of UK electricity to be supplied from all renewable sources by 2010, subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable. Electricity suppliers are being given the freedom to contract for renewable energy from the most economical sources available to them to reduce the cost impact to consumers. It is expected that offshore wind will make a significant contribution.

  MOX Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on matters discussed and agreements made during the recent visit of departmental staff to Japan to meet officials of the nuclear industry, the Japanese Government and safety regulators. [109914]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: I am arranging for a copy of the joint press communiqué between the UK and Japanese governments to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library copies of reports, safety assessments and other material given to the Japanese Government and nuclear authorities by his Department's director of energy during her recent visit to Japan. [109906]
  52W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand that BNFL's report into the data falsification incident at its MOX Demonstration Facility, which formed the basis for these discussions, was published on Friday 18 February.

  Laurence Williams, HSE's Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations Inspectorate also visited Japan to explain to the Japanese nuclear regulator the findings of HSE's independent investigation into the issue. Their report was also published on Friday 18 February.

  As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 17 February 2000, Official Report, column 629W, I have arranged for these reports (together with two other HSE reports on the Sellafield site) to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  WTO
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to encourage the EU to make progress towards the elimination of subsidies on exports in relation to the forthcoming round of WTO agriculture negotiations. [110963]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government support further liberalisation of agricultural trade in the WTO. This is firmly linked to further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, where the Government support the phasing out of all forms of production-related support, including export subsidies, accompanied by targeted measures to conserve and enhance the rural environment and promote the rural economy.

  However, although negotiations on agriculture are getting under way as part of the built-in agenda, progress is likely to be slow outside a Round. The Government therefore remain committed to launching a new comprehensive Round of trade negotiations, including agriculture, as soon as possible.

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what child care provision was made available in the financial year 1998–99 for use by his departmental staff; what was the cost to parents of this child care; and how many parents used the facilities; [108858]

  (2) what provisions are made available to (i) departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department, for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contract, (l) child care allowances, (m) careers' leave and (n) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [108854]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 518W, in which he set out the importance placed on improving the balance between work and family life in the Civil Service as a whole which is reflected in the Civil Service reform programme. Arrangements for DTI are as set out.
  53W
  Childcare

  Departmental staff in central London have access to a 32-place holiday playscheme for a minimum of 54 days each year. Staff contribute £7.50 per day per place towards the £16.90 daily fee. DTI HQ staff in Cardiff have access to a local holiday playscheme for a contribution of £6.50 to the £13.00 daily fee per place. An annual contribution is also made towards the costs of an inter-Department Easter and Summer playscheme for staff in Government Office for the East Midlands.

  Approximately 100 staff have used the central London playscheme in 1998–99 (academic year October—August) using a total of 1,550 places over the year i.e. 93.6 per cent. occupancy rate.

  Leave and flexible working

  The Department has a range of policies providing for leave or flexible working:

  for women with one year's service, maternity leave of up to 52 weeks, including 18 weeks on full pay;

  10 days paid paternity leave;

  for staff with one year's service, parental leave of up to 4 weeks per year up to a maximum of 13 weeks in total for each child;

  up to five days paid leave to deal with an emergency involving a dependant which may include nursing a sick child;

  part-time working including job share, homeworking, flexitime working and term time working are all available. The Department does not offer annual hours contracts;

  where staff incur additional child or elder care costs due to a requirement to make a temporary change to their normal working pattern, these costs may be reimbursed;

  for staff with one year's service, career breaks are available for up to five years for those with caring responsibilities.

  Except where the provision is an entitlement, eligibility is based on a judgment of the individual's circumstances and the needs of the Department taking account of guidance provided to staff covering the different arrangements.

  The arrangements are for DTI Headquarters staff; Chief Executives of the Agencies will reply separately on their arrangements for leave and flexible working.

  Letter from David Hendon to Caroline Flint, dated 28 February 2000:
  I am replying to your questions on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency which is an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Childcare
  Radiocommunications Agency staff have full access to the DTI's 32 place holiday playscheme as outlined in their separate reply to you on this issue. Approximately three Radiocommunications staff used the central London playscheme in 1998–99 (academic year Oct-Aug).
  Leave and flexible working
  The arrangements for leave and flexible working are identical to those outlined in the DTI's reply. You will note that the DTI does not currently offer annual hours contracts and the position is the same for Radiocommunications Agency staff. Additionally no staff are employed on term time contracts at present.
  When requests are received for alternative working patterns (outside the normal individual entitlement) we consider each request on merit, taking into account the individual circumstances and the Agency's business needs.

  Letter from J. S. Holden to Caroline Flint, dated 28 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.
  54W
  Companies House provides up to 52 weeks maternity leave (a), of which 18 weeks is paid (b), the balance being unpaid for qualifying staff (over 1 year's service for permanent staff and on two or more year contracts if fixed term appointees). Ten days paid paternity leave (c) is given for similarly qualified staff. Unpaid parental leave (d) is allowed up to a maximum of 13 weeks for those with children born on or after 15 December 1999 and under 5 years old.
  Almost all staff benefit from flexible working hours (e) and 30% additionally avail themselves of the opportunity to work part-time (0. Of the 30% part-timers, 5% are in job-share arrangements (g). Leave of up to 5 days paid, 20 days unpaid is normally given to those needing to care for sick children (h), and longer arrangements are considered sympathetically. Home working (i) is a possibility in a few posts, but is not an entitlement. There is not provision for term time contracts (j) or annual hours contracts (k).
  Companies House offers subsidised holiday play schemes (1) and child care allowances when staff are required to be absent from home outside their normal work hours. Carer's leave (m) and career breaks (n) are considered on application from those with satisfactory performance and attendance records.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Caroline Flint, dated 28 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about our provisions for maternity, paternity, and parental leave as well as for a range of other flexible employment practices.
  Provision for these within the National Weights and Measures Laboratory are the same as those within DTI, as the Agency follows the Department's guidelines on these issues.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Caroline Flint, dated 28 February 2000:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 3 February to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning conditions of employment 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.
  The following provisions are made available to ETS staff in line with DTI policy on eligibility:
  Maternity Leave; Maternity Pay; Paternity Leave; Parental Leave; Part-Time Working Hours; Job-Sharing; Career Break Schemes and Leave to Care for Sick Children.
  Flexible working hours are available to all staff regardless of status and eligibility is dictated by operational need. Home working is presently limited with each application considered on its merits. As with Term Time and Annual Hours Contracts, opportunities are restricted by the operational needs of the judicial process.
  Childcare allowances are in line with the DTI Policy and ETS also operate a subsidised holiday play scheme. Permanent staff are eligible. Careers leave would be considered for permanent staff on request.
  If there is further information you would like to have, please let me know.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Caroline Flint, dated 28 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your question about the provisions made available to employees of The Insolvency Service for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (0 part-time working (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for a sick child, (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. The provisions available to staff in The Service and the eligibility criteria are set out in the attached table. In several areas the provisions and criteria are under review as part of The Service's "Working 2005" study which is looking at further developing flexible family friendly working policies alongside improvements in availability of services to users.

  55W

  Annex A

  Subject

  Provision

  Eligibility criteria

  Maternity Leave

  Statutory entitlements Contractual entitlements—52 weeks meternity leave

  Permanent staff with one year's service within the last three years

  Maternity Pay

  Statutory entitlements Contractual entitlements—18 weeks meternity pay at normal standard rate of pay.

  Permanent staff with one year's service within the last three years

  Paternity Leave

  Statutory entitlements Contractual entitlements—10 days paid leave except during periods of unpaid absence

  Permanent staff

  Parental Leave

  Statutory fall back scheme applies until internal policy formulated i.e. 13 weeks unpaid leave; right to return to same or equivalent job. Contractual entitlement to adopative leave—52 weeks (20 days paid)

  One year's continuous service Child born/adopted on or after 15 December 1999 and who is under 5 years old or 18 for adoption of childwith a disability

  Flexible working hours

  Current agreement in place since 30 September 1991

  All staff Withdrawal for misuse of scheme or poor timekeeping

  Part-time working/job share

  Currently have 180 staff working part-time. Managers required to consider when advertising a post whether suitable for part-time/job share.

  Available to all staff, Subject to justifiable operational need/job requirements.

  Leave to care for sick child

  Emergency time off under Employment Relations Act 1999. Also covered under special leave with pay—up to 5 days.

  Home working

  A number of home-working posts exist. Staff can request to work from home within their present job in whole or part.

  Suitability of the post for homeworking

  Term-time contracts

  Not currently available in this form.

  Other flexible working practices may be utilised to help staff deal with their responsibilities during school holidays. These include part-time working, flexible working hours and special leave without pay.

  Annual hours

  Not currently available in this form.

  Child care allowance

  Not available, The Service does recompense staff who need to make additional child care arrangements

  56W

  Annex A

  Subject

  Provision

  Eligibility criteria

  to attend work-related events outside their normal working pattern. DTI provides assisted play scheme placements during school holidays

  Careers' leave

  Not available as such. However staff may avail themselves of the provision of extended special leave without pay to pursue external qualifications. Staff studying for an external qualification, which is of benefit to the organisation, may get assistance with cost and study leave.

  Career Break Scheme

  Extended period of special leave without pay to deal with domestic responsibilities. Annual keeping in touch scheme, including two weeks work placement each year.

  Subject to: completion of probation; satisfactory performance; satisfactory attendance. Currently limited to a maximum of 5 years

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Caroline Flint, dated 28 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 provision of family friendly benefits. Our provision for the initiatives you listed are detailed below.
  a) Maternity Leave
  Paid Maternity Leave
  Paid Maternity Leave consists of 18 weeks maternity leave at the full rate of pay. Staff qualify if they have a permanent appointment and have completed at least one year's paid service. They are also required to:

  i) provide written confirmation that they intend to return to the Office after the pregnancy for a minimum of one calendar month.

  ii) provide written confirmation of their pregnancy at least 21 days before Paid Maternity Leave starts.

  Unpaid Maternity Leave
  Staff qualifying for Paid Maternity Leave will also be entitled to an additional period of unpaid maternity leave. The total period of paid and unpaid maternity leave cannot exceed 52 weeks. However, it is possible for staff to take a career break of up to five years following maternity leave.
  b) Maternity Pay
  Maternity Leave on Full Pay
  Staff qualify for 18 weeks full pay if they have a permanent appointment and have completed at least one year's paid service.
  c) Paternity Leave
  Fathers employed by the Office are entitled to take 10 days paid paternity leave. This need not necessarily be taken at the time of birth but may be taken during the weeks following the birth of the child if it is more helpful to the family.

  57W
  d) Parental Leave
  The statutory entitlement to Parental leave is available to all staff with at least one year's continuous service.
  e) Flexible Working Hours
  We operate a Flexible Working Hours scheme, participation in which is voluntary and open to full and part-time members of staff.
  f & g) Part-time Work and Job Sharing
  We have 72 part-time/job share staff (8.4%) and are always keen to extend these opportunities. Each request is considered on its merits.
  h) Leave to care for sick children
  Line management may grant up to 5 days paid special leave to enable a member of staff to deal with short-term domestic problems or to make satisfactory longer term arrangements for coping with them. Each application is considered sympathetically and on a case by case basis.
  i) Home-Working
  The Office is willing to consider home working arrangements where it is compatible with the work of the Office and interests of the individual concerned. Each application is considered on its merits.
  j & k) Term-time/Annual Hours Contracts
  There are no current provisions for term-time/annual hours contracts.
  l) Child Care Allowances
  Staff who are required to make a temporary change to their normal working routine (eg attending a residential training course or unavoidable late or early working periods for short periods) are eligible to claim the cost of any additional child care expenses that they incur.
  We also subsidise staff whose children attend an on-site nursery. This is also the case with play schemes that are organised during the Easter and Summer holidays. All directly employed staff are eligible to apply for both initiatives.
  m) Careers Leave
  There is currently no provision for careers leave, however, paid study leave may be granted to staff undertaking approved Adult Further Education (eg GCSEs, A levels, degree and professional qualifications) for activities including tutorials, examinations or assessments and revision for them.
  n) Career Breaks
  The Office's Career Break Scheme is open to all permanent staff members who wish to take unpaid leave to assume home care responsibilities for a dependant providing they fulfil the following criteria:

  i) have satisfactorily completed a probation period

  ii) have an overall performance mark of Box 3 (performance fully meets normal requirements of the grade) in their last staff appraisal prior to joining the scheme; or a Box 4 (performance not fully up to requirements; some improvement necessary) where particular circumstances such as recent promotion, illness or domestic circumstances have contributed to a Box 4 marking;

  iii) have a satisfactory attendance record;

  iv) agree to undertake a minimum of two weeks paid work or development training in the Office each year.

  The Office also has a provision for Special Leave without Pay which is also available to all permanent staff for pressing domestic needs such as looking after children (including adopted or fostered children). All cases are considered on an individual basis.

  ACT
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to ensure benefit recipients avoid costs and bank charges arising from planned changes in the way benefits are paid to automated credit transfer. [110237]
  58W
  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have decided to move to automated credit transfer (ACT) from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits. The Department has already begun discussions with the banking industry on issues surrounding benefit recipients, charges and other matters. These discussions will continue.

  Charter of Pardon
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the status of the Charter of Pardon 1508; [110927]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the applicability of the powers contained within the Charter of Pardon 1508. [110928]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have made no assessment of the status of, or the applicability of the powers contained in the 1508 Charter of Pardon, and have not been previously asked to do so.

HEALTH

  Volunteering
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources have been made available to the consortium on opportunities for volunteering in the last two years; and if the third year's funding has been approved. [112315]

  Mr. Hutton
  The consortium on opportunities for volunteering received £2,889,000 in 1998–99 and £2,837,762 in 1999–2000. Decisions on funding for 2000–01 will be announced by Ministers shortly.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require dentists to notify patients of charges for all items of treatment. [112318]

  Mr. Hutton
  Dentists are required to display in a prominent position information about National Health Service charges. The information should include details of entitlement to exemption or remission from NHS charges. In addition, dentists who accept a person for continuing care and treatment are required at the time of the first examination, to provide a treatment plan and an estimate of the NHS charge where appropriate.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to introduce a recognised scale of fees for all dental treatment. [112317]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Statement of Dental Remuneration contains the scale of fees for all National Health Service dental treatment. Since 1995 a revised scale of fees has been published at least once a year. The latest edition is in the Library.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will calculate the rise in the cost of palladium-based precious metals used in dental appliances over the last 10 years; and if he will calculate the
  59W
  percentage change in the palladium-based precious metals claimed for by dentists from the NHS over the last 10 years. [109581]

  Mr. Hutton
  The cost of palladium-based precious metals used in dental appliances depends on the prices negotiated in contracts between purchasers and suppliers. These will be affected by the price quotations in the metal markets. The average price for palladium in the London market in 1988–89 was about $130 or £75 and in 1998–99 was about $310 or £190. Palladium is only one constituent with fine gold and platinum in precious metal appliances.

  Precious metal casting alloys for use in the General Dental Services must contain not less than 33 per cent. fine gold, platinum or palladium. The available data do not distinguish between the constituents of precious metal alloys and the incidence of precious metal dental appliances cannot therefore be broken down further.

  Information on the number of incidences of the dental treatment item 1711, full or jacket crown cast in precious metal alloy and the comparable treatments 1705 and 1706 which were deleted from 1 December 1996, is shown for 1988–89 and 1998–99.

  General Dental Services (GDS): Number of incidences England and Wales

  Item number

  1988–89

  1998–99

  1705

  7,240

  —

  1706

  154,180

  —

  1711

  52,670

  259,359

  Total

  214,090

  259,359

  The total number of incidences for the treatments shown increased by 21 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1998–99.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what system of control is operated by this Department to ensure that dental patients receive the dental appliances consisting of palladium-based precious metals claimed for by dentists from the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [109585]

  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 a dentist shall not claim or accept any fee or other remuneration in respect of any treatment which has not been provided. 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.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of non-precious metals in dental appliances in the NHS; and if he will calculate the percentage change in the non-precious metals claimed for in the last 10 years. [109583]

  Mr. Hutton
  Both precious and non-precious metal alloys continue to have their place in restorative dentistry. The Statement of Dental Remuneration (SDR) sets out 60W
  the conditions as to materials which may be used in the fabrication of appliances in the General Dental Services. The wide diversity of both precious and non-precious metal alloys to meet true clinical need is reflected in the SDR.

  The SDR, including the conditions as to materials, is under continuing review with the representatives of the dental profession so as to reflect current best practice.

  Information on the number of incidences of the dental treatment item 1712, full or jacket crown cast in non-precious metal alloy for 1988–89 and 1998–99, is shown in the table:

  General Dental Service (GDS): number of incidences England and Wales

  1988–89

  1998–99

  Percentage increase

  Number of incidences

  5,520

  28,217

  411

  The increase in the number of these incidences is affected by changes in the types of treatment available over the ten year period.

  Children (Physical Punishment)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of the Office for National Statistics Omnibus Survey for April 1998 relating to the physical punishment of children. [111500]

  Mr. Hutton
  Results from this survey were published in our consultation paper "Protecting Children Supporting Parents: A Consultation Document on the Physical Punishment of Children" on 18 January. A separate statistical publication is not planned but further information about the survey and more detailed tabulations of the data are being placed in the Library.

  Lancashire County Council
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the items on the agenda for discussions when members of the Social Services Inspectorate recently met Councillor Doreen Pollit and other representatives of Lancashire County Council, (b) the main points discussed, and (c) conclusions reached; and if those attending from Lancashire were instructed not to issue public comment on any or all of the items discussed. [111973]

  Mr. Hutton
  At my request, the Chief Inspector for Social Services met with councillors and chief officers of Lancashire County Council on 15 February. They discussed the key issues for Lancashire Social Services identified in the recently published social services inspectorate/ Audit Commission Joint Review Report and established the council's understanding of those issues and its ability to respond.

  It was made clear to those attending the meeting that any decisions as to further action were for Ministers and, in the light of the Chief Inspector's assessment following the meeting, I have now written to Lancashire County Council requesting that they draw up an action plan

  61W
  addressing the key issues identified in the joint report. This will be monitored regularly by the social services inspectorate.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance indicators and targets he has set for NHS Direct for 1999–2000. [112018]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct, as a new service, was not subject to explicit performance indicators and targets during 1999–2000. As the service develops, indicators on service responsiveness will be formalised through service level agreements, and NHS Direct sites will be budgeted to be able to handle a forecast number of calls each year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget for NHS Direct was originally set by his Department; and what the expected out-turn is for the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [112017]

  Ms Stuart
  The 1999–2000 budget for "NHS Direct" was £54 million. The budget for 2000–2001 is not yet known. Final out-turn figures for the current financial year will not be available until the summer.

  PCG baselines, allocations, targets and distances from target

  Initial

  Final

  PCG name

  Baseline (£000)

  Target (£000)

  DFT (£000)

  (%)

  Allocation (£000)

  Current target (£000)

  Current DFT (£000)

  (%)

  Approved for PCT status

  North East Lincolnshire

  96,869

  100,804

  -3,935

  -3.90

  103,673

  106,320

  -2,647

  -2.49

  Central Derby

  59,015

  63,038

  -4,023

  -6.38

  64,810

  67,381

  -2,571

  -3.82

  Newark and Sherwood

  63,178

  63,985

  -807

  -1.26

  67,229

  68,277

  -1,048

  -1.53

  Mansfield

  55,977

  54,765

  1,212

  2.21

  59,427

  58,439

  988

  1.69

  Epping Forest

  62,200

  59,500

  2,700

  4.54

  66,372

  63,412

  2,960

  4.67

  Tendring

  77,329

  86,391

  -9,062

  -10.49

  82,269

  92,070

  -9,801

  -10.65

  Fenland

  50,878

  50,595

  283

  0.56

  54,341

  54,064

  277

  0.51

  Peterborough North

  60,381

  61,544

  -1,163

  -1.89

  64,738

  65,763

  -1,025

  -1.56

  Peterborough South

  46,433

  46,680

  -247

  -0.53

  49,708

  49,880

  -172

  -0.35

  Southend

  98,035

  102,892

  -4,857

  -4.72

  105,756

  110,338

  -4,582

  -4.15

  Nelson and West Merton

  87,936

  85,909

  2,027

  2.36

  93,524

  91,367

  2,157

  2.36

  North Hillingdon1

  53,031

  53,559

  -528

  -0.99

  56,455

  56,983

  -528

  -0.93

  Hayes and Harlington1

  40,393

  41,612

  -1,219

  -2.93

  43,002

  44,221

  -1,219

  -2.76

  Uxbridge and West Drayton1

  51,566

  49,819

  1,747

  3.51

  54,896

  53,149

  1,747

  3.29

  Poole Bay

  49,229

  53,045

  -3,816

  -7.19

  52,431

  55,954

  -3,523

  -6.30

  Poole Central and North

  48,204

  46,885

  1,319

  2.81

  50,710

  49,458

  1,252

  2.53

  Daventry and South Northants

  44,106

  44,398

  -292

  -0.66

  46,963

  47,238

  -275

  -0.58

  Southampton East Healthcare

  68,366

  70,938

  -2,572

  -3.63

  73,070

  75,608

  -2,538

  -3.36

  Manchester South

  97,356

  93,745

  3,611

  3.85

  102,514

  99,030

  3,484

  3.52

  Hertsmere

  50,000

  51,170

  -1,170

  -2.29

  52,839

  54,435

  -1,596

  -2.93

  West Norfolk

  76,761

  75,634

  1,127

  1.49

  81,739

  80,819

  920

  1.14

  Applied for PCT status

  Airedale

  68,146

  64,708

  3,438

  5.31

  72,680

  69,242

  3,438

  4.97

  Bradford City

  83,966

  85,306

  -1,340

  -1.57

  89,944

  91,284

  -1,340

  -1.47

  Bradford North

  53,404

  53,608

  -204

  -0.38

  57,160

  57,364

  -204

  -0.36

  Bradford South and West

  85,831

  87,725

  -1,894

  -2.16

  91,978

  93,872

  -1,894

  -2.02

  Sunderland West

  65,343

  63,311

  2,032

  3.21

  69,660

  67,494

  2,166

  3.21

  North Lincolnshire

  91,937

  88,002

  3,935

  4.47

  95,466

  92,819

  2,647

  2.85

  Doncaster Central

  61,449

  63,818

  -2,369

  -3.71

  65,560

  68,087

  -2,527

  -3.71

  St. Albans

  48,184

  47,323

  861

  1.82

  51,504

  50,343

  1,162

  2.31

  Colchester

  79,790

  84,748

  -4,958

  -5.85

  84,960

  90,319

  -5,359

  -5.93

  Thurrock

  75,088

  74,430

  658

  0.88

  80,396

  79,817

  579

  0.73

  Basildon

  60,569

  59,246

  1,323

  2.23

  64,809

  63,534

  1,275

  2.01

  Lowestoft

  43,343

  43,471

  -128

  -0.29

  45,569

  45,858

  -289

  -0.63

  Greater Yardley

  49,811

  47,577

  2,234

  4.70

  52,956

  50,669

  2,287

  4.51

  Birmingham North East

  46,204

  45,528

  676

  1.48

  49,176

  48,486

  690

  1.42

  Herefordshire

  92,730

  92,730

  0

  0.00

  98,713

  98,713

  0

  0.00

  Stoke North

  63,384

  65,647

  -2,263

  -3.45

  67,941

  70,265

  -2,324

  -3.31

  Bexley

  120,649

  123,755

  -3,106

  -2.51

  127,208

  130,315

  -3,107

  -2.38

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the(a) maximum and (b) minimum per capita management allowances for 1999–2000 paid to primary care groups in England. [99875]

  Mr. Denham
  Management cost allocations to primary care groups range from £7.10 per head to £1.51.

  Information on per capita management cost allocations has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those primary care groups which have formally applied to seek or have already received trust status; and if he will list in each cast the distance from target in the current year of(a) baseline and (b) actual allocation. [107755]

  Mr. Denham
  The baselines, allocations, targets and distances from target for 1999–2000 for those primary care groups who have formally applied to seek, or have been established as primary care trusts are detailed in the following table.
  63W

  PCG baselines, allocations, targets and distances from target

  Initial

  Final

  PCG name

  Baseline (£000)

  Target (£000)

  DFT (£000)

  (%)

  Allocation (£000)

  Current target (£000)

  Current DFT (£000)

  (%)

  Greenwich

  153,449

  150,343

  3,106

  2.07

  161,831

  158,724

  3,107

  1.96

  Bournemouth North

  51,094

  49,486

  1,608

  3.25

  53,738

  52,199

  1,539

  2.95

  Bournemouth South

  55,099

  54,565

  534

  0.98

  57,936

  57,558

  378

  0.66

  Blackmore Vale

  34,852

  34,997

  -145

  -0.41

  36,715

  36,917

  -202

  -0.55

  Torbay

  88,532

  90,246

  -1,714

  -1.90

  93,395

  95,207

  -1,812

  -1.90

  South Hams and West Devon

  59,822

  57,688

  2,134

  3.70

  63,110

  60,859

  2,251

  3.70

  Carrick

  58,447

  58,961

  -514

  -0.87

  61,659

  62,200

  -541

  -0.87

  Southampton West/Test Valley

  South

  64,789

  64,567

  222

  0.34

  69,189

  68,817

  372

  0.54

  Central Southampton

  37,471

  39,411

  -1,940

  -4.92

  40,136

  42,006

  -1,870

  -4.45

  Milton Keynes

  104,132

  105,666

  -1,534

  -1.45

  112,109

  113,266

  -1,157

  -1.02

  Ridgeway

  34,882

  37,100

  -2,218

  -5.98

  37,774

  40,270

  -2,496

  -6.20

  Dartford

  132,863

  123,381

  9,482

  7.68

  139,962

  131,290

  8,672

  6.60

  Mid Sussex

  67,513

  70,586

  -3,073

  -4.35

  72,162

  75,236

  -3,074

  -4.09

  Blackburn with Darwen

  91,799

  96,027

  -4,227

  -4.40

  97,823

  102,336

  -4,513

  -4.41

  Manchester East

  80,711

  85,164

  -4,453

  -5.23

  85,352

  89,964

  -4,612

  -5.13

  Manchester West

  57,467

  61,069

  -3,602

  -5.90

  60,902

  64,510

  -3,608

  -5.59

  Manchester North

  94,560

  90,116

  4,444

  4.93

  99,930

  95,194

  4,736

  4.98

  Barrow

  48,561

  48,819

  -257

  -0.53

  51,160

  51,484

  -324

  -0.63

  Lancaster

  82,182

  84,004

  -1,822

  -2.17

  86,692

  88,591

  -1,899

  -2.14

  South Lakeland

  64,335

  62,256

  2,079

  3.34

  67,878

  65,655

  2,223

  3.39

  Trafford South

  73,730

  70,886

  2,844

  4.01

  78,204

  75,406

  2,798

  3.71

  1 North Hillingdon, Hayes and Harlington and Uxbridge and West Drayton PCGs are combining to form Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent since 1 May 1997 on consultants in respect of PFI projects, listed by project and consultant for each project. [101455]

  Costs (£)

  NHS Trust

  Legal

  Financial

  Other

  Total

  As percentage of capital cost1

  Bromley

  1,710,000

  1,759,000

  743,000

  4,212,000

  3.5

  Norfolk and Norwich

  1,559,000

  1,938,000

  932,000

  4,429,000

  3.0

  Hereford

  2,500,000

  1,200,000

  900,000

  4,600,000

  7.2

  Greenwich

  1,169,000

  676,000

  351,000

  2,196,000

  2.4

  South Manchester

  1,224,000

  888,000

  1,051,000

  3,163,000

  4.8

  Wellhouse

  2,531,000

  980,000

  1,175,000

  4,686,000

  8.7

  Carlisle

  605,000

  475,000

  736,000

  1,816,000

  2.8

  Calderdale

  901,000

  654,000

  527,000

  2,082,000

  3.2

  Dartford and Gravesham

  1,215,000

  960,000

  180,000

  2,355,000

  2.5

  South Buckinghamshire

  1,653,000

  780,000

  169,000

  2,602,000

  5.8

  North Durham

  375,000

  438,000

  888,000

  1,701,000

  2.8

  South Tees

  1,706,639

  938,407

  310,000

  2,955,046

  2.4

  South Durham

  1,088,000

  1,087,000

  247,000

  2,422,000

  5.9

  (Bishop Auckland)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Worcester

  1,050,000

  1,110,000

  300,000

  2,460,000

  2.8

  Swindon and Marlborough

  1,135,000

  680,000

  1,730,000

  23,545,000

  3.7

  Totals

  20,421,639

  14,563,407

  10,239,000

  45,224,046

  —

  1 Capital cost defined as: total capital cost to the private sector consortium which includes cost of land, construction, equipment and professional fees but excludes VAT, rolled up interest and financing costs such as bank arrangement fees, bank due diligence fees, banks lawyers fees and third party equity costs.

  2 The figures for Swindon and Marlborough are estimates; the scheme reached financial close in October and the figures for advisers costs have yet to be finalised.

  Notes:

  1. Before May 1997 nearly £18 million was spent on these 15 schemes, but none were delivered.

  2. Since May 1997 we spent £27 million delivering 15 new hospitals.

  3. This represents only 2.2 per cent. of total cost of these 15 schemes.

  4. Detailed breakdown of the pre-May 1997 costs are in the table.
  64W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: Information on the total amounts spent on advisers costs is collected centrally for major private finance initiative schemes (capital value of £25 million or above) which have reached financial close. The data are set out in the table:
  65W

  Advisers costs for 15 first major PFI schemes to May 1997

  Costs (£)

  NHS Trust

  OJEC Notice Date

  Legal

  Financial

  Other

  Total

  Bromley

  September 1995

  354,000

  716,000

  118,000

  1,188,000

  Norfolk and Norwich

  February 1995

  900,000

  300,000

  500,000

  1,700,000

  Hereford

  June 1995

  661,979

  442,201

  247,104

  1,351,284

  Greenwich

  March 1995

  168,490

  180,207

  78,668

  427,365

  South Manchester

  April 1995

  454,000

  541,000

  427,000

  1,422,000

  Wellhouse

  February 1995

  423,446

  465,543

  407,675

  1,296,664

  Carlisle

  January 1996

  397,000

  312,000

  149,000

  858,000

  Calderdale

  July 1995

  253,708

  354,103

  272,754

  880,565

  Dartford and Gravesham

  September 1995

  1,094,000

  896,000

  57,000

  2,047,000

  South Buckinghamshire

  January 1995

  978,984

  443,347

  123,657

  1,545,988

  North Durham

  December 1994

  435,000

  706,000

  222,000

  1,363,000

  South Tees

  March 1995

  427,887

  441,393

  29,715

  898.995

  South Durham (Bishop Auckland)

  December 1994

  66,500

  179,700

  18,700

  264,900

  Worcester

  July 1995

  205,904

  522,740

  252,825

  981,469

  Swindon and Marlborough

  October 1994

  348,011

  302,737

  837,554

  1,488,302

  Totals

  —

  7,168,909

  6,802,971

  3,741,652

  17,713,532

  Health Authority Funding
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority for the current financial year in both cash figures and as a percentage the actual allocation and the fair share or target allocation. [107756]

  1999–2000 allocations, targets and distances from targets

  Health authority

  Recurrent allocation £000

  Target £000

  Distance from target £000

  Distance from target %

  1 Total allocation £000

  Avon

  582,510

  589,434

  -6,924

  -1.17

  582,510

  Barking and Havering

  256,500

  258,434

  -1,934

  -0.75

  256,500

  Barnet

  209,057

  204,463

  4,594

  2.25

  209,057

  Barnsley

  156,058

  160,844

  -4,786

  -2.98

  156,588

  Bedfordshire

  312,569

  324,996

  -12,427

  -3.82

  312,909

  Berkshire

  431,001

  446,620

  -15,619

  -3.50

  431,001

  Bexley and Greenwich

  289,039

  274,466

  14,573

  5.31

  289,039

  Birmingham

  681,946

  679,290

  2,656

  0.39

  681,946

  Bradford

  311,762

  317,304

  -5,542

  -1.75

  312,844

  Brent and Harrow

  310,379

  301,083

  9,296

  3.09

  310,879

  Bromley

  183,609

  184,106

  -498

  -0.27

  183,609

  Buckinghamshire

  368,084

  377,426

  -9,343

  -2.48

  368,084

  Bury and Rochdale

  248,434

  251,674

  -3,241

  -1.29

  249,286

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  369,064

  367,445

  1,619

  0.44

  369,064

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  233,706

  236,369

  -2,663

  -1.13

  233,706

  Camden and Islington

  320,052

  313,103

  6,949

  2.22

  320,971

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  316,160

  309,707

  6,454

  2.08

  317,079

  County Durham

  411,001

  420,738

  -9,737

  -2.31

  411,001

  Coventry

  200,882

  208,064

  -7,182

  -3.45

  200,882

  Croydon

  202,682

  205,238

  -2,556

  -1.25

  202,682

  Doncaster

  197,811

  198,087

  -276

  -0.14

  198,465

  Dorset

  446,631

  436,860

  9,771

  2.24

  446,631

  Dudley

  183,018

  184,858

  -1,840

  -1.00

  183,018

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  475,900

  478,734

  -2,835

  -0.59

  475,900

  East and North Hertfordshire

  290,037

  292,156

  -2,118

  -0.73

  290,037

  East Kent

  395,915

  388,808

  7,108

  1.83

  395,915

  East Lancashire

  349,892

  352,280

  -2,389

  -0.68

  349,892

  East London and the City

  490,031

  514,148

  -24,117

  -4.69

  491,634

  East Norfolk

  380,037

  376,838

  3,198

  0.85

  380,037

  East Riding

  359,056

  361,453

  -2,397

  -0.66

  360,233

  East Surrey

  244,052

  239,039

  5,013

  2.10

  244,052

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  505,366

  494,731

  10,634

  2.15

  505,366

  Enfield and Haringey

  323,495

  321,764

  1,731

  0.54

  323,495

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  254,698

  256,652

  -1,954

  -0.76

  255,537

  Gloucestershire

  334,591

  322,184

  12,408

  3.85

  334,591

  Herefordshire

  98,713

  98,652

  61

  0.06

  98,713

  Hillingdon

  154,353

  153,696

  658

  0.43

  154,353

  Isle of Wight

  92,390

  86,064

  6,326

  7.35

  92,390

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  286,339

  314,256

  -27,917

  -8.88

  286,339

  Kingston and Richmond

  208,380

  203,787

  4,593

  2.25

  208,380

  66W
  Mr. Denham
  The table gives the information for 1999–2000
  67W

  1999–2000 allocations, targets and distances from targets

  Health authority

  Recurrent allocation £000

  Target £000

  Distance from target £000

  Distance from target %

  1 Total allocation £000

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  571,315

  574,882

  -3,567

  -0.62

  573,116

  Leeds

  467,788

  466,585

  1,203

  0.26

  469,356

  Leicestershire

  517,310

  530,776

  -13,466

  -2.54

  517,887

  Lincolnshire

  394,990

  392,462

  2,528

  0.64

  394,990

  Liverpool

  349,120

  341,971

  7,149

  2.09

  350,296

  Manchester

  348,698

  340,940

  7,758

  2.28

  349,914

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  422,995

  413,443

  9,553

  2.31

  422,995

  Morecambe Bay

  205,730

  197,059

  8,671

  4.40

  205,730

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  332,729

  330,977

  1,752

  0.53

  333,829

  North and East Devon

  300,720

  295,287

  5,434

  1.84

  300,720

  North and Mid Hampshire

  291,934

  288,021

  3,913

  1.36

  291,934

  North Cheshire

  201,585

  198,024

  3,561

  1.80

  201,585

  North Cumbria

  198,290

  198,179

  111

  0.06

  198,917

  North Derbyshire

  228,364

  228,939

  -575

  -0.25

  228,364

  North Essex

  503,561

  507,041

  -3,480

  -0.69

  503,561

  North Nottinghamshire

  236,475

  239,324

  -2,849

  -1.19

  236,475

  North Staffordshire

  303,653

  311,809

  -8,156

  -2.62

  304,458

  North West Anglia

  250,526

  255,274

  -4,748

  -1.86

  250,526

  North West Lancashire

  321,635

  322,992

  -1,356

  -0.42

  321,635

  North Yorkshire

  434,879

  436,615

  -1,736

  -0.40

  434,879

  Northamptonshire

  326,245

  321,398

  4,847

  1.51

  326,245

  Northumberland

  196,014

  196,339

  -325

  -0.17

  196,638

  Nottingham

  390,375

  400,526

  -10,151

  -2.53

  391,712

  Oxfordshire

  327,812

  337,381

  -9,569

  -2.84

  327,812

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  330,353

  331,271

  -917

  -0.28

  330,353

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  296,944

  283,560

  13,384

  4.72

  296,944

  Rotherham

  159,162

  160,241

  -1,079

  -0.67

  159,696

  Salford and Trafford

  309,165

  302,725

  6,440

  2.13

  310,166

  Sandwell

  205,153

  207,949

  -2,795

  -1.34

  205,838

  Sefton

  192,028

  190,041

  1,987

  1.05

  192,610

  Sheffield

  366,097

  360,678

  5,419

  1.50

  367,283

  Shropshire

  247,650

  248,555

  -905

  -0.36

  247,650

  Solihull

  122,698

  121,100

  1,598

  1.32

  122,698

  Somerset

  290,097

  287,231

  2,866

  1.00

  290,097

  South and West Devon

  383,067

  376,078

  6,989

  1.86

  383,565

  South Cheshire

  405,696

  403,528

  2,168

  0.54

  405,696

  South Derbyshire

  340,745

  347,813

  -7,068

  -2.03

  340,745

  South Essex

  417,802

  432,611

  -14,809

  -3.42

  417,802

  South Humber

  199,138

  192,513

  6,625

  3.44

  199,138

  South Lancashire

  185,797

  181,469

  4,328

  2.38

  185,797

  South Staffordshire

  322,868

  320,147

  2,721

  0.85

  322,868

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  327,774

  327,461

  312

  0.10

  327,774

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  236,408

  237,420

  -1,013

  -0.43

  237,210

  Stockport

  176,374

  175,572

  802

  0.46

  176,374

  Suffolk

  397,601

  391,148

  6,452

  1.65

  397,601

  Sunderland

  200,533

  202,063

  -1,530

  -0.76

  201,223

  Tees

  369,278

  372,959

  -3,681

  -0.99

  370,553

  Wakefield

  211,183

  210,413

  771

  0.37

  211,891

  Walsall

  163,243

  165,336

  -2,093

  -1.27

  163,794

  Warwickshire

  293,422

  285,805

  7,616

  2.66

  293,422

  West Hertfordshire

  317,538

  312,558

  4,980

  1.59

  317,538

  West Kent

  562,935

  559,299

  3,636

  0.65

  562,935

  West Pennine

  297,286

  302,185

  -4,898

  -1.62

  297,286

  West Surrey

  371,000

  362,469

  8,531

  2.35

  371,000

  West Sussex

  467,090

  470,645

  -3,555

  -0.76

  467,090

  Wigan and Bolton

  373,322

  385,390

  -12,069

  -3.13

  373,322

  Wiltshire

  345,684

  339,986

  5,699

  1.68

  345,684

  Wirral

  226,212

  221,847

  4,365

  1.97

  226,913

  Wolverhampton

  160,226

  162,577

  -2,351

  -1.45

  160,766

  Worcestershire

  303,405

  298,177

  5,228

  1.75

  303,405

  England total

  31,162,915

  31,162,915

  —

  —

  31,192,915

  1 Includes additional £30 million non- recurrent funding for Health Authorities with HAZs

  68W

  Infertility Treatment
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' third report on clinical guidelines for infertility treatment. [108209]

  Yvette Cooper
  I congratulate the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on their hard work on the third and final set of comprehensive clinical guidelines on the treatment of infertility. I understand that the College will now be distributing the guidelines to all their members.

  Hearing Equipment
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of his Department's guidance on services provided by local authority social services departments on equipment to assist deaf and hard of hearing people. [108788]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has made clear the benefits of appropriate equipment and adaptations as part of service provision for people with hearing impairment and have emphasised, most recently through 'Better Care, Higher Standards', the importance of speedy delivery of appropriate equipment to all disabled people. Service provision will be monitored through the Referrals, Assessments and Packages of Care Project with further information provided through the Performance Assessment Framework.

  Tooth Whitening Products
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability to patients in dental surgeries of tooth whitening products. [109339]

  Mr. Hutton
  Products are available to patients for the whitening of teeth in dental surgeries. Products containing or releasing more than 0.1 per cent. hydrogen peroxide used for oral hygiene products are prohibited from supply under the European Council Directive on cosmetics products, 76/768/EEC.

  NHS Professional Staff
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of(a) nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and (b) members of professions allied to medicine who will qualify and join the NHS in each of the next five years. [109260]

  Mr. Denham
  The available estimations are shown in the table.

  Training courses for nursing, midwifery and the professions allied to medicine are usually of three years in length and we are therefore only able to provide estimates of new qualifiers up to 2002–03 based on entrants to training in 1999–2000.

  Health visitor training is in the main one-year post registration. The numbers of newly qualified health visitors up to 1998–99 is provided. Entrants to training in 1998–99 are subject to validation; entrants to training in 1999–2000 are still planned. However, we expect the
  70W
  trend of just under 600 new qualifiers each year to continue. Not all qualifiers necessarily take up employment in the National Health Service.

  Estimated number of new qualifiers

  Nursing and midwifery

  Professions allied to medicine

  Health visitors

  1997–98

  9,416

  3,100

  583

  1998–99

  10,184

  3,200

  593

  1999–2000

  12,000

  3,400

  —

  2000–01

  13,200

  3,600

  —

  2001–02

  13,800

  3,900

  —

  2002–03

  14,500

  4,300

  —

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures showing the index for patients with operations cancelled for non-medical reasons in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) England, (ii) East and North Hertfordshire, (iii) West Hertfordshire and (iv) the health authority in the prospering growth area with the (1) lowest figure and (2) highest figure. [109746]

  Mr. Denham
  The 1997–98 figures were published in "Quality and Performance in the NHS: High Level Performance Indicators" in June 1999. Figures for 1998–99 will be published later this year.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to take to clear the backlog of operations arising as a result of(a) cancellations over the Millennium holiday period and (b) the flu outbreak. [111374]

  Mr. Denham
  The seasonal rise in waiting lists is expected, reflecting the planned priority the NHS has given to emergencies. This is anticipated in our plans to achieve our manifesto waiting list target. Trusts will continue to work to ensure the target is achieved.

  Amputations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many healthy limbs have been amputated as part of treatment for a mental health problem in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [109587]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected centrally about how many healthy limbs have been amputated as part of treatment for a mental health problem.

  Doctors' decisions about treatment and care for a patient are based on a thorough assessment of the individual's condition, taking account of the patient's needs and wishes, the evidence base for the effectiveness of treatment, and the resources available.

  Rickets and TB
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many reported cases of(a) rickets and (b) tuberculosis there were in each of the past 10 years in each health authority area; [109765]
  71W
  (2) if he will list, in descending order, the 10 health authorities with the highest incidence of (a) tuberculosis and (b) rickets over the past 10 years. [109764]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on cases of tuberculosis is not collected by health authority but by local authority. A table giving the number of cases of tuberculosis notified

  The 10 Local Authorities in England and Wales with the highest number of tuberculosis notifications years 1989–1998

  Local authority

  Year

  Total

  Average

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Birmingham

  311

  289

  326

  349

  319

  263

  239

  275

  252

  258

  2,881

  288.1

  Newham

  123

  133

  154

  132

  137

  206

  194

  186

  174

  213

  1,652

  165.2

  Brent

  138

  95

  162

  178

  129

  162

  193

  190

  195

  163

  1,605

  160.5

  Bradford

  152

  150

  191

  143

  164

  124

  158

  142

  144

  133

  1,501

  150.1

  Leicester

  153

  152

  146

  136

  162

  144

  164

  157

  130

  149

  1,493

  149.3

  Ealing

  93

  87

  96

  109

  125

  117

  127

  130

  162

  212

  1,258

  125.8

  Hackney

  88

  78

  67

  104

  97

  102

  106

  129

  117

  121

  1,009

  100.9

  Tower Hamlets

  80

  94

  88

  99

  109

  103

  97

  87

  136

  104

  997

  99.7

  Lambeth

  68

  77

  85

  97

  118

  94

  104

  110

  94

  102

  949

  94.9

  Source:

  PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Center.

  NHS Trusts (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year from 1992 to date the number of(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) consultants employed by NHS trusts in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [110133]

  Mr. Denham
  Although the numbers of nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in Shropshire declined over the years 1994–1997, the numbers have increased for 1998. The numbers of hospital medical doctors employed in Shropshire has steadily increased since 1993. However, as new classification methods were introduced in 1995, information for later years is not directly comparable with earlier years (see notes).

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): nursing,midwifery and health visiting staff and hospital medical staff, employed within Shropshire

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff1,2

  Hospital medical doctors3

  Whole time equivalents

  Numbers (headcount)

  Numbers (headcount)

  Of which Medical Consultants

  1992

  2,330

  2,930

  220

  —

  1993

  2,350

  3,160

  270

  40

  1994

  2,370

  3,040

  360

  130

  1995

  2,170

  2,720

  390

  140

  1996

  2,130

  2,680

  420

  140

  1997

  2,100

  2,630

  440

  150

  1998

  2,190

  2,770

  460

  160

  1 1992, 1993 and 1994 figures include agency staff and exclude learners

  2 1995 to 1998 figures exclude agency staff and learners

  3 Includes all hospital medical staff employed within the Shropshire Health Authority area (but before 1996, some doctors were employed directly by West Midlands Regional Health Authority, and are not included in these figures).

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and are as of 30 September every year. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census
  72W
  in each of the past 10 years by local authority has been placed in the Library. The ten local authorities with the highest total number of notifications of tuberculosis over the past 10 years in England and Wales are given in the table. The table gives absolute numbers and not population based rates. Information on the incidence of rickets is not collected centrally.

  Waiting Lists (Durham)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients on waiting lists have been waiting over one year in(a) 1979, (b) 1989, (c) 1995 and (d) the latest date for which figures are available in Durham Health Authority; and how many patients this represented. [110225]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is given in the table.

  Waiting list

  1979

  No data available

  1989

  No data available

  1995

  49 out of 12,575 patients waiting as at the end of December

  1999

  141 out of 12,946 patients waiting as at the end of December

  Notes:

  1. Resident health authority based waiting times data were collected for the first time in Q1 1994–95 so data are not available for 1979 and 1989.

  2. In December 1995 County Durham Health Authority did not exist. Up until April 1996 it was composed of North Durham District Health Authority and South Durham District Health Authority.

  3. The figure for 1995 is for patients waiting at the combined North and South Durham District Health Authorities.

  Source:

  QFO1 Return

  Learning Disabilities
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what revisions of continuing care agreements have taken place following the Coughlan Appeal Court decision and his Department's instructions that these agreements should be reviewed; and, in particular, what changes have been made in relation to health and social service provision for people with learning disabilities. [110173]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. We have asked all health authorities to review their eligibility criteria for continuing health care following the Coughlan judgment. Where authorities revise eligibility criteria following any review, they should consider what action they need to take to reassess service users against the revised criteria contained in HSC
  73W
  1999/180: LAC(99) 30. The guidance applies to all client groups including people with learning disabilities. Initial monitoring suggests that in only a few cases are there legal problems with these. We are continuing to monitor the situation.

  Assaults (NHS Staff and Social Workers)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what records he keeps centrally of assaults upon(a) hospital staff and (b) social workers. [110234]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive conducted a survey of violence in NHS trusts in 1998–99. The survey found that, on average, seven violent incidents were recorded each month per 1,000 staff. This is equivalent to approximately 65,000 violent incidents against NHS Trust staff each year. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: "Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS", copies of which are in the Library.

  A cross-Government campaign, "NHS zero tolerance zone", was launched last October to tackle violence against staff working in the NHS. The campaign is underpinned by National Improving Targets for reducing incidents of violence against NHS staff by 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003.

  Information about the number of incidents of violence against social workers is not collected centrally. However, we are determined to reduce substantially the incidence of violence towards everyone working in social care. We have set up a taskforce to produce a national action plan by November 2000 with recommendations and timescales for action to reduce violence against social care staff and to promote the safety and welfare of social care workers.

  In particular, the taskforce will advise the Department on the setting of targets that social care employees will be set for the reduction of violence against social care staff, and the arrangements for monitoring of progress. They will also advise social care employers on the development, implementation and monitoring of strategies to reduce violence, to train the workforce in handling confrontational situations, and to support staff who have been the victims of violent incidents.

  Stoma Services
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the availability of stoma nurses of a price reduction in stoma appliances. [110931]

  Mr. Denham
  None. Neither the Department nor the manufacturers of stoma appliances have proposed such reductions.

  Elderly and Disabled People (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to improve access to(a) day care,
  (b) residential care and (c) recreational clubs for the elderly in rural areas; [110780]

  (2) what plans he has to improve access to (a) day care and (b) residential care for people with disabilities in rural areas. [110779]
  74W
  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to ensuring that access to social care services is not limited by where people live.

  Last year the social services inspectorate published "Care in the Country", which reported on community care arrangements for older people and people with disabilities in eight rural shire counties. While the report highlights the ways in which rurality can sometimes make it difficult to deliver services it highlights many examples of good practice and offers councils key messages to consider and a checklist to use in evaluating their own services.

  One of the aims of the Fair Access to Care Services guidance, which will be issued for consultation in the summer, will be to set out the principles authorities should follow when devising and applying eligibility criteria for social care services. This will ensure more consistency around the country in the way people are judged eligible for services.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funding the London Regional Office of the NHS Executive plans to make to the London Ambulance Service to assist it to meet its performance targets; and if he will make a statement. [110696]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Health Service Executive, London Regional Office will be providing extra funding to the London Ambulance Service to assist it to meet its performance target. The London Regional Office is currently working with the health authorities and the London Ambulance Service to agree a plan for 2000–01 and beyond.

  Chiropody Services (East Staffordshire)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on adequacy of NHS chiropody services in East Staffordshire. [110731]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no specific problems regarding access to chiropody services in East Staffordshire. A three month pilot scheme is currently taking place within my hon. Friend's constituency of Burton, which places greater emphasis on referral of patients on the basis of clinical priority and need, as opposed to age.

  Carers
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a 24-hour national helpline for carers. [110736]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently no plans to establish a 24-hour national help-line specifically for carers on a 24-hour basis. Information on National Health Service services is available through NHS Direct, and the Department is presently funding the Carers National Helpline.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he can report on the pilot projects which are evaluating digital hearing aids. [110814]
  75W
  Mr. Hutton
  Steps to finalise the details of project planning are currently taking place. We plan to write to National Health Service trusts and health authorities shortly, seeking applications to be involved in the project. The scheme is scheduled to start in April 2000.

  Blood Transfusion
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidences there have been in NHS trusts of transfusions of the wrong type of blood to patients in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [110832]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1997–98, the Serious Hazards of Transfusion scheme for the confidential audit of adverse transfusion incidents (SHOT) analysed 114 reports where a patient was transfused with an incorrect blood component. In 88 of these cases the patient survived with no ill effects, but two patients died and 20 patients suffered short term or continuing ill effects. Four patients were reported to have died from the underlying condition.

  We have required NHS trusts to participate in SHOT, to ensure that hospitals transfusion committees are in place to oversee all aspects of blood transfusion, and to agree local transfusion protocols. We are determined to secure the highest standards across the country at all stages of the blood transfusion chain.

  Mental Health
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which local authorities have made representations to his Department on section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 following the High Court judgment Rv. London Borough of Richmond ex parte Watson and have been advised not to charge for section 117 services; [110981]

  (2) what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure that local authorities follow the decision made in the High Court in R v. London Borough of Richmond ex parte Watson and other related cases; [110982]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2000, Official Report, column 423W, on the Mental Health Act 1983, if there continues to be a variation in practice between local authorities; [110980]

  (4) what research has been undertaken by (a) his Department and (b) local authorities to establish the cost if local authorities ceased to charge for residential care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, in line with the High Court judgment R v. London Borough of Richmond ex parte Watson. [110979]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 10 February 2000 the Department issued a circular to local authorities and health authorities in England drawing attention to the High Court judgment Rv. London Borough of Richmond ex parte Wilson (HSC 2000/003: LAC (2000)3). Local authorities still charging for services provided as part of after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 are advised that they should immediately cease to do so. This is consistent with previous informal advice given by the Department and with the response to recent representations by the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) on this issue made on behalf of local authorities. We have no detailed information about which local authorities have continued to charge since the High Court judgment nor
  76W
  the cost to local authorities of ceasing to charge. I understand that ADSS has issued a questionnaire to local authorities on this issue but am not aware of the results of that survey.

  East Midlands Ambulance Service
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on procuring improved control technology for East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust. [110897]

  Ms Stuart
  The process to approve the business case for the procurement of improved control technology is being progressed by East Midlands Ambulance Service Trust and the National Health Service Executive. The Trust has been working to address issues raised in the preliminary stages of the approvals process and is currently revising the final business case for submission to the NHS Executive. Once approval has been given and the scheme commissioned, the Trust's current estimate is that implementation of the new technology will be achieved in six months.

  Crown Report
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the recommendations of the Crown report on prescribing. [111253]

  Ms Stuart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 711W.

  Influenza
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent flu outbreak on(a) waiting lists, (b) elective operations and (c) progress towards Government targets for waiting lists. [111149]

  Mr. Denham
  Demand for National Health Service services this winter has been very high. The NHS has planned well for these critical months since the beginning of last year. A seasonal rise in waiting lists is expected, reflecting the planned priority the NHS has given to winter emergency admissions. This is anticipated in our plans to achieve our manifesto waiting list target. NHS trusts will continue to work to ensure the target is achieved.

  GP Appointments
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP appointments were missed in(a) the Wigan and Bolton health authority and (b) nationally during 1999. [111594]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected by the National Health Service.

  Compensation Payments
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS paid in compensation payments in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [111422]
  77W
  Ms Stuart
  Figures on how much the National Health Services spent on clinical negligence claims for the last five years for which figures are available are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  117.9

  1994–95

  160

  1995–96

  173

  1996–97

  235

  1997–98

  144

  It should be noted, however, that changes to accounting practice required by the National Audit Office mean that these data are not directly comparable.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of National Health trusts currently employ epilepsy specialist nurses. [111506]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of acute beds in National Health Service hospitals. [111324]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest figures show that there are 108,000 acute beds in the National Health Service. We are currently consulting through the National Beds Inquiry on the future number and balance of acute and other beds in the NHS system.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general and (b) acute NHS hospital beds there were at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in each year from 1992; and if he will make a statement. [111443]

  Mr. Denham
  The average daily number of available beds for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust was:

  Year

  Acute

  General and acute

  1998–99

  375

  417

  1997–98

  354

  393

  1996–97

  400

  441

  1995–96

  384

  424

  1994–95

  411

  451

  Note:

  The earliest data available for the trust is 1994–95, and the latest available data are for 1998–99. 'General and Acute' is defined as Acute plus Geriatric.

  Source:

  Annual Korner return KHO3 'bed availability and occupancy'

  The data show annual fluctuations in the number of available beds. The most recent data show an increase in the number of available 'acute' and 'general and acute' beds in comparison to the previous year.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general and (b) acute NHS hospital beds there were (i) nationally and (ii) in Shropshire in 1998 and 1999; and if he will make a statement. [111444]
  78W
  Mr. Denham
  Statistics on hospital bed numbers are published in the annual publication "Bed availability and occupancy—England", copies of which are in the Library. Latest figures are for 1998–99.

  Dental Amalgams
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date his Department first issued a warning against the use of mercury-based amalgams in treating the teeth of(a) pregnant women and (b) children; and if he will make a statement; [110481]

  (2) what recent appraisal his Department has made of the toxic effects of mercury-based amalgams in dentistry; and if he will make a statement; [110485]

  (3) for what reasons his Department warns against the use of mercury-based amalgams to treat the teeth of (a) women who are pregnant and (b) children; and if he will make a statement. [110479]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: In 1997, the Government's Advisory Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) were asked to review the evidence relating to the toxicity of dental amalgam fillings. COT first considered dental amalgam in 1986 when they reported that the use of dental amalgam was free from risk of systemic toxicity, with only a very few cases of hypersensitivity occurring. COT's 1997 review included evidence in a recent report of an ad hoc working group of experts established by the European Commission to consider dental amalgam within the context of the Medical Devices Directive 93/42/EEC.

  In their latest statement, published in April 1998, COT stated that the conclusions they had reached in 1986 remain unchanged. However, as a precautionary measure, COT advised that, while there was no evidence that the placement or removal of amalgam fillings during pregnancy was harmful it might be prudent to avoid, where clinically reasonable, the placement or removal of amalgam fillings during pregnancy. The Medical Devices Agency continues to monitor and evaluate the available evidence on the safety and performance of dental amalgam.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent studies his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned on the efficacy of non-toxic, non-metal amalgams in dentistry; and if he will make a statement. [110482]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The Department has not directly commissioned or undertaken any recent studies on the efficacy of non-metal dental fillings. Any well-founded research proposals in this area would be considered by the Department in relation to other priorities for research and development.

  Health Service Expenditure (Wakefield)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the per capita expenditure on health services in(a) England and Wales and (b) Wakefield District in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the equivalent average figure for EU member states. [111576]
  79W
  Mr. Denham
  In 1998–99, gross National Health Service expenditure per capita in England and Wales was £810. England alone was £807 and Wales was £867.

  In 1998–99, healthcare expenditure per capita in Wakefield Health Authority was £854. It should be noted that this figure is not comparable with those given for England and Wales because it is taken from health authority summarised accounts, which do not include all NHS expenditure. The comparable figure for England using summarised accounts data is £720 per head.

  The information on international comparisons is not collected by the Department. It is collected by the Office of Economic Corporate Development and can be obtained from the OECD 1999 health database.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the levels of MMR vaccine take-up among children aged 24 months in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Greater London in each of the last 15 years. [111284]

  Yvette Cooper
  Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was first introduced into the United Kingdom childhood immunisation programme in 1988. The information available about the percentage of children receiving the MMR vaccination by their second birthday is contained in table 3 in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics. England: 1998–99". This includes data for the London region and dates back to the introduction of MMR vaccine. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current stock of MMR vaccine ready for use; and how many people could be vaccinated using this stock. [111287]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: As at 17 February 2000, a total of 983,146 doses of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine were held by the National Health Service's vaccine distributor. This amount is in single doses, enough to immunise 983,146 people with a single dose of vaccine or half that number with two doses. Children are recommended to receive two doses of MMR, the first at around 12–15 months, the second before school entry at around 3 to 5 years of age.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in rank order the levels of spending on health per head of population in each health authority in England in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 and the estimated figures for 1999–2000. [111630]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: Health authority spending on health per head of population by rank for 1996–97 to 1998–99 will be placed in the Library. Expenditure estimates for 1999–2000 are not available.

  Expenditure figures are from health authority audited accounts. For 1997–98 and 1998–99 the Prescription Pricing Authority rather than individual health authorities have accounted for the majority of drugs expenditure. Health authorities do not account for the majority of General Dental Service expenditure.
  80W
  Although estimates by health authority are available from the Prescription Pricing Authority for drugs expenditure and from the Dental Practice Board for general dental services gross fees, these are not audited figures and they do not agree with the national audited amounts included within the health authority summarised accounts.

  Long-term Illness
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government initiatives there are to assist primary care groups experiencing higher than average rates of limiting long-term illnesses. [110361]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: Primary care groups will develop their services to meet the needs of their community within the framework of their agreed Health Improvement Programme. The Health Improvement Programme will ultimately combine a range of nationally and locally set targets with particular emphasis on addressing areas of major health inequality in local communities.

  As their committees, primary care groups will be supported and developed by their health authorities to take forward the responsibilities for delivering on the targets agreed locally. In addition, they can make full use of the primary care flexibilities, ie Section 36, local development schemes and Personal Medical Services pilots that have been developed nationally.

  To further support health authorities and primary care groups a wide programme of national initiatives is being developed to support implementation of the National Service Frameworks, waiting lists and other priorities.

  Artificial Limbs and Wheelchairs
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a)artificial limbs and (b) wheelchairs were issued by the National Health Service in 1997–98. [102320]

  Mr. Hutton
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 December 1999, c. 221W]: I regret that the information I gave in my previous reply was incorrect. It should read:
  The National Health Service issued 4,464 powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs in 1997–98. Information on how many artificial limbs were issued is not available centrally.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Alternative Service Book
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate the Commissioners have made of the cost of revising the liturgy consequent upon the expiry of the alternative service book. [110630]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  It is the General Synod that is responsible for the revision and authorisation of the Church's liturgy and the Archbishops' Council that is responsible for publishing the new service books that will replace the ASB.

  Ethical Investment
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent steps the Commissioners have taken to review their ethical investment policy; and if he will make a statement. [110631]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group has responsibility for reviewing the Church's Statement of Ethical Investment Policy which it commends to the central investment institutions of the Church, including the Commissioners.

  The policy is kept under rigorous review to ensure it remains relevant and appropriate, and was most recently revised in the spring of 1999.

  New Deal
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what use they have made to date of new deal initiatives in their employment policies. [110632]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Joint Staff Council of the national church institutions, of which the Church Commissioners are one, considered an internal paper, "New Deal—An Opportunity for the Church" in December 1998 and gave its support to the national Church institutions becoming involved. Matters have been taken forward subsequently with church representatives at national and diocesan level and with others concerned in this area.

  Retired Clergy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the average weekly value of SERPS payments to eligible retired clergy. [110635]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Retired clergy are not normally eligible for SERPS payments since the clergy pension scheme is Contracted out of SERPS. (For the purposes of National Insurance contributions the Church Commissioners have, since 1978, been deemed the Employers.) Some clergy may be eligible for some SERPS payments in respect of other work not covered by the clergy pension scheme.

  Church Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent representations he has received on value added tax on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [110634]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church remains concerned at the heavy burden borne largely at parish level resulting from the continuing imposition of VAT on repairs and alterations. I am in regular touch with a group of Church staff who are handling the Church's continuing representations in this area. The Church as a whole continues to co-ordinate its efforts with other faiths and charitable organisations who share our view that the current VAT regime creates heavy costs for church 82W
  communities and charities with limited resources and inhibits conservation and regular necessary repairs to church buildings.

  Recent media reports indicating that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, may support an equalisation of VAT rates between new build and repairs are very encouraging. Such change would allow greater activity in the field of conservation repairs while demonstrating a sensible and prudent approach to the management of the public finances.

  Clergy Stipends
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps are being taken to review clergy stipends; and if he will make a statement. [110633]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners' powers and responsibilities as Central Stipends Authority were transferred to the Ministry Division of the Archbishops' Council with effect from 1 January last year. The Archbishops' Council has commenced a review of clergy stipends. Among other things, the review will:examine the content of the clergy remuneration package (including stipend, housing and non-contributory pension)
  compare the remuneration of clergy with that of other groups;
  conduct a large-scale survey into the financial circumstances of clergy
  It is hoped that the review will make an initial report of the General Synod in November 2000.

  The working group set up by the Council to carry out the review has met three times to date, and is due to meet a further five times this year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many(a) full-time clergy, (b) part-time clergy, (c) non-stipendiary clergy and (d) retired clergy are currently on the books of the Church of England; and what audit is carried out of the cost benefit of funding the training and pay of each group. [111115]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  At the end of 1999, there were 9,520 full-time stipendiary parish clergy (8,459 men, 1,061 women), 156 part-time stipendiary parish clergy (66 men, 90 women), 2,031 Non-Stipendiary Ministers (1,335 men, 696 women), 298 Ordained Local Ministers (162 men, 116 women). At the end of 1999 there were 7,486 clergy and licensed lay workers in receipt of retirement pensions.

  Clergy are self-employed and do not have formal job descriptions. They are encouraged to exercise their ministry in ways which are suited to their parishes. It would not be appropriate to conduct audits of the kind implied.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football Task Force
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the football task force. [110611]
  83W
  Kate Hoey
  The work of the Football Task Force has greatly benefited football in this country since May 1997. Many of the important recommendations of the Task Force's three previous reports on racism, disabled access and community involvement have been implemented. The Government are now discussing the final report, Football: Commercial Issues, with the football authorities and other interested parties.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of the millennium dome after 31 December 2000. [110612]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are determined to find a sustainable alternative use for the Dome when the Millennium Experience finishes at the end of 2000. In March last year, we launched a competition to invite bidders to come forward with proposals and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced a shortlist of six last month. Bidders are currently developing their proposals and bids. We intend to make a further shortlist and select the winning bid in the summer.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what new measures are being taken to increase ticket sales to the dome. [110618]

  Janet Anderson
  The last week has seen record attendances at the Dome, with many visitors, including children on free education tours, and each day being sold out. The New Millennium Experience Company will continue to promote ticket sales through a range of advertising and other promotional activities. In particular, they will be working with the travel trade to increase uptake of the many excellent travel and accommodation packages.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions his Department has had with sponsors of the dome about their contracts. [110621]

  Janet Anderson
  No such discussions have taken place. Contracts are a matter between NMEC and their sponsors.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will review his policy in respect of the release of information hitherto classified as commercially confidential relating to the Millennium Dome. [109910]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), which is responsible for all aspects of the Millennium Dome, is both a public sector body (by virtue of the issued shares being held by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on behalf of the Government) and a Companies Act company. NMEC is, therefore, required to operate according to non-departmental public body rules and guidelines and according to company law. The guidelines on openness and transparency, to which all public sector bodies are required to adhere, allow for information to be restricted for commercial reasons. In answering parliamentary questions, Ministers have always sought to question those cases where NMEC judges the information to be
  84W
  commercially sensitive. The policy is, therefore, under regular review. NMEC has provided information on a commercial-in-confidence basis to the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport throughout its life and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons tickets to the Millennium Dome are not available for visits beyond March; and when such tickets will become available. [105246]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) released tickets for visits during April in late January. It has always been NMEC's declared policy to release tickets in tranches through the year. This policy enables the company to consider against the experience of previous months its ticketing strategy for future months and assists the management of seasonal peaks and troughs.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets were sold for the Millennium Dome in the first week during which it was open to the public. [104654]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: There were 99,453 visitors to the Dome in the first week of the Dome's opening. A copy of NMEC's press release of Friday 4 February, containing this information as well as other details of visitor attendance in January, was placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Simon Hughes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has evaluated for use of the Dome for sports after 2000; and if he will make a statement. [111098]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions gave on 17 January 2000, Official Report, column 255W. Of the six bids that were selected to go through to the next round of the Dome Legacy competition, one was specifically for sporting use. All six bidders are currently developing their proposals further. At this stage, we have no preference for the type of use for the Dome after 2000. However, each bid will be evaluated against the criteria specified for the competition, namely: commercial and environmental sustainability, regeneration benefits, innovation, cultural significance, consistency with the Government's transport strategy, and financial consideration.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the maximum number of tickets that the New Millennium Experience Company is allowed to sell for(a) any one-day session and (b) the evening session at the Millennium Dome. [111314]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The site capacity set out in the operating licence issued by Greenwich Council is 35,000 plus 2,000 staff at any one time. It is for the New Millennium Experience Company to decide, in the best interests of visitor management and satisfaction, how many tickets to release in any particular period up to the licence capacity.
  85W
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets for the Millennium Dome have been sold from outlets based in Wales. [110099]

  Janet Anderson
  Dome tickets can be purchased through National Lottery outlets, travel operators, the New Millennium Experience Company's website and a call centre. The total number of bookings made from Wales across all outlets is 17,927 to 6 February. It should be borne in mind, however, that when people purchase Dome tickets, particularly through the National Lottery outlets and call centre, their location at the time is not always an indication of their place of residence. Some people may buy a ticket when visiting Wales but do not reside there permanently; conversely, people resident in Wales may buy a Dome ticket when visiting other parts of the United Kingdom and their purchases will, therefore, not be reflected in Wales' figures.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many paying visitors to the Millennium Dome there have been in each of the weeks for which he has data. [108964]

  Janet Anderson
  There were 344,620 paying visitors to the Dome during January out of a total of 366,420. Weekly breakdowns for the total number of visitors (paying and non-paying) are as follows:

  Number

  1 and 2 January

  33,442

  Week commencing 3 January

  102,877

  Week commencing 10 January

  64,346

  Week commencing 17 January

  71,644

  Week commencing 24 January

  87,124

  31 January

  6,987

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total amount of sponsorship money expected to support the Dome; how much has been received to date; and which sponsors have yet to hand over moneys agreed for sponsorship of the Dome. [109909]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The total value of sponsorship is approximately £160 million. A final and definitive figure will be confirmed when the New Millennium Experience Company's final accounts are audited. Where sponsorship has been received during the period 1 April 1999 to 31 December 1999, that will be confirmed in the company's accounts for that period, due to be published in June 2000. The timing of sponsorship cash receipts, and of the value attributable to value-in-kind contributions which replace a budgeted expenditure within the £758 million cash budget, is dependent on the terms of the contractual arrangements negotiated with each sponsor. In terms of cash payments, most contracts provide for an initial payment on signature followed by further payments subject to a range of contractual provisions. Two sponsors (Boots and BSkyB) have yet to sign their contracts but remain committed at Board level to the sponsorship agreement.
  86W
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will break down the number of visitors to the Millennium Experience in January by category of ticket purchased, indicating in each case the price paid for each category of ticket. [109964]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: A total of 366,420 visitors visited the Dome in January. The percentage breakdown and price, by category of tickets is as follows:

  Percentage

  £

  Adult

  53.4

  20.00

  Child1

  5.6

  16.50

  Family Tickets

  21.7

  57.00

  Student

  4.5

  16.50

  Senior Citizen

  6.4

  18.00

  1 Under 5s go free

  The remaining 8.4 per cent. of visitors were children who won tickets as part of the free ballot for schools and some who were on specially managed education visits at £8.00 per head.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the meeting on Wednesday 2 February between Lord Falconer and sponsors of the Millennium Dome. [110076]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: In his capacity as Shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), Lord Falconer of Thoroton has attended, at the invitation of NMEC, a number of functions and events with Millennium Experience sponsors, including that organised by NMEC on 2 February as part of a regular sponsor group meeting. A range of issues, relevant to the Millennium Experience at the Dome and the linked National Programme, are covered at the sponsor group meetings.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those persons who collectively were responsible for the decisions(a) to discontinue the previous Chief Executive's involvement with the Millennium Dome and (b) to appoint the new Chief Executive. [110075]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The appointment of the Chief Executive of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is a matter for the NMEC Board. The non-executive Board members are:

  Robert Ayling (Chairman)

  Sam Chisholm (Deputy Chairman)

  Ian Ash

  Sir Alan Cockshaw

  Len Duvall

  Michael Grade CBE

  Sir Brian Jenkins

  The hon. Mrs. Sara Morrison

  David Quarmby

  The Board was responsible for the recent appointment of Pierre-Yves Gerbeau to replace Jennie Page as Chief Executive. Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as Shareholder of NMEC, was kept fully informed about the decision and approved the terms of the appointment.
  87W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the(a) capital, (b) revenue and (c) opportunity costs of granting free admission to the dome for school children. [109728]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The capital cost of accommodating the Education Tour scheme, under which up to one million free tickets are available to schools, is approximately £2 million attributable to the reception building and equipment for the scheme on the dome site. The revenue cost, attributable to dedicated staff and administration of the ticketing process, is approximately £150,000. The opportunity costs are impossible to quantify but depend on a range of assumptions about ticket sales and categories of purchaser who might replace the free attendees within the licensed capacity limits of the dome site.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how, and by whom, Monsieur Pierre-Yves Gerbeau was identified as a potential new Chief Executive for the Millennium Dome; what checks were undertaken concerning his background and previous employment; and if he will make a statement. [110074]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: Pierre-Yves Gerbeau was appointed as Chief Executive of NMEC by its Board. They were responsible for identifying him as a candidate and undertaking any appropriate checks.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets were sold for the Millennium Dome on each day of the first two weeks of February. [110521]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: Attendance for the week commencing 31 January was 104,705 (including 16,545 free education tour visits). For the week commencing 7 February, attendance was 112,788 (including 20,965 free education tour visits).

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what average attendance figures at the Millennium Dome were for the first 12 days of January. [104895]

  Janet Anderson
  There was an average of 12,935 visitors to the Dome for the first 12 days of January. A copy of NMEC's press release of Friday 4 February, containing this information as well as other details of visitor attendance in January, was placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Dome tickets have been sold(a) overseas, (b) via the Internet, (c) at post offices, (d) by telephone and (e) in small local shops. [107276]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, of the 366,420 people who visited the Dome in January the sources of purchase were:

  Percentage

  Camelot

  26.1

  Ticket line

  23.4

  88W

  Percentage

  Website

  6.7

  Travel trade

  13.6

  Education

  9.0

  Hospitality

  9.6

  Door sales

  11.6

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets to the Dome have been sold so far to(a) adults, (b) children, (c) students, (d) old age pensioners, and (e) people with disabilities. [107277]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, a breakdown of the 366,420 visitors in January, by category of ticket, is as follows:

  Percentage

  Adult

  53.4

  Child

  5.6

  Student

  4.5

  Senior citizen

  6.4

  Family tickets

  21.7

  The remaining 8.4 per cent. of visitors were children who won tickets as part of the free ballot for schools and some who were on specially managed education visits at £8.00 per head.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the schedule for maintenance and repairs of the roof of the Millennium Dome in 2000. [110935]

  Janet Anderson
  Repairs to the roof are dealt with as soon as they arise. NMEC holds a stock of spare materials and has specified a four-hour response time by the repair team as part of the maintenance contract. In addition trained personnel visually inspect the roof on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the names of the operators of the contracted catering outlets that operate in and around the Millennium Dome at Greenwich; and what style of food they were contracted to supply. [110504]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: Catering and supply contracts have been awarded to the following:

  Catering contracts

  Bakers Oven

  baked foods

  Costa

  coffee bar

  Aroma

  coffee bar

  AMT Espresso

  coffee bar

  New Covent Garden Soup Company

  soup bar

  Great American Bagel Company

  bagel bar

  OpaJohns

  filled pancake style bar

  Simply Internet

  cyber café

  Granada Food Services

  NMEC controlled public catering

  Compass pic

  NMEC controlled hospitality and staff catering

  McDonalds

  fast food restaurant

  89W

  Catering contracts

  Coca Cola

  soda bar

  Birds Eye, Wall's

  ice cream parlour

  Premier Brands

  tea bar

  Yo Sushi

  sushi restaurant

  Regents Inn plc

  NMEC controlled pub

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason the maximum daily number of visitors to the Millennium Dome is set at 20,000; and when it will be increased to 35,000. [105245]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: There is no maximum of 20,000. The site capacity set out in the operating licence issued by Greenwich Council is 35,000 plus 2,000 staff at any one time.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the management of the New Millennium Experience Company. [110613]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), which has responsibility for running the Millennium Experience; the Dome and the associated National Programme, considers that the management team now in place has the right experience and expertise to deliver the project successfully.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Millennium Commission's recent loan to the New Millennium Experience Company. [110615]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 6.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed by the New Millennium Experience Company on(a) 31 December 1999 and (b) 31 January 2000. [110965]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: On both 31 December 1999 and 31 January 2000, the New Millennium Experience Company employed 2,077 people.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from employees of the New Millennium Experience Company in respect of(a) the replacement of the Chief Executive and (b) the timing of overtime payments due. [109912]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: None.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out the terms under which Pierre-Yves Gerbeau has been employed as Chief Executive of the Dome, including the targets which have to be met for M. Gerbeau to qualify for bonus payments, and place a copy of his contract in the Library. [109958]
  90W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) employed Pierre-Yves Gerbeau with effect from 7 February on a total salary of £100,000 plus 15 per cent. in lieu of pension. In addition, he is eligible, at the sole discretion of the Board, to a performance bonus of up to £100,000. His detailed performance targets are a matter for the Board of NMEC but the key target is to deliver the project over its lifetime within the £758 million cash limited budget. It is not NMEC's policy to publish contract documents between the company and its employees; to do so would breach employee and employer confidentiality.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to introduce(a) a reduced two day and (b) a weekend entrance fee for the Millennium Experience. [106981]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: The ticket pricing structure is a matter for the New Millennium Experience Company which, under the terms of its Lottery grant from the Millennium Commission, must consult and obtain the agreement of the Commission to any in-year changes in ticket pricing.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will provide details of(a) advances, (b) loans and (c) grants agreed to be made to the New Millennium Experience Company from the Millennium Commission since 1 January, and of provisions for (i) their repayment and (ii) the security provided for them. [110435]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: The Millennium Commission has approved an additional grant of up to £60 million to assist the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) with its cashflow. The precise amount of additional grant payable up to that maximum will have to be demonstrated by NMEC, to the Millennium Commission's satisfaction, on the basis of need—so far, £32 million has been released by the Commission. As with the original grant of £449 million (gross), this additional grant is repayable from any operating or disposal surplus.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the contractual liabilities are of sponsors of the New Millennium Experience Company; and whether such sponsors have given undertakings enforceable at law to provide, in cash or kind, the amounts pledged. [110463]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: Each of the contracts between the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and the Millennium Experience sponsors is unique. The contractual obligations of the sponsors to NMEC cover a range of areas depending on the specific circumstances of the sponsorship agreement, for example the provision of cash, value in kind, discounted products and services and marketing support. Where sponsors have signed agreements with NMEC (as is the case with the majority of sponsors), these obligations are contractually enforceable.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what amount of sponsorship funds has been provided to date to the New Millennium
  91W
  Experience Company; and what (a) proportion and (b) amount of such funds has been provided in (i) cash and (ii) kind. [110442]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: Details of sponsorship income will be included in the New Millennium Experience Company's audited Annual Report and Financial Statements. Those for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 December 1999 will be published in June 2000.

  Lottery (Unclaimed Prizes)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the total amount of lottery prizes unclaimed in the past 12 months; and what was the highest individual unclaimed prize. [110614]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In the 12 months to the end of January 2000, the total value of unclaimed prizes paid to the good causes was £69,649,609; the largest unclaimed prize in this period was £1,234,612.

  Jazz
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to increase support for jazz. [110616]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is important that the arts funding system should reflect the full diversity of musical genres including jazz. Under the arm's length principle, however, decisions on funding for individual art forms and organisations are for the Arts Council of England or the 10 English regional arts boards.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what benefit he expects to secure for the public from the new funding agreements with the Arts Council of England. [110617]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Funding Agreement with the Arts Council of England enables the Department to ensure that grant in aid is spent in accordance with the Government's goals for the arts. Under the arms length principle, the Department do not interfere in funding decisions for individual art forms and organisations.

  Heritage Lottery Fund
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what benefit he expects to secure for the public from the new funding agreement with the heritage lottery fund. [110620]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Heritage Lottery Fund is not subject to a funding agreement since it does not receive money voted by Parliament.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many families in Aberdeen will benefit from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [110622]
  92W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  This information is not available. 1991 Census information is out of date and no household survey has a sample size sufficient to make reliable estimates of qualifying households at a constituency or local authority level.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make a statement on the procedure for people over 75 to receive a free television licence; [111095]

  (2) if he will ensure that arrangements put in place for providing free television licences to pensioners aged over 75 years take account of the needs of housebound pensioners; [111514]

  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 February 2000 that free television licences for people aged 75 or over will come into effect from 1 November this year. The main details of the scheme, which will be administered by TV Licensing as agent for the BBC, have also been via a news release issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Further details will be published by TV Licensing, who will also write to all households in good time before 1 November, with an application form to be completed and returned if a member of the household is 75 or over. The BBC have indicated that appropriate arrangements will be included for claimants who are housebound.

  Lottery (Sports Safety)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when funds will be made available from the lottery for safety improvements at(a) rugby league, (b) rugby union and (c) cricket grounds. [110624]

  Kate Hoey
  A new funding package for safety improvements at rugby league, rugby union, cricket and non-league football grounds was announced on 12 April 1999. That package is worth £7.5 million over three years, and the administrative arrangements for its distribution have recently been finalised. A new committee of Sport England's Lottery Panel will shortly take over the work of the Sports Ground Initiative in channelling public funding for safety improvements in these sports.

  National Foundation for Youth Music
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many schools he expects to benefit from the National Foundation for Youth Music in its first year. [110625]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Foundation for Youth Music's remit is to support activities for children and young people that take place outside the formal education sector. The number of schools which benefit during the Foundation's first year of Lottery funding will depend to a large degree on the number of applications made to the Foundation's programmes, the first of which—Music Maker—is currently welcoming applications, with other programmes due to be announced in the next few months. The Foundation will report publicly at the end of its first year of distribution of Lottery funds, on the number of children, young people and schools who have benefited from its support.

  National Lottery Distribution Fund
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to ensure that money spent on lottery tickets in a particular area is applied mainly to projects in that area. [110619]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It would not be right to seek a direct correlation between the numbers of tickets bought in a constituency and value of Lottery awards made as Lottery funding should be distributed according to need. The Government are, however, committed to ensuring that Lottery funding is distributed fairly both geographically and across all groups of society. This is reflected in the changes made to Lottery distribution through the National Lottery Act 1998, and through the revised Policy Directions which I issued in summer 1998.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money was spent by the National Lottery on each of the various sectors of activity which it supported during 1999. [111805]

  Kate Hoey
  The amount of National Lottery money drawn down from the National Lottery Distribution Fund for expenditure on grants and administrative costs during 1999 was as follows:

  £

  Arts

  287,109,753

  Charities

  355,530,515

  Heritage

  256,505,732

  Millennium

  559,325,000

  Sport

  410,416,825

  Health, Education and the Environment

  31,304,340

  Total

  1,900,192,165

  Nazi Art Thefts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which national museums and galleries have conducted in the last two years a review of their holdings of art and cultural objects to identify works which might have been looted during the Nazi era; how many items have been identified to date by each museum and gallery; and if he will make a statement. [111642]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: In December 1998 the National Museum Directors' Conference (NMDC) published a Statement of Principles and Actions relating to the Spoliation of Art during the Holocaust and World War II, making a commitment for 23 national museums, galleries and libraries to consider what research should be undertaken into the provenance of works of art in their collections for the period 1933–45.

  The plans for such research were published in April 1999 (and a copy was subsequently placed in the Library of the House)—see written answer for 8 June 1999, Official Report, column 230W, in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright).

  I understand that it is the intention of the NMDC to publish the results of this research on Tuesday 29 February on the Internet.
  94W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage the owners of privately-owned art and cultural collections to examine their collections for items which might have been looted during the Nazi period. [111641]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: I hope that the announcement of the Panel will encourage owners to examine the provenance of relevant items in their collections. I have no powers to require them to do so, as stated in the Terms of Reference published in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 17 February 2000, Official Report, columns 627–29W. The Panel will be available to advise about any claim for an item in a private collection at the joint request of the claimant and the owner.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what powers will the Spoliation Advisory Panel have in the event of a dispute between a person or body holding art or cultural objects which are suspected of having been looted by the Nazi regime, and a person or body claiming ownership of the item or items concerned; and if he will make a statement. [111646]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 17 February 2000, Official Report, columns 627–29W, and the Terms of Reference of the Panel. If such a situation arises it will be for the Panel to recommend what they consider to be the appropriate action.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what consultations have been held, what representations have been received to date and what further consultations he plans to hold in respect of the membership of the Spoliation Advisory Panel; and if he will make a statement; [111644]

  (2) what steps he plans to take to ensure that the Spoliation Advisory Panel includes persons who have knowledge and understanding of the (a) circumstances in which the Nazi regime looted art treasures, (b) the type of art and cultural objects which were looted by the Nazi regime, (c) the art market in the 1930s to the 1950s in continental Europe and (d) the organisation and modus operandi of the Nazi regime; and that they are representative of the communities victimised by the Nazi regime; [111645]

  (3) what procedures he proposes to adopt in making appointments to the Spoliation Advisory Panel; and if places on the Panel will be advertised; [111640]

  (4) when he will complete the appointments to the Spoliation Advisory Panel; and when he expects it to commence work. [111639]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The Department's normal appointments procedures, which comply fully with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance, are being followed. These procedures include: specification of the knowledge and skills required in members of the Panel; independent scrutiny and the identification of candidates from a range of sources, including inviting nominations from interested groups; and searches of the Department's and the Cabinet Office's databases of potential candidates for appointment. I have not judged public advertisement to be

  95W
  necessary in this case. I expect to be able to announce the full membership of the Panel within a very few weeks and for the Panel to commence work during March.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [109871]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Arts met Frau Elizabeth Gehrer, the Austrian Minister for Education and Culture, on 9 October 1998. The meeting covered a wide range of cultural issues on topics in my hon. Friend's area of responsibility such as museums, galleries and the historic environment.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the then Minister for the Arts, met Dr. Peter Wittman, the then Austrian Culture Minister, on a number of occasions (11 June 1997, 15 October 1997, 23 February 1998, 8 June 1998) to discuss various issues, including the future of the EU's cultural programme, the 2001 City of Culture, cross-border book pricing, cultural aspects of enlargement, the Birmingham Audio-visual Conference and Austria's priorities during the Presidency. He also met Mrs. Ferrero Waldner, the then Austrian Deputy Foreign Minister (now Foreign Minister) on 30 march 1998 to discuss similar issues. Agenda 2000 and plans for the Global Summit in Vienna were also discussed at that meeting.

  Ministers and officials may have had some further bilateral contacts with their Austrian counterparts in the margins of international or EU meetings, but have not held bilateral meetings outside that context. My Department does not routinely keep records of such contacts.

  I have not been able to identify any records of bilateral meetings held by Ministers or officials under the previous administration.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [109897]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  None. My Department had not planned any recent or forthcoming bilateral meetings with its Austrian counterpart.

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 509W, on lottery grants by organisations in (a) Gloucestershire and (b) Tewkesbury, what was the total value of National Lottery grants applied for. [111433]

  Kate Hoey
  The total value of Lottery applications from Gloucestershire is £163,111,886; the total value of applications from Tewkesbury is £22,987,247. These figures exclude applications to the Millennium Commission and the New Opportunities Fund, and the 96W
  figure for Tewkesbury also excludes applications to the Arts Council of England, as these bodies do not hold information in the form requested.

  Film
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the roles of the Film Council and the British Film Institute in supporting the national and regional development of film and moving image exhibitions, education and archives.
  [111365]

  Janet Anderson
  From April 2000, Government funding to support film and moving image culture will flow through the Film Council. The Film Council will develop a cultural strategy in close consultation with the British Film Institute, and agree broad objectives with the BFI arising from the strategy. The BFI will then develop detailed plans for the delivery of those objectives in its specialist areas, education, exhibition and collections. The BFI and the Film Council will also work closely with regional partners to ensure wide access to the benefits of Government support.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111595]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department's current Green Housekeeping Strategy and Action Plan requires for paper usage:

  To use recycled paper containing 80 per cent. post consumer waste for all non-specialist printing, copying and stationery needs—specifying that the virgin pulp (if any) and the recycling process is chlorine free.

  This target is regularly exceeded as paper containing 100 per cent. post consumer waste is used for all non-specialised printing and copying within the Department. We also specify in contracts to our consultants and contractors that, wherever possible, their documents and reports meet the same standards.

  All waste paper within the Department is collected separately for recycling.

  Foreign Film Companies
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what levels of inward investment have resulted from the activities of foreign-owned film companies in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years. [110825]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Information on the levels of inward investment into the UK by foreign-owned film companies is available only from 1992. The figures are as follows:

  Total film inward investment

  Year

  £ millions

  1992

  58.50

  1993

  127.74

  1994

  182.65

  97W

  Total film inward investment

  Year

  £ millions

  1995

  216.45

  1996

  387.1

  1997

  261.90

  1998

  214.20

  1999

  336.37

  Note:

  The figures cover the total cost of films made in the UK by foreign-owned companies, not just the expenditure in the UK. However, this will be offset by expenditure in the UK on post-production of films shot outside the UK.

  Source:

  British Film Commission.

  Tourism Summit
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport where the Tourism Summit will be held. [112081]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Summit will be held at the conference facilities of The Globe Theatre in London.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many representatives of small business have been invited to the Tourism Summit. [112084]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have encouraged small businesses, and all tourism businesses, to participate fully in the Tourism Forum. As our strategy, Tomorrow's Tourism, promised, it is through the Forum that the industry reports on progress made with the strategy, and it is to the Forum that I will report back the achievements of the Tourism Summit in April.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Tourism Summit will discuss Government funding of tourism. [112082]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government set out their public expenditure plans, including the plans for tourism, in 1998. These are plans for a period of three years and, as with other public expenditure plans, will be reviewed during the course of this year.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 537W, if he will place a copy of the standard research contract currently in use by his Department in the Library. [111674]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have placed a copy of the draft contract in the Library of the House.

  Sporting Events
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are being taken to ensure that major United Kingdom and international sporting events hosted in the United Kingdom benefit all the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. [110605]

  Kate Hoey
  This Government place great importance on a fair geographical spread of major international events so that all of the UK may enjoy the sporting and wider benefits from staging such events. Last year, for example,98W
  matches in the Rugby Union World Cup and the Cricket World Cup were played throughout the UK. To ensure a fair distribution, UK Sport is now a Lottery distributor and funding is available on an equal basis to events throughout the UK. Indeed, in 1999 and 2000, Lottery funding was allocated or will be allocated for some 13 major events in all four home countries.

  Museum Admission Charges
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding admission charges for museums. [110604]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Funds have been made available to permit free access for children since April 1999 and free access for pensioners from April 2000 to the currently charging national museums funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We are continuing to assess the most effective ways of extending access in 2001. However, decisions will ultimately be taken by the Trustees.

  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make the provision of free and concessionary tickets for young people for admission to museums and galleries a condition of funding by his Department. [110623]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Funds have been made available to permit free access for children (defined as 16s and under) since April 1999, to the currently charging national museums funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  BBC
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the written submissions made to(a) The Peacock Committee on financing the BBC, (b) the 1988 White Paper "Broadcasting in the Nineties" and (c) the Davies Inquiry into BBC funding. [109994]

  Janet Anderson
  The organisations which submitted evidence to the Peacock Committee and to the Davies panel are listed in Annexe B and Annexe 4 of the respective reports, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. The Government have published a list of the organisations which responded to the public consultation on the Davies panel's report when it announces its decisions on the panel's recommendations. This information for the 1988 White Paper, "Broadcasting In The Nineties", is not available.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [110193]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Forest Stewardship Council label is accepted by buyers as demonstrating that timber and timber products have come from sustainably managed sources. However, it is a voluntary scheme and there are other, equally valid verification schemes. Consequently, it is not practicable to require that all paper and timber
  99W
  products purchased by the Department are certified solely by the FSC because this might discriminate against other products and therefore be contrary to public procurement rules. It might also result in the Department failing to meet its full requirements as currently only a small proportion of timber products are FSC certified.

  The Department's Green Housekeeping Strategy includes as its first aim the conservation of energy, water, wood, paper and other resources, particularly those that are scarce or non-renewable. For timber products, the accompanying Action Plan requires the Department to:

  To purchase sustainably produced timber and timber products which, as far as possible, come from forests and plantations that have been independently verified as well managed with the trees grown and harvested in a way which maintains biodiversity, productivity and vitality and prevents harm to other eco-systems and any indigenous people or forest-dependent people; and to consider buying reclaimed or products made from reclaimed timber where cost effective and practicable to do so.

  For paper and paper products, the Action Plan requires the Department

  To use recycled paper containing 80 per cent. post consumer waste for all non-specialist printing, copying and stationery needs—specifying that the virgin pulp (if any) and the recycling process is chlorine free.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110192]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department's Green Housekeeping Strategy includes as its first aim the conservation of energy, water, wood, paper and other resources, particularly those that are scarce or non-renewable. For timber products, the accompanying Action Plan requires the Department

  To purchase sustainably produced timber and timber products which, as far as possible, come from forests and plantations that have been independently verified as well managed with the trees grown and harvested in a way which maintains biodiversity, productivity and vitality and prevents harm to other eco-systems and any indigenous people or forest-dependent people; and to consider buying reclaimed or products made from reclaimed timber where cost effective and practicable to do so.

  For paper and paper products, the Action Plan requires the Department

  To use recycled paper containing 80 per cent. post consumer waste for all non-specialist printing, copying and stationery needs—specifying that the virgin pulp (if any) and the recycling process is chlorine free.

  The Department pursues these aims by requesting that suppliers provide relevant evidence (independently verified if necessary) that such products come from sustainable sources. An example of this is the Forest Stewardship Council's "kitemark". In addition, we check requirements against the DETR publication "Green Guide for Buyers—a Checklist".

  Departmental Secondees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109292]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: In my Department, secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  The staff seconded from the private sector to my Department are as follows:
  (a) One secondment for the period May 1997 to April 1998 from Trench Farrow and Partners, who left in December 1998. One specialist from the music sector was employed on a short term contract during this period and this arrangement continues.
  (b) There were no new secondments during the period May 1998 to April 1999. One specialist from the music sector was employed on a short term contract during this period and this arrangement continues.
  (c) There have been no new secondments from the private sector since May 1999 but two specialists from the tourism and sports sectors have been employed on short term contracts and these arrangements continue.

  National Lottery Grants (Burton)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for National Lottery grants have been received to date from organisations within the Burton constituency; and how many have been successful. [110741]

  Kate Hoey
  188 applications for National Lottery grants have been received to date from organisations in the Burton constituency. Of these, 71 applications have been successful. The total number of applications and the number of successful awards exclude figures from the Millennium Commission which does not hold the information in the form requested.

  Sports Action Zones
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has for funding local community sports areas to serve housing estates(a) within Sports Action Zones and (b) outside designated Sports Action Zones. [111113]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: Sport England will allocate at least two-thirds of the planned budget of the Lottery Sports Fund of £200 million per year over the next 10 years to the Community Projects Fund supporting community sports provision for all. As a priority, it will ensure that at leat 50 per cent. of this money is invested in projects which will benefit communities in areas of deprivation such as Sport Action Zones.

  Broadcasting and Telecommunications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department is the lead department in respect of the forthcoming paper on broadcasting and telecommunications issues. [111497]
  102W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry are assuming joint and equal responsibility for the preparation of the White Paper on the reform of broadcasting and communications legislation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from ethnic minorities have been recruited to each of the services for which his Department has set recruitment targets since the targets were established; how many personnel from ethnic minorities have left, prior to normal retirement age, each of these services in the same period; and if he will make a statement. [111319]

  Mr. Straw
  I published on 28 July 1999 targets for the employment of ethnic minority staff in the Home Office and its service areas, that is the police, fire, prison and the probation services. The purpose of these race equality employment targets is to help ensure that these organisations are representative of the communities they serve, and thereby better able to serve them.

  In the targets publication a commitment was given to report on progress annually. It is expect that the first report will be published in October this year. This is the date by which up to date information on progress within the financial year 1999–2000 on the targets from all the services will be available; such information is not readily available at the moment.

  Advertising Budget
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost of issuing a media release from his Department in 1999. [110275]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: Some 450 press releases were issued in 1999. The primary cost of issuing press releases relates to their electronic distribution which is carried out through the Central Office of Information, and postage. Electronic news distribution charges amounted to £21,095 and postage approximately £12,000 for the financial year 1999–2000. No central record of other costs which might be involved (eg faxing, e-mail) is available. The variation in the distribution and length of press releases and in their

  £000

  New initiative receiving grant funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Crime reduction programme

  Crime reduction partnership training and support

  —

  —

  800

  Reducing burglary

  —

  —

  600

  Targeted policing

  —

  —

  600

  On track

  —

  —

  200

  Work with offenders

  —

  —

  900

  Intervention in schools

  —

  —

  600

  Youth inclusion schemes

  —

  —

  100

  Sentencing and restorative justice

  —

  —

  200

  Design against crime

  —

  —

  400

  Development of arrest referral schemes

  —

  —

  700

  Council for the registration of forensic practitioners

  —

  —

  200

  CCTV initiative

  15,000

  1,500

  3,600

  Support for victims

  Payment of grant to the 'support after murder and manslaughter' charity

  —

  43

  100

  Community support grants

  Active community initiatives

  —

  —

  700

  Older volunteers initiative

  —

  —

  788

  Regional voluntary sector networks

  —

  —

  573

  104W
  preparation, combined with the fact that many include accompanying documents, makes the calculation of a robust average charge an exercise which would be disproportionately costly.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110262]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: The Home Office advertising budget for financial year 1999–2000 is £5.9 million.

  The Home Office advertising budget for financial year 2000–01 has not yet been decided.

  Police (Port Duties)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are employed specifically on port duties at each of the major ports in England and Wales. [110469]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Operational deployment of police officers is a matter for the Chief Constable. Details of the number of police based at each port in England and Wales is not collated centrally.

  Grants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [109318]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: The information requested for the three financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 is provided in the following table. The figures for 1999–2000 are estimates. The figures do not take account of any locally funded initiatives undertaken by individual prisons nor all those funded by Non-Departmental Public Bodies, as such details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The table does not include specific grants to bodies where these were first initiated before May 1997.
  105W

  £000

  New initiative receiving grant funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Support for community self-help

  —

  —

  420

  Business partnerships

  —

  —

  137

  Drugs prevention advisory service

  National drugs users network

  —

  —

  25

  Family support grant

  National family and parenting institute

  —

  —

  200

  Family support grant

  —

  —

  1,000

  ParentLine

  —

  —

  333

  Fire service youth training association

  25

  0

  25

  Reception and resettlement of refugees

  Montseratt community support trust

  723

  511

  537

  Kosovan evacuees (support for local authorities)

  —

  —

  45,000

  Kosovan evacuees: support for voluntary bodies

  —

  —

  9,612

  National asylum support services (NASS)

  Refugee council

  —

  —

  930

  Central services team

  —

  —

  160

  Refugee council offices

  —

  —

  54

  Migrant helpline

  —

  —

  294

  Refugee arrivals project

  —

  —

  293

  Refugee action

  —

  —

  304

  Scottish refugee council

  —

  —

  128

  Welsh refugee council

  —

  —

  35

  Youth justice board

  Grants for the development of good practice in work with young offenders and those at risk of offending

  —

  —

  30,800

  Grant to the women's aid federation (England)

  —

  —

  12

  Prison service initiatives

  Partners of prisoners' support groups

  —

  27

  —

  Federation of prisoners' families support groups

  —

  19

  —

  Institute of linguists educational trust

  —

  3

  —

  Prisoners' community liaison

  —

  9

  —

  Female prisoners' welfare project

  —

  20

  —

  The new bridge to support rehabilitative projects

  —

  20

  20

  Prisons video trust

  —

  —

  70

  Literacy and black incarceration project

  —

  —

  7

  1 The funding for 1999–2000 is estimated as final figures cannot be provided until the end of the current financial year

  Police Officers (Insurance)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers(a) in each police authority and (b) as a percentage of officers employed do not hold (i) occupational accident and (ii) ill-health insurance. [110930]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Although there is no requirement for police officers to obtain ill health or accident insurance, or for police authorities to provide such cover, I understand that some forces have set up their own contributory health trusts and that others encourage police officers to take out private health insurance. All forces also offer medical support services and can provide additional specialist medical treatment for police officers where necessary.

  The Police Pension Scheme provides a range of benefits in respect of police officers who become disabled or die in service.

  Prison Service (Disability Legislation)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the application of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 to the Prison Service. [112123]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has recognised the responsibilities placed on it by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and has already adopted good practice in the areas of recruitment, training and promotion of staff. It welcomes the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission and the role it will play in protecting the rights of disabled people. As a disability symbol user it demonstrates the importance it places on achieving equality of opportunity for people with disabilities.

  The Prison Service has a duty of care to all prisoners and its policies towards disabled prisoners have been developed to meet the requirements of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Goods, Facilities and

  107W
  Services). These policies require that disabled prisoners have equality of opportunity to access a range of facilities such as work, education and programmes.

  Gammahydroxybutyrate
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to reclassify gammahydroxybutyrate as a drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; [111876]

  (2) if he will reclassify gammahydroxybutyrate as a drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and if he will make a statement; [111721]

  (3) what plans he has for an announcement about the reclassification of GHB from a medicine to a drug. [111161]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB) is not licensed as a medicinal product in the United Kingdom but is regarded as an unlicensed "medicinal product" under the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968. The Medicines Control Agency investigates reports of the unlawful manufacture, advertising sale and supply of GHB in the United Kingdom and has brought a number of successful prosecutions in the last few years.

  With regard to the question of the classification of GHB under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, South (Ms Drown), on 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 95W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Cotswold will receive a definitive reply from the Immigration and Nationality Department to his letters of 2 August 1999, 2 September 1999 and 9 October 1999, in the case of Mr. Resal Cerikan and leave to remain in the UK (IND Ref: C1000625 (S) (C449744)). [111792]

  Mrs. Roche
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 24 February. I am sorry for the delay.

  Women Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prison officers were working in segregation units of prison in England and Wales on 1 February. [111934]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total number of women prison officer grades working in public sector prisons in England and Wales on 1 February was 3,543.

  It is not possible to provide data for those working solely in segregation units as staff may be deployed to any part of the prison at any time and records are not available centrally for specific units or wings.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to encourage people to install smoke detectors in their homes. [112316]
  108W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Smoke detectors make a significant contribution to the protection of life and property from fire and we would want all households to have them.

  Current Building Regulations require all new dwellings in England and Wales to have a smoke detector system installed. Publicity and education have in recent years helped raise smoke alarm ownership levels from less than 10 per cent. of households in 1987 to over 80 per cent. But we are determined to increase this further and the Home Office National Community Fire Safety Centre will be running a fresh campaign with the fire service later this year to reaffirm the value of smoke detectors in giving early warning in the event of fire.

  Hillsborough Inquiry
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000,Official Report, column 259W, on the Hillsborough inquiry, (a) when the material is to be loaned to the designated library and (b) to which library it is to be loaned. [111718]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that the House Library hopes to finalise arrangements shortly for the papers to be sent to the Liverpool Record Office at the Liverpool Central Library.

  Supporting Families
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what uses(a) ParentLine and (b) the National Family and Parenting Institute have put grant given to them from public funds since publication of the consultation document, Supporting Families; and if he will make a statement. [111806]

  Mr. Straw
  In the first year of their three year grant from the Home Office; ParentLine has launched a new national freephone number, with expanded operating hours. ParentLine has expanded its call taking capacity by taking on and training volunteers, and has developed a national structure, training, standards and call data analysis. ParentLine has expanded its call-taking capacity from 12,000 to 80,000, and will reach its eventual target of 500,000 calls per year by April 2002.

  The National Family and Parenting Institute (NFPI) was formally incorporated as a company with a board of trustees in April 1999. The first Chief Executive, Mary McLeod, was appointed in September and started work in October. Government funding for the NFPI began in October 1999. Since then, the Institute had its official launch in November, and has been engaged in recruiting staff, locating premises, and building a strategy and corporate plan. A key focus for these first months is developing awareness of the role and vision of the NFPI, and raising the profile of parenting and family issues in the media.

  The Institute has also started on some major pieces of work that will be completed by the end of this year. For example, the Institute has begun an exercise to map

  109W
  the support available to families at local level across the country. They will also take forward a face to face survey of parents to ask them about the support they want.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will state in respect of each of the last five years(a) the number of asylum decisions taken broken down by the nationality of claimants and (b) the number of claimants of each nationality who were (i) accepted as refugees, (ii) refused refugee status and (iii) granted exceptional leave to remain; [111886]

  (2) if he will list for each of the last five years the number of asylum claims in the United Kingdom broken down by the nationality of the claimant. [111887]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information regarding asylum applications, by nationality, for each of the years 1995 to 1998, is given in Table 2.2 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, 1998". Information on asylum decisions made, by type and nationality during this period is given in tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the same publication, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Information on asylum applications made in 1999, by nationality, is given in the table. Similar information on decisions made, by nationality, is not yet available. Figures for total asylum decisions made in 1999 can be accessed via the Internet at.http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  New asylum applications1,2 received in the United Kingdom, 1999

  Year to December

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  80

  Cyprus

  20

  Poland

  1,860

  Romania

  1,985

  Former USSR

  4,105

  Turkey

  2,850

  Former Yugoslavia

  14,180

  Others

  3,200

  Total

  28,280

  Americas

  Columbia

  1,000

  Others

  1,025

  Total

  2,025

  Middle East

  Iran

  1,320

  Iraq

  1,800

  Lebanon

  240

  Others

  805

  Total

  4,165

  Africa

  Algeria

  1,385

  Angola

  545

  Cameroon

  245

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  1,240

  110W

  New asylum applications1,2 received in the United Kingdom, 1999

  Year to December

  Ethiopia

  455

  Gambia

  30

  Ghana

  195

  Ivory Coast

  190

  Kenya

  485

  Liberia

  65

  Nigeria

  945

  Rwanda

  820

  Sierra Leone

  1,125

  Somalia

  7,495

  South Africa

  90

  Sudan

  280

  Tanzania

  80

  Togo

  60

  Uganda

  420

  Zimbabwe

  230

  Others

  2,045

  Total

  18,435

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  3,975

  Bangladesh

  530

  China

  2,625

  India

  1,365

  Pakistan

  2,615

  Sri Lanka

  5,130

  Others

  1,225

  Total

  17,465

  Other and unknown nationalities

  785

  Grand Total

  71,160

  1 Excluding dependants

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers left the United Kingdom in each of the last five years(a) voluntarily, (b) through administrative removal, (c) through deportation and (d) following enforcement action; and if he will make a statement. [111888]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information, relating to removals and voluntary departures of persons who have applied for asylum at Some stage, is given in the table. Failed asylum seekers are removed only once all their rights of appeal in the United Kingdom have been exhausted. It should be noted that the figures include those removed on a third country basis and may include some persons who withdrew their asylum application or appeal before a decision or determination had been reached. Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which provides for the administrative removal of certain categories of persons currently liable to deportation, has yet to be brought into force.

  Removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1995 to 1999 1

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999 1

  Removals under port procedures

  Refused and Removed of which:

  1,890

  2,695

  4,100

  3,460

  4,895

  Voluntary departures3

  615

  715

  1,090

  1,105

  2—

  111W

  Removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1995 to 1999 1

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999 1

  Removals under enforcement procedures

  Deportation removals

  225

  405

  455

  350

  140

  Of which:

  Voluntary departures4,5

  50

  95

  135

  100

  2—

  Illegal entry removals

  1,065

  1,740

  2,605

  3,090

  2,610

  Of which:

  Voluntary departures4,5

  240

  330

  580

  620

  2—

  Total asylum removals

  3,180

  4,840

  7,160

  6,900

  7,645

  Of which:

  Voluntary departures3,4,5

  905

  1,140

  1,805

  1,825

  2—

  1 Figures are provisional

  2 Not available

  3 Includes voluntary departures up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application for port applicants

  4 Includes only those voluntary departures taking place after the initiation of enforcement action for in-country applicants

  5 1998 voluntary departures are estimated

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use Adamton House at Prestwick for accommodation for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [111989]

  Mrs. Roche
  A general invitation to tender for the provision of accommodation and related services as part of our new support arrangements for asylum seekers was issued last November. We are currently holding discussions with prospective suppliers aimed at enabling contracts to be awarded very shortly. Information provided by suppliers within the tender process, including property details, is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers entered the United Kingdom during 1999; and how many have been placed in accommodation in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [111308]

  Mrs. Roche
  Total asylum applications in 1999 were 71,160. Information is not held centrally on where these asylum seekers have been accommodated.

  Under the interim dispersal scheme which started on 6 December 1999, a total of 1,288 asylum applicants to date have been dispersed from London and the South East to other areas of the country. All of these were dispersed to areas in England. Scotland and Northern Ireland are not included in the interim scheme.

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence between himself and the Committee on Standards in Public Life relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill since the first reading of the Bill. [111919]
  112W
  Mr. Straw
  Yes. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, on 22 December 1999 and 17 January 2000, and he replied to the second of my letters on 4 February 2000. Copies of the three letters have been placed in the Library.

  Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of the Metropolitan Police Service with regard to the(a) reviewing of applications, (b) re-interviewing of applicants and (c) employment of applicants for recruitment in cases where applications have been declined after an interview. [111813]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the Metropolitan Police are reviewing their recruitment process. As part of this, about 1,000 applications which were rejected in the last half of 1999 are being reviewed. Where, as a result, applicants might now appear suitable, they are being asked whether they wish to pursue their original application.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recruits to the Metropolitan Police Service have been employed notwithstanding the fact that their applications were initially declined after an interview in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date. [111814]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 409W, on the Criminal Records Bureau, if he will list the members of the SERCO-led consortium. [111097]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In the e.Cres consortium, the prime contractor is SERCO, with DeLoitte Consulting and ICL as sub-contractors.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has involved the Family Policy Division of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Visitor of the Court of Protection in the review by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the full capacity requirement for renunciation of British citizenship and applications for it under the British Nationality Act 1981; [111409]

  (2) when he will publish the report of the review by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the full capacity requirement for renunciation of British citizenship and applications for it under the British Nationality Act 1981; and whether he will consult (a) MIND, (b) SANE, (c) NSF, (d) the Zito Trust and (e) other organisations concerned with mental health before deciding finally on any changes to the law or regulation. [111408]
  113W
  Mrs. Roche
  It is not possible to say when the review will be completed. It is being conducted as other priorities permit. I shall, of course, take note of my hon. Friend's suggestions as to who might be consulted.

  Prison Nursing Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce prison nursing services run jointly with the local NHS trust hospital in the area of the prison; and if he will make a statement. [111465]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Improvements to the way nursing services are organised and delivered in prison are an essential part of the reforms to prison healthcare now underway following the Government's acceptance of the recommendations in the joint Prison Service/ National Health Service Executive report, 'The Future Organisation of Healthcare' published in March 1999.

  Prisons and health authorities are jointly assessing prisoners' health needs at establishment level in order to identify, among other things, ways of delivering nursing services which both meet those needs and are integrated with local provision. One particular objective will be to ensure that nursing staff who work in prisons enjoy the same level of professional involvement, clinical supervision and training as their colleagues who work in the National Health Service. To assist this my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for the Home Office asked Ms Liz Haggard of the Office of Public Management to chair a working group to consider the development of the prison nursing workforce, with particular reference to healthcare officers, and report, with recommendations, by mid-March 2000.

  Prison Segregation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were being held in segregation units of prisons in England and Wales on 14 February. [111464]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 14 February 2000, there were 1,433 men and 13 women recorded as being held in segregation units in prisons in England and Wales.

  Prisons (Disabled People)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many disabled people were in prison in England and Wales on 14 February; [111467]

  (2) how many disabled (a) men and (b) women who were confined to wheelchairs were being held in prisons in England and Wales on 14 February. [111466]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Prisoners (Controls and Constraints)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the control and constraints that are permitted to be used on inmates in prisons in England and Wales; what records the prison authorities must keep 114W
  of their use; what obligation there is for the governor of the prison to be informed immediately of the use of such restraints; and if he will make a statement. [111141]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The various control and restraint techniques and the authority for their use on prisoners in England and Wales are contained in Prison Service Order 1600 (Use of Force) and Standing Order 13 (Health Matters), copies of which are in the Library. The Orders make clear that only reasonable force may ever be used and that on every occasion that it is a formal record must be made and kept. Whenever the use of force is planned it is authorised by the governor. However, officers may use force in immediate response to violent incidents when it is impractical to obtain the prior authority of the governor.

  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many board of visitors annual reports for 1999 have been received by his Department; and if he will list the boards of visitors and the prisons for which they are responsible. [111463]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Annual reports to my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary for 1999 had been received from the 80 Boards of Visitors listed in the table as at 18 February 2000. Reports from the remaining 53 boards due to submit their annual report for 1999 should be received by 31 March 2000.

  Of the 80 Boards of Visitors only one—Grendon/ Springhill—has responsibility for more than one establishment.

  1999 Annual Reports received from Boards of Visitors
  Establishment

  Acklington

  Albany

  Aldington

  Altcourse

  Ashwell

  Askham Grange

  Aylesbury

  Bedford

  Belmarsh

  Birmingham

  Blakenhurst

  Blantyre House

  Blundeston

  Brinsford

  Bristol

  Brixton

  Brockhill

  Buckley Hall

  Bullingdon

  Bullwood Hall

  115W

  Camp Hill

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Chelmsford

  Coldingley

  Cookham Wood

  Dartmoor

  Deerbolt

  Doncaster

  Dorchester

  Dover

  Downview

  Drake Hall

  Durham

  East Sutton Park

  Eastwood Park

  Elmley

  Erlestoke

  Everthorpe

  Exeter

  Featherstone

  Feltham

  Ford

  Foston Hall

  Frankland

  Full Sutton

  Garth

  Gartree

  Glen Parva

  Gloucester

  Grendon/Springhill

  Guys Marsh

  Haslar

  Hatfield

  Haverigg

  Hewell Grange

  High Down

  Hindley

  Hollesley Bay

  Huntercombe

  Kirkham

  Kirklevington

  Lancaster Farms

  Latchmere House

  Leeds

  Lewes

  Leyhill

  Lindholme

  Liverpool

  Maidstone

  Manchester

  North Sea Camp

  Northallerton

  Portland

  Ranby

  Reading

  Risley

  Rochester

  Send

  Shepton Mallet.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of documentation used by his Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111602]

  Mr. Straw
  Records on the volume of documentation or the percentage of paper recycled in my department are not kept. Trials are being undertaken into various types of recycled paper to establish the practicalities of committing to a policy that stipulates the use of recycled paper. All offices in my department's Central London headquarters buildings have green bins for recycled paper and most of the key buildings across the estate have paper recycling schemes. The department will shortly be undertaking pilot waste minimisation schemes in three different buildings on the estate with the aim of reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill.

  The Prison Service has recently set up a Service wide waste management project. The project will identify areas where wastage can be reduced and will address the efficient and effective disposal of prison waste and the recycling of usable waste. Recyclable materials, such as paper will be reprocessed.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian employees were employed in the Kingston Division of the Metropolitan Police in each of the years 1992 to 2000; and if he will make a statement. [111305]

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

  Kingston Police Division

  Year

  Police officers

  Civilian staff

  1992

  403

  61

  1993

  375.4

  63

  1994

  395.7

  66

  1995

  373

  85

  1996

  393.3

  97

  1997

  362

  87

  1998

  335

  83

  1999

  313

  78

  2000

  323

  73.5

  Note:

  Figures reflect the position at 31 January of each year.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police station front offices closed to the public in(a) the Kingston Division and (b) the Metropolitan Police area in each of the years 1992 to 2000; and if he will make a statement. [111306]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Police informs me that following a review of demand and after consultation with the community, one police station front counter was closed in the Kingston Division in each of the years 1995, 1998 and 1999. There was no such closure in any other year from 1992. Details of police station front counter closures for the entire Metropolitan Police District are not recorded centrally,
  117W
  and cannot readily be obtained from local records because of the extensive reorganisation of territorial commands in the period concerned.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many special constables were recruited by each of the police forces in England and Wales between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999; [111474]

  (2) how many special constables left each of the police forces in England and Wales between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999. [111472]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The numbers of special constables who were recruited to and left each of the police force special constabularies in England and Wales between 1 October 1998 and 30 September 1999 is set out in the table.

  Force

  Recruited

  Left the special constabulary

  Avon and Somerset

  50

  152

  Bedfordshire

  14

  40

  Cambridgeshire

  62

  62

  Cheshire

  18

  51

  City of London

  16

  19

  Cleveland

  33

  32

  Cumbria

  20

  36

  Derbyshire

  30

  82

  Devon and Cornwall

  162

  136

  Dorset

  46

  45

  Durham

  47

  30

  Dyfed-Powys

  28

  41

  Essex

  67

  118

  Gloucestershire

  18

  33

  Greater Manchester

  82

  151

  Gwent

  13

  18

  Hampshire

  176

  203

  Hertfordshire

  34

  63

  Humberside

  125

  54

  Kent

  119

  200

  Lancashire

  47

  87

  Leicestershire

  18

  66

  Lincolnshire

  31

  42

  Merseyside

  105

  13

  Metropolitan police

  1—

  73

  Norfolk

  55

  88

  Northamptonshire

  22

  66

  Northumbria

  68

  79

  North Wales

  29

  86

  North Yorkshire

  16

  104

  Nottinghamshire

  38

  74

  South Wales

  43

  54

  South Yorkshire

  56

  101

  Staffordshire

  20

  82

  Suffolk

  103

  93

  Surrey

  21

  41

  Sussex

  47

  90

  Thames Valley

  65

  101

  Warwickshire

  20

  95

  West Mercia

  84

  33

  West Midlands

  119

  175

  West Yorkshire

  137

  149

  Wiltshire

  37

  28

  Total

  2,341

  3,386

  1 The number of special constables recruited to the Metropolitan police during the period is not yet available

  Source:

  Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office

  DNA Database
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the national DNA database in identifying offenders. [111483]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since it began operating in April 1995, the National DNA Database, operated by the Forensic Science Service on behalf of the police, has proved a highly effective intelligence tool in the fight against crime.

  The Database identifies possible suspects of a crime through matching DNA from unsolved crime scene stains with DNA profiles of convicted or suspected people held on the Database. The average match rate is more than 40 per cent. and approximately 500 matches are reported each week to the police for investigation.

  PR and Marketing Consultants
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) reasons for and (b) cost of the use of public relations and marketing consultants by his Department since 1997. [111510]

  Mr. Straw
  Public relations and marketing consultants are used only where new knowledge and experience is needed which adds value to the Home Office's activities and where the expertise is not available in house or from another source. Cost for the period since 1997 is £111,919.00.

  Police Station Closures
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations have closed to the public in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 (i) in each police force area save the Metropolitan Police area and (ii) in the Metropolitan Police area. [111449]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Decisions on the siting and need for police stations are matters for the Chief Officer's operational judgment within the resources available.

  Rural Policing
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will take into account the recommendations resulting from his Department's research into the cost of policing in rural areas in deciding the police funding formula for 2001–02; [111515]

  (2) what plans he has to implement the recommendations resulting from his Department's research into the cost of policing in rural areas. [111451]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The findings of the independent research report on policing sparsely populated rural areas were considered by a Home Office chaired Working Group, which included representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities, last summer. There was no single view within the Working Group on the conclusions of the report. There was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected, but less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula.
  119W
  We have also taken into consideration the need for stability in the police funding system to enable police authorities to plan ahead. In the July 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch With the People", my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that we would not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) while a fundamental review of the local government grant distribution system is being conducted. This applies equally to the method of police grant distribution, as a common formula is used for distribution of police grant and SSA.

  In the light of these factors we have not made any changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. The Government do not intend to make substantive changes to the funding formula during the more general review of the local government grant distribution system that is being taken forward in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.

  Rural police forces will continue to benefit from the existing 'sparsity' element of the funding formula. This element allocates 0.5 per cent. of the available funding (about £35 million) on a judgmental basis.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Service
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities have signed an initial letter of consent to take the Public Safety Radio Communications Service; and if he will list them. [111471]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Thirty nine out of the 43 police authorities in England and Wales have written, to date, to the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which is responsible for the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) to confirm their intention of taking up the Public Safety Radio Communications Service. These authorities are listed as follows:

  Police authorities which have notified PITO of their intention to take up the Public Safety Radio Communications Service

  Avon and Somerset

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  City of London

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon and Cornwall

  Dorset

  Durham

  Dyfed-Powys

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Greater Manchester

  Gwent

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  120W

  Lincolnshire

  Metropolitan

  Norfolk

  North Wales

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumbria

  Nottinghamshire

  South Wales

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Thames Valley

  Warwickshire

  West Mercia

  Wiltshire.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on whether the implementation of the Public Safety Radio Communications Service is dependent on the number of police authorities who sign up to the project. [111470]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The overwhelming majority of police authorities in England and Wales, 39 out of 43, have already indicated that they intend, subject to satisfaction with the terms, to sign service contracts for the Public Safety Radio Communications Service (PSRCS). On the basis of their support, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is prepared to authorise signature of the Framework Arrangement by the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which is responsible for managing the Public Safety Radio Communications Project, provided negotiations are satisfactorily concluded and the necessary approvals secured.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the cost of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project will be met by police authorities. [111379]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The cost of the core service for the Public Safety Radio Communications Project represents approximately 80 per cent. of the total service charges for police forces in England and Wales. This is to be funded centrally by means of deduction from total police grant provision.

  The cost of services additional to the core service, the so called 'menu services', which all forces will purchase according to their own requirements, accounts for the remaining 20 per cent.

  Separately from the core and menu service charges, forces will need to purchase control room and radio terminal equipment along with system integration services. Based upon our understanding of the police service's overall requirements, it is estimated that the initial purchase and subsequent replacement costs total around £300 million in Net Present Cost terms over the Public Safety Radio Communications Service life.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers were available for ordinary duty, by rank, for each of the police forces in England and Wales on 30 September 1999; [111513]

  Police strength in England and Wales—total strength for ordinary duty as at 30 September 1999

  All ranks 1

  Police force

  Chief Constable

  Assistant Chief Constable

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total police ranks 1

  Avon and Somerset

  1.0

  3.0

  23.0

  36.0

  147.6

  452.4

  2,325.7

  2,988.7

  Bedfordshire

  1.0

  2.0

  13.0

  10.0

  54.8

  141.5

  826.1

  1,048.4

  Cambridgeshire

  1.0

  2.0

  14.0

  13.0

  61.3

  203.5

  977.4

  1,272.2

  Cheshire

  1.0

  3.0

  19.0

  30.0

  98.0

  328.0

  1,564.6

  2,043.6

  City of London

  1.0

  2.0

  8.0

  12.0

  46.0

  100.8

  574.8

  744.6

  Cleveland

  1.0

  1.0

  24.0

  2.0

  60.0

  196.0

  1,088.6

  1,372.6

  Cumbria

  1.0

  2.0

  10.0

  19.0

  51.0

  170.0

  839.9

  1,092.9

  Derbyshire

  1.0

  3.0

  23.0

  28.0

  94.0

  289.0

  1,325.6

  1,763.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  1.0

  4.0

  33.0

  45.0

  133.0

  422.8

  2,222.3

  2,861.1

  Dorset

  1.0

  2.0

  17.0

  22.0

  66.0

  204.1

  964.1

  1,276.1

  Durham

  1.0

  2.0

  18.0

  24.0

  77.0

  208.7

  1,224.0

  1,554.6

  Dyfed Powys

  1.0

  2.0

  15.0

  18.0

  46.0

  179.0

  787.6

  1,048.6

  Essex

  1.0

  3.0

  24.0

  46.0

  124.0

  446.4

  2,190.3

  2,834.7

  Gloucestershire

  1.0

  2.0

  10.0

  15.0

  55.0

  162.2

  852.8

  1,098.0

  Greater Manchester

  1.0

  6.0

  79.0

  89.0

  337.3

  999.6

  5,298.4

  6,810.3

  Gwent

  0.0

  0.0

  14.0

  16.0

  54.0

  200.0

  977.3

  1,261.3

  Hampshire

  1.0

  3.0

  39.4

  36.0

  164.8

  531.4

  2,635.2

  3,410.8

  Hertfordshire

  1.0

  3.0

  20.0

  23.0

  96.0

  259.3

  1,357.7

  1,760.0

  Humberside

  1.0

  2.0

  20.0

  26.0

  103.0

  279.6

  1,494.6

  1,926.2

  Kent

  1.0

  4.0

  26.0

  38.0

  142.0

  473.4

  2,572.3

  3,256.7

  Lancashire

  1.0

  3.0

  34.0

  36.0

  164.0

  519.1

  2,464.4

  3,221.4

  Leicestershire

  1.0

  3.0

  16.0

  19.0

  95.0

  271.4

  1,592.1

  1,997.5

  Lincolnshire

  1.0

  2.0

  11.0

  17.0

  65.0

  185.5

  829.3

  1,110.8

  Merseyside

  1.0

  3.0

  50.0

  55.0

  176.0

  615.8

  3,170.1

  4,070.8

  Metropolitan police2

  7.0

  29.0

  214.0

  388.6

  1,208.5

  4,050.9

  19,986.5

  25,884.5

  Norfolk

  1.0

  2.0

  17.0

  22.0

  73.0

  203.4

  1,063.2

  1,381.5

  Northamptonshire

  1.0

  2.0

  12.0

  10.0

  50.6

  174.1

  880.3

  1,130.0

  Northumbria

  1.0

  4.0

  36.0

  56.0

  183.8

  532.9

  2,986.4

  3,800.1

  North Wales

  1.0

  1.0

  16.0

  29.0

  71.0

  232.0

  1,049.0

  1,399.0

  North Yorkshire

  1.0

  1.0

  12.0

  12.0

  53.0

  215.5

  999.2

  1,293.7

  Nottinghamshire

  1.0

  3.0

  21.0

  19.6

  117.0

  328.0

  1,737.4

  2,227.0

  South Wales

  1.0

  4.0

  30.0

  36.0

  159.0

  442.0

  2,311.0

  2,983.0

  South Yorkshire

  1.0

  4.0

  38.0

  46.0

  168.0

  485.8

  2,422.2

  3,165.0

  Staffordshire

  1.0

  3.0

  21.0

  27.0

  112.0

  337.7

  1,704.3

  2,206.0

  Suffolk

  1.0

  2.0

  13.0

  15.0

  55.0

  171.4

  902.6

  1,160.0

  Surrey

  1.0

  3.0

  16.0

  19.0

  76.5

  261.8

  1,343.9

  1,721.1

  Sussex

  1.0

  4.0

  27.0

  38.0

  152.4

  466.0

  2,221.0

  2,909.3

  Thames Valley

  1.0

  3.0

  43.0

  28.0

  194.0

  565.4

  2,915.2

  3,749.5

  Warwickshire

  1.0

  1.0

  10.0

  8.0

  47.0

  124.5

  724.2

  915.7

  West Mercia

  1.0

  3.0

  18.0

  30.0

  99.0

  299.7

  1,528.7

  1,979.4

  West Midlands

  1.0

  4.0

  59.0

  46.0

  307.0

  987.4

  5,892.0

  7,296.4

  West Yorkshire

  1.0

  4.0

  45.0

  75.0

  238.0

  669.4

  3,840.6

  4,873.0

  Wiltshire

  1.0

  2.0

  14.0

  18.0

  62.0

  177.9

  875.3

  1,150.2

  NCS

  1.0

  5.0

  17.0

  33.0

  85.0

  252.0

  943.0

  1,336.0

  NCIS

  1.044

  2.0

  7.0

  16.0

  20.0

  62.0

  131.0

  239.0

  Total all forces

  50.0

  148.0

  1,246.4

  1,647.2

  6,042.5

  18.878.8

  96,611.9

  124,624.7

  1 Full-time equivalents

  2 The Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners are counted as Chief Constables

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of police officers who will be diverted from public duties to statistical operations as a result of new Home Office targets. [111452]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The deployment of police officers is the operational responsibility of Chief Constables. However, the introduction of best value into the police service from April this year and the requirement
  122W
  (2) what was the total number of constables available for ordinary duty on 30 September 1999 for each of the police forces in England and Wales. [111476]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested details are given in the table as full-time equivalents.

  that year on year efficiency savings of 2 per cent. must be recycled into front line policing should allow Chief Constables to allocate more officers to the essential job of reducing crime. Information Technology systems being delivered under the National Strategy for Police Information Systems and new radio technology for the police being provided as part of the Public Safety Radio Communications Strategy, will also do much to free officers from administrative burdens.
  123W
  Police authorities already set a wide range of targets for existing performance indicators. The new arrangements for crime targets are a refinement of this. The recently announced proposed targets for domestic burglary, vehicle crime and, for five police authorities, robbery, demonstrate the police service's commitment to setting challenging, but realistic five year reduction targets for the crimes which are of most concern to the public.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers from ethnic minorities(a) have completed the police service accelerated promotion scheme and (b) are currently on the accelerated promotion scheme. [111481]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Three ethnic minority police officers have successfully completed the Accelerated Promotion scheme since its inception in 1992, and five are currently on the Scheme. These include two officers who were recently selected through an in-service competition to attend this year's Accelerated Promotion Course, which is an integral part of the Scheme.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the registration of police officers who are freemasons. [111477]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 1 April 1999, the Home Office wrote to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) requesting that ACPO write to each Chief Constable in England and Wales to ask them to set up voluntary, internal registers of freemasonry membership among their police officers and civilian staff. ACPO duly wrote to each Chief Constable on 7 April 1999. As a result, 34 forces in England and Wales have established voluntary registers.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that there should be more police officers in England and Wales at the end of this parliament than at the start; and if he will make a statement. [110744]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Following the passage of the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994, the actual numbers of police officers at any one time is a matter for Chief Constables to determine. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out his policy on the number of police officers, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 172–74W.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of targets for recruitment from ethnic minorities by police forces in England and Wales. [111571]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At the National Conference for the Recruitment, Retention and progression of Black and Asian Police Officers (Dismantling Barriers) in April 1999, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out what the police service targets would be. All forces in England and Wales were set individual targets to reflect their local ethnic minority population within 10 years.

  The targets and Dismantling Barriers Action Plan were published in August last year. The 25 point strategic plan was published as part of the Dismantling Barriers programme. The programme aims to remove
  124W
  discriminatory practices in the Police Service and to make it more attractive to all groups that are currently underrepresented in the service.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also set employment targets for recruitment, retention and progression for the Home Office and all its service areas, that is, police, fire, probation and prison services. These targets were published on 28 July 1999.

  Change will not happen overnight and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set a 10-year agenda. The use of milestones and regular monitoring will allow the existing momentum to be maintained over the 10-year period. A Targets Working Group, chaired by the Home Office Race Equality Unit has been established to take forward the implementation of the targets. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will also produce a report on progress annually.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers were recruited by each of the police forces in England and Wales between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999; [111473]

  (2) how many police officers left each of the police forces in England and Wales between 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999 due to (a) retirement, (b) resignation or (c) other reasons. [111475]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The details requested are given in the table and are based on numbers of officers rather than full-time equivalents.

  Officer recruitment and wastage—October 1998 to September 1999

  Number of officers

  Police force

  Recruited

  Retiring

  Resigning

  Other wastage

  Avon and Somerset

  153

  76

  20

  7

  Bedfordshire

  55

  44

  8

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  40

  46

  13

  3

  Cheshire

  81

  62

  9

  3

  City of London

  11

  29

  8

  17

  Cleveland

  9

  63

  12

  7

  Cumbria

  22

  48

  12

  6

  Derbyshire

  49

  40

  7

  7

  Devon and Cornwall

  68

  100

  9

  7

  Dorset

  34

  49

  13

  13

  Durham

  51

  31

  11

  6

  Dyfed Powys

  67

  27

  5

  2

  Essex

  88

  116

  25

  17

  Gloucestershire

  60

  42

  9

  1

  Greater Manchester

  229

  264

  36

  22

  Gwent

  62

  46

  11

  10

  Hampshire

  106

  106

  25

  43

  Hertfordshire

  133

  55

  30

  10

  Humberside

  57

  74

  9

  16

  Kent

  169

  75

  33

  15

  Lancashire

  106

  74

  16

  4

  Leicestershire

  90

  49

  22

  13

  Lincolnshire

  1

  47

  8

  1

  Merseyside

  164

  144

  17

  9

  Metropolitan Police

  1,329

  882

  329

  293

  Norfolk

  33

  38

  11

  5

  Northamptonshire

  24

  20

  21

  13

  Northumbria

  190

  86

  12

  29

  North Wales

  78

  63

  1

  4

  North Yorkshire

  1

  39

  15

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  55

  80

  11

  14

  South Wales

  198

  156

  12

  12

  South Yorkshire

  133

  90

  26

  15

  Staffordshire

  32

  51

  21

  8

  Suffolk

  31

  39

  8

  6

  Surrey

  165

  58

  18

  5

  Sussex

  110

  116

  51

  26

  125W

  Officer recruitment and wastage—October 1998 to September 1999

  Number of officers

  Police force

  Recruited

  Retiring

  Resigning

  Other wastage

  Thames Valley

  134

  97

  53

  7

  Warwickshire

  44

  30

  9

  7

  West Mercia

  55

  70

  23

  6

  West Midlands

  405

  187

  68

  61

  West Yorkshire

  4

  146

  29

  24

  Wiltshire

  39

  28

  14

  1

  NCS

  255

  0

  0

  281

  NCIS

  36

  2

  0

  30

  Total all forces

  5,256

  3,985

  1,100

  1,098

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of possible cultural bias in the testing procedures for promotion to the senior ranks of police. [111450]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An equal opportunities audit is at present under way of the Extended Interview (EI) process by which officers are selected to attend the Strategic Command Course at National Police Training Bramshill. Successful completion of the Course is a requirement for promotion to the rank of Assistant Chief Constable or Commander. The audit will provide an independent assessment of the fairness of the process and will identify areas for further improvement.

  The EI process involves a wide range of tests and exercises, designed to give every candidate maximum opportunity to demonstrate his or her competencies and also to promote maximum objectivity in assessment. All assessors receive training from the Home Office Assessment and Consultancy Unit for this task, and the Director and Co-Directors of Police Extended Interviews monitor the process to ensure consistent standards and fairness. Every effort is made to ensure that the questions and tests used are not unfair to any group of candidates.

  Police Buildings
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the maintenance costs of police buildings and the projected costs of repairs in 2000–01 and 2001–02. [111482]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Audit Commission, in their report "Action Stations—improving the management of the police estate", published in March 1999, stated that in the two thirds of forces able to estimate the expenditure required to bring existing buildings up to a satisfactory state of repair, the maintenance backlog amounted to £205 million.

  Crime Tackling Priorities
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the priorities which have been set for tackling different categories of crime in England and Wales. [111480]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have made it clear that our priorities are to reduce domestic burglary, vehicle crime, and violent crime.

  Crime Reduction Targets
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the first assessment of police forces' progress against the crime reduction targets for vehicle crime and burglary will be completed; and if it will be published; [111478]

  (2) what mechanisms are in place to assess police forces' progress against the crime reduction targets for vehicle crime and burglary. [111479]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Each police authority's Best Value Performance Plan will be audited each year between 1 April and 30 June. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will then undertake a series of risk based inspections, an important element of which will be an assessment of the progress a police authority has made towards meeting its five year crime reduction targets. Where targets are not being met, this will have a direct bearing on the appropriate level of inspection.

  The recorded crime figures will continue to be published every six months at both police force and Basic Command Unit level. The next publication will be July 2000. These figures will continue to give the public valuable information about how successful their local police have been in reducing crime and what progress has been made towards meeting their crime reduction targets.

  Police
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many public relations and/or marketing consultants were engaged by each police force in 1997, 1998 and 1999; [111511]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of police officers who currently spend more than 90 per cent. of their working time collating and producing statistics; [111453]

  (3) how many press officers were employed in each police force area in 1997, 1998 and 1999. [111512]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hampshire Constabulary
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff left the Hampshire constabulary in each year since 1991–92. [111300]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information is set out in the table. Information on wastage of civilian staff is not centrally collected.

  Hampshire Constabulary 1991 to 1999—total wastage

  Year

  Officer wastage

  1991–92

  161

  1992–93

  147

  1993–94

  150

  1994–95

  164

  1995–96

  159

  1996–97

  142

  1997–98

  157

  1998–99

  137

  1999–20001

  111

  1 Wastage figures for 1999–2000 are for the first six months only (March to September 1999)

  127W
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff there were in the establishment of the Hampshire constabulary in each year since 1991–92. [111299]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police force establishments after March 1995 is not available. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, police officer establishments for each force, set by Government, were abolished from April 1995. It became the responsibility of individual chief constables to determine the number of police offices in their force within the available resources. The Home Office has never set establishments for civilian support staff.

  The available information is set out in the table.

  Hampshire Constabulary—1991 to 1999

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Establishment

  Police officer strength

  Civilian support staff

  1991–92

  3,202

  3,211

  1,051.5

  1992–93

  3,269

  3,275

  1,077.5

  1993–94

  3,269

  3,270

  1,151

  1994–95

  3,269

  3,256

  1,230.5

  1995–96

  n/a

  3,347.1

  1,323

  1996–97

  n/a

  3,451.7

  1,315.6

  1997–98

  n/a

  3,489.5

  1,330.9

  1998–99

  n/a

  3,473.4

  1,380.7

  1999–2000 (as at 30 September)

  n/a

  3,410.8

  1,402.7

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to the Immigration Service about the interpretation and enforcement of Rule 57(6) of the Immigration Rules following the Government's decision to allow students from outside the European Economic Area to work in this country without a student work permit. [111440]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration Service has been informed of the range of part-time work a student may take without the need for Job Centre approval. There has been no change to the enforcement of paragraph 57(vi) of the Immigration Rules.

  West Mercia Police
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1992 for the Shrewsbury division of West Mercia police(a) the number of notifiable offences, (b) clear-up rates and (c) the number of police officers; and if he will make a statement. [111445]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total of notifiable offences and clear ups, and numbers of officers, are not collected centrally below police force area level. Details of the numbers of a restricted range of offences for basic command units, including Shrewsbury, for the six month period ended September 1999 are available in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin on recorded crime, issue 1/00, published on 18 January, which is available in the Library.

  Child Pornography (Internet)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures the Government are taking to prevent child pornography being placed on the Internet; [111268]

  (2) what penalties are in place to deter people from publishing child pornography on the Internet; and what further measures are planned. [111269]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have very strict legislation against child pornography which applies equally to material placed on the Internet as to material in other forms. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, the United Kingdom has an absolute prohibition on the production, circulation and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph of a child under 16. These offences carry a maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. The simple possession of an indecent photograph of a child is also an offence under Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and carries a sentence of six months' imprisonment. Section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 updated these controls to include indecent computer-generated photographs of children and they have been successfully applied to child pornography transmitted over the Internet.

  We are determined to ensure that there are effective measures against child pornography. We support the work of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) which passes to the police details of potentially unlawful material brought to their attention by members of the public via a specially established hotline. If the originators of the material are abroad, the Foundation passes the report to the National Criminal Intelligence Service who liaise with the enforcement agencies of the countries concerned. The IWF took action on 1,126 reports of alleged child pornography in 1999.

  The Government also fully support international initiatives in the Council of Europe and the G8 to combat criminal misuse of the Internet.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost is of a drug treatment and testing order per offender; and what the average cost is of a custodial sentence in such cases. [111660]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The estimated average cost of a drug treatment and testing order per offender is approximately £6,000. The cost of custody for all offenders, including drug misusers, will depend on the length of their sentences. The average annual cost of custody for all prisoners in 1998–99 was £25,096 per place.

  Nuclear Bunker (Soar)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 176W, on Soar, how many open days will be allocated to inspect the former nuclear bunker at Soar, near Kingsbridge; when they will be; what is the cut-off date for receipt of sealed bids; and where bids must be sent. [111438]
  129W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Four days have been allocated; 24 February, 2 March, 14 March and 30 March. Further open days will be arranged if there is an exceptional level of interest in the site. The cut off date for receipt of sealed bids is Friday 14 April 2000. These bids must be sent to:

  Building and Property Ltd.

  Government Buildings

  Burghill Road

  Westbury on Trym

  Bristol

  BS10 6HH.

  Fire Service Vehicles
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average service life of operational Fire Service vehicles by fire service in England. [111516]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The table sets out the information by Brigade for the twelve months to 31 March 1999:

  Vehicles: actual replacement period in years

  Brigade

  Pumps1

  Aerials2

  Specials3

  Avon

  15

  15

  16

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  13

  15

  15

  Buckinghamshire

  12

  15

  15

  Cambridgeshire

  14

  15

  12

  Cheshire

  13

  19

  10–20

  Cleveland

  13

  15

  17

  Cornwall

  15

  15

  17

  County Durham and Darlington

  15

  15

  15

  Cumbria

  16

  18

  18

  Derbyshire

  12

  10–15

  15

  Devon

  7

  15

  20

  Dorset

  13

  15

  15–18

  East Sussex

  14–15

  20

  15

  Essex

  13

  16

  16

  Gloucestershire

  10

  15

  13

  Greater Manchester

  10

  10

  10

  Hampshire

  12

  15

  22

  Hereford and Worcester

  12

  15

  12

  Hertfordshire

  12

  15

  15

  Humberside

  15

  19

  19

  Isle of Wight

  20

  20

  20

  Isles of Scilly

  15

  n/a

  n/a

  Kent

  15

  15

  15

  Lancashire

  12

  16

  8–15

  Leicestershire

  16

  17

  17

  Lincolnshire

  15

  20

  15

  London

  13

  17

  n/a

  Merseyside

  10

  16

  16

  Norfolk

  15

  20

  20

  North Yorkshire

  16

  23

  12

  Northamptonshire

  13

  17

  13

  Northumberland

  18

  n/a

  n/a

  Nottinghamshire

  12

  17

  18

  Oxfordshire

  11

  19

  10

  Royal Berkshire

  13

  19

  12

  Shropshire

  12–15

  20

  12

  Somerset

  17

  18

  10–20

  South Yorkshire

  13

  18

  10 and 15

  Staffordshire

  14

  20

  8–20

  Suffolk

  15

  20

  20

  Surrey

  12

  12

  12

  Tyne and Wear

  12

  15

  19

  Warwickshire

  12–13

  15–16

  10–15

  West Midlands

  12

  15

  12

  West Sussex

  12

  15

  15

  West Yorkshire

  10

  12–15

  10–15

  Wiltshire

  16

  15

  15–20

  1 Pumps: what the public traditionally class as a fire engine

  2 Aerials: turntable or hydraulic platform

  3 Specials: vehicles providing special facilities, eg command and control, heavy rescue, water tankers, etc

  Ricky Reel Inquiry
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the reasons for his decision to release to the family of Ricky Reel the report of the Surrey Police investigation into the inquiries carried out by the Metropolitan Police into the death of Ricky Reel; [111385]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Metropolitan Police investigating officer's report into the death of Ricky Reel; [111389]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Surrey Police report into the Metropolitan Police investigation into the death of Ricky Reel. [111388]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Disclosure of the Metropolitan Police investigation report into the death of Ricky Reel and Surrey Police report on the Metropolitan Police investigation of the case are matters for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  The Commissioner agreed to disclose, exceptionally and in confidence, the report of the Surrey Police investigation into the inquiries made by the Metropolitan Police into the death of Ricky Reel to the Reel family and their solicitor. He did so in order to assist the investigation by helping to ensure that every avenue of inquiry had been pursued. The Commissioner informs me that he has no plans for the wider publication of either the Metropolitan or Surrey Police reports on the Ricky Reel investigation.

  The Government have accepted recommendation 10 of the Macpherson Inquiry Report, that Investigating Officers' reports resulting from public complaints should be disclosed to complainants subject only to the `substantial harm' test for withholding disclosure. Progress and action to be taken on implementation of recommendation 10 is detailed in the 'Home Secretary's Action: Plan First Annual Report on Progress', published on 23 February.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the Metropolitan Police investigation into the death of Ricky Reel. [111386]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has advised me that the cost, to date, of the Metropolitan Police investigation into the death of Ricky Reel is approximately £2,000,000.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the Surrey Police report into the Metropolitan Police investigation into the death of Ricky Reel. [111387]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Chief Constable of Surrey Police has informed me that the cost of the Surrey Police inquiry into the Metropolitan Police investigation into the death of Ricky Reel was approximately £420,000.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the date of his meeting in 1998 with the family of Ricky Reel and their lawyers. [111384]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the family of Ricky Reel and their legal advisers on Tuesday 17 November 1998.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Resource Accounts
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission pursuant to his oral answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 524, on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, how much of the extra £1.3 million approved for the National Audit Office in 2000–01 relates to organisations not previously audited by the NAO. [110629]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  The additional £1.3 million for 2000–01 provides for a number of factors, notably the audit of Resource Accounts and other new accounts produced by bodies that the National Audit Office already audits. There is also provision to maintain competitive salary rates and for building maintenance and information technology.

  Some £250,000 of the additional £1.3 million relates to new audits not previously undertaken by the National Audit Office.

  Fair Trading
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, pursuant to his oral statement of 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 1249, if he will list the oversights of regulatory bodies conducted by the NAO which have considered fair trading issues. [112052]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  The statement referred to was made by the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. David Davis). I understand that he was referring to the following six reports presented to the House by the Comptroller and Auditor General, each of which deals with or touches on issues of fair trading:The Water Industry in England and Wales: Regulating the Quality of Services to Customers (HC 388 Session 1997–98)
  The Office of Telecommunications: Countering Anti-Competitive Behaviour in the Telecommunications Industry (HC 667 Session 1997–98)
  The Office of Electricity Regulation: Improving Energy Efficiency Financed by a Charge on Customers (HC 1006 Session 1997–98)
  The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets: Giving Customers a Choice—the Introduction of Competition into the Domestic Gas Market (HC 403 Session 1998–99)
  Insolvency Service Executive Agency: Company Director Disqualification—a Follow Up Report (HC 424 Session 1998–99)
  The Office of Fair Trading: Protecting the Consumer from Unfair Trading Practices (HC 57 Session 1999–2000).
  I should add that, like the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I am sure that the NAO has the expertise and experience to examine fair trading issues in the context of the work of public authorities, and can do so in a non-political way.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Libya
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first examined the alleged MI6 report indicating knowledge by 132W
  the Secret Intelligence Service of plans to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi of Libya. [111678]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 839W.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last occasion representations were made to him regarding the Matabeleland massacres in the early 1980s. [112132]

  Mr. Hain
  We are in regular contact with the two non-governmental organisations who jointly compiled a report on the atrocities committed in Matabeleland in the 1980s.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last occasion he made representations to the Zimbabwean Government about the Matabeleland massacres in the early 1980s. [112131]

  Mr. Hain
  My predecessor raised the specific issue of Matabeleland and the atrocities committed there with the Zimbabwe President in December 1998. Since then I have expressed our concerns on human rights and good governance to the President.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason a manuscript amendment was made to the extract from the Official Report of 9 February 2000, column 184W, attached to his answer of 17 February 2000 (ref. 110577) to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, on arms exports to Zimbabwe. [111964]

  Mr. Hain
  Manuscript corrections were made to a copy of the Official Report attached to the answer to the hon. Member's question because of the discovery of an administrative error. This has been drawn to the attention of the Official Report. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who tabled the question in the first place has also been informed.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government concerning the visit to South Africa by the Sierra Leonean rebel leader, Foday Sankoh. [111965]

  Mr. Hain
  As soon as we were aware that the leader of the Revolutionary United Front, Foday Sankoh, was travelling in South Africa in breach of UNSCR 1171, we raised our concern with the South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We requested that his visit visa be revoked. The South African Government responded quickly to ensure Foday Sankoh's prompt departure from South Africa. We understand he is currently in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire.

  The UK also called for an urgent meeting of the UN Sanctions Committee on Sierra Leone to discuss the breach of sanctions. The Chairman of the Committee raised Foday Sankoh's visit in a letter to the UN

  133W
  Permanent Representative of South Africa and issued a press release reminding all member states of their obligations to implement UNSCR 1171.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress made by European Union in its economic and infrastructure reconstruction efforts in Kosovo. [112059]

  Mr. Vaz
  The EU is making a major contribution to international efforts in Kosovo. The EU makes the biggest contribution to reconstruction. In 1999, the EU pledged 127 million euros. This year, the EU will make available 360 million euros, almost half of international pledges.

  The main priority of the UNMIK EU reconstruction pillar, under the leadership of Mr. Joly Dixon, a British national, has been the establishment of a coherent modern macro-economic framework. EU assistance is making possible urgent repair of large numbers of homes and transport infrastructure and education facilities and, for electricity supply, generation and distribution facilities as well as paying for emergency imports of power supplies. The EU has also established a Customs Service.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress in establishing and overseeing the development of the first stage provisional democratic self-governing institutions in Kosovo. [112060]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) under the authority of Security Resolution (SCR) 1244, intend to hold municipal elections this Autumn for provisional institutions in Kosovo. UNMIK are currently preparing regulations to set up the election law and administration.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress that has been achieved in the civil implementation of the UNSCR 1244 in Kosovo. [112303]

  Mr. Vaz
  UNSCR 1244 charges the UN Mission in Kosovo with the establishment of provisional democratic institutions and the transfer of responsibility to the people of Kosovo. The Kosovar Albanian leadership agreed in December 1999 that they would participate in a new Joint Administrative Structure (JIAS). The Serbs have not yet joined the JIAS but the UN is hopeful that they will do so soon. Four of the 19 administrative departments under the JIAS have now been established. The Kosovo Transitional Council (KTC) will remain as a consultative body to UNMIK and has been expanded to about 40 to be more representative of Kosovo's ethnic composition including better representation of women. UNMIK intend to hold municipal elections this Autumn to provisional institutions and are preparing regulations to this end.

  Moscow Visit
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his official engagements during his recent visit to Moscow; and what planned engagements were(a) changed and (b) cancelled. [111966]
  134W
  Mr. Vaz
  During his visit to Moscow, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Acting President Putin and Foreign Minister Ivanov, Head of the Yabloko Party, Yavlinsky, and Head of the Alliance of Right Forces Coalition, Kirienko. He also signed the condolence book for former St. Petersburg Mayor Anatoly Sobchak.

  As is usual during the planning of such visits, a number of possible engagements/meetings was considered. Some were changed and others could not be taken forward because of timing or availability constraints.

  Scott Inquiry Recommendations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many recommendations of the Scott Inquiry into military and dual-use equipment sales to Iraq have been implemented since 1 May 1997; what are the reasons for the outstanding recommendations not being implemented; and if he will set out the timetable for the implementation of those recommendations accepted by ministers but not yet implemented. [110650]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 1 May 1997, the recommendations contained in Sections K2 and K3 of the Scott Report, on the power of Government to control exports and on export licensing procedures respectively, remained outstanding. In response to these recommendations the Government published their White Paper on Strategic Export Controls in July 1998 (Cm 3989). 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. The Government are committed to introducing a new export control Bill as soon as time is available in the legislative programme.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total funding from European Union regional funding that was made available to the UK during 1999. [110230]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total European Union Structural Funds allocation to the United Kingdom for 1999 was 2,673 million euros, which is £1,748 million in 1999 prices. This includes the European Social Fund allocation, only part of which was for regional funding.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the planned official visits to Britain from non-EU countries in the next two months. [112129]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The following are expected to visit the United Kingdom before the end of April 2000:
  135W
  Guest of Government
  Prime Minister Amarjargal of Mongolia

  Working Visits

  The Foreign Ministers and Deputy Foreign Ministers of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland

  The Secretary General of the United Nations

  The Foreign Minister of Albania

  The President of the Federal Council and Minister for Defence and Sport of Switzerland

  The Minister for Internal Security of Israel.

  There will also be a variety of other inward visits by officials of foreign governments. However, these are often planned at short notice and it is not possible to compile a consolidated list of such visits.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list overseas visits to non-EU destinations planned by Ministers in the next two months. [112126]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is not our practice to publish a long term programme of Ministerial travel. Visits are subject to agreement with host governments and are often changed, postponed or cancelled at short notice.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his priorities for the non-proliferation treaty review conference. [111955]

  Mr. Hain
  We are unequivocally committed to our obligations under the NPT, which remains the cornerstone of our non-proliferation policy.

  Our priority is to see a successful outcome to the Review Conference which furthers the government's goal of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Bug
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral statement to the House of 20 January 2000,Official Report, columns 975–77, if she will report on the immediate impact of the Millennium Bug on central Government Departments and Agencies. [111880]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am pleased to update Members with the results of the detailed monitoring exercise on the impact of the Millennium Bug on central Government Departments and Agencies. Copies of the completed questionnaires have been placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet, as has been the Government's practice. This report follows on from my statement to the House on Thursday 20 January.

  I can confirm that—as predicted—it continues to be business as usual across Central Government. Twenty-seven Departments and Agencies logged 82 Millennium Bug related incidents over the new year period. Almost all the incidents were assessed as having a low or very low impact, principally because either the problems were fixed before the return to work on 4 and 5 January or because the errors were very minor, such as incorrectly dated reports.
  136W
  There is no doubt this work on meeting the threat of the Millennium Bug had to be undertaken. The Bug was shown to have the capacity to wreak havoc among services, which, though essential, we take for granted. The Government's objective in that work was always to ensure that the Bug resulted in no material disruption to essential services. That objective has been achieved.

  The Government will continue to lead by example and be open and transparent. I will report back to the House in March on the impact of the leap year date change on Central Government, which is expected to be low. This will be followed by a more detailed report on lessons learned and benefits captured.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Maintenance Awards
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the take-up was of Education Maintenance Awards in Stoke-on-Trent for 1999–2000. [111694]

  Mr. Wicks
  The number of students being paid the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) in Stoke-on-Trent to 21 January 2000 was 1,276.

  We are very encouraged by the way the scheme is running in Stoke. Already, it is making a real difference to the life chances of many young people there.

  Higher Education (Funding)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was public spending on higher education, excluding the science budget, as a proportion of GDP for each year from 1979 to 1999; and what is the forecast for(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [110399]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The proportion of GDP spent on UK higher education for each financial year, both including and excluding the DTI/OST science budget, is given in the following table. The figures including the science budget are as in our reply to the noble Lord, the Lord Baker of Dorking of 27 January 2000, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA206. Both sets of figures include expenditure from public funds on tuition fees, maintenance awards and student loans. Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are current spending plans. The proportions will vary depending upon the performance of the economy, which determines the level of GDP. Funding for higher education in England will increase by 11 per cent. in real terms over the four years to 2001–02.

  Percentage

  Including science

  Excluding science

  1979–80

  1.23

  1.08

  1980–81

  1.33

  1.17

  1981–82

  1.33

  1.16

  1982–83

  1.30

  1.13

  1983–84

  1.28

  1.11

  1984–85

  1.23

  1.07

  1985–86

  1.16

  1.00

  1986–87

  1.14

  0.98

  137W

  Percentage

  Including science

  Excluding science

  1979–80

  1.11

  0.96

  1980–81

  1.07

  0.92

  1981–82

  1.08

  0.92

  1982–83

  1.10

  0.94

  1983–84

  1.19

  1.03

  1984–85

  1.28

  1.11

  1985–86

  1.29

  1.11

  1986–87

  1.31

  1.13

  1995–96

  1.29

  1.11

  1996–97

  1.19

  1.02

  1997–98

  1.16

  1.00

  1998–99

  1.12

  0.97

  1999–2000

  1.13

  0.97

  2000–01

  1.14

  0.98

  2000–02

  1.14

  0.98

  Engineering Faculties
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the initiatives he has taken since 1 May 1997 to attract high-calibre academic staff into engineering faculties in universities in England. [111257]

  Mr. Wicks
  Higher education institutions are independent bodies which appoint and retain the staff they need to run their academic programmes. For their part, the Government plan to increase funding to the higher education sector by over £1 billion in the four years to 2001–02.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many academic teaching posts in engineering faculties remained unfilled as at 30 September 1999 in universities in England. [111256]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the age distribution, in 10-year bands, of those holding academic teaching posts in engineering faculties in universities in England. [111258]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest available data are given in the table:

  Academic staff 1 in engineering faculties 2 in higher education institutions in England 1998–99

  Age of staff

  Number

  Percentage

  21 to 30

  442

  6.6

  31 to 40

  1,748

  26.1

  41 to 50

  2,071

  30.9

  51 to 60

  1,934

  28.8

  61 and over

  510

  7.6

  Not known

  2

  0.0

  Total

  6,707

  100.0

  1 Academic sraff whose primary employment function is either teaching, or teacher and reseach.

  2 Includes the following cost centers, General Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Mineral, metallurgy and materials engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical,electronic and computer engineering and Mechanical, aero and production engineering

  Higher Education (UK Component Countries)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications were made in 1999 by students based in the United Kingdom for enrolment on a course in a component country of the United Kingdom in which they were not resident. [110395]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The latest data on applicants via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Survey (UCAS) for entry in autumn 2000, based on students who had applied by 15 December 1999, are given in the table. Similar data for part-time courses are not available.

  Applicants 1 for entry in 2000 by country of study and country of home domicile

  Country of study 2

  Country of domicile

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  N. Ireland

  Total

  England

  241,707

  22,347

  33,815

  764

  298,633

  Scotland

  5,749

  22,126

  416

  172

  28,463

  Wales

  10,757

  713

  10,342

  37

  21,849

  N. Ireland

  6,622

  5,687

  814

  11,555

  24,678

  Total

  264,835

  50,873

  45,387

  12,528

  373,623

  1 The number of applicants who applied by 15 December 1999.

  2 Applicants are counted once for each county to which they apply i.e. a student who applied to one or more courses in England and one or more courses in Scotland will be counted once under England and once under Scotland.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many undergraduate students from European Union countries are currently enrolled on courses in each of the component countries of the United Kingdom. [110372]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The most recent information available is given in the table.

  Students 1 from European Union countries enrolled on undergraduate courses in the United Kingdom 1998–99

  Country of institution

  Students from the European Union 2

  England

  54,886

  Scotland

  6,262

  Wales

  4,139

  N. Ireland

  3,431

  Total

  68,718

  1 Full-time and part-time students

  2 Excluding students from the UK

  Qualifications
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the population in(a) the Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency, (b) the City of Leeds and (c) the UK have (i) a higher education degree, (ii) at least 2 A-levels at grade E or above, (iii) 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C or equivalent and (iv) no qualifications. [111064]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information available, as measured by the Labour Force Survey, is contained in the following table.
  139W

  Highest qualification held by people of working age 1, 1998–99

  Percentage

  Proportion qualified to at least

  Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency

  City of Leeds

  UK

  Higher education degree or equivalent (NVQ level 4 or above)

  n/a

  22.8

  22.0

  Two A-levels at grade E or above or the equivalent (NVQ level 3 or above)

  n/a

  40.6

  39.9

  Five or more GCSEs at grades A-C or equivalent (NVQ level 2 or above)

  n/a

  n/a

  61.8

  No qualifications

  n/a

  18.2

  17.4

  1 People of working age consist of males aged 16–64 and females aged 16–59 n/a=estimates not available

  Source:

  DfEE estimates from the Labour Force Survey

  School Threshold Payments
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allocate threshold payments to a school where a deficit budget exists. [110999]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The Special Grant will target resources for the performance threshold additional to and separate from schools' delegated budgets. Schools will be able to draw additional funds from this grant via their local education authority for each teacher promoted to the upper pay spine. Such payments will not be affected if a school has set a deficit budget.

  Youth Services (North-west)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the amount spent per head of population on youth services for each local authority area in the North West Region in(a) 1990, (b) 1995 and (c) the last year for which figures are available. [111665]

  Mr. Wicks
  The following table sets out the unit cost per head of population, based on the 13 to 19-year-old population for each authority in the north-west region, and in the Merseyside area, as these two regions are often presented together. These figures cover 1995–96, and 1997–98, the latest figures which are available. Information for unit cost per head of population for 1990–91 is not available because the Office for National Statistics (ONS) did not collect individual age band data at that time.

  North-west region and Merseyside—youth service expenditure

  Unit costs per head of population (£ cash)

  LEA number

  LEA name

  1990–91

  1995–96

  1997–98

  Merseyside

  340

  Knowsley

  n/a

  1—

  1—

  341

  Liverpool

  n/a

  156

  146

  342

  St. Helens

  n/a

  43

  57

  343

  Sefton

  n/a

  61

  63

  344

  Wirral

  n/a

  80

  69

  North-west

  350

  Bolton

  n/a

  71

  53

  351

  Bury

  n/a

  74

  47

  352

  Manchester

  n/a

  67

  59

  353

  Oldham

  n/a

  62

  117

  354

  Rochdale

  n/a

  77

  73

  355

  Salford

  n/a

  49

  56

  140W

  North-west region and Merseyside—youth service expenditure

  Unit costs per head of population (£ cash)

  LEA number

  LEA name

  1990–91

  1995–96

  1997–98

  356

  Stockport

  n/a

  49

  54

  357

  Tameside

  n/a

  101

  91

  358

  Trafford

  n/a

  55

  53

  359

  Wigan

  n/a

  45

  46

  906

  Cheshire

  n/a

  48

  71

  923

  Lancashire

  n/a

  90

  88

  909

  Cumbria

  n/a

  41

  39

  1 Figures not available

  Notes:

  1. Unit costs are presented in cash terms.

  2. Unit costs have been calculated using net current expenditure (after recharges for management and support services) from the Department of Transport and the Regions Revenue Outtum form called the RO1, together with population data supplied by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

  Pupil Mobility
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce an agreed national formula for assessing pupil mobility at school level. [111139]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  University College London are currently undertaking research into pupil mobility, funded partly by this Department and partly by the Nuffield Foundation. The project is due to conclude in June 2000. The Department will be looking further at the issues once the final report is available.

  Class Sizes (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class sizes were(a) in (i) primary and (ii) middle schools, and (b) for (1) seven, (2) eight, (3) nine, (4) 10, (5) 11, (6) 12, (7) 13, (8) 14, (9) 15, (10) 16 and (11) 17 year olds in the last three years in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. [111052]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information on class sizes for the Newcastle-upon-Tyne local education authority area is shown in the following tables.
  141W

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher by age band in maintained Secondary schools, including middle-deemed Secondary schools, in the local education authority area of Newcastle-upon-Tyne: 1997–99

  Secondary (ages) 1

  Position as at January

  Middle-deemed secondary

  Mainly under 14s

  Mainly 14 and 15

  16 or older

  Total secondary

  1999

  Average class size

  26.2

  24.5

  20.9

  10.6

  21.7

  Number of classes

  137

  265

  243

  110

  755

  Number of pupils

  3,590

  6,502

  5,090

  1,171

  16,353

  1998

  Average class size

  26.7

  24.4

  21.6

  11.0

  21.8

  Number of classes

  136

  260

  240

  121

  757

  Number of pupils

  3,636

  6,342

  5,186

  1,326

  16,490

  1997

  Average class size

  25.8

  24.4

  21.0

  10.6

  21.5

  Number of classes

  133

  259

  244

  112

  748

  Number of pupils

  3,438

  6,315

  5,135

  1,184

  16,072

  1 Ages as the start of the academic year (August 31)

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher, by year group, in maintained Primary schools in the local education authority area of Newcastle-upon-Tyne: 1997–99

  Year groups

  Position as at January

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Mixed1

  Total primary 2

  1999

  Average class size

  27.8

  28.3

  27.6

  27.1

  3—

  26.7

  26.7

  Number of classes

  78

  72

  47

  49

  3—

  108

  721

  Number of pupils

  2,171

  2,039

  1,299

  1,330

  3—

  2,888

  19,270

  1998

  Average class size

  27.2

  28.3

  28.1

  28.7

  4—

  27.0

  27.6

  Number of classes

  77

  65

  47

  56

  4—

  111

  726

  Number of pupils

  2,097

  1,841

  1,321

  1,609

  4—

  2,994

  20,054

  1997

  Average class size

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  27.6

  Number of classes

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  746

  Number of pupils

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  20,574

  1 Excludes mixed year group classes which are comprised wholly of pupils educated at key stage 1

  2 Includes all classes in primary schools

  3 Not applicable (no classes of this type)

  4 Not available

  Education Funding (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been given to Leicestershire County Council in respect of education funding for each year since the introduction of the revenue support grant. [110838]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Leicestershire County Council Education SSA

  £ million

  Year

  SSA total

  1990–91

  276.8

  1991–92

  321.3

  1992–93

  344.5

  1993–941

  311.2

  1994–95

  313.9

  1995–96

  316.4

  1996–97

  333.8

  1997–982

  201.1

  1998–99

  215.3

  1999–2000

  228.2

  2000–01

  241.0

  142W
  1 From 1993–94 Education Standard Spending figures are affected by the creation of the Further Education Funding Council and the subsequent reduction in post-16 funding.

  In 1997–98 £527 million was removed for Education Standard Spending for the Nursery Voucher Scheme. Leicestershire was also affected by Local Government Reorganisation—the old Leicestershire LEA was split into Leicester City, Rutland and 1997 Leicestershire. The figures from 1997–98 to 2000–01 quoted in this table are for 1997 Leicestershire.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the percentage increase in education funding for Leicestershire County Council for each year between 1991–92 and 2000–01. [110839]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase in education SSA 1

  Year

  1991–92

  16.1

  1992–93

  7.2

  1993–942

  -9.7

  1994–95

  0.9

  143W

  Percentage increase in education SSA 1

  Year

  1995–96

  0.8

  1996–97

  5.5

  1997–983

  —

  1998–99

  7.1

  1999–2000

  6.0

  2000–01

  5.6

  1 The Government are reviewing the way the local authority finance system distributes funding and plans to issue a green paper on the options for change by the summer of 2000.

  2 In 1993–94 Education Standard Spending figures were affected by the creation of the Further Education Funding Council and the subsequent reduction in post-16 funding.

  3 In 1997–98 £527 million was removed from Education Standard Spending for the Nursery Voucher Scheme. Leicestershire was also affected by Local Government Reorganisation—the old Leicestershire LEA was split into Leicester City, Rutland and 1997 Leicestershire. The figures from 1997–98 to 2000–01 quoted in this table are for 1997 leicestershire.

  Percentages

  Ward category 1

  No school for 6-year-olds

  No school for 12-year-olds

  No school for 18-year-olds

  Wholly urban2

  12

  57

  71

  Wholly or predominantly urban3

  11

  57

  72

  Wholly, predominantly or mixed urban4

  11

  58

  73

  1 Based on the 1991 population census.

  2 Every population census Enumeration District (ED) in the ward is defined as urban (based on where the majority of the population reside).

  3 Where 75 per cent, or more EDs in the ward are urban.

  4 Where 50 per cent, or more EDs in the ward are urban.

  There are almost 9,000 wards in England, compared with about 3,500 secondary schools and 18,000 primary schools.

  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 percentage of schools in which hot meals are served; and if he will make a statement. [110703]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. Under current education legislation, it is up to local education authorities, and schools with delegated budgets for school meals, to decide on their presentation and content, including whether a meal should be hot. The minimum nutritional standards for school lunches, which will be phased in from September this year, will apply to both hot and cold lunches. We plan to offer guidance on when hot meals may be appropriate.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the impact on schools and school children in Newcastle of the delegation of financial responsibility for paid school meals to schools combined with the removal of local education authority subsidy for such meals. [112133]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We shall be keeping all new areas of delegation within the new Fair Funding framework under review, including school meals. With the new nutritional standards for school meals to underpin delegation, the transfer of responsibility for school meals to governing bodies opens up new opportunities for schools to provide what their pupils need.

  University (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to establish a university in Somerset; and if he will make a statement. [110764]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government do not determine the siting of higher education institutions. It is a matter for the interested bodies in the region to consider with the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  Schools (Urban Wards)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of urban wards have(a) no school for six-year-olds, (b) no school for 12-year-olds and (c) no school for 18-year-olds. [110813]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the percentage of urban wards in England that do not have maintained schools (or further education colleges) that cater for the specified age ranges.

  Maintained Secondary Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average cost of a place in a maintained secondary school in England in the most recent year for which figures are available. [109547]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The average cost of a place in a maintained secondary school in England based on 1999–2000 Local School Budget figures was £3,672. The Local Schools Budget relates to the new "fair funding" arrangements introduced in April 1999 and is not comparable with the General Schools Budget under the previous arrangements.

  Disabled Student Allowance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the courses eligible for the disabled student allowance; and what plans he has to increase the number of courses. [108137]

  Mr. Wicks
  To be eligible for the Disabled Students' Allowances, a student should be studying full-time on a designated course as defined in the Education (Student Support) Regulations 1999. The list is as follows:

  1. A first degree other than a course referred to at paragraph 4.

  2. A course for the Diploma of Higher Education.

  3. A course for the Higher National Diploma or Higher National Certificate of:

  (a) the Business and Technician Education Council; or

  (b) the Scottish Qualification Authority.

  4. A course for the initial training of teachers, including such a course leading to a first degree.

  145W

  5. A course for the further training of teachers or youth and community workers.

  6. A course in preparation for a professional examination of a standard higher than that of:

  (a) examinations at advanced level for the General Certificate of Education or the examination at higher level for the Scottish Certificate of Education; or

  (b) the examination for the National Certificate or the National Diploma of either the bodies mentioned in paragraph 3 not being a course for entry to which a first degree (or equivalent qualification) is normally required.

  7. A course providing education (whether or not in preparation for an examination) the standard of which is:

  (a) higher than that of courses providing education in preparation for any of the examinations mentioned in paragraph (6)(a) or (b); but

  (b) not higher than that of a first degree course, and for entry to which a first degree (or equivalent qualification) is not normally required.

  From September 2000, part-time students studying at least 50 per cent. of an equivalent full-time designated course will also be eligible for Disabled Students Allowances.

  Some students in receipt of NHS bursaries are also eligible for Disabled Students Allowances. NHS funded student support is a matter for the NHS Executive and the Department of Health.

  Primary School Class Sizes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what recent representations he has received regarding class sizes in primary schools; [111380]

  (2) if he will make a statement on average class sizes in primary schools. [111407]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department receives representations from time to time about primary class sizes. The average size of primary classes went down from 27.7 in January 1998 to 27.4 in January 1999—the first fall in ten years.

  Nursery Pupils
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of(a) part-time and full-time pupils in nursery schools,
  (b) pupils in each year in LEA and LEA supported schools, excluding nursery schools and (c) pupils in each year in private schools in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne in each year from 1995 to 2000. [111050]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The January 2000 Annual Schools Census (Form 7) is currently being undertaken and provisional national estimates will be available in April.

  Information about pupils is collected in the Annual Schools Census (Form 7) by age not by year group.
  146W
  Tables give the figures by the age of the pupils at the beginning of each school year and have been placed in the Library.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he will issue for the measurement of pupil progress where teachers do not teach key stage test classes or external examination classes. [110996]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The performance threshold materials we will be publishing in March will contain guidance notes to help teachers complete their applications to demonstrate that they meet the threshold standards. Draft guidance notes were published for consultation on 9 February. Under the "Pupil progress" standard the draft states that where external test data is not available teachers should use data internal to the school to show progress. This could include examination marks, general coursework marks or grades achieved. Where possible teachers should use these to quantify progress in terms of the levels used within the national curriculum.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to recognise the team element of raising standards in schools under the proposed performance-related pay scheme. [111000]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Part of the 'professional characteristics' aspect of the proposed performance threshold standards will be an evaluation of the way teachers build a team commitment with their colleagues. Teachers and their team leaders may also want to identify objectives relating to team building as part of the process of annual performance review.

  We are also introducing an annual performance awards scheme for schools which will provide recognition of high performing teamwork within institutions. An overall budget of £60 million per year will be available to reward between a quarter and a third of excellent and improving schools through allocation to these schools to fund one-off non-consolidated pay bonuses for their staff. The first payments will be made in 2001 on the basis of results from summer 2000.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what circumstances teachers on Point 9 of the teachers' salary scale who win PLATO awards(a) cross the performance pay threshold and (b) become advanced skills teachers. [111044]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: PLATO awards or teaching awards are organised by the Teaching Awards Trust, sponsored by a Lloyds/TSB venture supported by the Department for Education and Employment. Award winners wishing to apply to cross the performance threshold or wishing to apply to become Advanced Skills Teachers will be required to follow the appropriate application procedures and be assessed in the same manner as other teachers.

  Employment Targets
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards fulfilment of the Government' s target for getting young people into work. [111663]

  Ms Jowell
  The New Deal continues to progress well. We are now nearly three quarters of the way to reaching the manifesto pledge of helping 250,000 young people into work. The New Deal has helped more than 185,000 young people move into jobs by the end of December 1999.

  Assisted Places Scheme (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer on the assisted places scheme of 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 475W, when the assisted places scheme will be phased out in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [111062]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Almost all children currently holding assisted places in Shropshire will have completed their school education by the end of academic year 2003–04. We are providing continued support for existing assisted place holders for the remainder of the current phase of their school education. Those receiving secondary education will continue to hold their places until the completion of their secondary education. Those receiving primary education will normally hold their places until the end of their primary education, unless discretion is exercised under the Education (Schools) Act 1997 for individual children to have their places extended for a period in which they receive secondary education.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on recent developments in establishing education action zones. [111662]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I am pleased to say that all 48 of the second round shortlisted applications have now been approved, over half of which were led by schools. That means there are now 73 EAZs across England. There are further plans to establish up to 50 small zones within the Excellence in Cities programme, 12 of which are due to start in April 2000.

  New Deal (50 Plus)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have found work through the New Deal for 50 plus. [111578]

  Ms Jowell
  Since New Deal 50 plus started in the nine Pathfinder areas in Great Britain on 25 October 1999, nearly 600 people have come off benefit and started work with the help of the Employment Credit. Many of those finding work so far through this New Deal have been out of work and on benefits for a long time. New Deal 50 plus will be available across the whole country in April.

  Schools Funding (Staffordshire)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total allocation of seed challenge capital for schools within Staffordshire County Council in the next financial year. [110742]

  Jacqui Smith
  The total allocation of Seed Challenge Capital for schools within Staffordshire County Council in the next financial year is £458,806.

  The next financial year, 2000–01, is a pilot year for Seed Challenge. If it is successful in building partnerships and raising additional funding, we will consider expanding the scheme in future years.

  Remploy
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what Remploy products his Department has purchased in the last three years. [109936]

  Ms Hodge
  This information is not held centrally, so could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  LEA Funding
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) which local education authorities in Tyne and Wear had sums withheld from the extra £50 million grant for education; and on what basis those sums were withheld; [112101]

  (2) how much each local education authority in Tyne and Wear received from the extra £50 million grant for education; and what was the basis of the apportionment to each local education authority. [112100]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has yet to make a decision on the release of an authority's share of the £50 million special grant. He wants to see authorities passing the whole of their education SSA increases to their education budgets before doing so.

  The funding will be distributed among authorities according to their numbers of schools and pupils, following the same pattern as the school improvement grant for 2000–01. The information for the LEAs requested is shown in the following table.

  £

  LEA

  Share of £50 million grant

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  243,000

  North Tyneside

  182,000

  South Tyneside

  181,000

  Gateshead

  209,000

  Sunderland

  323,000

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the impact on Newcastle's schools of a further delegation from the local education authority to schools of responsibility for
  149W
  specials needs services combined with a cut of £140,000 in LEA support for such services. [112127]

  Jacqui Smith
  The quality of provision for special education needs will be taken into account by Ofsted as part of its regular programme of school and LEA inspections. Newcastle local education authority (LEA) must determine how best to manage its budget for the benefit of all pupils. Regardless of whether funding is delegated to schools or retained centrally, the LEA retains responsibility for securing the necessary provision for pupils with statements of special educations needs.

  White

  Non-white

  Declined to say

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Entered New Deal

  654

  98

  3

  Less than 1

  9

  1

  Leavers from New Deal

  480

  —

  2

  —

  5

  —

  Into unsubsidised jobs

  210

  44

  0

  0

  3

  60

  We have set targets for all partnerships delivering New Deal, to achieve parity of outcome on jobs between white and ethnic minority young people. Paisley, South is part of the Renfrewshire Unit of Delivery which has responsibility for the parity target.

CABINET OFFICE

  Magisterial Appointments
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations she has received on the proposed transfer of responsibility for magisterial appointments in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the Lord Chancellor. [111577]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Replies to the consultation paper were requested by the end of February 2000, and currently we have received 118. I have received my hon. Friend's reply, for which I thank him.

  Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the special advisers to the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs; and if she will make a statement. [111912]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees are exempt from the commitment to disclose information under Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Drugs Policy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent evidence her office has taken into account in formulating drugs policy. [111116]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are responsive to all reliable drugs-related evidence which is available. Recent statistics show encouraging signs that Government anti-drugs measures are having a positive effect. For example, research undertaken in 1999 reported that the number of 14/15-year-olds who experimented at least once with illegal substances fell from around 32 per cent. in 1996 to around 26 per cent. in 1998.

  New Deal (Paisley, South)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the young people in the constituency of Paisley, South who have taken part in the New Deal Scheme and who are(a) white and (b) of non-white origin have moved on from the New Deal into permanent jobs. [110497]

  Ms Jowell
  In the period to end the of November 1999 the information is as follows for the Paisley, South constituency:

  On crime, the Home Office study on arrest and probation referral schemes and prison-based work in South London, Brighton and Derby reported large falls in opiate use after contact with criminal justice drug workers. Respondents were also spending £300 less per week on drugs with corresponding falls in drug related crime. The Prison Service has also seen a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive mandatory drug tests, from 24.4 per cent. in 1996–97 to 18.3 per cent. in 1998–99. Furthermore, recent Home Office drug seizure and offender statistics show that in 1998 we seized drugs with a total street value of £710 million and dealt with 127,900 drug offenders—an increase of 13 per cent. on the previous year.

  Evidence such as this indicates that the Government's approach is the right one and will deliver the kind of results we all want to see in tackling drug abuse in our society.

  GM Conununications Unit
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the annual total running cost of the Biotechnology Presentation Unit. [112072]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The GM Communications Unit comes within the budget of the Cabinet Office press office. The budget for running the Cabinet Office press office for this financial year (April 1999 to March 2000) is £1,918,000.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list(a) the date and (b) the people present at meetings members of the Biotechnology Presentation Unit have had with (a) companies with a financial interest in genetically modified organisms, (b) special interest groups and (c) others at which a White Paper on biotechnology has been discussed. [112073]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  No one working in the GM Communications Unit (which the hon. Member incorrectly referred to as the Biotechnology Presentation Unit) has had meetings with(a) companies with a financial interest in genetically modified organisms, (b) special interest groups and (c) others at which a White Paper on biotechnology has been discussed.

  There are no plans for a White Paper on biotechnology.
  151W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is(a) the Civil Service grade and (b) the salary of each of the staff employed in the Biotechnology Presentation Unit. [112071]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The grades of those currently employed in the GM Communications Unit are as follows:s

  One at Band A

  Three at Band B2

  One at Band Cl.

  It is not our practice, nor has been the practice of successive Governments, to give personal salary details of those employed in the civil service.

  Racism
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what investigations have been undertaken in each Government Department to identify the existence of institutional racism in relation to employment of staff and service provision; and what remedial action has been taken as a consequence of such investigations. [111288]

  Mr. Stringer
  A key aim of Sir Richard Wilson's Report on Civil Service Reform is for Government departments and agencies to achieve a dramatic improvement in diversity. Departments have been asked to produce diversity action plans and six-monthly reports on progress, including equality proofing of their processes, especially for recruitment, appraisal and promotion.

  We are also undertaking research through the People's Panel into the satisfaction of members of ethnic minority communities with public services. The results will be published in the spring.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many officials in the Cabinet Office are currently on gardening leave. [111090]

  Mr. Stringer
  One member of the Cabinet Office is currently on special leave with pay while awaiting a posting.

TREASURY

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 300W, what was the (a) number and (b) total value of research contracts let by his Department since May 1997. [111650]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Economic Secretary gave him on 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 582W.

  Audit and Accounts
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change audit and accountability arrangements for central Government. [112404]
  152W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am proposing to undertake a study to recommend suitable audit and accountability arrangements for central government in the 21st century.

  The study will cover the issues raised by the Committee of Public Accounts concerning the role and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General in their recent report on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill (9th Report 1999–2000, HC159). It will also cover other relevant issues, such as the role of audit in modernising government, including performance validation, the audit of joined-up activities and attitudes to risk-taking. It will look at the implications of devolution, the wider European context with particular reference to European directives affecting audit arrangements, possible models from other countries, and the relationship with other audit and regulatory bodies. All this must have regard to the importance of Parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, the costs and burdens of regulation and the mechanics of change.

  Given the importance of Parliament's rights in these matters, its interests in scrutiny, accountability and control of expenditure will be reflected in the way the review is undertaken, including the steering group for the study. The steering group will direct a project board responsible for the delivery of the study. The project board will have an independent Chair.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to accept the Fourth Amendment to the International Monetary Fund's Articles of Agreement. [112378]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is today laying before Parliament a Command Paper indicating formal UK Government acceptance of the Fourth Amendment to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. The Chancellor is also writing to the Secretary of the IMF to inform him of this action. The Command Paper is available in the Library of the House of Commons and is accessible on the Treasury's website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the take-up rate for Working Families Tax Credit; [110284]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the take-up rate for the Working Families Tax Credit. [110700]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Up to the end of January 2000, there had been 704,500 awards of the Working Families Tax Credit, of which around 325,000 were for families who were not in receipt of family credit at the time of the claim.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals in London have received assistance under the working families tax credit. [110499]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that about 52,500 families in the London Government Office Region had been awarded the Working Families' Tax Credit by the end of January 2000.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what VAT rate will apply to tolls on the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [111692]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This will depend on the outcome of a case before the European Court of Justice. The Government's policy is to exempt tolls from VAT, but the European Commission argues they should be taxed at 17.5 per cent. VAT.

  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are affected by the provisions which enable the Inland Revenue to tax pensions on the amount of entitlement rather than the amount received; and how much extra tax was paid on average by each pensioner in 1999–2000, as a result of these provisions. [111252]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Income tax on pensions under Schedule E is chargeable on the amount to which the pensioner becomes entitled during the year and is not affected by the frequency of payment. No extra tax is payable as a result.

  Injury Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the suicide plus undetermined injury rate per 100,000 people in England based on a three-year average around(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [109817]

  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. Frank Field, dated 28 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on suicides plus undetermined injury rate per 100,000 people in England.
  The European age standardised rate for the average of the years 1996 to 1998 for England is 9.2 suicides or undetermined injury deaths per 100,000 population. 1999 figures are not yet available and we are therefore unable to provide a three year average around 1998.

  Child Care
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance with child care expenses he will give to parents in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit who do not have access to registered childminders in their locality. [112090]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Assistance with child care expenses is not restricted to parents who have access to registered childminders. The Childcare Tax Credit can be paid to parents in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit who use and pay for any form of eligible child care. For under eights, this includes child care provided by after school clubs, holiday play schemes, breakfast clubs and nurseries and playschemes registered with local authorities. For children aged eight and over it includes out of school care which is provided by the school, and from April 2000, care which is approved under the new accreditation scheme.

  Population (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of residents of the city of Newcastle upon Tyne(a) in total and (b) in the age range (i) 0 to 4, (ii) 4 to 14 and (iii) 14 to 24 years in each year since 1990; and if he will estimate the numbers in each age range for (1) 2000, (2) 2001, (3) 2002 and (4) 2006. [112307]

  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. Jim Cousins, dated 28 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for population statistics for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.
  The lowest level at which mid-year population estimates and projections are compiled is the local authority level. The information provided in the attached table therefore relates to the metropolitan district of Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mid-year population estimates and projections for the metropolitan district of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Thousands

  Persons

  All ages

  0–4

  5–14

  15–24

  Population estimates:

  mid-1990

  279.0

  17.8

  31.1

  49.0

  mid-1991

  278.2

  17.7

  31.5

  47.3

  mid-1992

  281.7

  18.1

  32.8

  46.1

  mid-1993

  285.3

  18.3

  33.9

  45.0

  mid-1994

  283.6

  18.2

  34.1

  45.9

  mid-1995

  283.1

  18.0

  34.5

  46.7

  mid-1996

  282.3

  17.3

  35.0

  47.3

  mid-1997

  279.5

  16.7

  35.1

  47.6

  mid-1998

  276.1

  16.1

  35.0

  47.4

  1996-based population projections:

  1999

  282.2

  16.3

  34.6

  50.2

  2000

  282.8

  16.0

  34.3

  50.3

  2001

  282.1

  16.1

  33.6

  50.6

  2002

  282.0

  16.0

  33.1

  51.2

  2006

  281.5

  15.9

  31.3

  52.6

  Source:

  ONS, Population Estimates Unit and Population Projections Unit

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Clwyd, 16 February 2000,Official Report, columns 610–12W, on household incomes, if he will list the factors underlying the increase in household income in the north between 1997 to 1998 and 1998 to 1999; and if he will also estimate for the North East region the figures given for the years quoted in his answer. [112308]

  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. Jim Cousins, dated 28 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the increase in household income in the north.

  155W
  The Answer to the honourable Member for the Vale of Clwyd, Official Report, columns 610–12W mentioned that, like all estimates from sample surveys, the figures were subject to sampling variability, and that care should be taken in interpreting short-term changes in the data. The apparent large increase in income in the North shown by the Family Expenditure Survey between 1997–98 and 1998–99 is almost certainly due mostly to random sampling variability. The estimated increase is £58 a week but this is subject to sampling variability of plus or minus £49 a week, this is the 90% confidence interval. There is only a one-in-ten chance that the true figure lies outside the estimated range. Published regional breakdowns from the FES are now based on three-year averages to reduce their sampling variability.
  Figures for the Government Office Region of the North East are available only from 1994–95 and are shown below. The comments on sampling variability apply also to these estimates.

  Gross weekly household income for the North East Region, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  North East

  Gross weekly households income (£)

  1994–95

  310

  1995–96

  340

  1996–97

  320

  1997–98

  340

  1998–99

  400

  An alternative source, the Family Resources Survey, would normally be preferred for regional breakdowns because of its larger sample, more than three times that of the FES. It was not used for this question because it does not provide as long a run of data as the FES and because results are not yet available for 1998–99.

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Vale of Clwyd of 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 612W, on consumer debt, if he will publish regional estimates of consumer debt. [112311]

  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. Jim Cousins, dated 28 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on regional estimates of consumer debt.
  The information requested is not available.

  Customs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the correlation between the cost of extra custom officers and the extra duty paid to the Treasury on account of the consequent diminution in smuggling. [112054]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A variety of factors influence the level of smuggling. There is no assessment which makes a direct correlation between the cost of extra Customs staff and changes in smuggling or variations in revenue collected.
  156W
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in respect of the re-sale to the producers by HM Customs and Excise of branded goods, seized as contraband, the average percentage of retail value achieved for each type of branded item. [112041]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Suppliers of UK branded spirits have a contract with Customs and Excise to purchase spirits seized in bulk. The information requested is commercial in confidence.

  High Street Banks
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the profit levels of high street banks. [112057]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Don Cruickshank has been asked to review UK banking industry efficiency and competition; and his report is due shortly.

  Banking Ombudsman
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the maximum sum which can be awarded by the Banking Ombudsman in favour of the complainant; [111801]

  (2) what has been the average settlement awarded by the Banking Ombudsman in favour of the complainant; [111800]

  (3) what percentage of complaints received by the Banking Ombudsman have been resolved in favour of complainants; [111799]

  (4) what resources were made available to the Banking Ombudsman and the FSA for each of the last five years for (a) qualified staff, (b) administrative staff and (c) clerical staff, [111871]

  (5) how long it has taken on average for the Banking Ombudsman to determine a complaint; [111798]

  (6) what is the backlog of cases waiting to be dealt with by the Banking Ombudsman; [111797]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The available information is published in the Banking Ombudsman's annual report.

  I am arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  EU Trade
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the volume of trade with the European Union by firms in London and the South East. [111957]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Firms in London and the South East, along with others in the rest of the United Kingdom, benefit greatly from our participation in the Single Market. The European Union is Britain's foremost trading partner, accounting for more than half of both our exports and imports of goods by value.

  Trade data for the UK regions are available only for the value of their total exports and imports of goods (there is no EU/non-EU split). These data indicate that last year London and the South East accounted for around 33 per cent. of UK exports and 45 per cent. of UK imports.

  Third World Debt
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans the Government have to support a multilateral deal on debt at this year's G8 summit in Okinawa; [111960]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on changing the level of the debt-to-export ratio within the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [111959]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK Government have never closed off any possibility regarding a further multilateral deal on debt. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have both stated publicly that debt relief is not enough in itself and that more must be done to help the poorest countries meet even the basic International Development targets set for 2015. In the first instance, the UK Government want debt relief to lead to poverty reduction and improvements in basic living conditions for the poorest sectors in these countries.

  Taxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer using the assumptions underpinning the calculations made in the 1996 Budget, if he will calculate the(a) direct taxes and (b) indirect taxes paid by the average family in the UK as a result of (i) the 1997 Budget, (ii) the 1998 Budget and (c) the 1999 Budget. [111927]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For estimates of direct taxes paid by the average family I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Truro and St Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 25 January 2000,Official Report, columns 214–15W.

  Estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income, with the consumption of the majority of goods and services far from universal. For example, only around one third of adults are smokers, just over half the adult population are in households paying vehicle excise duty and around 10 per cent. of households pay air passenger duty. This can be contrasted with direct taxes and benefits where at specified earnings and for particular household types there is a known benefit entitlement or tax liability.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2000,Official Report, columns 214–15W, on taxes, what proportion of households are a one-earner married couple, with two children, on male median earnings; what proportion of earners earn within five per cent. of male median earnings; what proportion of households comprise a one-earner couple with two children; and if he will recalculate his answer to apply to a two-earner household where both earners are employed, one on male median earnings and one on female median earnings, with two children. [110213]
  158W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 February 2000]: According to the Family Expenditure Survey 1995–96 to 1997–98, 12.6 per cent. of households are one-earner couples with 2 children. The proportion of these couples who are married is not readily available.

  According to the New Earnings Survey, in 1999 8.3 per cent. of males working full-time on adult rates earned within 5 per cent. of median earnings.

  Percentage of income paid in direct taxes by a two earner couple where both earners are employed, one on male median earnings and one on female median earnings, with two children

  Year

  Percentage

  1983–84

  24.0

  1984–85

  23.5

  1985–86

  23.4

  1986–87

  23.1

  1987–88

  22.5

  1988–89

  21.7

  1989–90

  21.5

  1990–91

  21.2

  1991–92

  21.1

  1992–93

  20.4

  1993–94

  20.5

  1994–95

  21.8

  1995–96

  22.2

  1996–97

  21.4

  1997–98

  20.8

  1998–99

  20.8

  1999–00

  20.2

  2000–01

  20.1

  2001–02

  18.9

  Notes:

  1. Direct taxes are defined as Income Tax plus National Insurance minus Child Benefit. In line with long-standing convention, Child Benefit is treated as a negative component of Income Tax, making it consistent with child tax allowances prior to 1976.

  2. Earnings are taken to be median weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence form the New Earning Survey. Median earnings on a consistent basis are not available before 1983.

  By 2001 the tax burden for the 2 earner married couple both on average earnings with 2 children will be below 20 per cent. for the first time ever.

  Agriculture (Fuel Tax)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax per litre of diesel, used for agricultural purposes, was charged in each of the member states of the EU, including all duties and sales taxes in the last financial year for which figures are available. [111790]

  Mr. Timms
  The rate of excise duty on diesel for agricultural purposes in the United Kingdom is 3.03 pence per litre. Diesel for agricultural purposes is liable to VAT at 17.5 per cent. of the retail price.

  Information on the rates of tax on diesel for agricultural purposes in the other member states of the EU is not available.

  Wales (Earnings)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Wales earn(a) £3.60 per hour,

  159W
  (b) £3.61 to £3.80 per hour, (c) £3.81 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. [111682]

  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. Dafydd Wigley, dated 28 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 Wales.
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for 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. I have provided information for Wales 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 percentages earning below specified thresholds, rather than numbers because appropriate grossing factors for the NES sample are not available.
  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.

  £ billion

  Abolishing the upper earnings limit on employee national insurance contributions3

  +3.2

  Introducing a 50 per cent, rate of income tax for taxable income over £100,000 per year4

  +2.6

  Extending the starting rate band to £2,730 for all taxpayers4,5

  -3.5

  Extending the starting rate limit to £2,730 for taxpayers other than higher rate taxpayers4,5

  -3.1

  Raising the rate of the national minimum wage for adults to £4.94 per hour

  6—

  1 All estimates are consistent with the November 1999 pre-Budget report.

  2 Includes the effects on Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons' Tax Credit.

  3 The NIC effect was produced by the Government Actuary's Department.

  4 The income tax estimates are based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  5 £2,730 is the difference between £7,115 and the non-aged personal allowance of £4,385.

  6 It is not possible to give an estimate of the impact on Exchequer revenue of increasing the National Minimum Wage to £4.94 per hour. Such a move could have significant adverse effects on the employment of low-skilled workers. Therefore any Exchequer gains through increased tax revenue could to some extent be offset by increases in benefit payments.

  Income Tax
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review his decision to reduce income tax by one penny. [111378]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his 1999 Budget statement that the basic rate of income tax will fall to 22p in the pound from April 2000.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants of the Working Families' Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit have earnings below the lower earnings limit to national insurance. [111311]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that there have been 704,500 awards of the Working Families' Tax Credit up to the end of January 2000. Of these about 100,000 were where the single person or the main earner in a couple was earning less than the lower earnings limit of £66 per week.
  160W

  Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

  Percentage earning

  Gross hourly earnings excluding overtime (£)

  £3.60

  £3.61-£3.80

  £3.81-£4.00

  £4.01-£4.50

  Wales

  Full-time

  0.8

  1.4

  1.9

  5.6

  Part-time

  5.6

  6.6

  7.3

  14.2

  All

  1.9

  2.6

  3.1

  7.6

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, April 1999 (GB)

  Fiscal Changes
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on revenue to the Exchequer in the financial year 2000–01 of(a) abolishing the upper earnings limit on employee national insurance contributions, (b) introducing a 50 per cent. rate of income tax for taxable income over £100,000 per year, (c) extending the 10 per cent. income tax band to £7,115 per year of gross income for (i) all taxpayers and (ii) taxpayers other than higher rate taxpayers and
  (d) raising the rate of the national minimum wage for adults to £4.94 per hour. [111643]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full-year tax and National Insurance Contribution effects for 2000–01 are in the table.

  10,712 awards of the Disabled Person's Tax Credit were made in the same period and of these 3,279 had earnings less than £66 a week on the same basis.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total yield from national insurance contributions in 1999–2000 prices in each financial year since 1978–79, broken down by(a) employer national insurance contributions, (b) employee national insurance contributions, (c) national insurance contributions paid by the self-employed, (d) national insurance contributions paid by the others and (e) the national insurance surcharge; if he will provide corresponding estimates of the investment income of the National Insurance Fund; and if he will provide projections for each of these items of the next three financial years. [107660]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available information for Great Britain is given in the table.
  161W

  Yield in 1999–2000 prices

  £ billion

  (a) Employer NICs

  (b) Employee NICs

  (c) Employed NICs

  (d) Other NICs

  (e) NI surcharge

  (f) Investament income

  1978–79

  19.54

  12.11

  0.91

  0.04

  6.18

  1.45

  1979–80

  19.35

  12.08

  0.75

  0.03

  8.31

  1.52

  1980–81

  19.22

  12.28

  0.73

  0.03

  8.16

  1.44

  1981–82

  18.67

  14.03

  0.81

  0.03

  7.94

  1.28

  1982–83

  19.35

  16.80

  0.95

  0.04

  5.44

  1.01

  1983–84

  20.06

  17.89

  1.05

  0.05

  3.35

  0.95

  1984–85

  20.37

  18.23

  1.15

  0.05

  1.65

  0.96

  1985–86

  21.57

  18.81

  1.16

  0.07

  0.07

  0.95

  1986–87

  22.94

  19.49

  1.18

  0.05

  0.01

  l.04

  1987–88

  24.11

  20.28

  1.24

  0.05

  0.00

  0.96

  1988–89

  25.60

  21.02

  1.38

  0.05

  0.00

  1.17

  1989–90

  26.98

  20.28

  1.48

  0.05

  0.00

  1.47

  1990–91

  27.33

  18.63

  1.48

  0.05

  0.00

  1.30

  1991–92

  26.81

  18.37

  1.44

  0.06

  0.00

  1.37

  1992–93

  26.96

  18.09

  1.45

  0.06

  0.00

  l.10

  1993–94

  27.94

  17.59

  1.63

  0.05

  0.00

  0.55

  1994–95

  27.29

  20.32

  1.63

  0.07

  0.00

  0.42

  1995–96

  27.88

  20.81

  1.65

  0.06

  0.00

  0.49

  1996–97

  28.35

  20.95

  1.73

  0.06

  0.00

  0.51

  1997–98

  29.59

  22.89

  1.78

  0.07

  0.00

  0.49

  1998–99

  31.06

  23.97

  1.64

  0.06

  0.00

  0.67

  1999–2000

  32.16

  23.48

  1.70

  0.07

  0.00

  0.73

  2000–01

  33.26

  23.31

  1.35

  0.06

  0.00

  0.83

  2001–02

  33.35

  23.23

  2.05

  0.06

  0.00

  0.95

  Notes:

  1. Constant prices using GDP deflation at market prices.

  2. Employer NICs are Class 1 secondary, Class 1A and Class 1B contributions.

  3. Employee NICs are Class 1 primary contributions.

  4. Class 1 contributions are net of contracted-out rebates deducted from contributions but do not allow for rebates paid in the following yeai

  5. Self Employed NICs are Class 2 and Class 4 contribution.

  6. Other NICs are Class 3 contributions.

  7. The NI Surcharge account is closed 1986–87 being the last year that anything other than an insignificant amount was paid in.

  8. The totals for Employer and Employee NICs contain some payments into the Redundancy and Maternity Pay Fund. These, like payment to the NI surcharge, have now ended.

  9. Figures for 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 are projections consistent with the November 1999 pre-Budget Report.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much better off than in the previous year, on average(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couplesons

  The weekly gain to pensioners on Income Support taking into account winter fuel payments and the reduction in VAT on fuel

  Actual weekly increase on previous year including winter fuel payment and estimated saving due to reduction in VAT1 £

  Real value of1 uprated to April 2000 prices 2 £

  Actual percentage increase on previous year %

  Average earnings percentage increase 3 %

  Single Pensioners

  April 19974

  Under 75

  2.30

  2.45

  3.5

  4.2

  75 to 79

  2.40

  2.55

  3.5

  4.2

  80 and over

  2.65

  2.80

  3.6

  4.2

  April 1998

  Under 75

  2.90

  3.05

  4.2

  4.1

  75 to 79

  2.95

  3.10

  4.2

  4.1

  80 and over

  3.05

  3.20

  4.2

  4.1

  April 1999

  Under 75

  4.55

  4.60

  6.3

  4.9

  75 to 79

  4.60

  4.65

  6.2

  4.9

  80 and over

  4.75

  4.85

  6.0

  4.9

  162W
  on Income Support aged (i) under 75, (ii) 75 to 79 and (iii) 80 years or over were in (1) April 1998, (2) April 1999, (3) April 2000 and (4) April 1997, (X) in cash terms, (Y) in real terms and (Z) relative to average earnings, taking into account winter fuel payments and the reduction in VAT on fuel. [111810]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is in the table.
  163W

  The weekly gain to pensioners on Income Support taking into account winter fuel payments and the reduction in VAT on fuel

  Actual weekly increase on previous year including winter fuel payment and estimated saving due to raeduction in VAT1 £

  Real value of1 uprated to April 2000 prices 2 £

  Actual percentage increase on previous year %

  Average earnings percentage increase 3 %

  April 2000

  Under 75

  3.45

  3.45

  4.5

  4.5

  75 to 79

  3.55

  3.55

  4.5

  4.5

  80 and over

  3.80

  3.80

  4.5

  4.5

  Pensioner Couples

  April 19974

  Under 75

  3.55

  3.80

  3.4

  4.2

  75 to 79

  3.75

  4.00

  3.5

  4.2

  80 and over

  4.00

  4.25

  3.6

  4.2

  April 1998

  Under 75

  3.80

  3.95

  3.6

  4.1

  75 to 79

  3.90

  4.05

  3.6

  4.1

  80 and over

  4.00

  4.15

  3.5

  4.1

  April 1999

  Under 75

  7.25

  7.35

  6.6

  4.9

  75 to 79

  7.30

  7.40

  6.4

  4.9

  80 and over

  7.40

  7.50

  6.2

  4.9

  April 2000

  Under 75

  5.35

  5.35

  4.5

  4.5

  75 to 79

  5.50

  5.50

  4.5

  4.5

  80 and over

  5.75

  5.75

  4.5

  4.5

  1 Winter fuel payments of £50 per year from January 1998 to November 1999 and then £100 from December 1999, per Income Support claimants, divided by 52 to give weekly increase. Saving due to reduction in VAT on fuel estimated at £16 per year divided by 52 to give weekly gain.

  2 For income related benefits the Rossi index (Retail Prices Index less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payment) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  3 Average Earnings are taken from the New Earnings Survey (NES) estimates of earnings for all full-time adult employees, as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  4 Winter fuel payments not payable until 9 November 1998.

  Note:

  The figures are rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Shropshire and (ii) nationally; and if he will make a Social Security if he will list by decile the(a) total average income per week and (b) percentage change in that in each year since 1979, for pensioners, (i) in

  Average (median) net income of pensioner by decile of the net income distribution (UK,1979 to 1996–97)

  Year

  Dl

  D2

  D3

  D4

  D5

  D6

  D7

  D8

  D9

  D10

  Decile of the pensioner couples net income distribution

  1979

  90

  102

  109

  116

  126

  139

  153

  181

  218

  310

  1981

  96

  107

  115

  121

  128

  140

  157

  187

  227

  342

  1987

  103

  119

  129

  140

  153

  169

  192

  225

  279

  462

  1988

  101

  116

  125

  135

  151

  171

  199

  239

  294

  505

  1989

  101

  116

  127

  137

  149

  166

  195

  228

  288

  445

  1990–91

  97

  116

  127

  141

  159

  182

  212

  250

  318

  497

  1992

  107

  128

  139

  156

  174

  198

  231

  272

  333

  512

  1993

  106

  130

  143

  159

  179

  200

  230

  269

  338

  506

  1994–95

  116

  136

  152

  167

  185

  207

  232

  273

  357

  506

  1995–96

  113

  137

  152

  169

  191

  215

  244

  297

  364

  555

  1996–97

  113

  140

  154

  169

  191

  220

  254

  298

  385

  562

  Change 1979 to 1996–97 (percentage)

  25

  37

  41

  46

  51

  59

  66

  64

  76

  81

  Decile of the single pensioners net income distribution

  1979

  52

  58

  63

  68

  72

  76

  81

  88

  105

  155

  1981

  55

  62

  68

  73

  77

  82

  87

  95

  113

  162

  1987

  57

  65

  73

  80

  86

  92

  99

  109

  135

  209

  1988

  55

  63

  71

  80

  86

  91

  98

  110

  144

  217

  164W
  Shropshire and (ii) nationally; and if he will make a statement. [111913]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  165W

  Average (median) net income of pensioner by decile of the net income distribution (UK,1979 to 1996–97)

  Year

  Dl

  D2

  D3

  D4

  D5

  D6

  D7

  D8

  D9

  D10

  1989

  53

  64

  70

  78

  85

  90

  96

  111

  147

  227

  1990–91

  57

  65

  75

  82

  89

  95

  104

  124

  162

  258

  1992

  60

  69

  79

  88

  94

  100

  111

  130

  166

  283

  1993

  63

  72

  82

  93

  100

  107

  115

  131

  168

  242

  1994–95

  65

  75

  85

  95

  103

  111

  122

  141

  179

  269

  1995–96

  65

  79

  91

  101

  109

  116

  127

  148

  180

  263

  1996–97

  63

  76

  91

  101

  110

  118

  133

  154

  187

  258

  Change 1979 to 1996–97 (percentage)

  22

  32

  45

  48

  52

  55

  66

  75

  78

  67

  Notes:

  1. All money amounts are given in £ per week, at July 1997 prices.

  2. Single pensioners are defined as single (non-cohabitating) people over State pension age (65 for men, 60 for women); pensioner couples are defined as couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over State pension age.

  3. For any given decile of the income distribution, the average amounts refer to the median net income before housing costs within that decile.

  4. The distribution of income is calculated on the net income before housing costs measure. Separate distributions are calculated for pensioner couples and single pensioners in each year. Figures are not available for the distribution of pensioner couples and single pensioners combined.

  5. Information is given for all years for which comparable Pensioners' Incomes data, derived from the Family Expenditure Survey, are available. Information for 1997–98, based on the Family Resources Survey is available but has not been included because it is not comparable with Family Expenditure Survey based estimates.

  6. All years up to and including 1993 are calendar years, except 1990–91 which refers to the combined calendar years 1990 and 1991. All years from 1994–95 onwards are financial years.

  7. All estimate are subject to a high degree of sampling error, since they are based on small sample sizes, and should therefore be treated with caution. In particular, these figures should not be used to estimate changes over time, unless over a period of several years.

  8. Estimates are given for the United Kingdom. Estimates are not available for Shropshire due to small sample sizes.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state, for(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) the latest year for which information is available, at 1999–2000 prices, the percentage of people aged 65 years and over whose annual incomes were
  (i) £4,000 and below, (ii) £4,001 to £6,000, (iii) £6,001 to £8,000, (iv) £8,001 to £10,000, (v) £10,001 to £15,000, (vi) £15,001 to £20,000 and (vii) over £20,000. [112046]

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

  Net benefit unit income of people aged 65 years and over

  Percentage

  Annual net income of benefit unit

  1981

  1990–91

  1996–97

  People aged 65 and over in couples

  Less than £4,000

  *

  1

  *

  £4,001-£6,000

  18

  11

  4

  £6,001-£8,000

  42

  28

  16

  £8,001-£10,000

  15

  17

  22

  £10,001-£15,000

  16

  24

  29

  £15,001-£20,000

  5

  9

  14

  More than £20,000

  4

  10

  15

  All individuals

  100

  100

  100

  Single persons aged 65 and over

  Less than £4,000

  38

  24

  13

  £4,001-£6,000

  48

  46

  35

  £6,001-£8,000

  8

  13

  27

  £8,001-£10,000

  4

  6

  11

  £10,001-£15,000

  2

  6

  11

  £15,001-£20,000

  1

  2

  2

  More than £20,000

  1

  2

  2

  All individuals

  100

  100

  100

  All persons aged 65 and over

  Less than £4,000

  18

  11

  6

  £4,001-£6,000

  32

  27

  18

  £6,001-£8,000

  26

  21

  21

  166W

  Net benefit unit income of people aged 65 years and over

  Percentage

  Annual net income of benefit unit

  1981

  1990–91

  1996–97

  Annual net income of benefit unit

  1981

  1990–91

  1996–97

  £8,001-£10,000

  10

  12

  17

  £10,001-£15,000

  9

  16

  21

  £15,001-£20,000

  3

  6

  9

  More than £20,000

  2

  7

  9

  All individuals

  100

  100

  100

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent., but are not necessarily accurate to that degree. Estimates of less than 0.5 per cent. are denoted by "*". Columns may not sum to 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  2. Income is defined as the net income before housing costs of the benefit unit, expressed in July 1999 prices. Benefit units are defined as a single person or couple (married or cohabiting) and any dependent children.

  3. Percentage estimates relate to the proportion of individuals aged over 65, whose benefit unit income falls into a given category.

  4. Income amounts are "unequivalised" (i.e. they have not been adjusted to take account of the size and composition of each benefit unit). This means that a comparison between the benefit unit incomes of someone in a couple and a single person does not give any indication of relative living standards. Therefore, results are provided separately for people in couples and single persons. The table for people in couples and single persons combined can be used only to look at changes in income level over time—it should not be used as a measure of the distribution of incomes in the context of relative living standards.

  5. Most components of income are reported in the Family Expenditure Survey as weekly or monthly amounts, which have then been converted to annual amounts for the purposes of this analysis. No account has been taken of variations in the income of a benefit unit over the year.

  6. Figures are given for the calendar year 1981, the combined calendar years 1990 and 1991, and the financial year 1996–97—the latest year for which comparable estimates are available.

  7. There is no information of this type readily available prior to 1979.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have benefited from a winter fuel payment this winter; and how many times the weather conditions activated a payment to be made for(a) Gordon constituency, (b) Aberdeenshire and (c) Scotland. [111490]

  Mr. Rooker
  The hon. Member will be aware that Winter Fuel Payments and Cold Weather Payments are different benefits. As the administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, he will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 22 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking how many pensioners have benefited from a winter fuel payment this winter; and how many times the weather conditions activated a payment to be made for (a) Gordon constituency, (b) Aberdeenshire and (c) Scotland.
  Winter fuel payments were introduced in the winter of 1997/98 for an initial two years. The Government subsequently decided to continue the scheme, and in addition, increased the amount of the payment to £100 for every eligible household. Delivery of this winter's payments was broadly similar to the last two winters, other than the payments were made before the new year, with the Generalised Matching Service being used to compare addresses to determine whether £50 or £100 was payable to eligible non Income Support/Income based Jobseekers Allowance pensioners. Eligibility is not determined by the severity of the weather conditions.
  Where official records showed more than one eligible pensioner as living at an address, each received £50. Other eligible pensioners received £100. Determining the correct amount of payment involved the cross matching of around 13 million records on 8 benefit systems.

  Weather Stations

  Weather station

  Dates

  Estimated qualifiers

  Districts affected

  Aviemore

  12 December 1999–18 December 1999F

  929

  Grampian and Shetlands, Highlands and Islands,Tayside

  19 December 1999–25 December 1999F

  —

  —

  Braemar

  12 December 1999–18 December 1999F

  54

  Grampian and Shetlands

  19 December 1999–25 December 1999F

  —

  —

  27 December 1999–2 January 2000

  —

  —

  Eskdalemuir

  15 December 1999–21 December 1999F

  3,723

  East Edinburgh and Borders, North Cumbria, South West Scotland

  Loch Glascarnoch

  12 December 1999–18 December 1999F

  430

  Highlands and Islands

  19 December 1999–25 December 1999F

  —

  —

  14 February 2000–2 February 2000R

  —

  —

  Salsburgh

  18 December 1999–24 December 1999F

  10,884

  East Edinburgh & Borders, Glasgow South, Lanarkshire

  Tulloch Bridge

  15 December 1999–21 December 1999F

  1,968

  Argyll and West, Highlands and Islands, Tayside

  F —forecast

  R —recorded

  Total payments this winter so far (by district and cold weather period)

  District

  CWP period payment run (week ending)

  Automated payments (£)

  Number of payments

  Argyll and West

  17 December 1999

  620.50

  73

  East Edinburgh and Borders

  17 December 1999

  21,250.00

  2,500

  23 December 1999

  3,799.50

  447

  Glasgow South

  23 December 1999

  2,924.00

  344

  Grampian and Shetlands

  17 December 1999

  4,284.00

  504

  23 December 1999

  4,275.50

  503

  6 January 2000

  450.50

  53

  168W
  In Great Britain a total of 10.2 million pensioners in over 7.5 million households received a Winter Fuel Payment. In Scotland 905,638 pensioners received a payment. The Benefits Agency does not keep statistics in exactly the format you require. However, according to available information the constituencies in Aberdeenshire are Banff & Buchan, Gordon, Aberdeen Central, Aberdeen North, Aberdeen South and West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, though their boundaries may not exactly match. The attached table shows payments issued to customers in each of the constituencies.

  Cold Weather Payments (CWP) are however dependent on the severity of the weather and are paid to people in receipt of Income Support or Income-based Jobseekers' Allowance who have a pensioner or disability premium, or a child under 5 in the household. A CWP is currently £8.50. No separate claim is needed for a CWP.

  CWPs are triggered if the temperature has been recorded as an average of 0°C or below over any seven consecutive days, or a forecast shows the temperature is likely to average 0°C or below oever the next seven days, for a weather station area. The payment process can start without awaiting actual recorded temperatures. Payments are not recalled if a forecast is not confirmed by recorded data.

  Again BA does not keep information in the format requested but we are able to provide numbers of estimated qualifiers by weather station (and linked postcodes), and actual payments by BA Districts.

  Because of the way in which information is held in respect of Cold Weather Payments, we are unable to identify pensioners as a specific group. Therefore, any information provided refers to all customers, i.e. people who are entitled to IS or JSA(IB) for one day in the period of cold weather, and who receive one of the qualifying premiums (Pensioner, Higher Pensioners, Enhanced Pensioner, Disability, Severe Disability, Disabled Child), or, an amount for a dependent child under five.

  So far this winter, periods of cold weather have been declared and payments made as shown in the attached tables.

  I hope this is helpful.
  169W

  Total payments this winter so far (by district and cold weather period)

  District

  CWP period payment run (week ending)

  Automated payments (£)

  Number of payments

  District

  CWP period payment run (week ending)

  Automated payments (£)

  Number of payments

  Highlands and Islands

  17 December 1999

  14,441.50

  1,699

  23 December 1999

  4,088.50

  481

  Lanarkshire

  17 December 1999

  2,014.50

  237

  23 December 1999

  79,288.00

  9,328

  North Cumbria

  17 December 1999

  17.00

  2

  South West Scotland

  17 December 1999

  7,089.00

  834

  Tayside

  17 December 1999

  8,806.00

  1,036

  23 December 1999

  178.50

  21

  Note:

  Total automated payments are noted. We do not yet have total clerical payments. The latest trigger at Loch Glascamoch in not included.

  Winter fuel payments issued-Period of time Winter 1999–00

  Constituency

  Number of payments made

  Banff and Buchan

  12,178

  Gordon

  11,945

  Aberdeen Central

  11,041

  Aberdeen North

  10,627

  Aberdeen South

  13,970

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  11,245

  Income Support
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people on income support for each ward in the constituencies of(a) Stockton South and (b) Stockton North. [110768]

  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 Ms Dari Taylor, dated 22 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question asking if he will estimate the number of people on Income Support for each ward in the constituencies of (a) Stockton South and (b) Stockton North.
  We are unable to supply figures at ward level for either of these constituencies. However, we estimate that there are 5,400 Income Support claimants in the Stockton South constituency and 7,400 in Stockton North.
  These figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and, because they come from the Income Support Statistical Enquiry, August 1999 which is based on a 5% sample, they are subject to sampling error.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are on income support in each ward of the Vale of Clwyd. [110826]

  Mr. Bayley
  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. Chris Ruane, dated 22 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people are on Income Support in each ward of the Vale of Clwyd.
  We are unable to supply figures at ward level for the Vale of Clwyd. However, there are 6,400 Income Support claimants in the Vale of Clwyd Parliamentary Constituency.
  170W
  This figure is rounded to the nearest hundred and, because it comes from the Income Support Statistical Enquiry, August 1999 which is based on a 5% sample, it is subject to sampling error.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [110686]

  Angela Eagle
  As at 1 April 1999, 55 members of the senior civil service across all government Departments 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. This Department has fewer than 5 people of ethnic minority background in the Senior Civil Service.

  However, a range of measures are in place to improve representation at senior levels. These include a Leadership Group on Equal Opportunities, chaired by the Permanent Secretary, with representation drawn from senior grades and the Trade Unions, the aim of which is to promote diversity issues across the Department.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what provisions are made available to (i) departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department, for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contract, (1) child care allowances, (m) careers' leave and (n) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [108853]

  (2) in each of the last five years, what proportion of women employees in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies under the control of his Department (a) returned to work after childbirth, (b) returned to work after childbirth before the end of maternity leave, indicating the (1) time-range and (2) mean time, (c) returned to work after childbirth on reduced working hours, indicating the average hours worked and (d) returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours; [108973]

  (3) what childcare provision was made available in the financial year 1998–99 for use by (i) his departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the

  171W
  control of his Department; what was the cost to parents of this childcare; and how many parents used the facilities. [108974]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written answer from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 2000,Official Report, columns 518–22W.

  Information about women employees and childcare provision is not available in the format requested as detailed information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, this Department and its Agencies, are fully committed to providing a family friendly environment to help staff balance home and work responsibilities. The specific provisions and their eligibility criteria are follows.

  All women are eligible for up to a maximum of 52 weeks maternity leave.

  Women with one-year service at the time they give birth are entitled to 17 weeks paid maternity leave.

  Staff are entitled to seven days paid paternity leave and up to a maximum of 10 days paid leave in exceptional circumstances.

  Parents have an automatic right to parental leave of three months for the care of children until aged eight and until aged eighteen for children with special educational needs. This is in excess of the Parental Leave Directive. Staff are also entitled to reasonable paid time off to attend to urgent and unforeseeable domestic incidents involving their children.

  Flexible working hours are generally available to most staff with individual patterns being determined locally within a framework to meet business needs.

  Part-time work and job sharing are available to staff where arrangements can be made to balance the individual's requirement to work reduced hours and the business constraints in doing so. All requests are treated sympathetically and most are approved, however there is an appeals' procedure to deal with unsuccessful requests.

  Parents with at least one-year service are eligible for up to 7 days paid special and or extended unpaid special leave to care for sick children and if the normal childcare arrangement is interrupted or breaks down.

  The Department's homeworking policy aims to achieve a successful balance between the individual's requirement to work at home and the business constraints in doing so. Managers will support requests for short-term homeworking to help parents manage caring responsibilities.

  Term-time and annual contracts working are available to staff where arrangements can be made to balance the individual's requirement to work reduced hours and the business constraints in doing so. All requests are treated sympathetically and most are approved, however there is an appeals' procedure for unsuccessful requests.

  The Department provides for child care allowances in several ways by meeting the full cost of family care expenses if staff are required to work outside normal
  172W
  working hours; child care subsidy ranges from £7-£30 and is available for staff to access both Departmentally sponsored or commercial facilities.

  The Department operates a career break scheme of up to five years for parents to care for children.

  Staff in the Department have access to nursery places and holiday playschemes in a variety of locations across the country. The cost of this childcare varies according to the age of the child, the nature of the provision and the location of the childcare. However, there is a subsidy available to staff of up £30 per child per week. This represents a 30 per cent. subsidy on the total cost of care.

  Each business unit is responsible for making its own detailed arrangements which are suitable for local circumstances.

  Benefit Claimants (Savings)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will(a) raise the savings limit of £2,500 for all benefit claimants and (b) establish a higher limit for those with special needs. [110713]

  Mr. Bayley
  The capital limits in the income-related benefits are reviewed regularly but are not uprated annually. The lower limit of £3,000 was introduced in April 1988. From April 1996 this was increased to £10,000 for people living permanently in residential care and nursing homes. The rules are designed to ensure that help is targeted on those who need it most while not entirely denying benefit to those with only a modest amount of capital. We have no plans to establish a higher limit for other people with special needs.

  Compensation Recovery
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 on(a) public finances, (b) speed of settlement of cases, (c) insurers and employers and (d) victims of illness, accident and diseases. [111683]

  Mr. Bayley
  The compensation recovery scheme was reformed in October 1997 when the provisions of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 came into force. The main objectives of the reformed scheme were that a person should not get compensation twice over for the same need; the taxpayer should receive the fullest possible protection; the scheme should allow damages for pain and suffering to be paid in full; the scheme should not result in Government becoming directly involved in the compensation process; and the simplicity of the previous scheme, which helped ensure that administration costs run at less than 5 per cent. of the amount recovered, should be preserved.

  The objectives have been achieved: the main changes in the scheme brought about by the Act are that compensators are liable to repay benefits in full; compensators may reduce compensation payments to take account of the liability to repay benefits, but only where benefits and compensation are paid for a like need; compensation for pain and suffering cannot be reduced. The reformed scheme has been designed so that the negotiation process can be as flexible as possible,

  173W
  allowing claims to be settled quickly. Administration costs continue to be less than 5 per cent. of the amounts recovered, which in 1998–99 was £201.5 million.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of(a) a CT scan and (b) a chest x-ray when evidence is sought as to whether a person has an asbestos-related disease. [111703]

  Mr. Bayley
  There is no standard cost for either investigation. Claimants for an asbestos-related disease under the Industrial Injuries Scheme are referred to Medical Services for advice, which will often necessitate their taking and reporting upon plain chest radiographs. If a CT scan was felt to be necessary, Medical Services would provide one. In either case, Medical Services is recompensed for the investigations it supplies through its overall contract with the Benefits Agency, which does not specify fees for particular investigations.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will accept a privately-commissioned CT scan as evidence when a person is seeking to prove that he has an asbestos-related disease. [111686]

  Mr. Bayley
  Claimants for Social Security benefits may ask the decision maker to consider whatever evidence they wish to produce in support of their claims. The decision maker will consider any evidence upon its merits. This includes medical investigations carried out in the private sector.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish statistics for each of the past five years on the work of the Compensation Recovery Unit. [111684]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Net amounts recovered 1994–95 to 1999–2000

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  110.1

  1995–96

  135.1

  1996–97

  145.5

  1997–98

  170.9

  1998–99

  201.5

  1999–2000 (to December)

  157.5

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest hundred thousand

  Number of certificates issued by CRU 1994–95 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  261,000

  1995–96

  339,000

  1996–97

  416,000

  1997–98

  720,000

  1998–99

  1,267,000

  1999–2000 (to December)

  918,000

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest thousand

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of housing benefit live in(a) local authority properties, (b) housing
  174W
  association properties and (c) owner-occupied housing in (i) the DSS administrative region containing Paisley, (ii) Scotland and (iii) the UK. [111681]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available. Such information that is available is in the table.

  Number of Housing Benefit recipients living in (a) local authority properties, (b) housing association properties in (i) Scotland and (ii) Great Britain—February1999

  Total local authority

  Total housing association

  Scotland

  383,000

  80,400

  Great Britain

  2,589,600

  858,900

  Note:

  1. The number of recipients is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Recipients refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. Owner occupiers are not entitled to Housing Benefit.

  4. It is not possible to give a smaller administrative unit as data on housing in individual local authority areas administered by Scottish Homes is not available. Figures in the table take into account housing administered by Scottish Homes.

  5. The information in the table refers to Scotland and Great Britain only. Requests for Housing Benefit data for Northern Ireland should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, Quarterly caseload taken on the second Thursday in February 1999.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of housing benefit and of these how many are(a) of working age, (b) in receipt of incapacity benefit, (c) in receipt of unemployment benefit and (d) in receipt of income support in (i) the DSS administrative region containing Paisley, (ii) Scotland and (iii) the UK. [111680]

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

  Housing benefit recipients, Scotland and Great Britain—May 1998

  Housing benefit (HB) recipients

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  All housing benefit recipients

  4,475,000

  520,000

  Of working age

  2,662,000

  296,000

  In receipt of incapacity benefit

  438,000

  72,000

  In receipt of JSA (Contribution based)

  65,000

  11,000

  In receipt of Income Support/JSA (Income based)

  2,860,000

  324,000

  Notes:

  1. The number of recipients is rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Recipients refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. Jobseekers Allowance (Contribution Based) replaced Unemployment Benefit from October 1996.

  4. There is an overlap in the figures as each case could fit into more than one category.

  5. "Working age" is where the claimant is aged 16 or over and under 60.

  6. It is not possible to give data for smaller administrative regions as information gained from the sampling process becomes unreliable at this level.

  7. The information refers to Scotland and Great Britain only. Requests for Housing Benefit data for Northern Ireland should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries taken on the second Thursday in May 1998.
  175W
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money was spent on housing benefit in(a) 1980, (b) 1990, (c) 1996, (d) 1997 and (e) 1998 in (i) the DSS administrative region containing Paisley, (ii) Scotland and (iii) the UK. [111679]

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

  Housing Benefit expenditure in Great Britain and Scotland

  £ million, cash

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1980–81

  95

  1,623

  1990–91

  595

  5,147

  1996–97

  967

  11,380

  1997–98

  1,017

  11,180

  1998–99

  1,034

  11,156

  Notes:

  1. Information for all the years, except for 1998–99, is final outturn. 1998–99 information is estimated outturn.

  2. Figures for Renfrewshire have not been included as they do not include expenditure in relation to housing administered by Scottish Homes in the Renfrewshire area (figure not available). The figures for Scotland and Great Britain do include expenditure in relation to housing administered by Scottish Homes. As an indication of the level of spending on Housing Benefit in the Renfrewshire area, the latest available figure for the local authority's spending is £40 million for 1998–99.

  3. The information refers to Scotland and Great Britain only. Requests for Housing Benefit data for Northern Ireland should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source:

  The figures underlie the Departmental Reports and the 1998–99 figure is from the Pre-Budget Report 1999.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many regulations have been made in respect of housing benefit in(a) the past 12 months and (b) since the benefit was introduced. [111997]

  Angela Eagle
  There have been 14 sets of regulations made in the last 12 months that affect Housing Benefit and approximately 110 sets of regulations since Housing Benefit was introduced in 1988. Some of the sets of regulations relate only to Housing Benefit, while others affect a number of the income related benefits, including Housing Benefit. Such regulations may contain only minor changes to Housing Benefit policy.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of fraud in respect of housing benefit in(a) the DSS administrative region containing Paisley, (b) Scotland and
  (c) the UK. [111693]

  Mr. Rooker
  No figures are available on the level of Housing Benefit fraud for the Benefits Agency Area Directorate containing Paisley or for the United Kingdom as an entity.

  However, the 1997–98 Housing Benefit Accuracy Review provided the information in the following table on the estimated percentage of the number of Housing Benefit cases for Scotland and Great Britain found to be incorrect as a result of either a confirmed or a suspected fraud.
  176W

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Confirmed fraud

  1.8 (0.7–2.9)

  1.9 (1.3–2.6)

  Strong suspicion of fraud

  2.4 (1.2–3.7)

  4.0 (1.9–6.8)

  Mild suspicion of fraud

  0.5 (0.2–0.8)

  1.1 (0.7–1.7)

  Notes:

  1.The figures in italic provide the best estimate from the Review for the percentage of the caseload in 1997-98 within each of the fraud categories. The figures in brackets indicate the range within which we can be 95 per cent. confident that the true value lies.

  2. The definition of "confirmed fraud" was "where the claimant had provided incorrect or incomplete information or failed to report a change in circumstances which, on correction, led to a reduction in, or cancellation of, benefit and there was evidence or admission of intention to obtain monies fraudulently".

  3. The definition of "strong suspicion of fraud" was "where a fraudulent claim could not be proven but, on the balance of probabilities, the incorrect payment was likely to be due to fraud".

  4. The definition of "mild suspicion of fraud" was "where there was some suspicion of a fraudulent claim but, on the balance of probabilities, the incorrect payment was not likely to be due to fraud"

  Source:

  "National Housing Benefit Accuracy Review 1997–98" published by the Government Statistical Service in October 1998.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many circulars have been issued in respect of housing benefit in(a) the past 12 months and (b) since the benefit was introduced. [111998]

  Angela Eagle
  In the last 12 months 88 circulars covering administration, fraud and subsidy matters in respect of housing benefit have been issued. Since the benefit was introduced in 1988 approximately 585 circulars have been issued. Some of these circulars covered Council Tax Benefit as well.

  Maternity Payment
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of raising the flat-rate statutory maternity payment to £100 a week. [111242]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated cost of raising the flat-rate Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) and Maternity Allowance (MA) to £100 a week

  £ million

  Option

  Cost increase

  SMP—imposing floor of £100 for first 6 weeks

  10

  SMP—raising flat rate to £100 for next 12 weeks

  140

  SMP Total

  150

  MA—Raising rate to £100 for 18 weeks

  45

  Total Cost

  195

  Note:

  These estimates are based on the Government Actuary's Department projection of the average number of women on SMP during 2000–01 and assume 100 per cent. take-up. The estimate of MA for 2000–01 is based on the Government Actuary's Department projections for 2001–02 in 2000–01 prices.

  Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which subjects were discussed at his meeting with the European Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs on 31 January. [111313]
  177W
  Mr. Darling
  Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou and I discussed a number of issues. The main issue was the Lisbon Special Summit due to be held in March 2000, but we also discussed poverty and the UK Anti-Poverty Report, the Commissioner's proposed Social Action Programme due to be published in September 2000, and prospects for Commission reform.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many people disabled from birth will benefit from the Welfare Reform Bill in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [111448]

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

  From April 2001, young people disabled before the age of 20 (or 25 if they have been in education) will be able to qualify for Incapacity Benefit without having to have made National Insurance contributions. Rates of Incapacity Benefit are higher than Severe Disablement Allowance (to which such young people would currently be entitled)—after a year on benefit, the rate is over £26 a week more. It is estimated that in Great Britain the change will bring approximately 6,500 young people into Incapacity Benefit each year. If the national pattern of receipt were replicated in Shrewsbury and Atcham, and in Shropshire, the numbers moving into Incapacity Benefit each year in those areas would be some 10 and 25 respectively.

  Also from April 2001, the higher rate mobility care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will be extended to severely disabled children aged three or four. It is estimated that approximately 7,000 children in Great Britain will become entitled in the first year and approximately 8,000 in each subsequent year. If the national pattern of receipt were replicated in Shrewsbury and Atcham and in Shropshire, the numbers of children qualifying in those areas in each year would be some 10 and 50 respectively.

  Poverty Statistics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development the average percentage of(a) people and (b) children, living in poverty for each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [111067]

  Mr. Bayley
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives—their income, health, housing, the quality of the environment, opportunities to work and to learn. There is no single measure which can capture the complex problems which need to be overcome.

  The most commonly used measures of poverty in international comparisons are income based. International comparisons are not available annually. The following table gives figures for the proportion of people below 50 per cent. of mean equivalent household disposable income for members of the Organisation for Economic
  178W
  Co-operation and Development (OECD) for which data are available. The source of these is the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), August 1998.

  Percentage of population below 50 per cent. of equivalent mean household disposable income for certain OECD countries

  Country

  Year

  Percentage

  Australia

  1994

  17.0

  Belgium

  1992

  7.1

  Canada

  1994

  14.4

  Czech Republic

  1992

  1.7

  Denmark

  1992

  7.8

  Finland

  1995

  5.7

  France

  1994

  14.9

  Germany

  1994

  13.7

  Hungary

  1994

  14.7

  Italy

  1995

  18.7

  Luxembourg

  1994

  7.2

  Netherlands

  1991

  9.9

  Norway

  1995

  8.1

  Poland

  1995

  15.6

  Spain

  1990

  15.6

  Sweden

  1995

  9.2

  United Kingdom

  1995

  19.5

  United States

  1997

  26.2

  Source:

  LIS Low Income Measures as computed by K. Vleminckx (Luxembourg Income Study—LIS), August 1998

  Studies showing child poverty rates across countries are also subject to data availability. The following table quotes draft results from "Child poverty across the industrialized world: Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study", Bradbury and Jantti, August 1999. This study presented results for children in households with an equivalent disposable income less than 50 per cent. of the overall median population income. The results are therefore not directly comparable with those in the first table, as median income differs from mean income.

  Percentage of children in households below 50 per cent. of equivalent median household income for certain OECD countries

  Country

  Year

  Percentage

  Australia

  1994

  17.1

  Belgium

  1992

  6.2

  Canada

  1994

  16.0

  Czech Republic

  1992

  1.8

  Denmark

  1992

  5.9

  Finland

  1991

  3.4

  Germany

  1994

  11.6

  Hungary

  1994

  11.5

  Italy

  1995

  21.2

  Luxembourg

  1994

  6.3

  Netherlands

  1991

  8.4

  Norway

  1995

  4.5

  Poland

  1995

  14.2

  Spain

  1990

  13.1

  Sweden

  1992

  3.7

  United Kingdom

  1995

  21.3

  United States

  1994

  26.3

  Notes:

  1. Results for individual countries are not accurate to the degree of precision presented in the tables. Comparisons between countries may be affected by differences in the extent to which households in the datasets are representative of the population, and in the accuracy of the income data and its editing.

  2. Results for children are sensitive to the precise way in which household incomes are adjusted for household size and composition; the figure for the United Kingdom is higher than official UK estimates for the "50 per cent. of median income" income level.

  National Insurance Commissioners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department has spent in each of the last three years on legal representations before the National Insurance Commissioners on(a) in-house legal advice, (b) legal advice from Treasury solicitors, (c) junior counsel and (d) QCs in each of the last three years. [111400]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  In-house legal advice1

  214,236.88

  211,192.05

  221,300.56

  Legal advice from Treasury solicitors

  0

  0

  0

  Junior Council

  21,661.05

  20,173.87

  8,203.00

  QCs2

  0

  2,367.63

  6,310.00

  1 Estimated on basis that staff involved spend 50 per cent, of their time on work on appeals to the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners.

  2 Junior Council and QCs charges for 45 weeks only, up to week commencing 14 February 2000.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of benefit in the most recent available year(a) in dispute before appeals to the National Insurance Commissioners by claimants, (b) in dispute before appeals to the National Insurance Commissioners by the DSS, (c) awarded as a consequence of successful appeal to the National Insurance Commissioners and (d) reduced, removed or not awarded as a consequence of a decision by National Insurance Commissioners. [111399]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in respect of requests for written reasons preparatory to lodging an application for leave to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioners, what was(a) the average, (b) the median and (c) the longest time between (i) the request being received and the written reasons prepared and (ii) the reasons being prepared and communicated to the claimant in each of the last three years; [111402]

  (2) how many applications for leave to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioners were made to appeal tribunal chairmen; of these how many were (a) refused, (b) renewed by application to the commissioners and (c) granted leave in each of the last three years; [111404]

  (3) how many cases remitted to appeal tribunals after successful appeals to the National Insurance Commissioners were successful on rehearing; what was (a) the average, (b) the median and (c) the longest time between the date of decision of the Commissioners and the decision being communicated to the claimant in each of the last three years; [111403]

  (4) in relation to cases in which leave to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioners was granted; what was (a) the average, (b) the median and (c) the longest time between leave being granted and the bundle of documents being transmitted to the Commissioners by the appeal tribunal in each of the last three years. [111401]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which local authorities disregard war pensions but not war widows' pensions when assessing entitlement to housing benefit or council tax rebates. [111580]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  We do not routinely collect this sort of information on discretionary local schemes for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as such schemes are funded from an authority's own resources.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentage of lone parents out of work for each year since 1992 for(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [111066]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Lone parents on income support

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Shropshire

  Great Britain

  November 1992

  1—

  1—

  964,000

  November 1993

  1—

  1—

  1,010,000

  November 1994

  1—

  1—

  1,025,000

  November 1995

  1—

  2,500

  1,046,000

  November 1996

  1—

  2,600

  1,022,000

  November 1997

  1—

  2,400

  982,000

  November 1998

  900

  2,400

  938,000

  August 19992

  900

  2,400

  940,000

  1 Data not available

  2 August 1999 are the latest figures available

  Notes:

  1. Sample size 5 per cent., therefore subject to sampling error

  2. Lone parents are defined as single claimants with dependants who are not in receipt of the disability or pensioner premium

  3. Shropshire County changed boundaries between 1998 and 1999. The Wrekin has been removed from figures prior to 1999 as this became a new unitary authority in 1999.

  4. Figures for Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shropshire have been rounded to the nearest hundred; figures for GB are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, November 1992 to August 1999.

  To help lone parents who are out of work and in receipt of Income Support the New Deal for Lone Parents offers advice and support with jobsearch, training, childcare and benefits. Since October 1998 over 100,000 lone parents have joined NDLP and one in three of these have obtained jobs. In addition, initiatives such as the National Childcare Strategy, the Lone Parent's Benefit Run-On and the Working Families Tax Credit are for the first time making work a viable option for many lone parents.

  Average Incomes
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average income per week per household for each year since 1992, for(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [111071]
  181W
  Angela Eagle
  The latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for household income by county are for 1995 and were published in Table 9 of Regional Accounts 1996: Part 2, Economic Trends No. 535, June 1998. Estimates for household income by region, up to 1997, were published in Regional Accounts 1997: Part 2, Economic Trends No.551, October 1999. Both of these publications are available in the House of Commons Library. No figures are available at constituency level.

  The published figures are normally presented in terms of total gross annual household income per head of population. These converted to weekly averages, give for Shropshire from 1992 to 1995 of £166, £173, £184 and £197. These figures on incomes of the household sector are defined on a national accounts basis, which includes persons living in private households and in institutions. These figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

  Pensions
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has collected on the number of people who are members of occupational pension schemes that include provision for early retirement on grounds of ill health; and if he will make a statement on the impact of the introduction of stakeholder pensions on that number. [111454]

  Mr. Rooker
  The vast majority of occupational pension scheme members are part of schemes that include provision for early retirement on grounds of ill-health. Only around 1 per cent. of occupational pension scheme members have no such provision. This means that around 10 million people are covered by arrangements for early retirement on grounds of ill-health. We do not expect the introduction of stakeholder pensions to affect that number.Source:
  The forthcoming Tenth Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes by the Government Actuary.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, on the basis of his Department's Family Resources Survey, the number of male married pensioners under the age of 85 years who are receiving amounts of state retirement pension in excess of the rate of full basic state pension applicable to a pensioner of that age. [111239]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1997–98 the number of male married pensioners aged under 85 in Great Britain receiving State Retirement Pension in excess of the full basic State pension was 2.27 million. This total includes 0.22 million pensioners between the ages of 80 and 85 who were in receipt of the 25p age addition.Notes:

  1. The numbers above have been extracted from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1997–98. The FRS is a survey of private households in Great Britain.

  2. In this year, the full basic State pension was £62.45 and £62.70 for pensioners aged 80 years and over (includes the 25p age addition).

  Independent Tribunal Service (Sutton)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many staff were working in the office of the Independent Tribunal Service at Sutton on 4 January; [110756]

  (2) how many faxes were received by the Independent Tribunal Service at Sutton, Surrey over the Christmas and New Year period; and on what dates each was processed; [I 10757]

  (3) if the Independent Tribunal Service at Sutton, Surrey (a) collected and (b) had delivered its incoming recorded delivery mail on 4 January. [110758]

  Angela Eagle
  Administration of the Appeals Service (formally the Independent Tribunal Service) is the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Neil Ward. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from N. D. Ward to Andrew Mackinlay, dated 9 March 2000:
  I am writing in reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the service at our Sutton office over the Christmas and New Year period.
  We are committed to improving the quality of service we provide to all who use or rely upon our Service. We deal with many thousands of appeals every year without incident, but I recognise that each appeal is of great importance to the individual who makes it. We strive, therefore, to provide the best service possible to every appellant in their given circumstances, whatever the period of the year. Over holiday periods we maintain sufficient—if inevitably lower—levels of staffing at all our offices.
  There were 39 staff working our Sutton office on 4 January 2000. The Sutton office is situated next door to the local Post Office and it is our practice to collect mail from them every working day morning. Staff did collect incoming recorded delivery main on 4 January 2000 and the letters were distributed to the appropriate staff during the course of that morning.
  I am unable to say how many faxes were received at the Sutton office over the Christmas and New Year period. There are three fax machines in the Sutton office and because of the volume of activity, a log of incoming faxes is not kept. Faxes received are regularly taken from the machines and distributed to the relevant processing teams. It is not possible to say when each of the faxes was processed.
  I hope that this reply is helpful. Please contact me should you require any further information.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 552–53W, what conditions have been placed on the publication of research findings under the premise of clause 12.2 of his standard research contract; what was the subject of each such case; and what were the reasons for the conditions being imposed. [111702]

  Mr. Rooker
  No conditions have been placed on the publication of research findings under clause 12.2 of the standard Departmental research contract. All consent to publish has been given unconditionally.

  Benefits Agency (Somerset)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on recruitment and promotion of Benefits Agency staff in Somerset. [110831]
  183W
  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Jackie Ballard, dated 22 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about recruitment and promotion of Benefits Agency (BA) staff in Somerset.
  The number of staff recruited by the BA in Somerset over the last 3 years is:

  1997: 36 staff (this includes 8 existing BA staff who transferred to Somerset)

  1998: 80 staff (this includes 3 existing BA staff who transferred to Somerset)

  1999: 162 staff (this includes 27 existing BA staff who transferred to Somerset)

  The number of BA staff from Somerset that have been promoted over the same period is:

  1997: 1 member of staff

  1998: 14 staff

  1999: 12 staff (of which l is still unposted)

  The high numbers recruited in 1999 are partially the result of Somerset District being a pilot for the ONE Project, and cover staff employed in the District together with other BA Units which are based in the Country of Somerset.
  It is anticipated that there will be further promotion and recruitment exercises in Somerset later this year.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact which the projected Benefits Agency overspend will have on staff in Somerset. [110461]
  184W
  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Jackie Ballard, dated 22 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary question about the impact which the projected Benefits Agency (BA) overspend will have on staff in Somerset.
  A conscious decision was taken at the beginning of the 1999/2000 financial year to maintain staffing levels at the agreed level in order to ensure we were in a position to update as much work as possible before the millennium, to minimise any potential disruption to service.
  This decision was reflected in the allocation of resources to the field network, including Somerset District, and was agreed shortly after the start of the financial year. This strategy helped the Agency in service delivery and also to maintain and improve standards through the year.
  However, indicators were that unless some action was taken in the latter part of the year to reduce costs, the total expenditure for the Agency would exceed our annual budget allocations.
  Such measures, undertaken in all areas included:

  no overtime working [except in exceptional circumstances] minimal use of casual staff

  no recognition payments and the deferral of incentive payments to defer posting recruited staff until April 2000

  deferral of mandatory and non-mandatory training

  Somerset District, in line with other local districts, took these measures to ensure the Agency lived within it's budget while continuing to maintain service to the public.
  At the outset of the year a resource allocation was made to Somerset which allowed for an average 371.49 whole-time equivalent staff to be employed compared with the 1998/99 average of 347.13, an increase of over 24 staff for the year.
  Staffing on mainstream District business is currently still running above the 1999/2000 allocation of 371.49 and is expected to do so until the end of March when the anticipated position will be 385.27.
  I hope this is helpful.

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

Greater London Authority: Election
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to postpone the election of the London mayor and assembly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): No, my Lords. The Government intend the Greater London Authority election to be held on 4th May, as planned. We therefore laid a slightly modified set of election rules on 23rd February, and plan today to re-lay the election expenses order.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is it not clear that these problems would not have arisen if the Government had not tried, in the words of my noble friend Lord McNally, to "fix and fiddle" the London election? Is it not the case that a freepost is what 5 million Londoners want, and should have?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has been mentioned, I offer my congratulations to him on being able to recite the second verse of "The Red Flag" on radio yesterday. I mention that because he, too, is familiar with fixing and fudging. If we were trying to fix and fudge the Greater London election, we have not made a very good job of it! Our concern throughout has been that all candidates should have a level playing field and that the process should not be subject to abuse. Therefore, as I explained at some length the other day, we are looking to ensure that candidates can get their message across without opening up the process to abuse and vast expenditure. We are in discussion with the other parties on the way in which that can be achieved. I believe that when we consider the Representation of the People Bill tomorrow, all parties will concur that we have found a way out of the difficulty.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, would not the Minister like to encourage independence I say that without prejudice—and, therefore, does he agree that the lack of a free mailshot places enormous power in the hands of the party machine, both mine and his? Would not the noble Lord like to encourage independents to stand for election as mayor, both in London and in other cities?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that if I were quoted as saying that I wished to encourage independents, it
318
might well be misconstrued at this point! We want anyone who has the requisite number of signatures and who is prepared to run a proper political campaign for the post of mayor to have access to all means of communication with the public. We believe that we shall find a way of doing that which does not lead to the kind of abuse about which I was worried.

Internet and Technology Stocks
2.38 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned about the social and economic impact of the rise in value of Internet and technology stocks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the values placed by the stock market on Internet and technology companies reflect investors' expectations of their future earnings.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am sure that everyone will be as impressed as I am by the succinctness, if not the wisdom, of that reply. Is the Minister aware of the enormous demoralisation that has been caused over recent years to key groups of employees such as teachers, those in the medical professions, social workers and the rest by the immense and growing disparity in remuneration between them and the City? Is he further aware, therefore, of the damage that will be done, and is being done, to the willingness of those groups and many others to remain within education, health and social work by the extraordinary casino-like activity in respect of technology stocks? Is there not a scintilla of socialist wisdom remaining from the present Government's long past on which they can draw to exert some control over what is, by any reckoning, something of a Stock Exchange farce?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that in the latter part of his supplementary question the noble Lord got round to the subject matter of his original Question, which enables me to attempt to answer it. Yes, of course there is huge resentment about the disparity in incomes between those who are seen as gamblers and those who devote their lives to public service. That is only natural. I do not know whether it was George Soros himself or someone commenting at the time of George Soros' major coup who described the stock market as alternating between greed and fear. For that reason especially, I do not think it right for the Government to attempt to second-guess the stock market.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity briefly to congratulate noble Lords opposite on their birthday. Is the Minister aware that the number of private investors buying shares on the Internet in Britain is reportedly doubling every three

319
months? Are the Government satisfied that the message from Christine Farnish, director of consumer relations at the FSA, that
"Consumers investing their money in smaller company shares need to know that the prices of those shares can be very volatile—both up and down. They need to think carefully about the risks involved before deciding what shares they buy and how many",
is being adequately disseminated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of all my noble, right honourable and honourable friends, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his congratulations. As regards the proceedings at the Memorial Hall, I was never quite sure whether the final decision was for the 27th or the 28th, which is possibly why we have been celebrating both days—and why not? The remarks from the FSA quoted by the noble Earl sounded very sensible to the Government at the time. I am sure it is in everyone's interest that investors, particularly private investors, should be aware of the difficulties and dangers referred to. We are grateful to the noble Earl for disseminating them more widely.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that I misunderstood the Minister. He said that in his view Internet entrepreneurs were gamblers. I hope that that is not true. If the gamblers to whom he referred in an earlier supplementary answer are those who invest on the Internet, why should not doctors and the other people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred profit in exactly the same way as any other investor?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has doubly misunderstood me. I certainly did not say that Internet entrepreneurs were gamblers. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I said that those who worked in the public service resented the difference between them and those whom they regarded as gamblers. I did not myself use the word "gamblers". However, it is true that the Internet and information technology generally make a huge contribution to the success of this country, and it is important to encourage it in every way. Whether that leads to a particular valuation of any stock is a matter for those entrepreneurs and the market, not the Government.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the Government have already taken into account the grossly artificial values reflected in some very prominent stocks at the present time? In particular, can the Minister tell the House how the Government will deal with the very serious questions that will arise when the bubble inevitably bursts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand what my noble friend recommends the Government should do. We cannot intervene directly, or even indirectly, in free markets; that is not our role. We do not seek to second guess the
320
markets. I also made clear in response to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that we agree with those in the Financial Services Authority in particular who express caution about some of these stocks and advise great caution on the part of investors. It appears likely that a large number of those stocks which are valued very highly without ever having shown a profit will collapse, as my noble friend suggests. However, that is not a recipe for the Government to intervene.

Gay Relationships: Inheritance Tax Laws
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider granting the same property rights to gay and lesbian couples in respect of exemption from inheritance tax as those now enjoyed by married couples.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are committed to fairness in taxation, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps all aspects of the tax system under review.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that at present the partner in a gay relationship with a higher earning capacity may be obliged to take out costly life insurance to cover inheritance tax that is payable by the surviving partner? Can my noble friend also tell the House whether gay couples are likely to be granted the same rights as married couples to designate next of kin and make decisions on the medical treatment of an incapacitated partner?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for being grateful for what I thought was a rather unhelpful Answer. My noble friend is right that the inheritance tax laws in this country discriminate in favour of married couples and against unmarried couples, whether of the same sex or heterosexual. Whether changes should be made to inheritance tax is a very much wider question than the issue of same sex couples. As to the second matter raised by my noble friend, I can be a little more encouraging. The Lord Chancellor's Department believes it should be possible to name next of kin, for example when somebody goes into hospital, on the basis of the person whom the patient wishes to designate rather than a blood relationship. When there is parliamentary time available that will be made possible. In other words, the situation should be comparable with the existing rules on enduring power of attorney where it is possible for an individual to designate somebody else regardless of relationship.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is it not right that those who escape moral and legal obligations by not entering into marriage should not be entitled to the privileges which are rightly granted to married couples?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that those who do not marry escape moral obligations. Taxes are about raising money, not about being for or against particular lifestyles.
Earl Russell: My Lords, without asking the Minister to anticipate anything that may be decided by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does he agree with his right honourable and noble friends at the Department of Social Security that it is important to encourage private provision for retirement where that is financially appropriate? In the light of that, does the noble Lord agree that, if two law-abiding citizens who live in a single household wish to provide for each other's retirement, it is in the interests of the Treasury and the taxpayer to allow them to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl has extended perfectly legitimately the scope of the Question from inheritance tax. My answer to him, as to my noble friend who asked about insurance, is that nothing in our laws discriminates against same sex couples as opposed to couples of different sexes.
The Question relates specifically to inheritance tax. The lower threshold for the payment of inheritance tax is an estate of £231,000. A large proportion of couples will not be above that threshold.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an extremely difficult Question? The mind boggles at its implications. For example, why should couples living in a homosexual relationship have preference over two males or two females who live in a platonic relationship? Although they are not living in a homosexual relationship, in order to gain some relief from inheritance tax they might declare that they are homosexuals. If two brothers or a brother and a sister declared that they were living in a sexual relationship in order to gain benefit from the inheritance tax, they would be pleading guilty in advance of a court hearing to committing a criminal act.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I very much fear that my noble friend has a dirty mind.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I simply cannot accept that implication. I have been accused of having a dirty mind and I take that very seriously indeed. Noble Lords may laugh, but I do not have a dirty mind; in fact, I have a particularly clean mind. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will withdraw that remark, whether he made it in jest or otherwise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if my noble friend is offended, of course I withdraw my remark. Some people think that a dirty mind is a perpetual feast.
322
As regards his specific question, no preference is being suggested for homosexual couples. It was not suggested by my noble friend Lady Rendell. My noble friend asked for a wider extension of the rules for inheritance taxes than for married couples as at present. There is no question of preference there.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I believe that the point raised by the noble Baroness relates to the marital home or the home in which the two people live. Will the Minister accept that there are two answers. First, any person living with another—whether brother, sister, father, child or whoever—should have the right to nominate one person to continue living in the family home. That would avoid all discrimination. The second would be to adopt the Australian system and abolish inheritance tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question which has been tested in the courts. In the case of Fitzpatrick v. Stirling Housing Association Limited it was found that it should be possible to pass on a tenancy other than to a legal spouse. As a result, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has issued advice to local authorities and to the housing corporation on behalf of housing associations that they should permit a designated succession of tenancy pending legislation, whenever that can take place.
Baroness David: My Lords, if inheritance tax is to be looked at, could the situation of a son or daughter who has cared for an aged parent be considered? He or she sometimes does not have the benefit of the property being passed on without tax. It is an important point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, by her question my noble friend illustrates the difficulty of considering inheritance tax. Inheritance tax is indeed being considered. All taxes are looked at all the time. However, the problem which my noble friend raises is one of the many considerations for the Chancellor and Ministers when they carry out a review.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does not the Minister's reply point up a problem for the Government? They want to modernise everything but never think through what it means. The Government say that they want to repeal Section 28. They say that they want to equalise the age of consent. They say that there should be no discrimination against people on the ground of sex. If that is what the Government believe, is not the logic of their position that they should now equalise the tax treatment of gay couples by allowing gay couples to marry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again the noble Lord raises an important question. The issue of civil marriages for gay couples has been raised recently in France with the tax law. Many people in this country have a lot of sympathy with that. It goes a great deal wider than same sex civil marriages. One

323
proceeds as best one can to make the changes that one can make consistent with the views of the people of this country.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the value each year of inheritance tax to the Exchequer? Approximately how much are we talking about?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should be able to tell the noble Lord. I am unable to do so. I shall write to him. It is a considerable amount of money, although it applies to a relatively small number of people.
Lord Alli: My Lords, will the Minister press his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter? First, I declare a personal interest.
Many noble Lords will have known Lord Montague who died in this Chamber some months ago. Some of your Lordships will be aware that he had a partner, Takashi, of some 35 years' standing. However, perhaps few noble Lords realise that in addition to the grief and pain of losing Michael, Takashi is now being forced to sell the home in which they lived in order to pay inheritance tax. The testing of such cases of long-lasting relationships cries out for the law to be changed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend does well to remind us of the specific case of our dear friend Lord Montague. Because the benefit inheritance tax affords to the surviving spouses has been so wide, historically the definition has been particularly narrow. My noble friend may well be right in thinking that a change has to take place. However, it may have to take place with respect to the generosity of relief as well as to the extent of the availability. That is the balance which has to be taken into account.

Nuclear Disarmament
3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are hoping to make substantial progress towards world nuclear disarmament at the coming United Nations NPT Review Conference in New York and how they propose to avoid the procedural discussions which are reported to have nullified the recent Geneva Conference.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the United Kingdom is working to ensure a successful outcome to the NPT review conference. We want to see discussion concentrate on substantive issues. However, the conference will also have to discuss outstanding procedural issues, such as establishing subsidiary bodies.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is it not the case that there is evidence from the Geneva conference that the discussion of procedural issues is used for the purpose of not arriving at any decision of substance and progress towards nuclear disarmament? Is it not necessary for my noble friends in the Government to take some exceptional steps to avoid that; for example, asking the Prime Minister personally to represent this country at the review conference so as to make it clear that we regard movement towards world nuclear disarmament as important? Are there not one or two procedural activities, such as putting one's own Motion on the table, which would avoid the general non-progress which took place in Geneva?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, my noble friend raised a variety of points in his supplementary question. I have said that we want progress at the conference, but there is no doubt that some procedural issues—and I am sure that my noble friend knows them in greater detail than I—must be resolved. However, it is true that the UK is concerned about the prospects for the review conference. We are looking for the conference to result in a balanced review which takes account of the positive steps which both we and other nuclear weapon states have taken over the past five years and which also sets a realistic agenda for the next five years.
My noble friend raised the question of the Prime Minister going to the conference. The British delegation will be led by my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr Peter Hain. That is the normal representation at such review conferences. The one exception was in 1995 when the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, attended. That was a special conference and it has been the one exception. Therefore, the UK delegation will be led at the usual level.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the principal question is not whether we make progress at the review conference but whether we can run fast enough to stay in the same place? Is there not a profound mistrust among the non-nuclear powers that the nuclear powers are not taking their obligations under the treaty seriously? How do the Government propose to persuade them that we do not all share the philosophy of the American Senate?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell will forgive me if I do not take up his last rather provocative sentence. The UK has done more than most to carry out the NPT agenda. We shall make that clear, but the non-nuclear weapon states recognise that. Since the end of the cold war we have reduced the number of our operationally available warheads by 50 per cent. Most recently, we did so in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review when we announced a reduction of one third in the previously planned number of warheads. The UK has maintained its remaining forces at reduced readiness.

325
I could go on, but I shall make one further point to demonstrate how far the United Kingdom has gone along that road. We have been completely transparent about our military stock of nuclear material, declaring that portion of it which is no longer needed for defence purposes and arranging to place that surplus material under EURATOM safeguards and to make it liable to inspection by the IAEA. We have an excellent record that the non-nuclear weapon states must recognise.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we recognise that the Government have done a good deal to reduce the British nuclear deterrent. However, beyond the procedural issues in the conference, does the Minister not accept that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, about the commitment of many within the United States Senate and Administration to pursuing theatre missile defence is the largest single issue hanging over the future of the nuclear non-proliferation review conference? Can she assure us that the Government are making firm representations to the United States about the dangers which the pursuit of theatre missile defence would mean for the non-proliferation regime?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the United Kingdom has made very clear to its allies in the United States what it feels about this issue. We have stated from this Dispatch Box that we shall continue to make our position very clear.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, to what extent is the Minister concerned that the failure to agree a work programme at last year's summit conference on disarmament risks undermining the credibility of the conference on disarmament as a whole? What action do the Government intend to take at the conference's 2000 session to prevent a repeat of the deadlock, particularly given the words of the outgoing president of the conference, Ambassador Leslie Luck of Australia, that the conference could not credibly remain idle for another year?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, that is exactly the problem which faces us all as we come up to the review conference in New York. The Government have been active in speaking to both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states. The chair of the forthcoming conference is Algeria and we shall be in close contact with all parties concerned. It is of vital importance to us and to everyone that the conference is a success. We are doing everything politically and diplomatically to try to ensure that it will be.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, an article in last month's Spectator suggested that we might share our deterrent with France; indeed, that we might create a Eurobond. Will my noble friend the Minister explode that myth?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am not sure that that is the correct verb to use on this topic! However, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking
326
that question because it gives me an opportunity to say that it is not true. We have warmly welcomed the growing co-operation on defence issues between the UK and France, but the UK nuclear forces remain operationally independent and under the Government's full control at all times. There are no plans to change that.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on Mozambique.
Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Promotion of well-being]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, at beginning insert ("subject to section (Discrimination in the provision or facilities or services) of this Act and to sections 2A and 2B of the Local Government Act 1986,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment to Clause 2. I am advised that, in order to render it intelligent within the evolving framework of amendments to the Bill, I have to speak to Amendment No. 81, which is a prohibition of positive discrimination as to the provision of services and facilities not generally available on public expenditure for the benefit of any group of persons. I must speak also to Amendment No. 82, which relates to the prohibition of explicit sexual material unless approved by the board of governors if made available in any maintained school.
The first purpose of the amendment to Clause 2 is to avoid conflict on the Bill as it stands between Clause 2 and the amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Young, which is now reflected in Clause 82, which restores Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act as amended to include bullying.
The other purpose is to pave the way for Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 by removing putative conflict with Clause 2. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 are free standing. They have been accepted by the Table as complementary to Section 2A(1)(a) of the 1986 Act which stands unamended; that is, the prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality or the publication of material to that end. Albeit complementary, these amendments adopt a new, nondiscriminatory approach which prohibits positive discrimination in favour of any group of persons of

327
whatever sexual orientation or none. It introduces the new prohibition in any maintained school of explicit sexual material of the type which your Lordships have seen in the exhibition, if not approved by the board of governors on which parents now sit.
Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 are not concerned directly with Section 2A(1)(b) in relation to the prohibition of teaching the acceptability of homosexual pretended family relationships. Section 2A(1)(b) stands unamended. However, with this evolving framework, Amendment No. 86 to Schedule 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reflects an amendment which was moved at Committee stage by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. That will be supported in due course as complementary to the amendments to which I am speaking. That will also be the case when, at the Committee stage of the Learning and Skills Bill, Amendment No. 235, moved by the right reverend Prelate to amend Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, is again moved at Report stage, which I gather will be on 14th March.
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will remember, it was accepted at Committee stage of this Bill that, if an amendment such as Amendment No. 86 to the first schedule were carried into the Bill, there would need to be consequential amendments to Clause 2. However, that has not been carried in the form of the amendment to which I speak. When my noble friend Lady Young moved her amendment, which is now reflected in Clause 82, a vacuum had been created by the Bill as it then stood by Clause 62, by the abolition of Section 2A of the 1986 Act and Section 28 of the 1988 Act by Schedule 5. Clause 2 could afford no acceptable safeguard or control.
Many noble Lords, including myself, had our reservations. However, we went into the Lobby to hold the fort—and we were right to do so—until some acceptable resolution was proposed in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and which did not engender resentment and confusion. However, but for the stalwart initiative of my noble friend, whom I am so glad to see in her place, and the support of this House, there would have been no time for reflection, no breathing space, no new approach and no hope of compromise. The vote of this Chamber was one of commonsense, signal service rendered by this House to Parliament and the people. However, now we have that breathing space; now we can enter the gateway of compromise.
A new approach—perhaps I may express it as a kind of "concordat" between Church and state—was inspired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who speaks as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education on behalf of the churches. I suppose I must declare an interest as one of his wayward flock. It is plain from the Waterhouse report that in these depths of evil depravity no distinction whatever may be drawn between the heterosexual and the homosexual abuser. Based on any European Convention on Human Rights approach, under our domestic law homosexuals are
328
entitled to respect for their private life, freedom of expression and equality of treatment, not only in the Army but generally.
In 1998 the ECHR was not part of our domestic law. It is not understood today how any overtly discriminatory provision against homosexuals or the promotion of homosexuality with punitive sanctions against a local authority under Section 28(2)(a) or (b) could be enforced in our courts. Section 28, which, as I understand it, was not opposed in another place, was designed to deal with the wholly unacceptable activities of certain urban local authorities regarding the promotion of homosexuality. Albeit not so well drafted, none the less it served its purpose for approximately 12 years. It has now served that purpose and it should be replaced by new concepts, such as the concordat as implemented by Article 86 to the first Schedule. That concordat sets up an overview and scrutiny committee where the local authority is the local education authority as regards educational functions and as regards the provision of sex education in adopting the principles of family life. There should be no physical or verbal abuse with regard to sexual orientation and no encouragement of sexual activity, as proposed by the right reverend Prelate in Amendment No. 235 of the Learning and Skills Bill.
Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 retain punitive sanctions against the local authority and are in implementation of the concept of the right reverend Prelate that sex education is a matter for governors and head teachers who have parental right of withdrawal. As the first purpose of this amendment is to remove the conflict between Clauses 2 and 82 as regards implementation, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will remember that anticipatory objection was taken on Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 150 and 152 of this Bill to that effect. It is the conflict between the mandatory provision under Clause 28 with all the panoply of the law, and the massive delegation of absolute discretion under Clause 2 to do anything considered likely to improve social well-being in the area, which might well bring us back to the dreadful situation as it was before Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
Furthermore, under Clause 2 as it stands, whatever the local authority does, "to improve social wellbeing", that exercise of discretion would not be subject to the jurisdiction of force under judicial review save in a wholly exceptional circumstance.
I refer to the amendment tabled by my noble friend, now Clause 82. Clause 2 was compatible with Clause 62 of the Bill when drafted. However, because of the repeal of Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 and Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, Clause 2 is not compatible with the Bill as amended by my noble friend by Clause 82 nor with either of the amendments to which I speak, nor with amendments tabled which reflect the concordat.
The second purpose is to avoid conflict between Clause 2 and Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. Amendment No. 81 prohibits positive discrimination in favour of any group of persons, whether homosexual, heterosexual or of whatever interest or

329
inclination as regards exclusive provision for the benefit of facilities and services not generally available on the expenditure of public funds by local authorities. It is a general prohibition and not directed against any group of whatever sexual orientation. As such it would conform with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Amendment No. 82 is concerned with sexually-explicit material of the type your Lordships have seen on exhibition. A prohibition is imposed upon the local authority against making such material available for children in any maintained school without the consent and approval of the board of governors. As your Lordships know, parents now sit on such boards. It is suggested that this is an appropriate and sufficient method of seeking to protect the children. That prohibition on the local authority is in general terms. It is not directed against any group of whatever sexual disposition. Neither the prohibition nor the method of control suggested would be contrary to the convention. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for drawing to our attention all the legal and legislative complexities we face when discussing this issue. It is an interesting coincidence that the amendment tabled by my noble friend almost follows on from the Question tabled today by the noble Lady, Baroness Rendell of Babergh. As an amateur at this game, I admire my noble friend's experience as a parliamentarian and his skill as a lawyer and wordsmith which enabled him to table the amendment at the start of our proceedings today.
The amendment will give the House, if it chooses, the opportunity to continue a debate which it undertook for well over five hours only a fortnight ago. I suspect that the House may decide that that is not the most useful way in which to spend an afternoon. I have no wish to do anything which would restrict the freedom of the House to discuss the matter for as long as it wishes. However, it seemed to me that after our earlier debate and its result there would be discussions between the Government, the bishops and other interested parties to bring this subject to perhaps what some might consider to be a more felicitous conclusion than the one reached. However, perhaps my noble friend Lady Young might think that the conclusion we reached is the appropriate one.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. I am not here to listen to or take admonitions from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend if anything I said was "admonitory", if that is not a new word (I hope that I am not inventing new words). However, I apologise if that was the case. It was certainly not intended to be. However, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister might have to say on the progress of such discussions. It seems clear that the matter will return to this House before the Bill is
330
eventually passed. It will clearly have to go from this place to another, and to return here for further discussion. There will, therefore, be a great deal of opportunity for further debate after the discussions between the interested parties have taken place. I believe that that would be a more preferable way in which to deal with the matter. For that reason, we shall not be supporting my noble friend this afternoon.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I assume that the Minister may tell us that, as far as concerns Sections 2A and 2B of the 1986 Act, Amendment No. 1 is not necessary because, until what we have come to refer to as "Section 28" is repealed, it remains on the statute book. As with other restrictions, it will apply to the exercise of the powers of local government. Indeed, to take one example, I believe that is why we have Clause 5 in the Bill. That clause gives certain powers to the Secretary of State to repeal, revoke or dis-apply enactments which may obstruct local authorities from exercising their powers. I, too, have no wish to re-run the debate referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. As far as we are concerned, it is sad that that is the case. Our views on Section 28 are well known.
Perhaps I may respond to one of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I make clear that we support the powers which are to be given to local authorities under Section 2. As we established in Committee, such powers must be exercised reasonably.
The noble Lord referred to his later amendments. I confess that I do not understand Amendment No. 81. I am sure that that is my failing, not that of the draftsman. The amendment refers, among other things, to the delivery of education and healthcare and allows for them to be discriminatory. It is almost implicit that education must discriminate in the sense that it provides for individuals. I have some difficulties therefore with the clause though of course I accept the good intentions of the noble Lord to try to clarify the position.
I have some difficulties also with Amendment No. 82. As was said, we shall return to this topic under the question of guidelines, though it would perhaps be better debated as part of the educational provision rather than simply local authorities. However, I am unclear as to how, as a matter of practice, governors would apply this provision. Currently, sex education is a matter for the governors. But for individual items to go before a board of governors for approval may prove extremely cumbersome. My experience of schools is that different governors have responsibility for different areas, including the area of the curriculum under which sex education generally falls. So governors will be involved in any event.
I am not clear what may be taken to fall into the category of "sexually explicit" material. It could be interpreted very widely by those who are mischievous. It occurred to me that Romeo and Juliet or A Midsummer Night's Dream—particularly the relationship between Titania and Bottom—could fall within that category. It is a difficult road down which to start.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty with these amendments, partly because they are highly technical. I do not feel that they are necessary, particularly Amendment No. 1. In that regard I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was gracious in his comments in relation to myself and the amendment I placed before the House. But let me repeat what I said last week on another Bill; that is, that the discussions with the Department for Education and Employment, and in particular with the Secretary of State, continue. I am sorry that we have not by this stage been able to see amendments which may well be made to the Learning And Skills Bill, which is perhaps—as was hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—the proper place to continue this discussion.
The Secretary of State has to see a number of interested parties and not just the Churches. I should not like to think of it as a "concordat" between the Churches and the Government; the consultation is much wider than that. The Churches play their part and, fortunately, I have been able to play some part also. I am among those who hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment at this stage in order to allow the discussions to continue and for the Secretary of State properly to consult. I am hopeful that what will come out of those discussions may be helpful both to the House and, more importantly, to parents and others throughout the country who are looking for some kind of assurance.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I understand of course what he is driving at. I raise one or two purely technical points in relation to the drafting of the amendment.
In relation to Amendment No. 81, I have the fullest sympathy with any attempt to secure a policy of nondiscrimination. But I was once asked by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, in this Chamber, whether I could indicate a distinction between those grounds on which it was proper to discriminate and those grounds on which it was not. That is a question about which I am still thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, attempts to address that question in Amendment No. 81. I am not sure that he has it right. He has his non-discrimination provision,
"save in respect of counselling, health care, education and in the prevention of the spread of disease".
But does that adequately cover, for example, the case of disability? A PE teacher may legitimately wish to provide a slightly different regime for somebody with a club foot than for somebody with two able feet. In so doing, will be infringe the provision as presently drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway? This is a question which needs addressing and if we are to see more of this amendment, I hope that will be done.
332
I share the doubts of my noble friend Lady Hamwee in relation to the words "sexually explicit". I can remember some of the diagrams put in front of us in biology lessons when I was young. They were clinical, detached, accurate and about as unarousing as anything I can possibly imagine. But in the strict and literal sense they could perhaps have been described as "sexually explicit". Perhaps the Minister will take the advice of his noble and learned friend the Attorney-General as to whether or not those words have been included in previous legislation and, if so, whether we have any accepted judicial construction of their meaning. If not, we should be a little wary of using them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I hoped that we would move into the body of this Bill rather than attempt a rerun of discussions on Section 28. Having said that, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is attempting to do, and that he is attempting to do it in as even-handed a way as possible. However, Amendment No. 81 does not do that and Amendment No. 82 runs into the sort of trouble just spelt out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; namely, that there are serious judicial problems in defining what is and what is not sexually explicit and whether or not it is appropriate to use those terms in what is, after all, sex education.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary. In relation to what is now Clause 82, the principal decision of the House was made clear. The Government did not support that. It may be that another place has a view on that and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, we will no doubt return to that in due course. However, the main anxieties addressed during that debate related to education and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn spelt out, constructive discussions are taking place between the Churches and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We will need a wider debate on their outcome, which will no doubt take place in the Learning and Skills Bill. I believe that we will achieve a satisfactory way of meeting most of the anxieties raised. It is not sensible, therefore, for the House to reopen that debate at this stage, though we may well have to return to it after the Learning and Skills Bill has been dealt with and the Commons has considered this Bill.
As it stands, the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 82 places a restriction on local authority action. Section 2 is subject to all other restrictions, including those within the Bill, and therefore the addition of the amendment would not create any further restriction on the ability of local authorities to act. The provision of well-being is a broad power for local authorities but it is subject to all other legislative restrictions. What is now Clause 82 is no different from any other in that respect.
Clause 3(1) of this Bill further states that the power under Clause 2(1) does not enable a local authority to do anything which it is unable to do by virtue of any prohibition, restriction or limitation on its powers

333
which is contained in any enactment (whenever passed or made). That is clear. Moreover, the full implication of the adoption of this amendment and the related amendments would mean that the kind of discrimination to which the noble Earl referred—namely, specific provision for the disabled, for pensioners and other subsections of the community, including the gay and lesbian community—may fall foul of such a generalised provision. That is not the kind of restriction that is intended to be placed on local authorities in their pursuit of well-being because they all have varying communities containing different subsections that will require different treatment.
The general intention behind the amendment is unnecessary. Its effect would be to limit local authorities in what has been broadly accepted as a positive step towards the pursuit of well-being of the community and indeed might jeopardise it. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment and that we can continue with the debate on local government reform rather than revert to discussions on matters covered by what was Section 28.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I hope it has not been felt that the time spent on this discussion has been other than useful. I am asked if I will take the amendment back, and I am fully prepared to do so. I may return to the matter at a later stage when I have read what has been said in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert—

("(a) the promotion or improvement of economic development and wealth creation in their area,

(b) the promotion of social development in their area, and

(c) the promotion of the Improvement of the environment in their area").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment further probes the provision for the new powers spelled out in Clause 2. The wording of the amendment is taken from the Greater London Authority Act. I have tabled the amendment not because of my feeling, as the Minister suggested at the last stage, that what was good enough for the GLA is good enough for the whole of local government. I take the same view he does: one looks at the generality of local government first. The amendment does not seek to impose GLA provisions but is a genuine request for clarification. I should like to understand the nuances of a comparison of the Bill with the GLA Act. It is the wording of the GLA Act that I have incorporated.
I appreciate that we are not starting with a clean sheet in regard to local government, but I should like to understand the distinction between the two sets of drafting. If we do not clarify the matter, it could be left to a local authority to answer that question if its actions were to be challenged by an individual through an application for judicial review. The differences between the two sets of wording, which are very close
334
but not identical, would, I am sure, be picked over at length by lawyers. I prefer to get the point out of the way at this early stage of the legislative procedure.
The amendment seeks clarification of the distinction between the well-being powers expressed in the Bill and the powers to promote economic development, wealth creation, social development and the improvement of the environment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks for clarification, and, by implication, indicates that she will not press the amendment. The noble Baroness has to some extent reflected the fact that there is a difference, as I explained in Committee. The terms of reference for a new organisation are spelt out in a different way to those that build on existing statutory and customer practice functions. These are already contained in the raft of local authorities' statutory and other functions.
I can give the noble Baroness some comfort in regard to her central concern. Notwithstanding the differences in the way the two powers are drafted, the well-being power given to local authorities under Clause 2 is in no sense narrower than that given to the GLA in Section 30 of the GLA Act. If the amendment is accepted, it could narrow the well-being power and leave local authorities with less scope to act than the GLA. For example, paragraph (c) refers to allowing local authorities to take action only to promote the improvement of the environment. The GLA has a power to do anything that furthers its principal purposes, but this might be construed as meaning that the local authorities could not do it themselves but should promote it among others. I am sure that that is not the intention, but there is a possibility, remote though it may be, of it being construed in that way.
We believe that Clause 2 is drafted in a way that best fits its purpose and gives the widest scope to local authorities to take action to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of their communities. I hope that the noble Baroness is reasonably happy with my explanation and will not pursue the matter.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, can the Minister confirm in terms that the provisions set out in the amendment are all within the well-being powers as expressed in Clause 2? I appreciate that it is a technical point, and that that may be difficult.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is right, subject to the qualifications we referred to in our previous debate because, clearly, other statutory limitations may apply.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 3.
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("() Action by a local authority outside its own boundaries shall only be undertaken with the consent of the authority within whose boundaries the action is to be taken.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment allows us a brief reprise of a debate in Committee when the Minister said:
"We need to make it clear that we expect local authorities to cooperate. On the other hand, we do not want to be over-prescriptive on the face of the Bill. We would not want to be quite as limiting as the noble Lord is tempting us to be. None the less. I am happy to go away and to look at the matter in order to see whether there is a better way in which we can make it absolutely clear that local authorities should act in co-operation".—[Official Report, 25/1/00; col. 1457]
The amendment is tabled in a form designed to tease the Minister into giving noble Lords further clarification because the Bill would permit one local authority to act within the area of another local authority in a singular way rather than in a cooperative way, which I know is not the Government's intention. Equally, I am sure that in normal circumstances no local authority would behave in that way. Unfortunately—and I use that word advisedly—when legislating it is incumbent on us all to consider the aberrant behaviour that every now and again we are all guilty of as human beings. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support what my noble Lord has just said. I have not been present at previous stages of the Bill, but I have read the proceedings with great interest. It is the intention of the Government that local authorities of various kinds and at various levels should co-operate, and that is of course right. However, the noble Baroness, who herself has great experience of local government, will know that it is quite possible for one local authority to be somewhat interfering in the responsibilities of another, and that there many devious ways in which mischievous people can act.
If one authority wished to take action within an area for which another authority is responsible, surely it would be right to make it absolutely clear in the legislation that the other authority should be in agreement. It is a simple suggestion. I rather hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the position should be clear in the Bill, especially when one thinks about how this will operate in practice between various local authorities.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said in Committee, we have sympathy with the intentions that lie behind Amendment No. 3. The success of both community planning and action taken under the well-being power depends on local authorities, including different tiers of authority, working together for the common good of their communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, drew our attention to something that we in England and Wales have never come across; namely, conflicts between local authorities. I am sure that that must be a totally Scottish phenomenon. As the noble Baroness
336
implied in her contribution, we certainly expect authorities to adopt a sensible and responsible attitude to the new freedoms that the Bill will give them. Those freedoms are intended to allow local authorities to work together and take action for the common good of their communities. We shall make this point very strongly in the guidance that will accompany the powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked whether we are still considering some way of legislating in this area. I can assure him that we are still giving the matter consideration. However, we want to do so without imposing a disproportionate burden on local authorities. We do not want to be overly prescriptive. A requirement to obtain consent would go further, for example, than the current economic development powers, which require only consultation between authorities. Therefore, we need to continue to give this some thought.
If the noble Lord could stretch his patience a little further, I can assure him that we will bring forward proposals very soon. With that assurance, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my patience, like that of many other people, is considerably elastic. With the assurance that thought is still being given to the matter, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("affects") and insert ("limits").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to a matter of preference for one word against another. Clause 2(6) says:
"Nothing in subsection (4) or (5) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1)".
I have some difficulty with that wording. If subsections (4) and (5) do not affect the generality of the power in subsection (1), I cannot, for the life of me, think why they are there. If they do affect the generality of that power, it seems to me that subsection (6) is wrong. I have chosen to take the view that subsections (4) and (5) do affect subsection (1) and, therefore, the word "affects" is perhaps the word that causes a problem in subsection (6). It seems to me that the House should consider deleting that word and replacing it with "limits"; otherwise, we shall have a quarter of a page of unnecessary verbiage on the face of the Bill. I should like to think that neither the Government nor the parliamentary draftsmen who are responsible for the legislation would create such a situation willingly or voluntarily. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not entirely clear as to the purpose of this amendment until the noble Lord made his opening remarks. However, I believe I am now clearer in that respect. I should point out that this is a tried and tested formulation and one that is well understood by the courts. As drafted, subsection (6) would leave no room for doubt as to its effect.

337
The noble Lord is right in a very direct sense. We have set out examples in subsection (4) of the wide-ranging activities that authorities might want to undertake when using the well-being power but, as the wording of subsection (6) makes clear, this is not an exhaustive list. It also means that no other implication could be drawn. Apart from limiting the list of things set out in subsection (4), it might indicate the broad areas of activity rather than being taken as a total limit. Therefore, we feel that the word "affects" is more appropriate than "limits". With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is a fine semantic argument. It seems to me that we could debate the matter for a long time and generally make no progress. We would, therefore, waste a great deal of the time of the House, which is not my intention. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I shall study. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon Smith Lord Dixon Smith moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
("(7) Nothing in this Part shall empower a local authority to engage in trade other than that which is provided for in the Local Authority (Goods & Services) Act 1970.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. It has been tabled to enable us to explore again with the Minister what limits there are to this fairly general power—although it is not completely general—under Clause 2(1). I have a certain case in mind which prompted me to table this amendment. One could well envisage a situation where some shire district authority would take the view that certain circumstances in a particular village meant that it was worth subsidising the village shop and post office in order to keep it going—for example, where the post office was likely to be closed and, in any event, the local shop was uneconomic. Indeed, this is a prevalent situation across large areas of the country. Such a decision might well be judged to be an appropriate use of this power, and I would have no difficulty with it.
However, there just might be circumstances where an authority could decide that it was appropriate for it to run the shop and that it should itself indulge, if you like, in trading in the goods provided by the village shop. In my view, that would be an improper extension of the power and something that we should seek to avoid. Indeed, that would be trading in goods in competition with all the other retail organisations involved in that particular trade. I do not believe that any sensible local authority would actually want to handle matters in that way, but the possibility might arise.
As I said, I thought it right to table this amendment to enable us to explore exactly what limits the Government have in mind in this sort of area. We need to be quite clear where we stand. I have no difficulty at all with the idea of subsidising a village shop—in other words, you virtually invite a shopkeeper to submit a tender to the local authority for the running of the
338
shop if it requires a degree of subsidy to keep it going. That sort of proposition would be in line with the sort of support that is given to rural transport in many areas. That is straightforward enough. However, the extension beyond that point would concern me. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 10, which is grouped with Amendment No. 5, which we are discussing. We on these Benches disagree with the somewhat inflexible line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Amendment No. 10 seeks to enable a local authority to engage in certain activities—which would be covered by proper record keeping—when it considers that is appropriate.
It may well be appropriate to engage in certain activities in certain instances. I take up the example of the village shop. That matter is particularly topical at the moment. A shop and post office may be faced with closure because no one wishes to continue to run it. In such circumstances it may be appropriate for a local authority to play a prime part in keeping it going, perhaps for a short time until someone else is found, or perhaps for a much longer time, if necessary, if the establishment in question serves a wide rural area. Amendment No. 10 seeks to introduce much greater flexibility for local authorities in this area. Local authorities are trying to get away from the regime under CCT which did not permit them to do anything in this regard. That regime involved them in red tape and bureaucracy and they were not even permitted to trade for the benefit of a local community.
Clearly a line needs to be drawn between a local authority threatening other local traders and engaging in activities which seek to benefit the wider community. Under the powers in this Bill and under the community planning power, a local authority will no doubt take account of the views of its local community. I believe that Amendment No. 10 is far more likely to result in local authorities being able to engage in certain activities that are seen to benefit local communities rather than being restricted by red tape as they have been in the past.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am afraid that we must oppose Amendments Nos. 5 and 10. There is a good deal of unnecessary confusion, both inside and outside the House, about the effect of the well-being provisions on the ability of local authorities to engage in trading activities. Therefore it may be helpful to set the record straight.
At present, authorities' ability to trade in goods and services is controlled by the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. This permits authorities to charge for goods and services only where these are provided by the authority to a "public body" as defined by that Act. The goods and services Act is a permissive piece of legislation. It does not therefore contain any prohibition, restriction or limitation that would bite on the new well-being power by virtue of Clause 3(1). In other words, once Clause 2 comes into

339
force, local authorities will be able to provide goods and services to anyone. It will no longer matter whether they are a "public body" as defined by the 1970 Act, or not.
But, while they will be able to provide goods and services to anyone, they will not be able to charge for them. Clause 3(2) specifically prevents authorities from using the well-being power to raise money. Therefore they will only be able to charge for goods and services using the power in Section 1(3) in the 1970 goods and services Act and this limits charging to circumstances where authorities are trading with "public bodies". In other words, nothing in the current Bill will change the current ability of local authorities to engage in trading. Amendment No. 5, is, therefore, totally unnecessary.
Amendment No. 10 would, on the other hand, dramatically change the position by ensuring that, where they exercised their well-being powers, authorities could provide goods and services to anyone—not just public bodies—and could charge for the goods and services so provided. I appreciate that the noble Baroness will be disappointed—and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, presumably pleased—to hear that this is not an amendment that the Government can accept. It is altogether too sweeping. However, the noble Baroness may be somewhat reassured to know that the Government are looking for some sensible relaxation of the circumstances in which authorities can charge for goods and services.
The Government are currently exploring these issues with business, voluntary organisations, local government and the trade unions. As we said during the passage of what is now the Local Government Act 1999, the powers in that Act enabling us to relax any legislative provisions preventing authorities from securing best value give us an opportunity to review the legal framework covering the provision of goods and services by local authorities. We are currently looking at the circumstances in which authorities might engage in such activities; the limits that should apply; and the safeguards that ought to exist in order to protect the taxpayer and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, recognised—ensure fair competition. We intend to issue a consultation paper on these issues in the spring. I feel sure that the points raised in this brief debate by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will contribute to that consultation. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment and that the noble Baroness will be persuaded not to move hers when we reach it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's response, which gives me comfort. I look forward with interest to seeing the forthcoming consultation paper. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I should inform the House that if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
Clause 3 [Limits on power to promote well-being]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("() A local authority, in considering expenditure relating to section 2(1), may only spend money, whether raised by precept, borrowing or otherwise, up to a sum limited in any one year by the amount that would be raised if the level of the Council Tax precept on a Band D house within its area were increased by £2.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Bill is drafted, local authorities are provided with a new, pretty general power. However, as a consequence of having that power, they may not raise money, whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise. That seems to me somewhat illogical. In Committee I tried to excise that particular part of the Bill, but that was not acceptable to the Government. What we are dealing with here, of course, is government control over local authorities. The only reason that I can see for having that restriction in the Bill is because the Government are afraid that local authorities will let their hearts run away with their heads, and, more importantly, let their members "run away" with their council taxpayers' funds, with unpleasant results.
Those who feel that local authorities will run away with public funds have, all too often, had their fears borne out. However, I have always argued that if local authority members wish to run away with local taxpayers' funds, they should be allowed to do so on the reasonable ground that the local electorate will learn to behave responsibly and not to elect those who are rash enough to behave in such an unreasonable way. One of the biggest problems that local government have had for many years has been the increasing tendency of government to wet nurse local government and not treat its members as responsible individuals. They are hopelessly over-restricted as a result.
I think that some expenditure is necessary, but the Government clearly think that it should be limited. In the good old, bad old days one might have thought of the product of a penny rate as being perhaps an appropriate way of dealing with this matter. The product of a penny rate was a sum of money which had what I would call a good provenance. It permitted local authorities to expend money up to that limit in ways which were otherwise not normally acceptable within the local government legislation that was then in place. Should an emergency arise, it was judged to be the appropriate level at which the national government would begin to look at the consequences of, let us say, a natural disaster in a local authority's area. If the expenditure went above the product of a penny rate, it was then possible that assistance might be made available.
We do not have the product of a penny rate and so I had to think of a reasonable way of going forward in the new environment of council tax and banded properties. As I understand it now, the normal way in which one assesses the impact of a particular increase in costs on a local authority is by the impact that it has on a Band D house, that band being about the middle of the range. If one has a much smaller property,

341
one goes down to band A and the impact is commensurately less; if one goes up to band G or band H, the impact is commensurately more.
I have hit on the figure of £2 for a band D house within an authority's area for the simple reason that it would not produce a completely unreasonable impost, but it would produce a sum of money which would enable authorities to do something useful under the power given to them in this legislation. If one takes a fairly typical London borough with about 100,000 houses, £2 on a band D house would produce £200,000. That is not a large sum of money but most local authorities would find it extremely useful. It would increase a council tax payer's burden by about one-third of 1 per cent, so we are looking at a very marginal amount.
This seems a sensible way forward. While I am not optimistic that the Minister will say "What a frightfully good idea", I invite him to consider the amendment; otherwise we shall be in some difficulties and in a position of inconsistency. We shall be giving local authorities a power on the one hand and, at the same time, putting in place what I have called in other places an "anti-power", which restricts their ability to do anything about it, on the other. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about local authorities being allowed to make their own decisions because local taxpayers, wearing their hats as electors, will give their own views in due course. I am not sure that I would use the term "run away with the council tax payers' money", but I take his general point.
However, we cannot support the amendment. The Minister may correct me, but I understand that Clause 2 allows local authorities overarching powers; it is not that they are being provided with one detailed additional power. Whatever the situation—even were this to be one extra detailed power—I think that the £2 limit is unambitious. As the noble Lord said, it is a matter for the electors. I am not enthusiastic about the Bill applying yet another restriction on local authorities as regards their tax raising and spending.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend is to be congratulated on his persistence. He may be erring on the side of optimism in hoping to persuade the Government to do something, but he deserves support and commendation from behind him.
On first sight, this part of the Bill puzzled me. It seemed to me that the Government were being quite lavish in the promises to local government in Clause 2, where it states:
"Every local authority is to have power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects".
I shall not read out the rest of the clause. That seemed as though the Government were in a very generous state of mind towards local authorities.
342
But then we get to Clause 3, which states:
"(1) The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to do anything which they are unable to do by virtue of any prohibition".
It continues:
"(2) The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money
(3) The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, by virtue of section 2(1), anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order".
Then Clause 3(4) subjects local authorities to guidance from the Secretary of State after due consultation.
I do not wish to pretend for a moment—it would open the door to the Minister—that the previous administration had an immaculate record so far as concerns local government. It deluged local authorities regularly in a mass of legislation, to a point which must have been exceedingly discouraging to those who felt inclined to enter their ranks. Indeed, if any over-confident candidate for local government had ever consulted me—which would be a foolish thing to do, I admit—I would have advised him or her that whatever they did, do not. The one thing they could rely on was the mistrust of the central government, of whatever party, and of being hedged around by a whole lot of regulations.
The first clause that I quoted is a classic case. I will not quote it again. It states that local authorities can do anything that they like or think appropriate; and then the next clause states that they cannot. It hedges restrictions around them.
I do not believe that people worth their salt will continue to want to go into local government as long as they are hamstrung by central government. At some time or other, another government must take a different line. My noble friend is entirely right to move his amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. It is an important amendment on a very important issue of principle—that is, how much freedom a local authority can have.
I recall very well that when the present Government were in opposition they were very much against the then policy of the Conservative government on rate capping. I lived in an authority which was rate capped. I remember it very clearly, not only from the debates which took place in your Lordships' House but from personal experience of its effects. The argument against it was that it denied local authorities the freedom to do what elected representatives thought right for their particular community, it was too expensive and people did not want to pay the rates, or the council tax as it would be now.
It may come as a surprise to the Government to know that, within the party, I argued against this policy. I thought that if one wished to have effective local government it should be able to spend and, if necessary, to go bankrupt. That would be a salutary lesson all round if people behaved in what is really a

343
totally irresponsible fashion. That is the consequence; and the consequence should come down firmly on the heads of those responsible. I am not advocating that as a policy in any sense, but it seems that what lies behind the amendment is a similar principle to that debated previously: how much freedom should a local authority have? As my noble friend made quite clear, and in my local government days—a long time ago now there was the freedom to spend the money which could be raised from an increase of a penny rate. That was a long time ago, but it was a measure of freedom which, if they wished to, local authorities could exercise and use for particular areas. It may not have been the right sum of money, but it was at least a sum of money. If I have understood my noble friend correctly, his amendment aims to find a rather similar kind of money to offer a similar kind of freedom.
That should not be at all incompatible with the rest of the Bill. Such a provision would be valued by local authorities. If it is considered that local authorities cannot be trusted to raise the sums of money for things which, at the beginning of the Bill, they are to be allowed to do, the amendment will at least give them a measure of freedom. Even if the Government cannot accept it today, I hope that they will take it away and consider it seriously.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I welcome the comments from noble Lords opposite, in particular, from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who presumably speaks with some authority about his party's conversion to Financial freedom for local authorities. I am afraid that my experience of 18 years of the previous government was not quite like that.
Noble Lords may remember that I spoke on Clause 3(2) in Committee. I share some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on that subsection. However, the comments made by my noble friend Lady Farrington helped to clarify the way in which that clause will work. Amendment No. 6 would be both restrictive in its effect and also unfair in its consequences. It returns to the old product of a penny rate. Obviously, inflation has increased the amount to £2. But that is a restrictive amount because it is not all that much for local authorities to spend and it may not be enough. It is rather unambitious.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about band D being the mid-point of the range is in a sense true, since the range moves upwards from band A, but it is not the median point of the council tax range. In my own authority, over 88 per cent of all properties are below band D, with only 4 per cent being above. I am sure that in many other local authorities, that statistic could well be reversed. Therefore, the way in which local authorities could raise money would be in a sense differential. Those authorities with a large proportion of properties in the lower tax bands obviously will not be able to raise as much money as those with a large number of properties above band D. There are ways in which we
344
may continue to explore the limit which appears to be in Clause 3(2), but the amendment is not the way forward.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of being unable to speak because I am a Scot, for I cannot speak for local government in Scotland these days as it is ruled out by law.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if she interpreted what I intended as a light remark put slightly ironically as being in any way an attempt to dissuade her from taking part in the debate. Her contribution is welcome.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, that reassurance is extremely kind and gives me courage and comfort. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, has criticised the amendment. He did so in detail and I understand what he said, but I hope that when the Minister replies, she will tell the House whether, having listened to this argument again, she believes that there is in principle an argument for the Bill to define an area in which the Secretary of State cannot stop a local authority from doing something which it would like to do in the way of raising money. We must pay attention to what noble Lords have said—I believe my noble friend Lord Peyton made the point—about the need to get good people into local government.
It is absolutely desperate that if an entrepreneurial person is asked to promote the well-being of his area and comes upon a way of doing so by raising a little money to spend on something, he knows that the Secretary of State has the power to stop him if he so wishes—admittedly, after consultation. Would it not be possible to create some area of legislation in which the Secretary of State cannot do so in order to give councillors confidence that they may have the interest and satisfaction of doing something to help their areas in such a way?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when the Minister replies, will she explain to the House what is to happen to Section 137? I appreciate that it will be required for parishes which will not have the well-being power, but, as I understand it, Section 137 was enacted because there were not at that time general powers for local authorities, so the raising of a penny rate had to be read alongside the additional powers which the local authorities might want to exercise. I have looked at the back of the Bill in the repeals section. Section 137 does not feature, but I realise that I am now confused as to how it lies alongside the new powers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, again I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I learnt early on that irony is often misunderstood.
I am in the unusual position of being able to agree in part and in philosophy with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, because, in using the Clause 2 power,

345
local authorities may spend any amount of money they wish on promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their communities. I can tell from the way in which the debate has proceeded and the way in which the noble Lord moved his amendment that he would in fact be placing a limitation on what could be spent by a local authority in any year on improving or promoting the economic, social and environmental well-being of its area. My noble friend Lord Smith made it clear that a national limit would be inhibiting and would bite on or empower different local authorities unevenly.
The Government's position is in direct contradiction to the effect of rather than the intention behind the amendment. In our view, it is for individual local authorities, not central government, to determine how they should use the new well-being powers and for local government, not central government, to determine how much they should spend, based on their understanding of local circumstances and needs. The measures that we put in place in last year's Local Government Act and are putting in place through the Bill will strengthen efficiency and local accountability. It is to local communities that local authorities should answer on how they use their well-being powers and for the expenditure that they incur.
We welcome the conversion of noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench and the Opposition Benches to the principle of empowering local authorities to make judgments. However, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, we believe that it is necessary, in the interests of people in particular areas, that where local authorities act irresponsibly, the Secretary of State has the power to ensure that rises in council tax are not at an unacceptable level.
The amendment has the effect of limiting the freedom of local authorities. I apologise if in previous explanations we may not have made that as clear as would have proved helpful, but, in the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will seek leave to withdraw his amendment. In reply to the specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Section 137 will be repealed.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in response to the Minister's final comment, I assume Section 137 will be repealed using the powers given in Clause 5 of the Bill. I may not be correct.
Perhaps I may revert to the debate. I thank noble Lords on this side of the House who have supported the point that I sought to make. They have done that well. I regarded this amendment as unambitious, just as everyone else has done. However, when out on a fishing trip sometimes the smallest fly used is the most successful. One often sees very large fish landed on what appears to be an impossibly small fly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps it would help the House if I were to say that the repeal of Section 137 is in Clause 7 of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, I had missed the point. Perhaps I may revert to my fishing trip. If one hooks a fish in the right part of the mouth, one can have a degree of success beyond that which would be suggested by the tackle used. I must admit that I was seeking to hook the Government on this issue and to persuade them to unbend. Of course I accept that the Bill does not place any limitation on what is spent on this power. I have been trying to avoid repeating arguments that I used in Committee. While there are no limits on an authority's power to spend, Clause 3(2) says quite categorically:
"The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts. borrowing or otherwise)".
If a local authority has a budget and its budget is committed—I do not know of a local authority that does not have a committed budget—and it is then given an added power under which it is told, "You may do X, Y and Z, but you may not raise money in order to do anything about that power", I am not convinced that one can do anything about it. There are not many things one can do in local government which do not cost money in some shape or form.
I see the Minister is getting anxious about what I am saying. I am open to correction. I accept that within a budget local authorities can of course reallocate resources. Last year we debated the Local Government Bill which introduced the concept of best value. If the concept of best value is working, no under-employed resources are floating around. That may not be the case as local authorities can always take decisions. We are dealing here with a difference of degree. I do not find the Government's response entirely adequate.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, mentioned how unambitious I had been. I explained the reasons for that. I accept also the differential effects of my proposal. I accept that, as I have worded the amendment, it restricts expenditure. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made that point. That said, I assume that Clause 5 of the Bill, which permits a Minister to make regulations amending or repealing legislation found to be restrictive would also apply to the Bill. I envisage also that it would not be very long before a stream of local authorities were running to the Government to say, "This clause of the Bill is very restrictive. Please relax it". I envisage also that the Government might be susceptible to those pleas.
There is a fundamental problem with this aspect of the Bill. In the light of the Minister's reply, I am minded to test the mood of the House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wish to place on record explicitly the Government's position because I still do not think it is clear to the House. The effect that any spending might have on a council tax increase is a matter for the local authority. Before authorities increased the council tax we would expect them to look at whether they could raise money more effectively or efficiently—that will not surprise the noble Lord—taking account of what local people were prepared to pay. There is an important general point. We have said that we will look at the ability of

347
councils to charge for the services they provide with the well-being power. That will represent a new form of raising finance. We are considering it. Beyond that we would expect this new power to be implemented within the current finance system. As I made clear, we are not precluding local authorities from being able to spend money and raise their council tax in pursuit of their own local priorities within the reasonable bounds established by other legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, appears to interpret this as the Government saying that local authorities may not spend money or raise finance in the normal way within the overall constraints that apply to local authorities at all times. We have a genuine difficulty of understanding over this point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We do have a genuine misunderstanding. I am dealing with the Bill. If it said that local authorities could spend on this power within their existing budgets, that would be acceptable. That means that at the present time this is an additional function which has to come out of existing volumes of money because the Bill says:
"The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise)".
That includes everything. Therefore I do not think that money is available except as would be provided by the considerable ingenuity of local authorities. That is a fairly fundamental difference. I may be guilty of a misunderstanding. If I am, I have no doubt that I shall get the result that I deserve. But I am inclined to test the opinion of the House on what is a fundamental difference.
4.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Biffen, L.

Elles, B.

Boardman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elton, L.

Bridges, L.

Flather, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Fookes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Burnham. L. [Teller]

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Buscombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Byford, B.

Goschen, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Greenway, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Chadlington, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Courtown, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Crickhowell, L

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

348

Luke, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Marsh, L.

Rawlings, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Renton, L.

Montrose, D.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Naseby, L.

Seccombe, B.

Northbrook, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northesk, E.

Stewartby, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Palmer, L.

Wilcox, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jacobs, L.

Avebury, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord Privy Seal)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Judd, L.

Blood, B.

Laming, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brett, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brookman, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Christopher, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Maddock, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Molloy, L.

Dholakia, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Dixon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Eatwell, L.

Paul, L.

Elder, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Richard, L.

Gavron, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Russell, E.

Goldsmith, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Simon, V.

Hamwee, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Stallard, L.

Harrison, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

349

Tenby, V.

Uddin, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Varley, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wilkins, B.

Thornton, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Mozambique
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat in the form of a Statement a Private Notice Question on Mozambique answered in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
"Over the last two weeks, the worst floods in over 50 years have hit southern Mozambique. Cyclone Eline also caused substantial damage in the central provinces. Over the weekend, water deposited by Eline in Zimbabwe and South Africa has filtered through to Mozambique causing further massive flooding of the Limpopo and Save rivers.
"The Government of Mozambique estimate that over 500,000 people have been affected, with over 100,000 still awaiting rescue following the recent flood surge over the weekend. Regrettably, further showers and possible flooding from the Cabora Bassa dam are likely to make the situation worse over the next few days.
"The first phase of the relief operation, involving rescue and evacuation of people stranded by flood water is still ongoing. Co-ordination of rescue activities has been problematic. We are doing all we can to make available extra helicopters and boats. As the flood water subsides, the relief operation will move into a second phase. Priorities will be urgent repairs to essential infrastructure, shelter, food delivery and medical services
"DfID deployed two humanitarian specialists to the region during the initial stages of the flooding on 11th February. They conducted rapid assessments and liased with the Mozambiquan authorities and humanitarian organisations to plan the rescue operation needs. We despatched a consignment of over 400 tents from the UK to Maputo for the Red Cross to distribute for emergency shelter to those made homeless. We also supported the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Co-ordination Team, who are assisting the Mozambiquan authorities with the targeting and co-ordination of relief efforts. Given the deteriorating situation over the weekend, we are deploying a humanitarian specialist to assist with assessments and prioritisation of needs. We are also strengthening the World Food Programme with the secondment of two logistics experts to assist with the effective tasking of helicopters.
350
"DfID has already contributed nearly £2.2 for rescue and immediate relief, including the provision of shelter, water, sanitation and health support. This funding has been channelled through the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the Red Cross, ActionAid, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and World Vision. These activities are being co-ordinated with the Mozambiquan authorities. We stand ready to provide further assistance".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating, in the form of a Statement, a Private Notice Question answered in another place giving details of the Government's response to the flood crisis in Mozambique.
None of us can fail to be moved by the effect of the worst floods to hit Mozambique in years. What discussions did the Minister's department have with the authorities in the two years prior to the flooding to prepare for a co-ordinated response should a natural disaster occur?
The Minister referred to the swift reaction of the aid agencies and the Government of Mozambique to deal with the crisis. I should like to associate these Benches with the tribute paid to relief agencies such as the Red Cross for the outstanding work that they do in this field. Sadly, according to some aid workers, both the UN and DfID would not allow the Mozambique relief bodies a free hand to cope with yet another disaster to hit them. What assessment has the Minister made of the criticism of her department? Does she think that, wherever possible, UK funding should be supporting local plans drawn up to cope with such disasters and not the imposition of our own plans? Is she satisfied with the co-ordination of the relief effort?
When a hurricane hit Nicaragua and Honduras, there was confusion in the Government's position on debt relief. Here, too, there appeared to be confusion on the ground about the Government's humanitarian relief action plan. Was a plan drawn up for Mozambique, and did the Government stick to it?
Finally, we on these Benches recognise that Mozambique is one of Africa's success stories. Its privatisation programme is one of the most active in Africa: more than 900 state enterprises have been liberalised. However, according to Jubilee 2000, Mozambique is still having to pay 1.4 million dollars a week in debt service. What plans do the Government have in the future to take no more debt repayments in the future from the Mozambiquan Government until the country has got back on its feet again? Will the Government support the idea that Mozambique should be rewarded for sticking for so long to the very severe IMF structural adjustment programmes?
4.55 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, five years ago I had the great pleasure of monitoring the first multiparty election in Mozambique in precisely the area north of Maputo which has been devastated by the floods caused by the overflowing of the Limpopo and Save rivers. Your Lordships will understand, therefore, how distressed I feel at seeing the pictures of that same area in the condition that it is in today.
I begin by thanking the Government for the response that they have made, quickly, in assisting the South African authorities and the local voluntary agencies to cope with this terrible disaster. Sadly, the forecast is that more rains and another cyclone are approaching.
Mozambique is a fairly new member of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Secretary-General has appealed for neighbouring Commonwealth countries to send immediate assistance. I know that Malawi has responded. Does the Minister have news of any response from other neighbouring countries? Do we have, in our military training areas in Kenya, any suitable equipment—for example, helicopters or inflatable boats—which might be made available directly by the Ministry of Defence?
That leads me to ask the Minister a further question. We had several days' warning of the flood conditions in Mozambique. I wonder whether DfID and the Ministry of Defence have sufficient forward planning co-ordinated to be able to provide effective help in situations such as this, given that the MoD has massive resources compared with the limited resources that DfID inevitably has.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their positive comments about the relief effort to date. I thank the noble Baroness in particular for the tribute that she paid to the relief agencies that are working so hard in the area at present.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions. The first related to whether or not there had been a plan for Mozambique and any assessment by this Government, with the Government of Mozambique, in relation to planning for such an eventuality. I can assure the noble Baroness that we have a very good relationship with the Government of Mozambique. There have been ongoing discussions with the Government of Mozambique over a long period of time regarding ways in which this Government can best support the Mozambiquan Government's efforts in a variety of areas.
In Mozambique, the National Institute for Disaster Management is the central government body for coordinating relief efforts within which relevant government ministries are represented. They have worked in co-operation with the United Nations Disaster and Co-ordination Team in relation to the current crisis.
352
We consider the Government of Mozambique to have been, up until this time, one of our success stories. We are deeply concerned about the long-term implications of the current crisis. The Government of Mozambique are a reforming government. They have been putting in place strategies to assist the poor in Mozambique and have been putting resources into areas such as education and health. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that, where we can, we should support local efforts.
The noble Baroness asked me to respond to specific criticisms that had been made of the department. I can assure the noble Baroness that in our discussions with the Government of Mozambique concerns have been ironed out. In the short term, our assessment team together with a UN team made a number of recommendations which the Government of Mozambique felt unable, given their relatively limited capacity, to put in place immediately. As a result of discussions, a way forward has been agreed.
As to co-ordination on the ground, we are doing everything that we can to ensure that all of the agencies that work in Mozambique do so in a coherent way. But the noble Baroness will understand that Mozambique's infrastructure is poor and the floods have made it much worse. We are doing everything that we can to obtain and pool the available data so that all the agencies work on the same information. However, it is a somewhat difficult task.
I share the distress of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about what is happening right now in Mozambique. I visited that country very recently. Mozambique had been making very good progress. As to neighbouring Commonwealth countries, I am aware that Malawi and South Africa have to date given assistance. Malawi has provided two helicopters and South Africa has also given assistance with helicopters. I am not aware whether Zimbabwe has responded to the calls for support. We have had an ongoing dialogue with the Ministry of Defence on these matters. That department has advised us that its nearest resources are located 3,000 miles away. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development is having discussions with her counterpart my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on these matters.
5.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I have three reasons for taking an interest in this matter. First, the Christian Churches have partners and brothers and sisters in Mozambique with whom they are in close touch, and the first messages to come back are ones of considerable distress. Secondly, I chair the Board of Christian Aid which has worked for a number of years with partners in Mozambique. Thirdly, in that role I visited Mozambique last April. Standing here one has a sense of the deep distress about a dreadful disaster to befall a country which is just beginning to pick itself up after a long civil war. We should not under-estimate the serious implications for the economic, social and cultural infrastructure of

353
that country. I call to mind the faces of the people I met last year whom I fear may themselves have been caught up in this matter.
Projects that we visited run by the people of Mozambique, who have just begun to move from emergency relief to development, have been swept away by the floods in a matter of days. I suspect that some of the British Government's and European funding has been swept away as roads and bridges have disappeared. Suddenly, the community is back to square one. It is essential that we do everything we can to provide relief quickly and efficiently, that we persist in our relationship with Mozambique and ensure that we put things back at least to the beginnings of development. In my role as chairman of Christian Aid, the aid agencies want to work collaboratively with the Government and all the authorities to see what can be done in the immediate but, more importantly, the long term to help the people of Mozambique to recover from an appalling disaster.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate. We cannot under-estimate the seriousness of the current situation and its long-term impact on the development of Mozambique. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we are doing everything that we can to support the Government of Mozambique through this crisis and to work with other donors to ensure that we target resources in the most effective way. We have a growing aid programme with Mozambique to ensure that we contribute to the long-term development of the country once it emerges from the current situation. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we shall collaborate with the aid agencies. A key part of the role of the Department for International Development is to work in partnership. We are aware that we cannot work in isolation. We seek long-term sustainable development in Mozambique and need to draw in all the stakeholders so that we work towards the same goal.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, at lunch time the South Africans said that they could not give very much more help because they were themselves threatened by flooding. Obviously, the shortage lies in helicopter pilots. There was a report on the wireless that the helicopter pilots were exhausted and could not fly any more. What can we do about either moving Air Force or Army helicopter pilots to that area or even hiring local civilian helicopters? I am sure that that would be the most immediately helpful action that could be taken.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the shortage lies not only in helicopter pilots but in helicopters with appropriate equipment. At the moment 10 helicopters are operating in Mozambique and a further four are expected. However, only three of them have winches. We are doing all that we can, even if we have to make commercial arrangements, to get the right kind of helicopters into Mozambique. As I said in answer to an earlier question, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development is
354
engaged in ongoing discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on the best way in which our Armed Forces can assist the effort.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place. Does my noble friend accept that, while what she says is a welcome initial Statement, ultimately this country and the rest of the world will be judged by the enthusiasm with which we mobilise resources not only for humanitarian relief but also for the redevelopment of the development projects that have now been rendered null and void? Does my noble friend agree that, unless we are seen to do that with at least the same enthusiasm with which we muster resources for military purposes, we shall be viewed by many in the world to have failed?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is important to mobilise resources for the long-term redevelopment of Mozambique. We have a growing development programme in Mozambique, elements of which will go into redevelopment, but it is also important to note that Mozambique received a debt reduction of 1.7 billion dollars in July 1999 under the original HIPC initiative. Therefore, the Government of Mozambique can themselves download resources for long-term redevelopment. The revision of HIPC agreed in September 1999 provides deeper debt relief for qualifying countries, and therefore Mozambique is eligible for another reduction in its external debt. Once the immediate crisis is over, we must do all that we can to ensure that, in addition to the Government of Mozambique and the British Government, other donor countries pull together to ensure that Mozambique has sufficient resources to enable it to move forward in the long term.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome the Government's intention to provide an additional half a million pounds towards the immediate situation in Mozambique. I welcome, too, the Minister's remarks about the remission of debt charges. Nevertheless, I am sure that the sight of many victims clinging to wreckage, trees and buildings will be on the minds of everyone in this House.
Has the Minister seen the speculation that the Mozambique Government may not be able to afford to pay for the continued assistance of helicopters from Malawi? Will the noble Baroness ensure that that does not become an issue? Will she do all she can to ensure that more helicopters and boats are made available in Mozambique as a matter of urgency?
Does the Minister agree with the statement of her honourable friend, Mrs Ann Clwyd, on her return from Mozambique that the situation underlines the need for a rapid deployment force which can be put into operation as soon as such a disaster occurs?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are doing all we can to get helicopters and boats into Mozambique. I assure the noble Lord that money is not the problem at this

355
point in time. The real problem is the lack of capacity on the ground in Mozambique to mobilise the resources which are available as efficiently and effectively as possible. The other major concern is that the Zambezi area to the north of the central area—it is not currently flooded—has the potential to be flooded within the next week or so given that another storm has been predicted. We are doing all we can to mobilise resources to ensure that in that event—we all hope that it will not occur—additional helicopters and boats are available. The population in that area is something like 3 million.
We have been working with other international agencies to ensure that there is better co-ordination when such crises occur. The question of a rapid deployment force has been, and continues to be, discussed. If the relevant organisations consider that such a force is the best way forward, I am sure that we shall take the necessary steps.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at this stage any comment must start with a cry of sorrow that so much that was hopeful has been swept away so soon and with expression of sympathy for the whole country.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, may have heard something in the Minister's answer about rescheduling of debt relief which I did not hear. My noble friend on the Front Bench asked whether debt payments of 1.4 million dollars per week were being paid by the Mozambiquan Government. If ever there were a case for suspending payment, this is it. This is a good occasion on which to consider our policy of debt management towards the least fortunate countries in the world.
My other question is entirely separate. What is the estimate of malaria incidents which may follow in the wake of these floods? What steps are being taken to prepare for them? What contribution are we making to those steps?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as regards debt relief, perhaps I should repeat the figures I gave earlier. Mozambique received a debt reduction of 1.7 billion dollars in July 1999. A second phase of debt relief is being discussed currently. A decision point is expected in March at meetings of the international financial institutions.
The Department for International Development cancelled all Mozambique's aid debts in 1983. They were worth some £21.8 million. We are doing all we can to put pressure on other countries to do what we have done where there is bilateral debt.
There is difficulty in getting data about what is happening. We have a small office in Maputo from which we receive information all the time. However, it has made clear that the information is patchy given the difficulties of the infrastructure. All the aid agencies are seeking to share data. I am unable to answer the specific question about projections of the incidence of
356
malaria. Health is one of the areas on which we have given, and continue to give, support. If I receive further information, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the greatest test—my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and others referred to it—will be the renewed commitment to the reconstruction of Mozambique after this terrible disaster? When there is much talk about the restructuring of military forces on a European basis so that they can move more effectively to military situations where there is demand, does my noble friend agree that we need to consider the closest possible collaboration between development ministries and the military so that equipment can be moved as rapidly as necessary in situations such as that in Mozambique?
Does the Minister agree that we should send our warmest congratulations and good will to the heroic pilots from South Africa? They have been doing fantastic work over the past few days.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the United Kingdom has taken a lead in the matter of collaboration between development ministries and the military. The Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence have been working together in considering areas upon which we can take greater action. However, the issue is not limited to the United Kingdom Government. We have to do all we can to ensure that our broad-based approach is replicated in other countries throughout the world.
I agree with my noble friend. We should thank the pilots from South Africa and Malawi who have worked so heroically to rescue those in peril.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the British Government's efforts in this tragic situation. It is important that the Commonwealth is seen to rally round and help in any way possible. However, can the Minister tell us what the European Union plans to do in particular as regards its overseas development role and the special relationship with ACP countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the European Community humanitarian office has committed 1 million euros for relief and initial rehabilitation. There will then be ongoing discussions about the European Commission's response in terms of the long-term rehabilitation of Mozambique.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does the Minister agree that three winch-equipped helicopters are not enough? The need will be even more acute if the floodwaters rise. Since we lack heavy-lift capacity, cannot the United Nations be asked to suggest that the American air force, which is amply equipped in that direction, provides some resources to assist this crying, urgent need?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the USAID has been involved with other donors in supporting the

357
Government of Mozambique in terms of the current humanitarian crisis. I shall pass on my noble friend's suggestions to the appropriate authorities, but I cannot speak for the American Government.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I associate myself with all the expressions of sympathy for Mozambique. Clean water has not been mentioned. Am I right in thinking that apart from people who are stranded in small groups, others have reached refuge in large numbers? What efforts are being made to ensure that they are receiving clean water?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we are doing all we can. However, we are hampered by logistical problems on the ground. Many roads in Mozambique are cut, so we have to use other means of transport. That is where the helicopters without winches can be used. However, it is a matter of ongoing concern because it is linked to the possible health effects on the population of Mozambique should they not have access to clean water, adequate sanitation and so forth.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Steel, I was in Mozambique for the first round of elections, and I am equally sad about the situation there. However, we have not mentioned the presence of landmines. How far has the demining process gone in Mozambique and how far will the lack of it make it logistically more difficult to transport materials across country when there are no roads worth using?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am able to answer the noble Lord's question only in part. The Government of Mozambique asked the British Government to be responsible for demining in the northern part of the country and the majority of mines in that area have been removed. The area is not flooded, although there is a threat of flood, and we have a small team operating in-country in the event of further problems. There have been reports about the possibilities of landmines in other parts of the country which are currently flooded, but our information is not clear. Again, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord once we receive clear information.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords—
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that the time is up. I know that other noble Lords want to ask questions, but the convention provides for 20 minutes.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
5.22 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 30.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 7:
358
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("(whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords move out of the Chamber, perhaps I may say that the previous debate puts our problems into perspective:
Amendment No. 7 seeks to leave out of Clause 3(2) the words in parenthesis:
"whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise".
Clause 3(2) provides that the well-being power does not enable a local authority to raise money. At the previous stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, confirmed that the clause was neutral. This debate follows on from that which took place before the Statement and we voted with the Government in the Division because of the neutrality of the position. At the previous stage, the noble Baroness said that all the Government are saying is that authorities may not use the power to raise money and that the limitation merely stops local authorities using the well-being power to raise money, whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise. She stated that the Government do not believe that local authorities should be able to use the power to impose new taxes on individuals or business and that the power to tax should be subject to the specific approval of Parliament.
Although we dislike the control exercised by central government on local authorities in the area of finances, we are content that for the purposes of the Bill the clause makes no difference either way. Therefore, I ask again why the words in parenthesis are required. I read the clause in its context following Clause 3(1), which states that the well-being power,
"does not enable a local authority to do anything which they are unable to do by virtue of any prohibition, restriction or limitation".
I do not see why those words are necessary. Indeed, the more I read them, the more opaque they seem. I repeated the explanation which the Minister gave at the previous stage about tax raising, but the words in this provision do not specifically include tax raising. Perhaps the Minister can say whether anything is added by the words in brackets. I am sure she understands that the concern that we are missing something has not yet been allayed.
During the debate on the previous amendment, she spoke of the Government looking for a sensible relaxation of certain controls and mentioned the consultation paper. Perhaps she can treat our words on these two amendments as a small contribution to that consultation.
We have tabled Amendment No. 9 because we remain concerned about the restrictions on charging. We are bothered that they will, as a matter of fact, act as a break on the application of the well-being power. At the previous stage, other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that the power to charge is a sine qua non of the power of well-being and we agree with that.
The Audit Commission report, The Price is Right, previously referred to during the course of the Bill, proposed a generic order under Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which

359
would allow the kind of flexibility that we are seeking in the amendment. Local authorities need a certainty to what they do. They do not necessarily need complete freedom, although we should like to see that, but they need enough flexibility to be able to exercise the new powers which are conferred on them.
I am aware that the Local Government Association has been in correspondence with the Minister. The chairman makes the point that the LGA is concerned that the community leadership concept embodied in the Bill will be undermined if the charging and trading issues are not resolved soon. He asks for joined-up thinking about what he calls "powers, charging and trading" and says that local government needs the "full tool kit" of powers necessary to promote economic, social and environmental well-being.
Amendment No. 9 deals with the charging provision, addressing the flaws in the existing regime. The order-making power in Section 150 of the 1989 Act is long-winded and cumbersome and I understand that in more than 10 years it has been used only three times. A charging power explicitly linked to the wellbeing power and seen to be in the same legislation, allowing the Secretary of State to designate categories of activity that are suitable for charging, would encourage authorities to develop their use of the new powers. We believe that that is not only desirable but necessary if the new powers are to be used to effect. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to accept the—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. As this is the Report stage, I believe that if he is to reply now, that would indicate the end of the debate. If I am right on that point, I should like to say something at this stage.
Briefly, I regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not find it possible to vote for the last amendment, which on the whole was a mild and modest affair, characteristic of my noble friend. Of course, I understand that the noble Baroness is stricken with a certain affection for the Government and would be reluctant to cross swords with them too often or too openly. For that, I am slightly sorry.
The noble Baroness has now tabled Amendment No. 9, which I regard with considerable misgivings. Why has she tabled this kind of amendment? Is she not proposing to give local authorities power instead of allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations? I cannot remember how many speeches I have made in your Lordships' House and in another place on the subject of Secretaries of State being given further powers. I am certainly not one who is inclined readily to trust the judgment, wisdom and duty of Secretaries of State in administering the law wisely.
I am surprised that these amendments should come from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I believe that the modern tendency to place Secretaries of State in a
360
position where they can bypass Parliament is wrong and unacceptable. I should not be altogether surprised to see such proposals coming from the Labour Benches, but I am surprised to find them coming from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrat Party. While the previous amendment, tabled by my noble friend, would have helped local authorities, I am doubtful that this one would do so. It simply gives power to Secretaries of State. As I have said many times, I have the gravest possible reservations about Secretaries of State. They are usually much more conscious of the convenience of their colleagues and the interests of their party than they are of helping local government. I have grave reservations about this particular amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his approbation of my previous amendment and, indeed, for what he said about this amendment. If nothing else, it spares me the trouble of saying it in duplicate. It would be highly amusing—to me, at the very least—if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were to divide on Amendment No. 7.I should then be able to support her when she would not support me.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 9, as my noble friend said, it would be more appropriate if local authorities had such a power on the face of the Bill rather than having to rely on yet more regulations. We deal constantly with regulation on regulation on regulation. I believe that that is not the happiest situation. In passing legislation, we should be able to deal with matters more concisely and more effectively.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am prepared to take a slightly more benign view of the remarks of the noble Baroness than did the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but, regrettably, as she said, only in terms of a contribution towards the consultation on the future of local government finance rather than in direct amendments to the Bill. There is some cross-over with the previous debate and with the debate which we had in Committee. A number of longer-term issues about the nature of local government finance and the controls or otherwise thereof are best addressed in a Bill which primarily is concerned with finance rather than the powers of local authorities.
With regard to Amendment No. 7, I reiterate that the limitation in subsection 3(2) simply confirms the status quo. It is entirely neutral in its effect on the ability of local authorities to charge or otherwise for their services. It would also be neutral whether the words to which the noble Baroness objects—"by precepts, borrowing or otherwise"—are retained or deleted. We feel that on balance it would be more helpful than otherwise if we had some indication of what we mean by "raising money" in this context. The list to which we referred in terms of "precepts, borrowing or otherwise" gives some indication of what we mean by "raising money". I appreciate that the noble Baroness takes a different view, but it is our view that the words are slightly more helpful than unhelpful. There would be a little more confusion were they not to be there.

361
As far as concerns Amendment No. 9, as we said in Committee, the Government accept that there is a case for allowing local authorities a wider discretion to charge. However, these are complex issues which go beyond that of well-being. A number of difficult considerations exist. In respect of some services, of course, local authorities compete with the private sector, and in others they are in a virtual monopoly position. Therefore, there must be some degree of control and regulation of their charging ability. I would not necessarily regard that as giving a Secretary of State overweening powers. However, these factors must be carefully weighed and a number of different interests consulted.
We are considering this whole issue in the approach to the local government finance review Green Paper, which we hope to publish this summer. As a result of that review, I accept that we may need to concede that some legislation will be needed. If it were possible to include some enabling provision in this Bill which could pave the way for such steps, we should be prepared to consider it. However, we are not convinced that Amendment No. 9, as drafted, is such a provision. Certainly, our initial view is that it is little more than a restatement of Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Under that Act the Government can already make regulations to allow authorities to charge for services provided under these powers, as under others. Therefore, in this regard it does not add a great deal to the existing law and to the existing powers of the Secretary of State.
There is a problem here and we shall address it in a broader context. However, I hope that for now the noble Baroness can be persuaded not to pursue the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, "stricken with affection for the Government"! I had believed that we did not insult one another in this House. Certainly not. No more with affection for the Government than with affection for the Conservative Benches. I am entirely neutral.
I shall not pursue Amendment No. 7 further, other than with this response. However, I remain unconvinced. Since the Minister describes it as being almost a matter of taste, it is quite difficult to argue because I believe that we have gone beyond the bounds of drafting technicalities. To our taste, the list is unhelpful, particularly, as I said in my introductory remarks, as it does not include tax raising. So far as a local community sees it, that is the main way in which a local authority raises money. Of course, we all know that the main way in which it raises money is through central government grant.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 9, I worded the amendment in that way partly because I hoped that it might be more appealing to the Government and also partly because, given the complexity of the matter, I was not confident that my drafting would be adequate to cover all the points. It seemed to me that it offered a more practical approach to provide for the Secretary of State. I have no great liking for order-making
362
powers to be given to Secretaries of State. However, that would be a more practical approach in this particular situation.
Amidst his dismissal of the amendment, the Minister gave a little note of sympathy. Given that it will be a little while before the Green Paper is published and that inevitably legislation is some way off, I wonder whether the Government would be prepared to discuss what might be an appropriate amendment in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to take steps to make regulations and allow for charging. After all, it will still be in the hands of the Government as to whether or not regulations will be promoted. That means that charging in its proper fashion could be introduced a good deal earlier than if we had to wait for primary legislation.
I repeat that the purpose of the amendment is to support the approach taken by the Government in terms of best value and the exercise of the new powers. We support the new powers and want to see them exercised effectively. Can the Minister give any encouragement as to whether there might be a way forward?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, without commitment, I should be happy to consider the possibility of the provision being included in the Bill. Perhaps we can engage in discussions before the next stage.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("() Before making an order under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult such representatives of local government and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 introduces a new requirement on the Secretary of State to consult such representatives of local government and such other persons, if any, as he considers appropriate before he makes any order under subsection 3(3). I hope that that does not confirm that the noble Baroness will be stricken with affection for the Government Benches. However, it should please her as she proposed a similar amendment in Committee. As I said then, we would expect as a matter of course to consult all those bodies likely to be affected by regulations. We recognise the concerns of the House in relation to the scope of this particular power. Having considered the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, we agree that a formal requirement to consult local authorities and others is appropriate in this case, especially as we have made clear that the power in subsection 3(3) would only be used in extremis.
Taken together with the amendment made in Committee, which is now Clause 83—making the subsection 3(3) power subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—the amendment will ensure

363
that any order brought under this subsection will be subject to proper consultation and full scrutiny in this House and the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister. It is rare for one's amendment to be adopted by the Government without any change of wording. I am grateful to the Minister for moving the amendment which we shall, of course, support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Strategies for promoting well-being]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3 line 1, leave out ("is to have power to prepare") and insert ("shall prepare and keep under review").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, deals with the fact that local authorities shall prepare and keep under review an overarching strategy.
In drafting the Bill, the Government have simply given local authorities the power to prepare such a strategy and have not required them to do so. We believe that provision to be greatly lacking, particularly given the Minister's reply in Committee. We were told then that there were approximately 40 different plans or strategies which local authorities are required to develop. Given the Government's correct wish that local authorities should be community leaders, and that the community should take an interest in order to realise best value and the way forward for themselves, a coherent overall strategy is needed that can be found in one place, not in 40 different places. We felt that to be extremely important.
The Minister went on to say that the Government do not believe that such a duty—which is what we ask to be included in the Bill—would lead to better community planning. However, since that time the Local Government Association has issued briefing which I am sure many noble Lords will possess. I should like to quote from that briefing because the LGA supports the inclusion of a statutory duty to initiate a community planning process. The association states its belief,
"that this is an essential prerequisite to ensuring that all other local partners have due regard to the process".
Those are strong words from the Local Government Association. It is not resisting an extra duty. It believes, as we put forward in Committee, that that would enable a much more coherent approach for the public, other partners working with local authorities and, indeed, members of the authority to see brought together all the different strands in which the local authority works.
I would be interested to know if the Minister is likely to have a change of heart on this issue, given that local authorities would welcome a more coherent approach from the Government. Perhaps the Government
364
would then be able to rationalise the number of different strategies they currently require. That would create a far more comprehensible picture to both the public being served and to the Secretary of State in trying to keep an overall picture of what is happening in each local authority area and in terms of best value. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is good to see the LGA being so clearly supportive of the importance of community planning as a central role for local authorities.
Having said that, I have some doubt as to whether a further statutory duty is necessary in this context, as probably three-quarters of it already exists in the legislation on best value whereby local authorities are required as part of their best value processes to produce a community strategy for their areas.
I am not convinced that the argument given by the LGA really bites; namely, that there is need of a duty to encourage partner organisations to treat the statutory process seriously. That will not be a duty which falls on the other bodies. Were this to be passed, it would only be a duty on the local authority which has to persuade others of the importance of working on a strategy by its stance, leadership and the wisdom it brings to those processes. I am sympathetic in part to the amendment. However, I doubt whether it is strictly necessary.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe there is a difference in objective; it is more a case of whether it should be a duty or a power. There is perhaps not so great a difference between ourselves and noble Lords opposite, or, indeed, the LGA on the issue as the amendment suggests. We disagree about the means of delivery. Like my noble friend Lord Filkin, I am not convinced that a duty is necessary or especially conducive to effective community planning.
Local strategic partnerships can bring real benefits. A number of local authorities are already part of local strategic partnerships bringing together the other stakeholders in the area. They are already developing the sort of approach which the Government want to encourage. Those authorities, for example Coventry City Council, who have adopted this approach for some time, have demonstrated the benefits it can bring. They did not need to have a duty in that respect.
The evidence suggests, therefore, that it is not a necessary prerequisite for local authorities to develop effective community planning. Moreover, there are other aspects of changes in the pipeline which will encourage local authorities to go down that road.
Under the new executive arrangements in Part II of the Bill, accountability for lack of progress on delivery will be clear. The well-being of their communities should be the most important issue for local councils. Where there is no delivery, it will be clear where the responsibility lies.
It is also the case, as my noble friend Lord Filkin pointed out, that local authorities are already under a duty in relation to best value. The best value guidance

365
makes clear that the preparation of a community strategy, which can help ensure that services are delivered in an integrated and coherent way, should be the starting point for setting the authority's own strategic objectives. Those in turn will form the basis for reporting progress in best value performance plans.
In the longer term there is a potential to use the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill to remove barriers to the use of the well-being power and to rationalise the requirements for statutory plans. An authority that already has an effective community strategy in place will be best placed to identify such problems and to take advantage of the potential freedoms that their removal would provide.
On balance, therefore, we are not convinced that a duty laid on local authorities is necessary for what we want to see in terms of turning community planning into reality. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press this point.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, it is strange that a duty will continue to apply to the 40 other plans but there will be no duty to provide something that is overarching. While I accept that the best local authorities do not need to be given a duty, much of the Government's incentive for bringing this Bill and the last Bill forward, and for setting up the Improvement and Development Agency, was to raise the standard of all councils, not to continue to enable the best to perform well. That is why the Bill would have been much stronger if it included a duty.
I feel also that the Minister's response continues to ignore the fact that the best value duty will mainly still apply to local authorities. Of course what they do in partnership will be taken into account, but our amendment would bring in, in a comprehensive way, their work with all the other partners and other local authorities in the area. It would be much more wide-ranging than that which the best value guidance, which is internal to a local authority, will bring forward. I hope that the Government will address the fact that they are imposing a duty to produce lesser plans but no duty to produce a comprehensible, overarching plan. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, leave out line 2 and insert ("the sustainable development").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 seeks to bring the words "sustainable development" into the way in which local authorities prepare community plans. I hope the House will bear with me while I repeat a little history. I do this in view of the Minister's response to our debate on this point in Committee.
In Committee the Minister did not believe that "sustainable development" was widely understood. He regretted that fact and agreed with me that we would like it to be more widely understood. I take the House back briefly to the Government's 1998
366
publication Opportunities for change. It discusses why sustainable development and the role of local authorities is important and says at paragraph 57,
"At the local level, we want local authorities to develop their roles as leaders and champions of their local communities … We will complement this through our commitment to give councils a new duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. These are essentially sustainable development objectives".
That defines how the three strands fit together in a sustainable development duty. In 1999 the Government produced the publication, A better quality of life, in which the Prime Minister said,
"Talking about sustainable development is not enough. We have to know what it is, to see how our policies are working on the ground".
Paragraph 7.80 talks about sustainable development strategies and says,
"Such community strategies may complement Local Agenda 21 strategies, or authorities may decide to integrate the two. Local Agenda 21 strategies should also inform all other local plans, policies and programmes".
If we leave the words "sustainable development" out of this paragraph, though it appears in Clause 2(3), the three strands of economic, social and environmental well-being will not be tied together in one objective. During debate of the last Local Government Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said,
"sustainable outcomes and sustainable developments are central to our whole strategy in what local authorities should be delivering for their communities".—[Official Report, 10/5/99; col. CWH 26.]
The Government came to power in 1997 with laudable aims developed through these consultation documents and echoed by the Minister in the debate of 10th May. But those aims have been greatly watered down. The Government seem to be afraid to include the words "sustainable development", as suggested by the amendment. The Local Agenda 21 steering group of the LGA felt that they should be included in Clause 4 and I believe it wrote to Michael Meacher on 4th February in that regard. I hope the Minister has a copy of that letter. It said that,
"local authorities, their partner organisations and the communities they serve, can look forward to the delivery of sustainable development in an integrated fashion";
in other words, the three strands of economic, social and environmental development are drawn together.
The Government appear primarily to be afraid of the fact that "sustainable development" is difficult to understand. But how many local authorities currently have Local Agenda 21 plans in place? How many have substantially acted on those plans? If that is the main duty that now remains for achieving sustainable development it is proving a slow process and not a very strong one.
Amendment No. 12 would make it clear to local authorities that the powers that they have to implement well-being must add up to sustainable development. The conflicts that might arise, such as how one achieves affordable housing, reasonable land use and employment and still keep biodiversity—the Government also face a conflict in relation to land use, new build and affordable housing for people—are exactly what local authorities should be facing in order

367
to come up with the most sustainable means of development. If we do not put these words in the Bill, we discourage local authorities from addressing those issues. Further, the Government undermine their own building block clearly laid out in A better quality of life that the local authority sustainable development plan should lead into the regional development plan, which should lead into the national one.
I am disappointed that the Government now seem to be watering down their commitment from what was a laudable aim when they first came to power. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I reject the accusation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Government have backed off from their commitment to sustainable development because it is central to much of what the Government are proposing in the Bill and more generally in their environmental and spatial planning approach.
As the noble Baroness so eloquently stated, local authorities should be committed to sustainability all the time. The aim of the strategic plans setting out local priorities and the actions needed to address them should be sustainable development, and we agree with that aim.
Under Clause 4 a local authority has power to prepare a strategy setting out how it and its partners will promote the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of their area. The strategy is not about any one of those factors, but it is about bringing them all together. We are not speaking of three strategies that overlap or which might be mutually incompatible. That is why the Bill repeals the reference to developing a separate economic development plan, because we want to approach these matters in a holistic way.
An authority that is developing a strategy under this power will need to set out how it and its partners will tackle those things together for the overall wellbeing of the community. That is the essence of sustainability and why sustainable development is written very firmly, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, in Clauses 2 and 3. It is an indication that everything we do must have regard to sustainable development. The guidance on community strategies in this part of the Bill also emphasises that point.
However much the Government and others repeat the term "sustainable development", it is not as clearly understood as we would like. Unfortunately, contrary to the impressions of some people, the fact that the Government keep repeating something does not necessarily mean that it immediately achieves political and popular assent. Regrettable though that may be, the economic, social and environmental strategies have to be spelt out in the Bill. Mirroring the wording in Clause 2 also reinforces the point that this new wellbeing power will be an important tool in ensuring that we deliver sustainable growth in local authority areas.
We agree with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, namely bringing together the different areas of strategies holistically. The framework in Part I of
368
the Bill emphasises the links between well-being and sustainable development. The noble Baroness referred to local Agenda 21 plans, and we must ensure that all local authorities implement those explicitly.
Since Committee stage, we have held discussions with the UK Round Table on sustainable development on these very issues. We are considering a number of suggestions that they have put to us, and we intend to bring forward proposals as soon as possible. However, deletion of the references to "economic, social and environmental" in this context, and replacing them by a simple reference to "sustainable development" we do not believe advances the prospect of local authorities genuinely putting sustainable development in the centre of their approach to community planning and the rest of the wellbeing power.
I agree with much of what the noble Baroness said, apart from her accusations that the Government have backed off. However, I do not believe that that simple deletion and replacement will achieve what she is seeking. I hope therefore that she will not pursue the matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that people use this term in many ways, and it is mouthed as something that is bound to be good, but people mean different things at different times. Has the precise meaning of the phrase been tested in court yet?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to my knowledge it has not. I shall check on that point and write to the noble Baroness if that is not the case.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the Government are talking to the Round Table about a way of including what they and we would like to see in the Bill. At the moment there is only a power to produce such a plan, even if the words are interpreted in the way the Minister has interpreted them. It is not a duty.
I hope that it is not simply a question of it being difficult to draft or pressure of time, because I am aware of the reply of the Minister, Hilary Armstrong, to the Round Table on this matter, which was that it is simply not possible in the time available to consider the full extent of authorities' existing functions and the implications of the impacts of such legislation. It sounds as though the Government are now more interested in pursuing the objectives of the Round Table in implementing sustainable development, so I hope that the pressure of time on legislation will not be an impediment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Power to amend or repeal enactments]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.13.
Page 3, line 12, at beginning insert—
("() A local authority may apply to the Secretary of State to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply an enactment (whenever passed or made) which it considers prevents or obstructs it from exercising its power under section 2(1).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment No.14, which is grouped with this amendment. Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend or repeal enactments, when he "thinks" that an enactment may obstruct a local authority from exercising its wellbeing power.
I suggest that it is quite unlikely that the Secretary of State will wake up at three one morning and say to himself, "I must make a note in case I forget this when I wake up at the proper time, and I will write it down now, because it just occurs to me that such and such an enactment might obstruct a local authority from exercising its well-being power". The more likely scenario is that local authorities will realise the problems that confront them, and they will ask the Secretary of State to modify enactments or repeal them.
The Conservative Front Bench tabled a very similar amendment at the last stage of the Bill. The Minister explained that the Government envisaged a relatively informal procedure and that the matter would become an agenda item at the central local partnership meetings, and local government will therefore be able to look at the issues collectively. He stated that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent local authorities individually or as a group putting forward proposals that the Secretary of State should regulate or alter barriers, and he said that they were actively encouraged to do so. I do not quarrel with that statement.
The process described by the Minister should be made more transparent. The Bill should provide explicitly for a local authority to apply to the Secretary of State.
The second amendment is consequential, providing that, whether or not there has been an application by a local authority, the Secretary of State can take the steps that he thinks fit.
The amendments do not seek to alter the direction of the Bill but would merely facilitate proper transparency, which is a word that has already been used many times in debates on the Bill. I hope that it will be put into practice in this clause.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I was delighted to see, on my return from a few days' vacation last week, that the amendment had been tabled, since it spared me the bother of returning to this subject, which we debated at Committee stage, following an amendment that I put down in almost identical terms. Up to a point, the Minister gave a good response to that debate. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising the subject again.
One thought occurs to me in relation to the provision that we are debating. Clause 5 says:
"If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment (whenever passed or made) prevents or obstructs local authorities from exercising their power under section 2(1) he may by order amend, repeal, revoke or disapply that enactment".
Perhaps the Minister can give me the assurance that that applies to this Bill, as well as to all other Acts. It is quite clear from the drafting of this legislation that
370
aspects of it are particularly designed, shall we say, to squeeze the freedom of action of local authorities in this regard. After a short while, I can imagine that the Secretary of State may face a queue of local authorities—or, indeed, as has been said, a series of pleas may be presented at the central, local partnership meeting—requesting the release of aspects of this Bill. Therefore, I shall be glad to hear that this provision in Clause 5 also applies to the rest of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, quite apart from the merits of the amendment, which seem to me to be considerable, can the Minister tell us why this clause says:
"If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment … prevents or obstructs local authorities"?
The word "thinks" is very tentative. If the Minister was asked whether he considered that this Act obstructed local authorities and he was not sure, he would say, "I think so". Surely the Secretary of State would not take what is really quite drastic action unless he has considered it. The usual word in legislation for such a provision is "considers". The Minister ought to consider that, whatever he thinks.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that my Secretary of State is very frequently and normally up at three o'clock in the morning. Therefore, he would be prepared to consider any application from local authorities in this regard. However, if we were to institute a totally formal process on what is intended to be a collaborative approach to identifying problems and exerting the ability to repeal or modify those barriers, we would be in a bit of a stand-off situation.
After all, we have gone into some institutionalised collaborative activities, such as health action zones and work on regeneration and on the need to encourage local authorities to identify barriers under these powers. But if we were to have a formal application system whereby a local authority transparently, if you like, put forward a proposal that the Secretary of State had to consider and pass judgment upon, the process would be less flexible and open in practice than under the current provisions. There is nothing in the present draft legislation that would prevent local authorities or their representative bodies putting forward any proposal to the Secretary of State in this area for him or her to regulate under the powers in Clause 5.
We are encouraging proposals. But if we have a formal legislative mechanism, I am not entirely sure that that would add to such encouragement. Indeed, it could lead to a too formalised way of considering these issues. It is possible that a particular application might be considered or thought inappropriate—"consider" is probably right in this context, but I shall have to check with parliamentary draftsmen as regards other contexts—in the way proposed, but there could be some other modification that would meet the local authority's point. It would be quite difficult to deal with that situation through a formal application system.

371
Therefore, although I have some sympathy, as was the case with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with the purpose of the amendment—namely, to make it absolutely clear that local authorities, the LGA or combinations of authorities could take the initiative in this area we feel that a formal application system would not help the process and cannot accept the amendments of the noble Baroness. We shall, of course, give more practical encouragement in the statutory guidance in order to highlight to local authorities the availability of this Clause 5 provision on the use of the well-being power. That could provide the kind of permanent reminder to local authorities that they can put forward proposals to the Secretary of State at any time, including three o'clock in the morning. Given the Government's general openness to such proposals, I hope that both parties opposite will accept our goodwill in this area and not seek to institute a formal application system by pressing this amendment.
In regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I should say that she half convinced me when she intervened. I shall check on the wording in this provision to ascertain whether it is appropriate and parallel to other circumstances. I suspect that parliamentary counsel has a good answer of which I am not immediately aware.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should remind him that he did not respond to my specific point regarding whether the provision in Clause 5 will also apply to this Bill.
Lord Whitty: I am sorry, my Lords. The answer is yes.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not attacking the goodwill that may apply to relations between local authorities and the Secretary of State, because I would want to encourage that. I shall leave the matter as it is, but I suggest that there are certain situations where goodwill is fine but where a degree of formality, because of the transparency and clarity, should accompany it. That is an important point. There are occasions—the revocation of enactments is likely to be quite a serious one—when the processes that would be put in train to enable all those who are interested in the subject to be properly informed would be quite appropriate.
I used the word "transparency" because, as I said, it has been recognised as being very important in relations between local and central government. In wider constitutional terms, I believe that the Government are making a mistake here if they think that informality is the right way to go forward. Having made that point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO AMEND OR REPEAL ENACTMENTS OR REQUIREMENTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 4 POWERS
(" .—(1) If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment (whenever passed or made) or a requirement (whenever imposed) is unnecessary as it applies to local authorities following the enactment of section 4, he may by order amend, repeal, revoke or withdraw it.
(2) In this section "enactment" has the same meaning as in section 5(4) and "requirement" includes guidance and directions.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again, this amendment relates to the word "thinks":
"If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment … is unnecessary",
he may go ahead and repeal it. This builds on the provision in Clause 5. On the last occasion when I tabled a similar amendment, the Minister said that I was being rather too ambitious on the part of the Secretary of State. I replied that my ambition was for local authorities, not the Secretary of State.
The substantive criticism of the amendment at the last stage was that it applied to other bodies and not only to local authorities. The Minister said that government should not amend or revoke an enactment without consultation. I agree with that, but I believe that the consultation should be about whether or not the enactment should be repealed and not whether there should be power to do so. In any event, I have accepted the Minister's point and narrowed my amendment so that it now applies only to local authorities. I have also changed the word "shall" to "may", although, on reflection, I am not sure whether I have shot myself in the foot a little in respect of that drafting.
We have heard at this stage and at previous stages of the Bill of the 40 or so plans that local authorities are required to draw up. As my noble friend and I have said, we support community leadership plans, or sustainable development plans, whatever one calls them, and we support the rationalisation of the planning process which local authorities have to apply. The approach of rationalising the process was fundamental to the Green and White Papers which preceded the Bill. I may again have shot myself in the foot by using the term "rationalisation" rather than "modernisation" but I am sure that noble Lords will know what I mean. It is important that the Government give a clear indication of how they propose to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baroness has changed her amendment as compared with the one that was proposed in Committee. While I do not think that she has completely shot herself in the foot the net result is that she is not proposing in the new clause anything that is not already contained in Clauses 5 and 6, which already enable the Secretary of State to rationalise or remove statutory planning

373
requirements. We all agree that there should be some rationalisation. We hope that the development of the new community strategy and other aspects of the Bill will provide a context in which some amendment of the current statutory requirements in relation to plans might be sensible and deletions and modifications might be proposed by the Government to dovetail with that. However, the Clause 6 powers already provide the remedy for that.
It is also conceivable that in implementing the strategy to promote or improve the well-being of their area, authorities may encounter legislative obstacles, notwithstanding the broad new powers in Clause 2. However, if that is the case, we can use the Clause 5 powers to make changes to the legislative framework. Therefore I am not clear that any area falls between Clauses 5 and 6 where the Secretary of State would not have the appropriate powers, which he may or may not exert, to use the phraseology of the noble Baroness. Were she seeking to make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to exert the powers, the situation might be different. However, he may already exert those powers under Clauses 5 or 6 of the Bill as drafted. Therefore the noble Baroness's proposal does not add anything to his powers as regards the ability to achieve the objective which I think we all share; namely, to rationalise and make compatible the various statutory requirements on the production of plans in this area. I hope that on that understanding the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we sometimes run into difficulties—I certainly do—through the drafting conventions in regard to using the terms "may" and "shall". One says politely that the Secretary of State may do something when sometimes one understands that he will do it and not just think about it. On other occasions we take the words at their normal meaning; that is, that he may do something and, implicitly, may not do it. I am concerned that if the Secretary of State thinks that a repeal or a revocation is a good idea, he should carry that out. However, I recognise that I shall not succeed in taking this matter any further. I leave the House with the thought that I hope that there will be fewer plan making requirements imposed on local authorities a year or so after the enactment of the Bill. We would be doing all of them a favour if we could achieve that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Power to modify enactments concerning plans etc.]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("() If the power under subsection (1) is exercised pursuant to subsection (2)(b), the enactment in question shall be amended, repealed, revoked or disapplied in relation to those authorities for a temporary period only.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to exercise a power of modification in relation to all local authorities, or in relation to particular local authorities, or in relation to particular descriptions of local authority. At the previous stage the Minister described what the term
374
"particular local authorities" might comprise if they do not comprise categories such as district or unitary authorities. He gave the example of groups of authorities designated by their geographical or economic position. I rather enjoyed the terminology in Hansard which rather unusually missed the point. The Minister stated that the term "particular descriptions of authority",
"could mean authorities which have rivers or repairing responsibilities".—[Official Report, 25/1/2000: col. 1486.]
I think that the phrase should have been "riparian responsibilities". However, the thought of authorities with repairing responsibilities is quite nice.
The Minister also mentioned a pilot approach. I do not wish for one moment to restrict innovation on the part of authorities. However, what I see here—I alluded to this at the previous stage—is a danger of favouritism. I understand the Minister's explanation as regards what is meant by the term "particular local authorities". However, the natural meaning of the words is not necessarily confined to the kind of group which the Minister mentioned, such as those with particular economic or geographic characteristics. They could comprise authorities which happened to have caught the Minister's eye in a favourable way in the previous month—to mention a trivial example—and not authorities which fall within a particular group which can be judged in an objective, proper and (I repeat this) transparent fashion.
Amendment No. 16 states that if the power is exercised with regard to particular local authorities rather than to all, or to all within a description of local authority, it should be exercised so that the enactment in question is amended for a temporary period only. I believe that if the temporary period is to be made permanent, the powers in Clause 6(2) with regard to all local authorities or to particular descriptions of local authority could be used. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise that there is a concern on the Benches opposite with regard to favouritism. I had hoped that my remarks in Committee had indicated that we are talking about local authorities in a particular situation. That could involve the groups of local authorities to which the noble Baroness has referred, health action zones and so on, where an individual authority or a number of authorities may be involved in a special relationship with the Government.
Having attempted to move an additional Henry VIII power on the previous occasion the noble Baroness now tries to reduce this Henry VIII power substantially by saying that it should be required only for a limited period. The word "temporary" is not defined in the noble Baroness's amendment and I am not aware that there is any legal definition of it. Therefore I believe that there is a problem with her amendment in any case. However, there is also a principle involved here. There cannot be a standard time for piloting new approaches. In some cases it will be several years before we can assess whether or not a measure is still needed. Amendments that we introduced subsequent to the occasion when we

375
previously discussed this issue require that the procedure set out in Clause 8 will guarantee not only extensive consultation but also rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of any order made under this provision. In that context, clearly the Secretary of State could propose a time limitation or it could be suggested that a time limitation should be established. I do not think that committing ourselves to a rather vague "temporary" in the way the amendment is drafted would help matters. Indeed, in many cases there may well be a permanent or, certainly, a very long term distinction between authorities. It would seriously reduce in general the flexibility of the Secretary of State to operate under this clause where, in particular cases, it may be appropriate to deal only with a defined and temporary period in terms of removals or of special provisions.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we do not intend that there should be favouritism and that we intend there should be some degree of flexibility for the benefit of local authorities.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have used the occasion to express our concerns. I accept, of course, the Minister's good faith in the matter. We have it on record. If any future Minister were to apply inappropriate favours, it would be an issue to which we could return. I am content with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(" .—(1) Each local authority shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that—

(a) in the exercise of its powers, and

(b) in the discharge of its functions,

there is due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
(2) Each local authority shall have regard to the need—

(a) to promote equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of their race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion;

(b) to eliminate unlawful discrimination; and

(c) to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.

(3) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to subsection (1) and is subject to any provision made under any other enactment.
(4) Each local authority shall publish a report in each year containing—

(a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) which had effect during the year which is the subject of the report, and

(b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 seeks to bring back the issue of promoting equality. I feel that it is important to keep the matter on the agenda. At the previous stage the Minister said
376
that he and his department would consider how the objectives with which we are all concerned could be achieved and he spoke about the review that the Government are undertaking. He is aware of my view that we should use the opportunity presented by this legislation to place on the face of the Bill a provision about promoting equality. If it should have to be altered and tweaked to fit in with another approach when future legislation comes before Parliament, then so be it. We are not alone on these Benches in feeling strongly that the opportunity which now presents itself should be taken.
I move the amendment in the hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how the matter is progressing. He said on a previous occasion that he saw some problems with the drafting of the provision. That is not a good enough excuse for not getting something in the Bill. I accept that it may not be the something that we have drafted. But this exchange is taking place a year after the publication of the Macpherson report and it would be sad if the House was not to take this opportunity. I make no apology for bringing back the matter so quickly. I have no doubt that it is also on the Minister's agenda. I beg to move.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I agree with the sentiment of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in terms of promoting equal opportunities. Indeed, in her argument she could have added that the matter appeared in the GLA Bill. None the less, more recently the Government have made it clear—especially in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill—that they are considering a positive statutory duty to promote, in this case, racial equality on all public authorities. To include a separate duty on local authorities at the moment, in advance of this legislation, may not be sensible. Indeed, it could lead to a need to amend the legislation again as soon as it reaches the statute book.
Moreover the Government are proposing comprehensive legislation. The amendment has more the air of a general aspiration, which may in turn be differently interpreted by local authorities in a way which would be unhelpful to the shared common objective of equal opportunities. In addition, such comprehensive legislation must pass the tests of being effective, clear and able to be used. It needs to be carefully crafted before it is agreed to by your Lordships' House.
The Government have embarked on consultation in regard to racial equality as well as in regard to the equal opportunities aspects of the Bill. We want to find and spread best practices in this area and to see how such legislation may apply to different kinds of public bodies. We are widening the consultation to include public bodies which may find themselves in varying and differing circumstances. I repeat that the Government are keen to introduce appropriate legislation on equal opportunities in a calm, competent and considered way.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I read the amendment with great interest. There is, of course, already

377
legislation on the statute book governing the first three aspects of the amendment—that is, the aspects of race, of gender and of disability. When one comes to consider the other three aspects covered in the amendment, it raises some very difficult questions which require answers.
Let us take, for instance, the issue of age. Are we to understand that non-discrimination on grounds of age means that one would not have a retirement age? It is perfectly arguable—one may well say this when looking around your Lordships' House—that some people of 65 and 70 are in much better shape and much more intellectually vigorous than some people of perhaps 45 or 50. But, in life, when one employs people, the reality is that, on the whole, they work until they are about 65 and then they retire. Should we say that that is discrimination? If one is fit and able, why should not one continue to work? What would happen in issues such as that?
Other people, through no fault of their own, may have done a very stressful and exhausting job and may wish to retire much earlier. Perhaps they will not be allowed to because that might be seen as discrimination. I can see all kinds of practical problems with something which, in theory, sounds splendid but which opens up difficulties.
As to the aspect of sexual orientation, I thought that the Government believed at least they have said that marriage is the basis of society. Certainly it is my own view that marriage has always been the basic tenet of society. It is only since marriage has started to break down and things have gone wrong in the past 25 or 30 years that we have run into an awful lot of the social problems with which we are now confronted. This is not the time to go into all of them. Certainly, marriage would be downgraded by the amendment. One should clearly understand that. Would a housing authority, for example, be able to give priority to married families with children? Or would that be some kind of discrimination against someone else?
As to religion, again it is an enormous subject. Many people—for example Muslims and Jews—think that homosexuality is wrong, full stop. We have here a clash of rights and interests with which it is very difficult to deal. Before one takes up and accepts the amendment, one should consider very seriously a great many complicated and important issues of belief. As I argued during the passage of the Human Rights Bill, when there is a clash of rights between one group of people and another it is difficult to resolve. It will go to the courts, but that takes time. Until some of those great problems have been considered in great detail, it would be unwise to accept an all-embracing amendment which is unclear.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, waxes extremely eloquent on the subject of equality of opportunity. I hope that one day she will set one of her speeches to music, because she is extremely good at it. However, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the subject is absolutely
378
fraught with problems, particularly when it comes to local authorities with their many responsibilities which impinge on the areas mentioned by my noble friend.
I hope that the Government will tell us that they are being extremely cautious and thinking carefully about every aspect of the matter. We do not want them to get into a muddle over local authorities in the way they have got into a muddle over one or two issues which have come to the surface lately, causing anything but harmony in local communities. I am sure that the Government are right if they tell us that they are proceeding slowly and carefully and that they are considering the extent to which they need to go beyond existing legislation as it applies to local authorities.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, both noble Baronesses who have just spoken highlight exactly the need for our amendment. It is precisely in difficult areas such as housing need that local authorities require most help and guidance from the Government by way of having clearly spelt out on the face of the Bill what they are supposed to do. There should be extremely clear guidance. One should not give people houses because one believes they are morally nicer than the next person. One gives them houses because they and their children are in need of housing. The decision should be made on an objective basis, not according to whether one feels that someone is a better person in society's terms.
I shall keep off the thorny subject of sexual orientation. However, to expect housing officers or the member of the executive responsible for housing under the structure of the new Bill to judge on a subjective basis whether people are deserving of housing would be highly regrettable. Other difficult issues may rear their heads, for instance, those relating to new age travellers. Local authorities which address such issues in the most objective way possible and which bear in mind equality of opportunity fare much better than those which take a hostile, moral tone and effectively pass the problem on to the neighbouring authority to deal with. I support my noble friend's amendment most strongly.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we are in a difficult area. I am grateful to my noble friends for mentioning the difficulties. The problem for a local authority is that in many aspects of its work, in order to make sense of a wide problem such as housing, a degree of discrimination is essential. One cannot work without that. The question now arises as to whether such discrimination involves other aspects, be they race, sex, disability, or whatever. Of course, disability might well be argued to enhance the need for proper housing.
My reaction to the amendment is perhaps rather a pragmatic one. If the absence of such a clause were really causing major problems, I would have expected to see far more cases for judicial review of decisions by local authorities. The fact that we do not see them suggests that the community at large probably recognises how extremely difficult and complex these issues are and how local authorities do their best in

379
difficult circumstances to try to rationalise the situation. I must admit that I am not wholly convinced that including such an amendment in the Bill would necessarily be helpful. It might lead to a reverse situation and a whole series of judicial reviews. I have a feeling in my bones that the best course is to leave well alone.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall be rather cautious about the amendment, but not on the grounds urged on me by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Carnegy of Lour. Clearly, strong views are held about morality and the way in which people wish to run their lives and to see their children and families brought up. That is one matter. However, there is an overriding principle when writing the law: equality before the law. Unjustified discrimination before the law should not be practised by local authorities in any of the areas mentioned in the noble Baroness's amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, there is bound to be some discrimination in the approach of local authorities in order to meet broader needs. However, that is not discrimination on the grounds of any of the issues referred to in the noble Baroness's amendment. It is therefore not for that reason that I am being cautious; it is more for the reason outlined by my noble friend Lord Harrison. He indicated that since we inserted a similar clause in the Greater London Authority Bill, we have begun to move a good deal in terms of race relations—which is an extremely important part of local authorities' responsibilities—and we have stated our intention to introduce a wider duty in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill which, when carried, will inevitably mean that we have to return to this provision and amend it virtually as soon as it reaches the statute book.
Although we recognise that there are existing requirements on local authorities and that the legislative requirements will be changed if and when the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is carried—and it may be sensible to clarify the responsibility of public authorities at that point—we do not believe it sensible to insert this provision in the Bill at this point until such clarification is achieved, particularly in relation to race equality pooled together in a wider assessment of the equality responsibilities of public bodies. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept our intentions in this area and will not press for this formulation in the Bill at this time.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before responding to the Minister's remarks, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it may well be the case that we have not seen applications for judicial review because there is no legislative basis for applications to be made. He said that we should leave well alone. It is because we fear that things are not as well as they should be that we are persisting with the amendment.
I do not for one moment suggest that the situation is easy. I am flattered by the suggestion that my speeches might be set to music, but I do not know that that
380
would take the debate much further forward other than that we would debate the type of music. The wording of the amendment to,
"have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity … to eliminate unlawful discrimination and … to promote good relations",
does not go as far as some noble Lords have suggested. I take the point that there are difficulties over age. When that was debated in the context of the GLA Bill we made the point that we were not necessarily thinking of old age; there are issues regarding young people as well. Furthermore, with regard to sexual orientation and the example used of housing provision, as my noble friend has indicated, the major consideration is likely to be not if there is a married couple with children as distinct from a same sex couple, but the children. We believe it is important that the regulations followed by housing officers should be clear with regard to the process and should be clear about what is relevant and what is not relevant.
I must ask the Minister whether the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, can give us any further indication as to the timing. As he says, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is about racial issues, and we have quite deliberately listed other issues which give rise to discrimination in this amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a definitive timetable in relation to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. It should be conducted and completed during this parliamentary Session. Wider consideration would not be instant on Royal Assent to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, but it would take place thereafter. I shall see whether I can give any greater clarity on timescale to the noble Baroness, but as of now I cannot.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that would certainly be helpful because even if we do not take the matter any further in this Chamber, I should be very surprised if my honourable friends in another place, and indeed other honourable Members, did not wish to pursue the issues. To know what the likely timetable will be obviously will assist them considerably. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 18:
Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INTRODUCE EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(" .—(1) A local authority may make executive arrangements for the discharge of certain of its functions.
(2) Nothing in this Part shall have effect in respect of a local authority not making executive arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment No. 18 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 47, 48 and 49. Amendment No. 19 comes from my noble friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The amendments are designed to change the ambience of the Bill from one of requiring local authorities to

381
introduce executive arrangements by law to making it optional for them to introduce such executive arrangements.
It is perhaps necessary to remind ourselves that the process that has led to the Bill began a long time ago with a White Paper. In the White Paper the Government set out their views on particular matters and their policy. The issue then was what should local authorities do about it. It is interesting that the Local Government Association has now undertaken a survey. One can argue as to whether the consequences revealed in that survey are the result of the White Paper setting out the Government's policy, or whether they are the result of the Government's force majeure which the local authorities can see coming in the form of the Bill. The GLA has constantly pleaded in the past that the Government do not pay sufficient attention to what actually happens when government start announcing policies at local authority level.
The fact of the matter is that local authorities are responsive. This survey reveals that 92 per cent of all authorities have already considered or have in progress a proposal for an executive representational split: 79 per cent of authorities will opt for a cabinet leader; 20 per cent of authorities say they will go for another option, and so on; 32 per cent of authorities have consulted the public; 29 per cent of authorities have already implemented their chosen proposal for political management structures.
When one goes on to the executive: 40 per cent of all authorities will adopt a party executive; and 60 per cent of all authorities will adopt mainly a party executive. Of those that have decided to set up an executive, 35 per cent will have this membership, and so on. That simply reinforces an argument which I have made to the Minister on a number of occasions in the past that local authorities are responsive. If an idea is a good one, they will adopt it. What I find so difficult is that under the Bill local authorities have to adopt executive arrangements. Clauses 9 and 10, together with subsequent clauses, provide for a genus of executive arrangements. Within that there are some species, but they are executive arrangements.
If Clause 9 stands without amendment, the genus of executive arrangements will be mandatory, and any species that survives within the management arrangements of local government will have actually to fit in with the definition of "executive arrangements". That is rather less than fortunate. We have had this argument before as to whether local electors who have a vote, opinions and rights, actually deserve consideration in this sort of arrangement. I think that they do.
If one looks at the pattern of local government across the country one is likely to see a range of arrangements introduced, probably depending very much upon the locality which is considering the matter. I can imagine some of the unitary cities wanting to go for an elected mayor, or even an elected mayor and a town manager. We shall come to that as an issue later on. In the shire areas, where one is dealing not just with a unitary authority, but with a
382
county council, a district council, and under that there may be a town council, one has a dramatically different situation. It is the element of compulsion that is implied by Part II of the Bill that I find objectionable. If the Bill had come forward in a form which was designed to give legislative authority to local authorities to permit them to adopt executive arrangements, I would have had little to argue about, certainly on matters of principle, although there might have been points of detail.
There is here an issue of principle which I think is rather less than fortunate in the Bill as it stands. It is with that in mind that I have introduced these amendments.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we have two amendments in this group. Their effect is similar to that of the amendment moved and the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. At the previous stage, the Minister was firm in his argument that the Government do not believe in one form of executive arrangement across the board. Despite his protestations about the options that might be available within the three models set out on the face of the Bill, he seemed very much opposed to loosening the constraints in any way at all. I give as an example whether directly elected cabinets should be elected to specific posts or generally.
The noble Lord was concerned that decisions should be clear, transparent and accountable. As a result of the Bill, we will know where the buck stops, but we will be much less clear about how it reached there. The noble Lord also referred to councillors being equal and we have had debates about the role of councillors who are not part of the executive. In these amendments we are not saying that the present committee system is perfect—far from it—but what we are saying is that there should be local choice. It is extraordinarily heavy handed not to allow either the status quo or what has become known as the status quo plus—an improved system but built on the present structures—if that is what, after local consultation, appears to be preferred. That is over-control by the Government.
In addition to Amendment No. 19, we have Amendment No. 56. Clause 32, to which Amendment No. 56 relates, was introduced by the Government as a safeguard to ensure that councils progress to new constitutions at a reasonable pace. At the previous stage the Minister said that the clause does not give powers arbitrarily to require local authorities to hold referendums or to intervene in other circumstances. Amendment No. 19 seeks to put on the face of the Bill that Clause 32 will not be used when a local authority can show that it has carried out proper and full consultation of its local community. In other words, having complied with Clause 33, it should not then be forced in a direction which neither it nor its local community wants to take.
We very much support the thrust of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and, far more importantly, are being made powerfully and loudly on

383
the Bill by almost every sector of local government and by commentators, academics and so on. I said at the previous stage—I shall say it again because it bears repetition—that we are sad that the Government have taken one or two steps too far in a Bill where we very much support a good deal of what is being proposed. In particular, we support the powers of well-being in Part I. We are sad that we are forced to part company with the Government when we come to Part II of the Bill. We feel that we must go on pressing for the Government to listen to the voices that are making these points so loudly outside the House.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 20. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will agree with me that the amendment should refer to line 10 and not to line 15 as set out on the Marshalled List.
The Bill has many virtues but they are in danger of being undermined by a greater exertion of central control over local authorities. I have no doubt that the Government wish to see local authorities revitalised and made more effective, but I fear that that will not be achieved by strengthening even further the grip which central government have on local decision making. Nothing could illustrate that better than a Bill which says that local government can decide on any structure that it thinks best to meet local needs as long as it is one of the models that the Government have designed.
Whether the authority is serving a population of 20,000 or more than 1 million, whether it is in a rural area or urban area, inner city or suburban, whether it is a county council or a district council, if the Bill remains unamended, the structure adopted by the authority must conform to a model set out by central government. Even worse, that seems to give local government absolutely the wrong message, because it elevates process over outcome, it confuses means with ends and it sets a performance standard which is administrative rather than productive. I believe that the Government deserve great credit for having introduced a programme of best value which combines value for money with quality of services delivered. That process evaluates impact and effectiveness. It is at the heart of economic regeneration and it is the best way of tackling social exclusion. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister this question. Would it not be better to continue to say to local government, "Make no mistake, your performance will be evaluated, and therefore we will continue to monitor your effectiveness, but we will do that not so much by how you do it but by what you do and what you achieve with the resources allocated to you"?
As has already been indicated, the amendment is a variation of the "may" or "shall" debate which often takes place in your Lordships' House. It has been the pattern of successive governments to exercise a preference for "may" rather than "shall". Indeed, only a few days ago, in a debate on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, when some of us pressed the Government to use "shall" with regard to a provision which we felt was very important indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt,
384
rehearsed the argument, albeit with great charm, that the Government could never foresee every eventuality and therefore "may" was always to be preferred in the use of language in legislation. We now have the reverse of that. Although, throughout the rest of the clause, "may" is used in almost every provision, in this case the word that is used is "must". That is over-regulation of local government and takes away too much discretion from it about how it should devise a structure for organising its work and its responsibilities for local communities.
In those circumstances, we should not mourn the poor turn-out at local government elections, or express the hope that more able people will come forward to be elected members of local authorities, or ask local government to be more innovative and to show more vigour if at the same time we tie its hands and limit its freedom even to fashion a structure to meet local needs. Furthermore, if the clause remains unamended, it will tie the hands not only of local government but of the Minister. For example, let us suppose that a beacon authority or one with action zones of one kind or another demonstrated that it could do even better with a structure different from that represented in the Bill. If the Bill remains unamended, even in those circumstances the Minister would not be able to approve such a variation. I very much hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of holding to the well-tried use of the language in the Bill and accept the amendment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is with some sorrow that I take issue with a number of local government colleagues for some years. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The amendments proposed are subtle in wording but would be catastrophic in effect. They go to the heart of the Bill and of the reforms that it attempts to introduce. I do not want to repeat remarks made at Second Reading, but we are in danger of speaking as though there were no problem as regards local government's standing with the public and with central government, whether this or previous governments. Local government has a major problem of respect, legitimacy and relevance.
The governance arrangements are part of that problem. They are basically 19th century arrangements. The committee system may have served well enough at that time, but we are now two centuries further on. The problem is that the present arrangement seeks to combine in one body strategic leadership, operational implementation and management, and scrutiny—and fails lamentably. There is ample evidence, from Audit Commission studies and elsewhere, that none of those three functions is fulfilled effectively in one body. Moreover, the arrangement is frequently a sham: decisions are taken elsewhere.
The Bill proposes an executive. That is nothing unusual. It is the arrangement to which virtually every other local government system in the world has moved, having experimented for years, in some cases with committee systems. Moreover, we are not asked

385
to support a single model. Three options are proposed, and the Government have spelt out that area committees can play an important part.
In addition, the system will not be imposed by central government. So long as local authorities consult with the public, they will be able to determine which model is appropriate for their differing circumstances. At present, there is only one model that local authorities can choose; namely, the committee system, which is flawed and which does not function effectively in most cases.
It is seductive to think, as the LGA states, that only a few would go down this route were the provision to be changed to "may". I am sorry, but I do not believe that to be true. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right to compliment local authorities on the way in which they have responded to the Bill in its shadow form as discussed by the Joint Committee in the summer. It is correct to say that most are now seriously considering the options and how to address the proposals. But, in a considerable number of cases, it is only because the authorities recognise that the legislation will require change. That is certainly what local authorities say to me, both at political and managerial level, when I discuss the matter with them. The survey evidence of the LGA affirms that.
The LGA asked all of its members which of the three options allowed under the Bill they would choose. Over 100 of the 300 that replied answered, "another option"—which in most cases meant the status quo. If the amendment were accepted, the reform that is central to this legislation would not come about. That would be to the damage of both the public and local government. It would mean that we had bumped along in the same 19th century manner which is known to have failed in the past.
Baroness Young: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I support not only what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said in moving it, but also the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in speaking to her two amendments in this grouping.
I listened with great care to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in defence of the Bill and the Government's approach. We are all saddened by the low turn-out at local government elections and wish that it were higher. However, I believe that the idea that it will be improved by these arrangements will prove a triumph of hope over experience. When one considers that in response to the referendum regarding a mayor for London barely 30 per cent of the population bothered to vote, it hardly suggests that people cannot wait to have an elected mayor and an elected cabinet or management committee around the mayor. Whatever else may arise from all of this, I do not believe that the proposal in itself will improve the standing of local government.
Furthermore, the noble Lord is being very hard on the current arrangements in local government. Of course there are authorities which have not succeeded and which have been rightly criticised by the Audit Commission, in the press and no doubt by the public
386
at large. But a great many have managed satisfactorily, and have been responsive to their electors and the people whom they serve through the committee structures. If, as the noble Lord says, the Local Government Association asked its members about the options and over 100 said that they preferred the status quo, that should tell us something. What are we in business for if not to try to identify the structures and forms that local people would like? If they would prefer something else, I really cannot see why, in a democratic society, we should not try to provide it for them. To say that they have only three options and that they must vote for one of those could be to say that they will choose the best of a bad selection. But if people want something which suits them better—and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, illustrated the various types of local government, the difference between big urban towns and country districts, and the tremendous variety that exists in our country—they should be allowed to have it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my point was not necessarily that the public had decided on the status quo as the preferred option, but that local authorities themselves have an inclination in that respect. The LGA survey indicating that most local authorities have determined which option they prefer signalled that two-thirds had not even consulted the public.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we should remember that this is Report stage and, as I understand it, a Member may not speak twice. If that was an intervention in my noble friend's speech, that is fair enough. However, that was not clear.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may respond. The amendment simply provides the possibility of retaining the status quo or of some other arrangement providing a change other than the three options. If the drafting of the amendment is not quite right to meet the requirement, that could be looked at. However, I do not see from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that that in any way invalidates the argument that some authorities—presumably it is their representatives who are speaking—would prefer the status quo. They can, of course, always vote to have an elected mayor or whatever the arrangement is. This is not a debating point; it is a very serious point. Why are we in business if it is not to attempt to provide what local people would like to have at local level? I hope that the House will support the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Oxfordshire County Council. Last week, I had an interview lasting an hour with a consultant who has been hired to come round and talk to all councillors about the new arrangements. That focused my mind sharply on what was going to happen. It made me think carefully about whether the new arrangements proposed in the Bill constitute an improvement.

387
Perhaps I should first provide some background. Oxfordshire is one of the councils that are fairly equally divided between Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour, with a couple of Green Party councillors. The county is divided geographically and demographically. It is a classic city region, with a city in the centre and a large green belt and many people living outside that. The authority is able to take land use and planning decisions within such freedoms as the Government allow within the boundaries of the county.
Divisions among councillors are not always political. For example, there are those who represent rural areas and those who represent the city. Relationships between ourselves and the five district councils are quite good. Executive control is neither necessary nor appropriate. Although we have not had a council leader in Oxfordshire for at least 12 years, the council is reasonably efficient.
I take up the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Laming. I believe that the real issue is whether the council is efficient and discharges its responsibilities well. For example, our fire service is the cheapest in the country and our trading standards organisation keeps winning charter marks. We were told that our education service, which was investigated by Ofsted only a few weeks ago, was lean and efficient. However, we were criticised for having an insufficient number of people in county hall to administer the service.
Despite the fact that we have no executive or controlling party, some of the decisions that are made are difficult and courageous. For example, I refer to the Oxford transport strategy, of which I am aware the noble Baroness, Lady Young, may not approve. That is a very radical decision for a local authority to take. My experience of other organisations in which I have worked has never led me to believe that the council is overstaffed. It is extremely careful with its resources. There are advocates of change among some senior political leaders and officers who perhaps may be motivated more by personal ambition than the efficient discharge of the responsibilities of the council. However, the concerns that I express this evening reflect the views of councillors of all parties.
At the moment all councillors participate in the decision-making process but many fear that as backbenchers they will be shut out of it. They may be denied open access to officers if the latter regard their primary task as to serve the executive. That has a parallel with the Civil Service here where it is unusual for opposition and even minority parties—for example, the two Green councillors—to have equal access to officials as the majority party.
I believe that to reduce the role of councillors to badly informed scrutineers will make the task very much less worth while. It is extremely difficult to recruit people as candidates, and that is perhaps the biggest defect of local government today. While the low turnout is a worry, it is extremely difficult to get people of ability to come forward and offer themselves
388
as candidates. I do not see why anyone would want the job if he was unable to deliver to his local community what it wanted. Most councillors in Oxfordshire represent one town or a group of villages and they are the only individuals to whom people can turn. They are expected to deliver a wide range of matters, which means that they need the contact with officers that they now have.
The Government may be justified in their dissatisfaction with the performance of some local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggested, those failings need to be addressed. But I believe that here the Government play the part of the weak schoolmaster who punishes all the pupils in the class for some misdemeanour rather than deals with the individuals who merit attention. Why do the Government want to impose these matters upon authorities that perform well against objective measures? I fully endorse the view of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that what is important is the objective measurement of performance, not the form of administration. These measures will create upheaval which in turn will cost a lot of money. I do not see how they will improve local government. They will certainly de-motivate councillors of every political party. I beg the Minister not to insist that local authorities choose from the unsatisfactory and inappropriate alternatives which are currently on offer in the Bill because I do not believe that they represent a genuine choice.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, on Saturday by chance I happened to meet what might be termed "my Somerville constituency". About 10 of them were involved in local government across the whole range, including a very senior head of an authority, and in every party. They all felt a deep anxiety—I accept that this is a matter of perception—about the prospect of the cabinet system, for the precise reasons just given by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming. A number of people have always regarded local government as a thoroughly worthwhile career, many of them women at home with children who can do that but not other things. They wish to engage in public service without the expectation of much money but with responsibility and an interest in working with people. Those people believe that in future there will not be a place for them in local government, which will become a highly management-oriented business, as it were. I believe that that perception, which was so strong and universal, should be placed on record. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for intervening in a highly specialised debate.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Government inherited a situation in which local government had been undermined for about 18 years and was fraught with one-party states which they wanted to remove. Therefore, they seek to address that situation in the Bill. I am interested to hear that those on the Government Benches believe that what is now before us in the Bill will encourage the public to

389
become more involved in local government and excited by it. A simple way to do that would be to introduce PR, which would get rid of the one-party state in one go. It also means that people would not feel that their vote was wasted and they would be tied more closely to their local councillors.
Motivated councillors and officers will work with this structure and probably make it work very well because they are good at adapting. However, the structure will be very divisive for councillors and fairly divisive for officers. As the Government still insist that executives can meet in private, it will not give the public any greater confidence. When the public look at their local councils they are concerned with two matters: first, that they have influence over decisions before they are made. As the Bill is currently drafted, people will not be aware of the decisions and will not have an input until they have been made. The executive can meet in private and make decisions that are not publicised. Secondly, the public care about their council tax. We have already debated the money issues and therefore I shall not go over them again. Under these arrangements there is no power properly to tie the local population in with the way that their councils raise and spend money. Although there may be a few good things in the new structures, as we spend hours debating them we should not be under any illusion that they will make much difference to the public. Without PR and proper financial powers being given to local councils, I do not believe that the public will give much more of a toss than they do now.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, we are still debating Amendment No. 18 rather than other amendments that come later. The survey quoted earlier shows that the spirit of change that the Government seek to bring about is very exciting to local government. Local government wants to do it. The response is in part to the principle and in part to the Bill, which clarifies the changing powers. As my noble friend Lord Filkin reminded us, the only legal system that operates at the moment comprises a council, a social services committee, an education committee and so on. We have by law to work in that way.
An interesting survey has been cited by noble Lords on all sides of the House. One is reminded of the quotation by Mark Twain about "Lies, damned lies and statistics". I view the response as positive. Ninety-nine per cent say that they are looking towards change, or will change when they see what the Bill states. All local authorities were consulted. Over 85 per cent responded. That is a high rate of response. A clear majority of all local authorities, whether in large cities, rural areas, or county or district councils, want to change; they want to move forward. There will be an anomalous situation in areas where people do not have choice.
Although I might have wished for other choices, there is a wide choice. There are three choices on the face of the Bill. There are options for area committees, a majority party or all-party executive models. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. From his description, his seems an exemplary and perhaps
390
exceptional authority, even if it has no leader. Perhaps each of the groups on that council work together rather than with the whole membership of the county council. The executive would be an all-party executive containing those leading members.
I am saddened at the misunderstanding, which was exemplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that we are downgrading the work of council members. There is a terrific amount of work to do. Those who believe that it involves only scrutiny are wrong. There will be more time and opportunity for members to represent the people they are elected to represent. If some do not believe that, they should attend some of the many seminars which are being held.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming. Measurable outputs are important. However, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he spoke about outcomes—changing the way in which communities work. That is important; it is what people want. It has been said that people want to see local authorities deliver; in a sense, the argument about the structure is somewhat academic and remote. It is not that people want an elected mayor; they want someone who can deliver. We must give people choice. In his interesting introduction to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not cover the argument about how people would have such choice. If a local authority determined that it did not want to change, how would the people be given the opportunity to say that they want change? We must not deprive them of that opportunity. It is an important principle of this part of the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in many respects we are at the heart of the Bill. I regret that the parties opposite seek by these amendments to alter one of the Bill's major provisions. It is one which has led all local authorities to examine their structures, looking to a new way of conducting affairs within local authorities. I could go through each amendment separately but it is probably more sensible to deal with the central issues of principle here.
All the amendments in one way or another seek to alter the requirement on local authorities to come forward with an executive structure. They seek to alter the proposition that we should separate out executive powers of local authorities from those of scrutiny powers. Those are pretty fundamental approaches of the Bill. They are fundamental in relation to the White Paper. They are fundamental in relation to the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. They are changes in local authorities which, in concept at least, are quite popular in relation to the public as a whole.
It is true that the initial reaction of many local authorities has been negative—although not entirely negative. Virtually all of them in considering the options have seen ways in which they can improve their own structures. Even those who wish to retain what are essentially committee-based structures have

391
seen ways of moving towards an executive structure in many respects. Some seek a wider range of options. We have to face the fact, as my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh said, that we are moving from a system which has only one model of local government to one in which not only are there three principal areas but a whole range of possibilities within those areas. We shall address later whether more options for the structure of the executive could be introduced. I think that that will be on Clause 23.
We are debating whether we should remove the central requirement that all local authorities have to move to some form of executive structure. We believe that the range of forms of executive structure is pretty wide. I accept the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that different local authorities will require different structures and that different local authorities have different problems. That is why we have provided a much more flexible structure for local authorities to adopt than the present committee-based structure of the past 100 or so years.
Noble Lords have referred to the 100 councils which have said they want to keep the status quo. Few of them want totally to keep the status quo. But that is interpreted by noble Lords opposite as meaning that local communities want the status quo. Such evidence as we have of the views of local communities is utterly different. We know that not all the structures have been explored and explained properly. We know that in reaching their views the majority of local authorities—I think that it is two-thirds—had not conducted a full consultation exercise with the local communities.
We also know that the evidence indicates that over 60 per cent of people polled are in favour of elected mayors. When they consider it in more detail, they may not be absolutely in favour of elected mayors, but they are clearly in favour of a change to a more executive structure for local authorities than that which exists. They want to know who takes the decisions, who is accountable for those decisions and who will be made responsible at the ballot box for those decisions. They also want their own individual interests to be represented. That is why we provide for a powerful overview and scrutiny committee which will hold that executive to account—whatever structure of executive an authority ends up with—in relation to the interests of the individual electors.
I agreed with much that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said. He said that we are concerned ultimately with outcome; and indeed we are. We need to place this in the context of best value, as a later amendment indicates and as we have indicated from this Dispatch Box. However, I do not accept that compulsion is getting in the way of innovation. Indeed, I would argue that had we not placed in our intentions in the White Paper the need to move towards a compulsory situation within local authorities, the rate of innovation would have been relatively limited. That is not to say that local authorities have been doing a bad job. It is not to denigrate the activities of local authorities of all parties over the past years. But a
392
system which may have been appropriate in the late 19th century does not serve as a proper system of executive decision and accountability for the 21st century. We believe that people need to know who is taking the decisions and we believe that an executive structure is central to that objective.
Many points were made during the debate and there was much discussion in the context of the White Paper. Much assessment and many views were presented to the joint committee and they were taken into account in making its recommendations. But the overwhelming view of the electorate and of the Government is that change is necessary. We believe that within the structure of the executive options that we are providing there is enough range and flexibility to meet every size and type of local authority of every political balance and every nature of population. We may be proved wrong. It may be proved that there is another form of executive which will do the job just as well as one which to a limited extent is constrained by the three broad options that we are proposing.
However, we are absolutely convinced that an executive structure is needed and that there needs to be a difference between the executive function of the council and the scrutiny responsibilities of the councillors. If noble Lords believe that we have not provided enough flexibility they can return to the issue at a later stage. However, if they believe that we are wrong to insist on some form of executive being adopted by every council, we have a fundamental difference. I had hoped that we had overcome that issue and that the debate since the White Paper had resolved it. It has certainly been resolved in the eyes of the public. We are looking for local people to be served by an authority for which they have respect, whose decisions they understand and which has clear lines of accountability to the electorate.
We may have a difficulty between the parties. I hope that the amendment will not be pushed to a Division today and that on a later day of the Report stage there will be a little more scope for meeting some of the anxieties expressed today in terms of executive structures, more flexibility and so forth. However, if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness wish to pursue their amendments the Government will have to resist them and would regard it as a serious problem between the parties. That would be most unfortunate because we share much in our view of local government. I hope that we shall not fall out on that.
I repeat that, if the parties opposite take an alternative view, they should not pretend that they are in tune with the people. On this, from what evidence we have, the people are clearly on our side.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he referred to the polling evidence as "what evidence we have". Can he place that evidence in the Library because it is a matter of concern to the whole House?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if it is not already in the Library, yes.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we have had a good and long debate, as we had at this point during Committee. It has been a helpful and enlightening debate, although the longer we continue it the sharper the focus on the differences becomes. While the Minister may say that public opinion points in a different direction, I believe that to be the case because only one side of the argument has been presented. The other side has not been properly stated, still less have the implications of the changes been considered by the public.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Laming, because it is line 15. However, it is Clause 10, and with the figure at the beginning of the line it is confusing. He rightly said that local government is all about performance.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, missed the point that we on this side are trying to argue. It is not that executive arrangements are wrong; not that there is something bad about them; not that they should not be adopted; and not that local authorities will not adopt them. My view is that local authorities will adopt them. The issue is whether they should be compelled to adopt them. That is what the Bill does and that is what is wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, gave an excellent description of Oxfordshire County Council. It sounded a familiar picture of a lean, mean county organisation. There are many about the country and I dare say that there is one in Lancashire. There may be disagreements between authorities on policies, but in my view most county councils are good at their job.
My noble friend Lady Young made a valid point in commenting that the enthusiasm with which London is likely to adopt an elected mayor was not supported by the turnout at the referendum. Therefore, the great change might not be as stimulating as the Minister implies.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth made a simple and valid point about the anxiety felt by so many people who give their lives to their local communities. They are beginning to feel that in these new structures they will not be wanted because they will not have a job that is worth doing.
I do not want to enter a debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about whether a different electoral system might stimulate greater interest in local government. I suspect that we could debate that between ourselves for many hours. However, the fact is that these changes will be divisive.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, appeared to be half in favour of the voluntary principle but was also doing his best to support the Bill. We have no problems with the changes that the Bill introduces. Our problem is with the method. That is what we must address.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly spoke about the voices of local government and of commentators who have seen this dividing issue. The Minister, in his peroration, reminded us that we have
394
further clauses to deal with at the Report stage and that there might be some reason for deferring a decision on the issue. I have some sympathy with that argument and it appears to be worth listening to. But that said, I doubt whether he will be able to resolve our problems. I hope that he will do so because, like other noble Lords, I should be a happy man. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Executive arrangements]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Local authority executives]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 10 minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Epilepsy
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the level of healthcare for people with epilepsy.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to initiate a debate on the health provisions for persons with epilepsy. In saying that, I must declare an interest as the president of the British Epilepsy Association—the leading representative organisation in the UK for people with epilepsy.
Before dealing specifically with the level of healthcare provision for people with epilepsy, it may be helpful if I give a brief outline of its prevalence and touch upon the consequences for those affected.
Epilepsy is the most common serious, neurological disorder. It is more prevalent than is normally recognised or acknowledged. More than 50 million people worldwide are affected. The World Health Organisation has approved epilepsy as a cabinet project. One person in 50 will develop epilepsy at some time in their lives. That means that at any one time 420,000 people have some form of active epilepsy. Every day approximately 82 people in the UK will be told that they have epilepsy.
Yet, in spite of its prevalence, it remains a hidden condition that is frequently misunderstood and feared. With poor public awareness, it remains in the shadows. As a consequence, people with epilepsy are sometimes at a greater disadvantage than those with physical or sensory disabilities. Children with epilepsy may be excluded from mainstream education because of their seizures, and others may be excluded from recreational activities because of unfounded fears for their safety. I am sure that we shall hear much more about the educational needs of epileptic children when the special needs and disability Bill is debated.
There are too many cases where people with epilepsy are likely to be needlessly unemployed or socially excluded, not because they lack skills but because common prejudices continue to exist. It is clear that the social disadvantage, exclusion and disability caused by the label of epilepsy can compound the medical problems and are a cause of great distress, so much so that people often deny or try to hide that they are epileptic. The Disability Discrimination Act will help but legislation will not of itself overcome prejudice. There needs to be greater public support, more awareness and greater recognition of the problems faced by people with such hidden disabilities. They need to be fully understood and taken account of.
So, what is epilepsy? Some people liken it to an electrical storm in the brain. The nerve cells in the brain fire off signals randomly, causing a communication breakdown or overload. It can develop at any age. It can have no apparent cause. It can be the result of a brain injury or it can be caused by a genetically inherited condition, the onset of adolescence or old age. Each person's experience is different, dependent on what part or parts of the brain are affected.
Approximately 80 per cent of people with epilepsy suffer only minor problems. Their epilepsy will be "controlled" by medication, and new drug treatments are being developed. Only last week there was an interesting report in the papers on the development of a vaccine which, it is hoped, will reduce seizures. Seventy-five per cent of epileptics could become seizure-free or suffer only short-lived or infrequent seizures by pharmacological means, provided that they are guided by specialists. A few sufferers have intractable epilepsy, where neurosurgery is an option. In addition, 30 per cent of children with severe epilepsy may also have learning difficulties. That means that diagnosis is a critical factor, complicated by blackouts which have many causes. It is hoped that a new digital recorder will eliminate one of those factors, making diagnosis more accurate as recent research estimates that approximately 25 per cent of cases are wrongly diagnosed. That results not only in highly inappropriate and wasteful treatments being prescribed; it can also have important social and psychological implications for the wrongly diagnosed.
In addition, a treatment gap exists. Not everyone with active epilepsy receives medication or adequate treatment to control the seizures. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group has undertaken a review on the standards for clinical care and the access and availability of services for the NHS patient with epilepsy. Rightly, it places a major emphasis on the patients' perspective of the services available and offered. The findings show that although generally there were high levels of satisfaction with both routine and emergency access and levels of support from GPs for those patients with a mild condition, that was not the case for patients with more severe epilepsy. Even those who were generally satisfied also felt that GPs had a poor level of knowledge about epilepsy, its
396
treatment, the side effects of their drugs and future prognosis. That shows the essential need for increased training for medical professionals, especially GPs, junior doctors and A&E staff.
The evidence also showed that many patients become lost in the system. There seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the role of the general practice service and the hospital service, with a striking lack of correlation between the severity of the epilepsy and the level of service access. Fifty per cent of those with active epilepsy and over 40 per cent of those with severe epilepsy, who should have attended hospital, were often referred to physicians without the necessary specialist training. Other patients with mild or controlled epilepsy routinely were going to hospital when they needed only to see a GP.
A major improvement in the quality of care would be a clarification of the role of primary, secondary and tertiary care. That could be achieved in a number of ways: by appointing lead GPs to assume responsibility for developing epilepsy services in their local area: by better communications with secondary care; and by placing more emphasis on recruiting more specialist nurses to support patients and carers and to liaise between medical and other professionals, including going into schools to inform and assist teaching staff.
The provision of integrated care would be aided by better co-ordination and better cohesion between health, social services, education, employment and the voluntary sector. There is a strong voluntary sector. Twenty-two organisations work cohesively under the umbrella of the Joint Epilepsy Council. They all deserve enormous credit for the tremendous job that they do. The British Epilepsy Association, with which I am connected, is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. It has 140 self-help branches, involving more than 4,000 volunteers. Its importance and necessity is illustrated by its website, which attracted 2.7 million hits in 1999 and currently receives more than 10,000 hits a day. That is on top of the 28,000 people who use the helpline. I am sure that we shall hear from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the work of the National Society for Epilepsy.
Another area of crucial work conducted by BEA has been its study on women and epilepsy. Until recently, the management of patients with seizures took no account of gender. Epilepsy for a woman is not the same as epilepsy for a man. In particular, in women epilepsy affects sexual development, sexuality, the menstrual cycle, aspects of contraception, fertility, pregnancy, the mother/child relationship and the menopause. The study also showed that 51 per cent of women with epilepsy aged between 16 and 55 do not receive advice about the possible interactions between the oral contraceptive pill and anti-epileptic drug therapy, which could lead to contraceptive failure. With regard to pregnancy, 34 per cent did not receive any advice about the need for there to be a review of their drug therapy. Twenty-nine per cent of women in the study who were taking hormone replacement therapy reported an increase in seizure frequency without being informed of the possible side effects.

397
All women should have access to specialist clinics run by nurses who are trained in epilepsy in order to provide pre-conception and pregnancy advice.
Having raised many areas of concern, it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge the recent government initiatives, such as the national sentinel audit on sudden death and epilepsy. There are some excellent epilepsy service models in the NHS. Unfortunately, these are few and far between. Too many people with epilepsy still continue to be denied good quality services.
I have identified some of the primary reasons, but principal among them must be the low priority given to epilepsy by healthcare planners at all levels of the NHS. It is not on the NHS priority list, which consequently means a low level of resources being allocated to epilepsy.
I have no doubt that in his response my noble friend the Minister will refer to cost. I recognise the need for the Government to set priorities for the NHS. However, much could be achieved to improve the service and level of care by reconfiguration of existing services and improving professional practice as recommended in the CSAG report and its plan of action, the publication of which and the Government's response are awaited with interest. I hate to ask when that will be. However, I know that all those working in the field are becoming anxious about the delay. Other government-sponsored reports have been largely ignored. I hope that we will have an assurance that that will not be the case in this instance.
There is now a worldwide momentum to address epilepsy and its consequences. The UK should be playing a leading role in this, using the opportunity to share the best it has to offer and to learn from others. I sincerely hope that we will hear that that will be so.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I express gratitude to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue and for the wonderfully comprehensive overview she has given of the state of epilepsy today. I also express gratitude to organisations such as the British Epilepsy Association, of which she is president.
I can only add certain illustrations because my interest comes from personal experience. My husband was 41 when he had his first fit. He was diagnosed as having epilepsy. When I tried to insist to the consultant that further tests should be undertaken, I was told, "Stop fussing, woman. Epilepsy is as common as dirt". We had to come to terms with what it meant for us as a family: the uncertainty, inability to drive, and all the other things that come from having a breadwinner diagnosed as having epilepsy.
The hurt of that remark was only matched by some of my so-called Christian friends who wanted to organise an exorcism. Neither of those approaches was effective nor, indeed, appropriate. After two-and-a-half years I was finally able to persuade the doctor to obtain a second opinion. My husband was diagnosed as having a benign brain tumour, by which time it was too large to be removed successfully.
398
That was 20 years ago. I should like to think that things would be different today. I have to say that I am not convinced. It is true that the public at large are more ready to accept epilepsy as a condition that many more people have than they had at first supposed. It is true that employment issues are becoming a little easier. Insurance is now a little easier to acquire. People are not quite so ready to hide their condition and therefore accept support from the self-help groups and organisations which offer it.
However, I should like an assurance that when this disease is presented it will not just be considered as a condition. Now that there is a little more recognition of epilepsy as a condition, there is a danger that it is too easy to accept that and not see it as a symptom of other conditions. I should not like to see such recognition and acceptance mean less investigative procedures which would rule out other underlying conditions which should be treated.
I should also like to underline the issue of long-term management of epilepsy. Once a drug regime is established, it is too easy to continue it and for visits to hospital consultants to be hived off to those for whom it would be good practice to see the patient but who have hardly ever read the notes, let alone looked carefully at the lifestyle and the quality of life of that patient.
I pay tribute to our GP who, by his own interest in my husband's case, managed to find a further drug. When he challenged the hospital, he was told, "We had considered it, but it was very expensive". This is not just a question of resources but of quality of care, which makes such a difference not just to the lifestyle of the person suffering from the condition or symptom, but to the whole family and community in which we live. It is important that resources are available, but also that education is offered to those responsible for care and to society as a whole.
I am grateful that this issue has been raised in this place.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, once again my noble friend has put her finger on a subject which may not be prominent in the public eye but which is important to those affected in an area where, as she pointed out, we as a Government may not be doing enough.
As a doctor working in general practice in the National Health Service, I, like many others, felt that my treatment of those with epilepsy was somehow unsatisfactory and unsatisfying. This was partly because of the variable nature of the condition and the understandable reluctance of some patients to take medication regularly at the dose recommended by the neurologist who had last seen them often years previously. Sometimes they were reluctant to take such treatment because of side-effects including drowsiness or dizziness which patients sometimes perceived to be as much of a problem as the attacks.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said, several new preparations have recently become available, at a price, which are sometimes more

399
effective. However, I found that getting a patient an appointment with a neurologist, especially one with a particular interest in epilepsy, to assess or reassess the patient and advise on the most appropriate treatment often took several months.
These initial random remarks are based on the first thoughts that came to mind when thinking about my experience as a practising GP. To consider the condition more generally, epilepsy is the name given to the condition in which a patient experiences two or more unprovoked epileptic seizures. These start in the grey matter of the brain and consist of a paroxysmal burst of nervous activity that is uncontrolled and unpredictable. Sometimes the condition starts in childhood and goes on throughout life.
In all except the most severe case the attacks can be stopped or greatly reduced by anti-epileptic medication. Sometimes, and more so if it is adequately controlled by medication, epilepsy can go into full remission and the medication can be reduced and finally stopped. One study mentioned by my noble friend, Lady Gould, suggests that as many as 75 per cent of people with epilepsy will become seizure free within two years if treated appropriately. A number of those will be able to stop medication permanently. In certain abnormal conditions anyone can have an epileptic seizure; for example, children in response to high fever, or alcoholics coming down from a very high blood alcohol level. Such isolated attacks with a known cause do not justify a diagnosis of epilepsy. One in 25 of the population may experience an epileptic type of seizure at some time in their lives.
Persons with epilepsy as such have an increased tendency to develop an epileptic seizure in response to a given stimulus. Sometimes—often even—there may be no apparent provoking stimulus at all. Seizures can be of varied character ranging from the full-blown tonic/clonic convulsion where the whole body goes rigid followed by shaking spasms with loss of consciousness in what used to be called a grand mal attack, usually preceded by a warning aura of altered consciousness, to less severe, localised seizures, sometimes involving no loss of consciousness or perhaps petit mal where consciousness is lost temporarily without muscular spasms. There are also sensory seizures such as temporal lobe epilepsy which result in altered perception of the outer world and inappropriate behaviour.
Some epileptic episodes, especially if they occur for the first time in adult life, may be due to other pathological conditions—as the husband of the noble Baroness found—which can be detected by suitable investigations; for example, scans of one kind or another. The most serious of these may be primary or secondary brain tumours. The need for rapid access to specialist investigation is clear in that case, but delay can also be distressing for someone with early primary or "idiopathic" epilepsy since treatment is usually not started until investigations are completed and diagnosis achieved. Several distressing attacks may occur, one of which could be fatal, during the wait.
400
To complicate matters, there are other conditions which mimic epilepsy. For instance, hysterical patients can put on a close approximation of an attack at moments which suit their highly skilled, manipulative behaviour. To make matters more difficult, there are no reliable diagnostic tests for idiopathic epilepsy. Various forms of brain scan are useful in detecting structural lesions which may have provoked the seizures, but not for epilepsy itself where diagnosis depends more than anything on taking a detailed and careful history, particularly noting the account of witnesses. It is true that epilepsy runs in families, but at present inheritance is not predictable or detectable in utero since multiple genes are concerned.
Epilepsy is one of a group of chronic relapsing conditions which are increasingly providing the bulk of the workload of the National Health Service at both primary and secondary level, including asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure and depression. Acute diseases which could be cured by timely medication or surgery with full recovery are becoming less common, and if they do occur they are more quickly and easily dealt with. Improved medical science and better living standards share the credit for that. But it does mean, not only because the population is living longer, that a number of debilitating but mainly non-fatal conditions, which always existed, are now revealed more clearly and constitute a new challenge.
Most of today's doctors are not particularly good at the long-term approach needed to cope with chronic illness. "Carry on taking the tablets" is of course the caricature of the current approach. A new strategy is needed which takes a wider view of the needs of the patient with chronic or episodic illness. In this week's British Medical Journal a number of articles and an editorial are published looking at models of good care for those with chronic disease. The two main conditions chosen are asthma and depression which, like epilepsy, carries a social stigma.
The main themes, as I see them, are, first, the need to acknowledge the importance of partnership with patients in managing their care, and, secondly, the importance of a readily available named carer, not necessarily a doctor. There should be open access to follow-up clinics rather than three or six-monthly appointments. That more flexible approach may actually decrease the numbers currently attending outpatient or primary care follow-up clinics. I commend the articles in this week's British Medical Journal to the Department of Health. I do not have time in this debate to detail them for the benefit of the House.
How does the possibility of these improved methods of care look in comparison with the current situation in epilepsy care? Unfortunately, the short answer is: rather Utopian. Most of the support for patients with epilepsy comes from the several charities set up for the purpose, as mentioned by both noble Baronesses. Can my noble friend say when the Government are going to respond to the report of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group under the

401
chairmanship of Professor Shorvon? It was sent to the Department of Health last year. Perhaps my noble friend can give a preliminary response now.
I can only emphasise some of the recommendations and requests made by the National Epilepsy Council and expressed by my noble friend to improve the current situation, which is not good enough. There is need to speed up the referral process for patients to see epilepsy specialists. That is not quite the same as referral to neurologists, not all of whom are interested in epilepsy. Neuro-psychiatrists may offer a better service. I am not sure that the current expansion of 7 per cent per annum of neurologists is adequate. There is also a great need to recruit and train general practitioners to take the lead and enthuse others in their local areas or primary care groups in all areas of the country through postgraduate training and the professional grapevine.
Finally, there is a particular need to recruit and train more specialist epilepsy nurses. To start with, they will have to work as an outreach service from neurology clinics, but ideally they should be based in primary care. There are too many deaths among those with epilepsy—600 were counted in 1995. The cause of many of those remains obscure but is almost certainly related to inadequate control of seizures. I hope the current National Sentinel study on mortality associated with epilepsy will produce results which reinforce the need to upgrade services for this unsung, deserving but too often neglected group of people.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, not only on initiating this important debate tonight, but also on the concise and comprehensive way in which she introduced a complicated subject in a short space of time.
In preparing for this debate, the most striking set of facts is one that I came across in the annual report of the National Society for Epilepsy, which gave a short summary of a Gallup Poll which had been carried out over the past year. Some telling points were made in that survey. First, the majority of those surveyed did not know what to do if someone had an epileptic seizure; one third of those surveyed would put something in the patient's mouth during a seizure or hold them down, both potentially dangerous procedures; and 78 per cent of those surveyed would call an ambulance, which is not necessary unless the seizure lasts for more than five minutes. Finally, most of those surveyed believed that they had only a one in 500 chance of developing the condition when in fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, pointed out, one in 50 has a chance of developing the condition. So that survey graphically illustrated just how little public understanding of the condition there is, despite the fact that it is the most common neurological disorder in the world. Around 420,000 people in this country suffer from epilepsy.
More information on the subject is needed, such as that contained in the British Epilepsy Association booklet. I pay tribute to the association for producing
402
that kind of information, and I pay tribute to its work on its 50th anniversary. But it is difficult for the public to understand the condition. The causes are often not known; it is not necessarily inherited; it arises suddenly and death from epilepsy can tragically be extremely sudden. Around 1,000 people each year die of epilepsy from a condition known as "sudden unexpected death". I welcome the fact that a national survey, funded by the Government, is being carried out by the National Society for Epilepsy. One of the problems arising from the lack of public understanding is that there is concealment of their condition by those who suffer from epilepsy.
Another important survey which I came across in preparing for this debate was contained in January's BMJ. It dealt with what is a fairly typical group of patients in Norfolk. The survey illustrates that in that area there is very high unemployment among those who suffer from epilepsy—an average of 34 per cent compared with 9 per cent in the general population. That conceals an even worse picture, because underneath that, among those with uncontrolled seizures there is an unemployment rate of 47 per cent, but where it is concealed among those with controlled seizures, only 17 per cent are unemployed. Clearly, for those who are concealing the nature of their condition, there seems to be an incentive to carry on concealing it.
There is, clearly, an under-reporting of seizures. Patients were more willing in this survey to report to an anonymous questionnaire that they had seizures than they were to their own GPs. The survey concluded that this may be due to the fear of losing their driving licences or their jobs.
It is clear that we need much better public understanding of the nature of epilepsy, particularly among employers. According to the National Society for Epilepsy, those who are in employment have fewer accidents than other employees, and take less time off work.
We hope that the Disability Discrimination Act, which these Benches strongly supported, will improve matters. I pay tribute to all those voluntary organisations that are involved in dispelling myths about epilepsy—for example, the British Epilepsy Association and the National Society for Epilepsy.
We need to review the issue of driving licences. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, referred to the shock of losing a driving licence and having to come to terms with it. At the moment, those with epilepsy need to be free of seizures for one year before they can regain their driving licence. What is the real basis for this? There appears to be little evidence that certain types of epilepsy are predictive of an increased accident rate. In Wisconsin the current restriction on driving without seizures is three months.
The current law appears to lead to concealment, as the authors of the BMJ paper pointed out. The consequences of that concealment mean that those people are not receiving the treatment they need.
These are major issues, but there are other issues surrounding the treatment of epilepsy. There is a shortage of epilepsy specialists, doctors and nurses,

403
despite the creation of Sapphire Nurses. There are very long waiting times, although of course it is absolutely vital that those who have had their first reported seizure should see a specialist quickly.
There is a very low accuracy of diagnosis and a great deal of ignorance among general practitioners.
We have heard about the issue of drugs that have considerable side effects, for example, Epilin. Are we sure that adequate resources are devoted to the provision of drugs that do not have side effects? In other areas of treatment, are there sufficient MRI scanners?
The programme of research being carried out at Queen's Square and at Chalfont St Peter must obviously be commended, but a chair in epilepsy is long overdue, since it is a condition that affects so many people in this country. Seventy-five per cent of people with epilepsy can become seizure-free within two years, when treated by specialist consultants. Is that not the key? We should be heeding the call of the Joint Epilepsy Council for better standards. There seems to be a form of post code treatment for epilepsy in this country, as with so many other conditions.
The noble Baroness mentioned some of the standards for which the JEC is calling, and I strongly support some of those: for example, the right of patients to receive an appointment to see an epilepsy specialist who can diagnose and initiate treatment within four weeks. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, failure to see a specialist early can cause not only distress but considerable danger to the patient. There should be improved services at primary care level by appointing lead GPs to assume responsibility for developing epilepsy services in their area, better integration and co-ordination between health, social services and other agencies, and of course the recruitment of more specialist epilepsy nurses to support patients and carers.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope he can give us an assurance that improvements are on the way as a result of the independent report on standards of care and service provision. I very much hope that he can offer more than what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, described as "the usual tablets".
8.24 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be more than grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for initiating the debate this evening and for the very clear and persuasive way in which she did so.
Like the noble Baroness, I too am proud to have an interest to declare, as President of the National Society for Epilepsy, a charity founded over a hundred years ago and now one of the leading organisations in the world dedicated to the treatment of people with epilepsy and to improving our understanding of this often debilitating condition.
404
Anyone coming to this subject afresh cannot fail to be struck by one feature, to which nearly every speaker has referred, and that is the prevalence of epilepsy. It is far and away the most common serious neurological condition, affecting one in two hundred people. Its incidence is similar to that of diabetes and asthma. It is ten times more common than MS. Despite that, it is an affliction that lurks in the shadows, as the noble Baroness said.
We might sometimes be tempted to think that this liberated age of ours has banished all the taboos of past generations but that, alas, is not true for epilepsy. Many, if not most, of those who have epilepsy are reluctant to admit the fact publicly. The result is that epilepsy lacks one of the very things that it most needs, which is a co-ordinated voice from patients. It is in a real sense a Cinderella condition.
The low standing of epilepsy in the public mind also means that those few advocates that it has among clinicians are unable to make their voices heard as prominently as they deserve to be. This is more than just a pity; it is a cause of shame, not least because of the huge strides that have been made over the past five or six years in treating people with epilepsy. The headquarters of the National Society for Epilepsy in Chalfont St Peter is a centre of tertiary referral for those patients, about 10 per cent of the total, who have a severe and continuing form of the condition. It houses the only magnetic resonance imaging unit in the world dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy. Before that unit was opened in 1994 doctors at the centre were able to find a cause for a patient's epilepsy in only 20 per cent of cases. Now, thanks to far more accurate imaging from the MRI scanner, the figure is as high as 70 per cent.
Finding the cause of a patient's epilepsy is not just an academic exercise; it can often be the key that unlocks the door to a complete cure through surgery. These techniques were undreamed of only a handful of years ago, and it is perhaps not surprising that demand for places at the society's assessment centre is very high indeed.
Even when an outright cure is not possible, doctors are quite often able to control a patient's epilepsy completely using modern drug treatments. The importance of these clinical advances should not be underestimated. Some 400,000 people in the UK are currently afflicted with epilepsy in varying degrees of severity from a whole host of causes, including accidents, strokes and meningitis. Up to 1,000 people die suddenly from epilepsy every year, which is four times more than the numbers dying from AIDS.
The devastation that epilepsy brings to people's lives and to families cannot be imagined until it is seen, yet only a minority of patients in this country have access to the specialised care that they need. This should not and need not happen. Patients become lost in a system that has let them down. Only a comparatively small number of GPs has a real and detailed understanding of epilepsy. That is not a criticism of GPs, who cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of every condition that they deal with, but it means either that

405
the patient is not referred to a consultant at all or, when a referral is made, it is made in all good faith to someone without the necessary specialist expertise in epilepsy. The truth is that there is a woeful lack of coordination between doctors at primary and secondary care levels on this subject and, in general, a lack of professional awareness of epilepsy in many branches of secondary care, such as geriatrics, obstetrics and A&E. The fact of a patient having an epileptic seizure is often missed altogether and its implications therefore overlooked. All too frequently women with epilepsy who want to start a family receive no advice whatever from their GP or their ante-natal clinic about the risks and consequences of pregnancy or childbirth.
These are deficiencies for which there is really no excuse. Many of us who are involved with epilepsy took heart when in 1996, under the previous government, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group was commissioned by the Department of Health to review existing epilepsy services throughout the United Kingdom and make recommendations for improvements. Its report is eagerly awaited. Like the noble Baroness, I should like to ask the Minister when he expects it to be published.
One of the central features of the research programme was that, for the very first time in an exercise for government, it attempted to gain a perspective of epilepsy services from the point of view of patients. The aim was to try to identify how best to organise and configure the delivery of epilepsy services, what those services should be and how to optimise their quality—what one expert referred to as a "joined-up epilepsy service".
Whatever the report's conclusions and recommendations, I believe that it is a certainty that the defects at primary and secondary care levels that I have just referred to will loom large in it. The key to any successful reorganisation of epilepsy services will be better communication between GPs, hospitals, the voluntary sector and tertiary referral centres—the aim being to ensure that each patient is looked after at the right level according to the severity and complexity of his condition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, emphasised. Not all epilepsy sufferers need to keep going back to hospital all the time; yet, as the noble Baroness said, many of those with mild forms of epilepsy do just this when they could be seen just as effectively by their GP. By contrast, a great many of those with active or severe epilepsy who should be seen regularly by a hospital go for months, and even years, without a hospital visit.
The answer must be multi-faceted. One element must surely be to appoint at primary care group level a lead GP to act as a focal point for referrals and for the flow of information to patients and to ensure that there is proper communication with and from hospitals. At secondary care level there must be a powerful case to re-configure the outpatient service in each NHS region into dedicated epilepsy clinics. I see the role of epilepsy specialist nurses as crucial for the running of the service; indeed, more will need to be trained.
406
I mention tertiary referrals in particular because it is clear with epilepsy, as elsewhere, that the system of out-of-area treatments introduced by the Government last year is not working as it should in that context. I was recently told about one quite typical example of a patient who had been seen by a consultant neurologist at his local hospital. On the strength of this, his GP decided that he should be referred to an epilepsy specialist at a tertiary referral centre. The PCG refused to agree this referral and insisted that the patient should be seen instead by a second consultant neurologist who practises in a nearby hospital with which the PCG happens to have a contract—a neurologist who has no specialist expertise in epilepsy whatever. In other words, there is a drive, no matter what, to keep the patient on the home patch purely to prevent the budget of the PCG from being eroded.
At best, this roundabout procedure results in a delay in the patient being seen at tertiary referral level. At worst, the patient's problem remains unresolved and he is denied a tertiary referral altogether. Many patients now coming to the NSE say that they had to persist and persist to get the referral made. That cannot be right. Those 10 to 15 per cent of patients whose epilepsy is complex, either diagnostically or therapeutically, should have unfettered access to specialist centres of excellence, such as the Chalfont Centre or the National Hospital for Neurosurgery in Queen's Square.
Other noble Lords mentioned the shortage of neurologists. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government recognise these shortages and what plans they have to address them. Does the Minister accept the recommendation put forward by the Association of British Neurologists that the numbers of consultant neurologists ought to be increased to 1 per 100,000 of the population?
I should like to think that the financial outlay for any concerted programme of action need not be all that great and certainly not great in relation to the health gain in prospect for those many thousands of people in need. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I believe that much can be achieved by better co-ordination of what is already there. We need to remember that if epilepsy patients are excluded from the clinical process, they certainly cannot hope to break out of the exclusion that they suffer in almost every other sense—educational, social, vocational and marital. Epilepsy sufferers feel these disadvantages even more keenly than the condition itself. That is why a sensible programme of action will yield real dividends for the nation, not least those that we can measure in purely financial terms, far in excess of the cost. I hope that the Minister will be able to send us away with something to cheer about.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords who have thanked my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton for raising this very important subject tonight. I know that my noble friend

407
puts a lot of time and energy into trying to bring improvements to those who suffer in this very important area.
The Government are well aware of the particular problems that epilepsy can bring to people and of the need for a well co-ordinated approach to service delivery. Epilepsy is the commonest serious neurological disorder—a sign of underlying disease in the brain—affecting more than 350,000 people or one in 200 of the United Kingdom population. At some time in their lives, between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of the population will have epilepsy.
Epilepsy can affect people of any age. Many of those who develop epilepsy start having seizures during childhood, but the condition can develop at any age, even among older people. Many people with epilepsy will have their seizures controlled. One might, therefore, think that they lead a fairly normal life compared with other people with disabilities. However, despite its prevalence, some people with epilepsy face stigmatisation by society and some are still unaware of the full nature of the condition and the services available to them.
As I said, most people with epilepsy have their seizures controlled. However, some 20 per cent of people with epilepsy have complex epilepsy and much time and effort may be needed to achieve seizure control; indeed, complete seizure control is never achieved by some people. People with complex epilepsy may well require specialist tertiary level assessment and treatment. Complex epilepsy is included in the comprehensive list of specialised services set out in the health circular on commissioning in the new NHS. This means that the NHS Executive's regional offices give special consideration to commissioning services for those people with complex epilepsy to ensure that there is proper access to such services for those who need them.
Epilepsy can bring serious problems for the person with the condition and for his or her family. It places restrictions on the way in which such people live. Some people with epilepsy lead lives of social isolation and exclusion. People with active seizures find that not being able to drive in this modern, car-dependent world—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, in her own circumstances—can place severe limits on their lifestyles and on their working potential. Children with epilepsy may need a good deal of care. As in all households caring for a sick child, this can cause potential difficulties for family relationships for the needs of one have to be balanced against those of the family as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, mentioned some of the problems that women suffering from epilepsy are confronted with. They often have hard choices to make about starting a family—choices which can sometimes be made even harder by the failure to give full information about the way pregnancy may affect them and the potential consequences for their children.
408
However, we also know that people with epilepsy face very real problems in obtaining and retaining employment, whether or not driving skills are required. This is largely because of the long-standing misapprehensions about the way in which epilepsy affects people's capacity to work and the widespread false perception that all people with epilepsy have seizures every day. This means that people are reluctant to have people with epilepsy as work colleagues in case they have seizures.
All these false perceptions lead to higher than average levels of unemployment for people with epilepsy compared with other people with disabilities. Helping people to find and keep work is a key priority for this Government. We have already introduced a Welfare to Work programme. This includes the New Deal for the Disabled. People with epilepsy will benefit from the New Deal and other proposals we are developing in this area, which I am sure will lead to better employment opportunities in the future.
Because of all these complex factors it is clearly important to get epilepsy services right. For many years epilepsy was acknowledged to be one of the National Health Service's more neglected service delivery areas. I am pleased to say that real improvements have been made in recent years as the National Health Service has started to tackle some of these long-standing service delivery problems.
There have been a number of specific initiatives aimed at improving the care and treatment of people with epilepsy. As well as the national guidance issued in 1995, the National Health Service has taken advantage of the help offered by the British Epilepsy Association to run regionally inspired seminars designed to help people devise local service improvement programmes. These seminars—usually chaired by the regional chair—have led to service delivery improvements on the ground as gaps in services have been identified and plugged.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the introduction of specialist nurses into epilepsy. There has been a real improvement in this area, particularly in the development of better care pathways, in talking to potential employers of people with epilepsy and in giving direct information and advice to patients and carers. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, emphasised that aspect, as did other noble Lords. Many of the earlier problems in epilepsy care were associated with the lack of good, readily understandable patient and carer information. With some support from government, the epilepsy voluntary organisations—especially the British Epilepsy Association—have been filling these long-standing information deficits for patients.
More recent work includes the service development kit put together by the Epilepsy Task Force, which gives comprehensive advice on the commissioning and provision of services, including service specifications, audit and briefing on potential service models. It also includes material on the health economic case for good epilepsy services.

409
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the role the Government are playing in improving care for people with epilepsy. There is a major Department of Health funded initiative aimed at discovering more about sudden death epilepsy. I trust that improvements will be made in that area as a result of that initiative.
My colleague, John Hutton, signed the foreword to the British Epilepsy Association's handbook Epilepsy Care: Making It Happen only last year. This is a useful tool kit for developing effective epilepsy services. In his foreword John Hutton stated that the Government want to see these services improve across the National Health Service as a whole and that we have an opportunity now to focus on the needs of people with epilepsy.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Clinical Standards Advisory Group and have asked about the date of publication of its report on epilepsy services. This has been received but has not yet been published by the Government. This is one of four final reports produced by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group which await publication. The remit of the group has now been subsumed into the work of the Commission for Health Improvement.
The report contains some excellent research material which looks at epilepsy from the patient's viewpoint in depth for the first time and draws a number of conclusions about the present state of services as well as making a number of recommendations for change. We are still considering the report and hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the number of neurologists. I am not in a position to give him the relevant figures at the moment but I shall, of course, write to him on that issue.
I conclude by saying that the findings of the CSAG report will prove most helpful when Department of Health officials meet representatives of the Joint Epilepsy Council shortly to take stock of recent service developments and recent medical research and to discuss ways of taking work forward in this area.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, our approach to epilepsy has improved in recent years but there is still a long way to go. We are doing better in this area but we are perhaps not the best. However, I am sure that with the commitment that is demonstrated in your Lordships' House we shall get there soon. If there are points that I have not responded to, I shall reply in writing.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 8.47 to 8.50 p.m.]

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 10.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21 is a simple probing amendment. On reflection, when I looked at Clause 10(4), I noticed that the executive is referred to in this Part as,
"a mayor and council manager executive".
In most other parts of the world where there is an elected mayor, the elected mayor is the elected mayor and the council manager and does the whole job. Very often in the United States there may be a relatively small council which appoints a council manager to run its business affairs. The difficulty is that in both those descriptions the elected mayor and the council manager are doing the same job.
I am not quite certain therefore what the division of responsibilities would be under subsection (4) if the elected mayor, who is elected to run the council—and, therefore, one might have thought, would be its manager—appointed a manager to do that for him. If he did that, I cannot understand why one would need an elected mayor in any event; it seems to me that the council could appoint a manager if that is what it so wished.
I thought that the solution to the problem would be to move the amendment and to find out what the Minister has to say about it. That may help me to make up my mind. I look forward to his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is seeking clarification rather than seeking to press his amendment. It may well be that this is the least well understood form of the structures—and I suspect that that is also the case outside the House. We are anxious that we do not delete any form of executive structure which is contained in the Bill at the moment.
It is quite common in a number of other countries to have an elected mayor and an appointed manager. I suspect that the noble Lord is thinking more of the North American pattern, where the mayor effectively acts as the chief executive. The pattern here is designed to achieve a clear separation between policy development, which would be a matter for the council and for the mayor, and the day-to-day implementation of policy, which would be a matter for the council manager and for the officer corps. The mayor would provide the political leadership; the council manager would implement agreed council policy, guided by that political leadership.
When the Joint Committee considered this potential option, it felt that an arrangement involving a council manager might be more appropriate for rural areas and for areas where there were usually hung councils. In those circumstances, the relationship between the mayor, the council manager and the council would be slightly different from other areas where there was a clear political majority. That option, which is more

411
equivalent to certain continental structures, should be provided in the Bill. In the view of the Joint Committee, at least, it is probably more appropriate for the rural and less urban areas. That may be the reason that it has not been taken up as a front runner among the structures of local government.
With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I am not sure whether it is my amendment, the Minister's explanation or something completely divorced from the proceedings which is causing so much hilarity. In any event, the Minister will be glad to hear that I shall study his explanation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
("() It may take such form as the local authority considers, after it has taken reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area, will—

(a) enhance decision-making,

(b) meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency, and

(c) be appropriate to local circumstances.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 seeks to outline what one might call the "fourth option". On a similar amendment at a previous stage, the Minister said that if the objective of the option was greater diversity, then it did not achieve it. This amendment is not so much about diversity as about getting back to basics, although it seeks to set out the framework which we believe will be appropriate for a further option.
This is a variation on the amendment I moved at the earlier stage. It provides that executive arrangements as adopted through regulations may take the form that the local authority itself considers appropriate, and it may only adopt that form after it has consulted its electors. It will enhance decision making, meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency and be appropriate to local circumstances. The reference to local circumstances is important.
On the last group of amendments the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said that we need to know how the public can express a view. That is a very fair point. This amendment would achieve that objective, or certainly something might be built on it. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated in an earlier debate, the three categories of executive arrangements already made available in the Bill allow for a fairly wide diversity of choice. They do so by setting out the basic framework for each option to ensure that the new structure has a clear, separate, transparent and accountable executive responsible for most of a council's functions. I appreciate that the amendment does not explicitly seek to make executive
412
arrangements voluntary—which was the subject of a previous debate—but it does provide a broader discretion than we are prepared to accept, in that councils themselves could devise a form of executive that approximates very closely to the status quo should they so wish.
It is clear that any such arrangements would require further provision and modification to other enactments, but it is not clear how that would be achieved. In a few minutes we shall come to the question of the power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to define further forms of executive. If a council has a clear proposal for a further form of executive which meets the aims of enhanced efficiency, transparency and accountability, we should use that power to establish an alternative model. However, this proposal is somewhat more open-ended. We should not be convinced that the proposal is not a way of allowing councils effectively to make a few minor modifications to their current committee structure rather than to move wholeheartedly to an executive structure. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, sadly, the Minister confirms what we have all been suggesting: that even if the criteria spelled out are met, the central government model is to be followed. I am sad. I accept that the Government are quite set on the matter, but it is sad that they have not yet moved towards us in any way. There is still time to work out how we can ensure the meeting of criteria which are agreed on all sides to be important. A model which has been consulted on locally and has obtained local approval cannot be put in place through some automatic procedure, but it is still a matter—not even for the Secretary of State to approve on a particular basis but to meet a form which the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 23 seeks to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 10(6), which provides that regulations may provide for a form of executive, with each member directly elected to a specified cabinet post.
I am still unclear as to why subsection (6) is necessary at all. We are back to the old argument that the executive may take a form to be prescribed in regulations which,
"may, in particular, provide for".
some—but it must be by definition not all—of the possible forms. Since the provision does not attempt to spell out all the forms, why is it necessary or appropriate to spell out only those?
I have particular concerns about that model which I expressed in Committee. The Minister stressed that the Government have no clear plans about the particular

413
form of the executive, but they want to ensure that no "potentially valid"—those are the words he used—form of executive should be closed off. That of course begs the question of how one interprets the words "potentially valid". We have a particular difficulty about directly elected cabinet members when they are elected to particular posts. I simply do not see how it is practicable at local level to apply that kind of model.
Over dinner I was talking to my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer about how few people we have come across, particularly in the smaller authorities, who have any enthusiasm for doing the job themselves. To elect an individual who wants to be mayor, who will set out his stall and go for it knowing that it is a full time job is one matter; but if one is to have a directly elected cabinet where a number of individuals are asked to put themselves forward for a major job in the local authority, which may or may not be fulfilling but certainly requires them as individuals to take important decisions about the direction in which their lives and careers will go, I do not believe that the people are likely to be available. If there are direct elections to individual cabinet posts, how does one swap around? Must one keep having by-elections if people find that they simply cannot juggle their lives as they believed they might be able to do?
I do not like the model, but more particularly I want to ask why subsection (6) is necessary at all. It is restrictive. If subsection (5) means anything, must we have subsection (6)? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, subsection (6) is in the Bill primarily to ensure a degree of flexibility. The noble Baroness's amendment would in fact restrict that flexibility. The reason for Clause 10(6) as a whole is to make it clear that there may well be options on which the Government do not have any fixed view as to the form they take. It is there to ensure that there is the widest scope to provide for forms of executive which may be requested by local authorities—or, indeed, by others—and which the Secretary of State may be convinced meet the aims of the Bill; namely, efficiency, transparency and accountability. By providing such scope it gives a range of possibilities which may potentially fall under it.
The Government have put forward subsections (2) to (4) which provide for three forms of executive. We believe that each of those forms already contains a fairly wide range of diversity of arrangements in practice which may apply to different kinds of authorities. We believe also—this is the point to which I was in a sense alluding in our earlier debate—that we must have the ability to provide for further forms of executive should they seem to be appropriate at some point in the future. The power exists in Clause 10(5), but the provision for its scope is in Clause 10(6). The noble Baroness's amendment would limit it.
The purpose of Clause 10(6) is to avoid any doubt about our ability to use the power to provide a form of executive which had more than one person directly elected to it and about the way in which the members of the executive would be elected and whether they could be elected to specific posts. The noble Baroness
414
has indicated that she does not consider that direct elections to specified posts would be desirable. There are of course arguments in that direction. It could limit future flexibility. The Government have no plans to introduce such a structure or to impose such an arrangement.
It may well be that certain local authorities would find such an executive desirable at some future stage. Internationally, there is a strong tradition, particularly in North America, for direct elections to many public posts. Noble Lords may have different views as to whether that is a system we would wish to import here. Nevertheless, it is a system which has to a large extent stood the test of time in America and one which could be adopted here in some form. The Government are looking at all potential alternatives which may be produced in the future which have the executive there and meet the broad objectives but which are different from the ones currently prescribed on the face of the Bill.
It is also true that some local authorities might wish to have a directly elected cabinet without specifying what posts the cabinet members would occupy. Clause 10(6)(b) ensures that the power in Clause 10(5) is wide enough to cover that contingency as well. Therefore, it provides for quite a range of flexibility. The noble Baroness asked how one would move people from one place to another. That model allows for that.
To delete part of what is proposed restricts that flexibility. The Government would like to see as much flexibility as possible in the scope for adopting genuine executive structures and believe that the categories that will be made available on the face of the Bill of themselves provide a wide range. The Government would be prepared to go further. That is why there is the power by regulation to make further categories of executive arrangements available. The Government are trying to ensure in this context that the potential range is as wide as possible because they recognise that as councils gain experience of the various models, on the basis of that experience they may want to identify other structures which they may feel are more appropriate to them. When that happens the Government want to be certain that they can make available new categories which prove to be worthwhile and valuable, and not to exclude international analogues which may have worked in other countries.
I should point out that the regulations under Clause 10(5) would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The House would then have an opportunity to debate further any order the Secretary of State was minded to make on this issue in the future. Therefore, there would be another point at which parliamentary scrutiny could intervene. It would not entirely be a matter for the Secretary of State alone.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness that all this should be decided by local authorities and that the Secretary of State should simply rubberstamp any option they come up with. However, we think that certain criteria have to be made. Therefore the regulations and the judgment of the Secretary of State

415
have to be able to ensure that those structures meet the broad objectives of efficiency, transparency and accountability. That is provided for, as is the right of Parliament to have a say on it. I hope that that demonstrates our flexibility on executive structures, which, although not as wide as was contended in the previous debate, are fairly broad.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wish to be quite clear. The Minister talks about being flexible and open-minded and so on. Would not the most flexible arrangement be to include Clause 10(5) and not to include Clause 10(6)? On the one hand he appears to say that the possibilities within what can be termed executive arrangements are limitless; on the other hand he says it is important to have Clause 10(6) because it sets out the other models. It appears to me that the most flexible approach would be not to include subsection (6) at all. Can the Minister assist me?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my contention on flexibility did not quite reach the point of being limitless. There are limits and there are criteria to the scope. Those are set out in Clause 10(6). I would not want noble Lords to think we are completely open-ended in our views here. We do need to limit the scope to meeting the criteria and to allowing the kind of structures which the noble Baroness did seem to take objection to. My contention is that although she may find Clause 10(6) as a whole more restrictive than limitless, her amendment will actually make it more limited, not less.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I take the point on my amendment. I am assuming that Clause 10(6) restricts Clause 10(5). I should perhaps have framed my question to the Minister: is Clause 10(6) exclusive? In other words, can there be models which do not fall within Clause 10(6)? The Minister talked about Clause 10(6) as being the criteria. They are the models rather than criteria in the sense of principles.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Clause 10(6) states,
"may, in particular, provide".
Those models suggest potential scope but not exclusive scope.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is helpful that the Minister has said that they are not exclusive. I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
("() The authority may determine the title to be used for the position of mayor elected under this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would introduce a new subsection between subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 10. Its purpose is to enable local authorities to determine the title of the directly elected person always described in the Bill as the "mayor". The amendment was discussed at the Committee stage on 25th January. It was introduced by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in a short debate which ended at 11 p.m. On that occasion everyone was extremely brief. I shall try not to make that an excuse for speaking at length today.
The main point of the amendment is to deal with the situation where there already is a mayor of a local authority who is a local councillor elected by the council to chair the council and to be the non-party representative of the council at a wide range of more or less formal occasions within and outside the local authority. Some observers have suggested that the Government do not seem to understand or have any sympathy with the extremely useful social and community role, as a non-party representative of the council, that such mayors and, for that matter, the chairman or chairs of other local authorities perform. We have had a good deal of anecdotal self-explanation today. I shall merely say that I am one of many chairs of local authorities who have found the role extremely interesting and have also been aware of the interest which other people have in the presence of the representative of the county council at their celebration or opening ceremonies. The people whom the chair or, in the case of this amendment, the mayor contacts in the course of the mayoral year—be they from local authority organisations or from the voluntary sector—are genuinely pleased to have that presence. That role brings together people in the community.
When responding to the amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said that in a case where the local authority—probably a borough—which already had a traditional mayor moved to the system of a directly elected mayor, the,
"Government would either need to find a different title for the elected mayor or let local authorities choose a variety of titles for that figure".—[Official Report, 25/1/2000; col. 1536.]
She added that the Government preferred the clear rule that if there is an elected mayor, it is that figure who is known as the mayor, leaving the chairman or chair of the local authority to be known by that title rather than the traditional title.
At this point I remind the House that the traditional title of mayor may be a recent one, dating back only to the reform of local government in the 1970s, but it may be a very ancient one as well, one which few local authorities will want to abandon. In any case, the approach that was expressed by the Minister was quite different from ours. We want not the Government but local authorities to be able to determine the title of their elected executive person or their directly elected mayor. I do not want to use the word "mayor" because I want to put the whole character of the name into question. I prefer to use the term "the elected executive". For some local authorities, "executive leader" might be a more suitable style. That is what

417
used to exist in local authorities where there was a clear majority government. The mayor or chairman was the non-party representative of the council and the leader of the council was the political leader of the council. For some people the name "executive leader" might be more suitable. That would enable local authorities to retain their mayoral title if that was precious to them. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I have some sympathy with the difficulty indicated by the noble Baroness, there is a dilemma. It may well be true that people appreciate the non-political nature of the mayor and the presence of the traditional mayor, be it a borough mayor, city mayor or lord mayor, as a ceremonial personage. However, when one asks them about local government, the reason people like the idea of elected mayors, at least at first sight, is that they want someone who has clear executive power. I suspect that, among the population as a whole, most people who are not familiar with local government assume that a mayor does have executive power in some sense. They think of a mayor more in the American or French style than in the British style.
Certainly, if we are to move to a system where directly elected mayors are the executive power, and the title "mayor" is the best way of epitomising that, it is difficult to say that the directly elected person should not be designated "mayor". In those situations where we do move down that road and there is an existing role in the same authority—as a local authority function as distinct from, for example, a charter function—or there is a pre-existing ceremonial mayor, the title would need to be that of mayor or something like it to distinguish those people from the mayor who has statutory functions under this executive structure.
The Government did give some thought to whether "mayor" was the correct title. In the end, we settled for it because it was the obvious choice—indeed almost the only choice. It is used in local government all over the English-speaking world, and similar titles exist in the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking world. I suppose that "Bürgermeister" is not very different either. In most European languages the title "mayor" has a ring about it. In France, the United States and New Zealand, for example, mayors have similar functions to those envisaged in the Bill for the elected mayor here. If we did not call that person the mayor, we should have to think of some alternative title with a similar ring to it. It has been suggested to me, for example, that "governor" could apply in the counties. In the south of England, "governor" would not convey quite the right message—prestigious though it may be in the United States. No other title has been suggested. The noble Baroness suggested "elected leader". That does not have the right ring about it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My suggestion was "executive leader".
Lord Whitty: "Executive leader" likewise, my Lords, does not have the same resonance as "mayor".
418
If your Lordships accept even three-quarters of my argument—as I am sure you will—I accept that that leaves a problem in relation to ceremonial mayors, if I may so call them. We shall have to find a way—or local authorities may find different ways—of describing the continuing role in those communities. But that seems to me a secondary issue. One has to accept that for those who are lining up to be mayor in the next three or four years it may not be academic. However, it is a secondary issue in terms of the reform of local government that we are trying to put through and the importance of the role of elected mayors in those authorities that choose that system.
I believe that we should stick with the title "mayor". We should accept that an important job is done by ceremonial mayors but that we must find a description which may incorporate the title "mayor" but which will be distinct from the statutory role of mayor under these models. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter further.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister is, as always, optimistic when he says that he is certain that we shall accept at least three-quarters of his argument. He began by referring to what people think. Most people do not think about local government, or indeed any government, most of the time. But when they need to know how it works, they are usually pretty canny at finding out. They have no difficulty in distinguishing between the mayor of a borough or city and other people in that borough or city.
The noble Lord referred to lord mayors, whose office is, I believe, governed by charter or statute. It is doubtful that one could ever get rid of that title without a great deal of effort. Perhaps the law which governs the foundation of mayoralties is part of the body of statutes which the Government intend to knock for six in the context of this particular piece of legislation and the powers contained within it. The issue is a secondary one, in the sense that nobody thought about it until the process of legislation began. I suspect that it will be one of those tiresome issues that plague the Minister because insufficient attention has been paid to the obvious problem of what to do with existing mayoralties. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
("() A member of the authority may attend and speak at meetings of the executive as deputy or substitute for a member of the executive by whom the deputy or substitute is appointed but may not vote.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 takes us back to deputies and substitutes. My amendment provides that members of the executive may have deputies or substitutes but they may not vote. I raised this issue at Committee stage when the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that because the Government were concerned to avoid conflicts of interest no deputation or substitution had been

419
allowed. While this amendment would not allow the deputy to vote, it would allow for practicalities: for example, if a member of the cabinet was abroad or ill or, in the interim period before a by-election—if that was how matters proceeded—in the event of resignation or death.
I regard this as an entirely practical matter which would not do any harm to transparency or accountability. I said in relation to an earlier amendment that academics, among others, had analysed and criticised—I use that term in a particular way—the Government's proposals. One particularly well known academic commented that the arguments about transparency and accountability did not appear to create problems at national level when another Minister acted in the absence of the Cabinet Minister. The Minister and the noble Baroness are perhaps in a far better position than I am to comment on that, but I believe it to be a fair point. Executive members are likely to carry a heavy load. I believe that to prevent them from being supported by deputies in the rather modest manner that I propose will not assist them in carrying out their functions. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise to give strong support to the amendment. Perhaps I may illustrate the point in a slightly different way. As I am not currently on the Front Bench I draw attention to my own local authority, to which I referred during Second Reading. In Sutton we have 46 Liberal Democrat, five Labour and five Conservative councillors. We have restructured the council to separate the executive and scrutiny functions. We have a 10-member cabinet, although we prefer to call it a strategy committee. Eight of its members are Liberal Democrats; one is Labour and one is Conservative. That is done with all-party agreement. That model and the Government's alternatives were put out to public consultation last summer. The Local Government Association told us that we received what was, at least at that stage, the largest public response that anyone had had. Eighty per cent of the public who responded supported our model, which has been working very well since September. At present we allow substitutes. However, if the Bill is passed, and the regulations are implemented, we shall not be able to do so.
If one of the eight members of the majority party is not present, of course he is missed; he makes a valuable contribution. But it is not the end of the world; there will be seven others of us there. However, as we have decided to adopt an all-party model, supported by all parties and the public in our borough, if one of the opposition members is not present, the voice of the opposition is denied to us.
In Committee, the Minister's reply was clear: we want to separate the executive and scrutiny functions. I understand that. In this amendment, we are providing for someone to attend and to speak—in the instance I cite, to give the opposition view—but not to have a vote. In other words, he does not share directly in the decision of the executive. It may happen occasionally that the voice he gives may not be entirely
420
supportive of the majority of the executive. But we believe that it is an important function. Unless deputies or substitutes are allowed to attend and speak, under our model—and I am sure Sutton is not the only place where it occurs—we shall, in effect, deny the opposition party the right to put its view while the cabinet, the executive, considers what it wishes to do.
The opposition party will have later opportunities. It will be able to raise the issue in full council when all 56 of us can have a grand debate. That is not the same. The role that the opposition plays in the executive is valuable. The model has been in place since September, and it works well. We have met fortnightly; it will be every three weeks. Inevitably, there will be times when one of the opposition members cannot attend. Indeed, one member from the Labour Party is working hard to become a member of the assembly; and I am sure working hard for the official Labour candidate. Very occasionally, for some strange reason, he sees that as a higher priority than attending the fortnightly executive meeting. I am sure he will learn the error of his ways soon enough. However, if the Bill were enacted now, the Labour Party would be denied the voice which at Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, assured me it would continue to have for as long as it wished.
I hope that the Minister will see the good intent underlying the amendment and will either accept it or assure us that, once the Bill is enacted and the regulations in place, appointed substitutes will still be able to attend and speak at meetings of the executive, although they will not have a vote.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I begin with the issue relating to the role of Ministers on the Government Front Bench. Although there may have been occasions when the combination of noble Lords' interests in this Bill and on potential aspects of the Learning and Skills Bill led to a degree of repetition, as a member of the executive neither the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, nor I were able to go away leaving noble Lords speaking at length on specific matters while Members from the Back Benches sat on the Front Bench. That is the difference. As members of the executive, we have the pleasure of sitting on the Front Bench and hearing all the points of view put forward by noble Lords, sometimes with repetition to add emphasis to their point of view.
Amendment No. 26, dealing with deputising or substituting, is in conflict with our view about the nature of the executive member and the overview and scrutiny committee role. We believe that the position should be clear. Whether the proposed deputy would have a vote, frankly, misses the point. We believe that the clear lines of responsibility are important in this context.
However, having said that, I must emphasise that we believe that it should not be seen as providing for a total separation in terms of the policy implemented by

421
the local authority. The executive will wish to take advice from other councillors and they will all come together to determine the policy of the authority. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, in giving his example, saw the scrutiny role always occurring after the event and there being no contact with the executive role. I suspect that with his many years' experience in local government, the noble Lord is well aware of the position taken by minority groups on key policy issues.
We believe that it is important to avoid the possibility of conflicts of interest. We do not see the scrutiny role as being subordinate but see it as being complementary. Therefore, we believe that people's clear view of where the executive decision and responsibility lie would be blurred and damaged by the process which the noble Baroness seeks to introduce in the amendment. I hope that she feels able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the logic of the position that the Minister has expounded—that scrutiny is not confined to being after the event—leads to asking why there is a need for an executive. The Minister seemed to be saying that the full council could do the job.
My noble friend illustrated very well the problems inherent in the restriction. We shall not convince the Government, but I hope that as time goes on and the difficulties become apparent it will be possible to find a way to allow the executives to work practically by adjusting regulations.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is open to the executive to invite anyone to speak at its meetings? The noble Lord, Lord Tope, were he to be unaware of the Conservative or Labour Party policy on any issue, would be able to invite someone to come along and speak, but he or she would not be a member.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am aware of that, but it is different from someone coming along to deputise for a particular member. However, I accept that we shall make no progress, as we would see it, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Joint exercise of functions]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 11, line 40, leave out (", is") and insert ("or a committee of the authority or specified member or members of the authority, is or are").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. They seek to explore and create flexibility in the functions exercised by joint committees between two different local authorities. I thank the Minister for his letter of 28th January in which he went into considerable detail in Annex F about the joint arrangements and how they might work.
While most of his letter was useful, Annex F raised a number of questions which it is necessary to clarify. Joint arrangements between a county and unitary councils or county and district councils are the only way such bodies can work together to create best value. That is crucial at county and district level, but it applies to small unitary authorities within large county areas because of the mish-mash of arrangements left after the local government review.
Annex F, with the joint arrangements outlined, made it clear that the Government have in mind an arrangement whereby a county council working with a district council will need to choose whether such a joint committee will exercise executive or non-executive functions. If it were to exercise executive decisions and functions, it should consist only of executive members and political balance would not be required. The difficulty with that first model is that there may be no members of the executive of the county council who are resident in that district's area.
Although the Government may not feel that that matters, it is quite clear that when we come to what I shall call "model 2", which is where the joint committee might exercise non-executive decisions, they specify that members must be from the electoral divisions or wards which are wholly or partly within the area in question. Therefore, they have recognised that it is important that in any joint committee local members who are elected to that part of the county are those who exercise their representational role. Therefore, even if executive decisions are being undertaken, it is not desirable that there should be such a clear division.
For an individual authority, a clear line can be drawn between executive and non-executive functions. A problem arises when we move to joint committees. I take as an example waste collection and disposal, which is perhaps the function that sits the worst, being divided between district and county. I believe that some of the time a joint committee will need to implement policy decisions, which I consider to be an executive function. Some of the time it will have to scrutinise how that is working. I believe that a joint committee could make vast progress in implementing ways of collecting waste that would lead to far less of it needing to be disposed of. After all, that is one area in which everyone struggles, both nationally and locally; that is, how to reduce the vast mountain of waste. That is the kind of area in which a joint committee could be very effective, and there are many others.
The Government have conceded that within an area committee—I refer now to an area committee which belongs to only one authority—there is no reason, as the Minister states in his Annex E, why the same area committee cannot discharge both the executive and non-executive functions delegated to it. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: could that same arrangement not apply to the joint arrangements between, say, county and district? I believe that in order for them to implement their functions in the best way and in the best interests of residents, they will need sometimes to be able to address both those areas.
I turn to the question as to whether the committees should be politically balanced. When one looks at two different local authorities, the government requirement that they should be politically balanced if they are to address non-executive decisions is very difficult. Let us suppose that the county council, which, after all, is elected in a different electoral cycle, is composed of almost entirely one party—for the sake of argument, Liberal Democrat. The district members who were elected two years previously might be virtually all Conservative or all Labour members. To achieve political balance, all the members from one authority will be from one party and all the members of another party will represent the second authority. First, I do not believe that that is a recipe for happy working. It would be better to have a party split by authority: perhaps the county members would consist of two Conservative, two Liberal Democrat and two Labour members, with the district similarly split. I do not believe that having sharp divisions will encourage joint arrangement working.
Further, I ask how much consultation has been carried out. That question came to the top of my mind when I finished reading Annex F and struggled with the difficulties in it about how partnership arrangements between counties and districts currently operate. How do the people who drafted the current arrangements and who, helpfully, have written Annex F come to their conclusions? Not many partnerships work successfully.
However, I believe that before the Government finally make up their mind as to what would be the correct model or models and how much flexibility is required, it would be most useful to go back to the councils which operate joint arrangements and explore exactly how they work and how they would or would not work if the current restrictive drafting, which our amendments seek to make more flexible, affected such partnership working. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, which these amendments seek to probe. However, I am afraid that on this matter we have a difference of opinion and are unable to accept the amendments.
The fundamental principle which underpins the proposals in Part II of the Bill is that of transparency and accountability. Local people and all others who have dealings with a local authority need and have a right to know who is responsible for the decisions which affect them.
A separate executive, and in particular a mayor, will ensure that there is clear accountability for executive functions. People will know who is responsible. It is important to stress that those changes apply only where the joint committee is to have executive functions. The kind of example given by the noble Baroness, where there is a non-executive functioning joint committee would not be affected by the changes.
424
The detailed arrangements for joint committees are, of course, matters for regulations under Clause 18, drafts of which we published in January to inform this debate and for wider consultation. We believe that joint arrangements in respect of executive functions should be joint arrangements between the executives of the two authorities in question.
To allow the council to determine that some executive functions must be delegated to a joint committee, possibly against the wishes of the executive, and to allow that committee to have members who are not members of the executive would cloud the principle of accountability which we seek to enhance and cut across the principles which underpin this legislation.
Our policy is that it should be for the executive to decide whether executive functions may be the subject of joint arrangements. It should be for the executive to decide the membership of any joint committee discharging those executive functions. The membership of such a joint committee should be drawn from the executive. That will ensure clear accountability and responsibility for executive functions.
There would, of course, be nothing to prevent an authority forming a joint committee with another authority on a non-executive function basis. There would be nothing to prevent them offering advice to the executive or to prevent them from co-opting other councillors onto such joint committees in an advisory capacity alone.
Perhaps it would help the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to recall that these matters are for regulations. We have published a draft of those regulations for consultation and we will consider carefully all the responses.
We accept that there are similar issues with area committees. However, our experience is that there is not normally extensive delegation of functions to area committees over and above functions which are local matters and do not have an impact beyond the area in question.
We believe that the powers in Clause 18 do not need amendment to enable provision with the effect the noble Baroness seeks. Our policy is not to make such provision. We feel, therefore, that the amendments are unnecessary.
I repeat and stress that such joint arrangements and provision will be effected only if there is executive function as part of the role of such committees. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she say whether the expenditure of a limited amount of money within policy guidelines is an executive or a non-executive function? Many joint committees make such decisions and it works; that is, action is taken involving small amounts of expenditure.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my consideration of this matter is that it depends on what

425
the money is spent. It may be helpful for me to write to the noble Baroness. If I were to await further inspiration from the depths of my memory, I might detain noble Lords for too long.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that this may be an example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, would put it, of thinking rather than considering.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and accept that much of what I referred to will be in draft regulations. However, I should like some reassurance from her that before the regulations become anything more than draft, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will check once again with places that are working successfully in partnership to ensure that the draft does not inhibit that working.
I am concerned that authorities will not be able to make executive decisions, particularly in the geographically large counties, save by perhaps shipping in executive members from the other end of the county, which may be 40 miles away. That is not joint working within a district. If the Minister can give me that reassurance—I know her department is keen for these partnerships to succeed—I shall feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I give the noble Baroness the assurance that we shall consider extremely carefully the points that she raised.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment, Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Overview and scrutiny committees]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 12, line 40, at end insert—
("() Unless the matter is certified by the authority's monitoring officer to be urgent, no decision by a local authority under its executive arrangements shall be implemented within less than five working days after the decision.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Clause 19, which deals with the overview and scrutiny committees, is much broader than the original version. It was fleshed out by the Government's amendment in Committee. It makes clear that the overview and scrutiny committees have a forward-looking role as well as one which looks backward. However, Clause 19 also provides that there is a right of call-in when a decision by the executive has not been implemented. By that I mean a right to require that a decision be reconsidered or considered in a different way. Clause 19(3) gives the committee those powers but says,
"to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented".
It is important that the executive of any authority, while it should be able to take and implement urgent decisions, should not be allowed to avoid the proper exercise of an overview and scrutiny committee by bulldozing through the implementation of its decisions. I therefore provided in the amendment that no decision taken by the authority under executive arrangements should be implemented within less than five working days after the decision, unless the matter is certified to be urgent by the authority's monitoring officer. I accept that there may be occasions when swift implementation is important. I think that is unlikely to be the general position, but it is right that an executive should not be able to avoid proper scrutiny and avoid proper use of powers by its own overview and scrutiny committee by rushing to implementation. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 is grouped with this amendment. It deals with a different aspect of a parallel problem and is more concerned with the rights and responsibilities of overview and scrutiny committees and members of those committees.
The amendment would mean that a member of a relevant overview and scrutiny committee could hold up a decision by a member of the executive or the executive itself, because it should be remembered that the executive has power to delegate to a committee of the executive or to an individual member of the executive.
It is a matter of regret that too often in local government we have seen authorities or members of authorities abuse their position, and improper procedures have been used for personal gain.
The situation that I envisage may be highly unlikely and ought never to happen—but it is our business to envisage unlikely events. It is where a member of the executive, under delegated authority from the executive, lets a contract outwith the normal approval procedures for personal gain. Under the existing remit of the Bill it would be possible for an individual member to do that. It is true that he would be supervised by officers, and one could assume that that is a sufficient safeguard, but it might not be sufficient to prevent impropriety. However, I have asked myself this. Suppose an observant member of an overview and scrutiny committee was on the ball. Should he not have the right to do something about the situation and prevent the problem from arising? I decided that he should have that right.
I am prepared to accept that the amendment may not be perfectly worded to meet the situation that I have suggested and that we would need to improve upon it, but the principle is a correct one. The overview and scrutiny committees should have power to call in a decision before it is implemented if necessary. This is not a power that would enable one member alone to do that because he would have to get a second opinion and go to the chairman of his committee. The chairman would have to agree that the case he was presenting for the decision to be called in was a proper

427
and appropriate one. That would provide a safeguard in a situation where personal angst or a personal grudge could prevent proper action.
Even if the Minister cannot agree to accept this amendment, I hope that she will at least consider its implications. Perhaps she will think about the question and bring forward a more appropriate solution. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are unable to support Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 because, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have acknowledged, both would delay the implementation of decisions by the executive. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would delay implementation by five days unless a decision was certified as urgent by the monitoring officer, presumably to allow the overview and scrutiny committee time to call in the decision. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would allow a member of an overview and scrutiny committee, with the support of the chair, to delay implementation of any decision until the committee had considered it.
We agree with noble Lords that it is important that members of the overview and scrutiny committees should be able to discuss any action by the executive. As amended in Committee, Clause 19 gives the overview and scrutiny committees power to call in executive decisions. However, we do not wish to be prescriptive about how this should work. It should be up to local choice. If we are to have more efficient decision-making, we do not want a situation where every decision could be blocked by a disgruntled minority for purely political reasons.
As noble Lords will recognise, in some cases urgency is vital; for example, instructing an officer to remove a child from a dangerous situation. This should not be delayed while the views of the monitoring officer are sought to confirm that it is a matter of urgency. At the other extreme, sometimes decisions taken by the executive will simply require officers to work out proposals for future policy consideration. Although it would rarely do any harm, it does not seem sensible that such decisions should always be subject to the five-day delay. We also believe that the monitoring officer, who has the power of providing advice on vires and maladministration, should not be given the task of determining the urgency of decisions; indeed, we believe that that would change his or her role.
However, I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have noticed that these amendments appear to reflect some of the suggestions that we have included in draft guidance. We suggested that only two councillors might be needed to ask an overview and scrutiny committee to look at a decision and that they have only five working days in which to do so in order to maintain effective and efficient decision-making. We also suggested that councils need to take a sensible view on which type of decision they allow to be called
428
in. I should stress that these were suggestions. We believe that the details should be a matter for local determination and choice and not prescribed in the Bill.
Therefore, although we understand and appreciate some of the points made, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendments in the light of the fact that local authorities may make their own judgments within the framework of guidance.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I may be doing the Minister and her department a disservice, but, when we are told that certain details must be a matter for "local choice", I begin to wonder whether they are the more difficult matters. I accept that the situation I outlined is not as broad ranging as one might need, but it is up to us to tackle the issues. The Minister says that these are matters for local choice. But how can that be? One has to look at existing constraints which will, presumably, translate into procedural standing orders, and so on. Something along the lines of what I proposed should be up there with the other provisions that will inform those standing orders.
The example the noble Baroness gave of a child being taken into care leaves me with more questions because it suggests that it will not be possible to delegate such decisions to officers. Is the noble Baroness saying that a decision such as that of taking a child into care would be led by an officer and that one has to wait for a meeting of the executive? I am not clear how that kind of decision lies vis-à-vis executive arrangements.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in the normal course of events it would quite clearly be a matter of judgment for a professional officer in a social services department. However, there could be exceptional circumstances in which a decision had to be taken because something was unforeseeably outwith the normal policy guidance and the normal terms of reference.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I understand that. It seems to me that the arrangements for an overview and scrutiny committee to intervene should take account of the need for an exceptionally urgent arrangement. My provision about a monitoring officer's involvement may not be correct, but I do not think that it is too far wrong either. Consideration on our part and on the part of practitioners of precisely how this will work in practice will be well worth undertaking.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it may be helpful if I give the noble Baroness an example without going into enough detail for anyone to be able to identify the individual concerned. Prior to the previous administration taking office and constraining the roles of chairs of committees, a chair of a committee could be approached as regards a particular policy which was generally opposed to that of the authority. I refer to the case of a child who was the subject of an adoption order where family violence and

429
tragedy were involved and where the only answer was for that child to be placed, at the authority's expense, in a privately funded boarding school along with the siblings of the family in which the child was to be placed for adoption. That is the kind of situation one envisages, not one where, for example, a social worker made a judgment to seek a place of safety order. I hope that that helps.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that example. I have not disputed that there are difficult situations and that the arrangements ought to be modelled to take account of them. I cannot take the matter further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority may discharge any functions imposed or permitted by the authority other than those functions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 19(4) provides that,
"An overview and scrutiny committee … may not discharge any functions other than its functions under this section".
That prompts the question: are the Government absolutely sure that they have Clause 19 completely correct? I assume that the Government are not quite sure about that at the moment because they have tabled an amendment to the clause. My Amendment No. 32 would reverse the position. It states:
"An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority may discharge any functions imposed or permitted by the authority other than those functions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations".
In other words, the Secretary of State can prevent overview and scrutiny committees undertaking certain activities but that is not as tight and inflexible a provision as a clause which states that primary legislation governs exactly what an overview and scrutiny committee can do and that it cannot do anything else at all.
Let me give an example of an area of council operations which may exercise some authorities under the new arrangements. The client/contractor split, with separate DSO committees, has been introduced in many local authorities. I believe that that issue is not covered in the draft guidelines. I assume that the executive will therefore have responsibility for both client and contractor. It may be that a local authority would want to replicate the current split and would find it convenient for the overview and scrutiny committee to take on the client role. It seems that that would not be allowed if we leave the clause as it is. As people become familiar with what can and cannot be done and with what is convenient under the new arrangements, there will be many more examples of that kind, and it might be useful for an overview and scrutiny committee to deal with them for the benefit of
430
an authority. Primary legislation which is too restrictive could adversely affect the working of the authority. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, overview and scrutiny can comprise a wide range of functions, but it would be wrong to alter the clause to allow overview and scrutiny committees to undertake functions which are clearly executive functions or functions which may not be mandatory for the executive in the legislation but which are, nevertheless, executive functions for example, licensing and so on. There may be some edges which need to be made clearer in the final guidance.
The issue that the noble Baroness raised in relation to the client/contractor arrangement was picked up in responses to the consultation and we shall consider the implications of that. But to move to allow the overview and scrutiny committees to take on, in the broadest sense, executive functions would not be appropriate. The committees are there to hold the executive to account for what it has done, for its plans and for how its statutory functions and other functions of the council are being discharged. It would blur the accountability were the overview and scrutiny committees themselves to carry out such functions. I wish to maintain that distinction, albeit that in operational terms "overview and function" could be quite broadly interpreted.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I admire the Minister's confidence that by the end of the legislative process the drafting will be perfect. I do not challenge the executive/scrutiny split he referred to in his reply. I was simply suggesting that prudence might indicate that a mechanism which allowed for some revision after a little experience would be a good thing. But one can go so far in trying to smooth the process and I have perhaps gone further than I should have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 13, line 6, at end insert—
("() Executive arrangements by a local authority must include provision which enables—

(a) any member of an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority to ensure that any matter which is relevant to the functions of the committee is included in the agenda for, and is discussed at, a meeting of the committee, and

(b) any member of a sub-committee of such a committee to ensure that any matter which is relevant to the functions of the sub-committee is included in the agenda for, and is discussed at, a meeting of the sub-committee.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33 I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. They all deal with the role of the overview and scrutiny committee. I hope that they take us a few steps towards perfection. I am not necessarily claiming that we are absolutely there if we adopt the amendments.
The House will recall that in Committee the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn tabled two amendments in regard to such committees and that we agreed we would take them away and look at them. I believe that we have addressed the bulk of the right reverend Prelate's concerns, although there may be some other areas of concern that he and other noble Lords may wish to raise.
Amendment No. 33 addresses a fundamental concern highlighted in the debate on those amendments. Overview and scrutiny committees are a key element of any new arrangements. They are there to ensure proper accountability. To ensure that the executive is held to account in a robust way, the committees should ensure that any committee member who has a particular concern about the way in which the executive functions are performed can have that issue discussed. It was for that reason the right reverend Prelate tabled an amendment to allow any committee member to have matters put onto the agenda and discussed by right. I believe that we have met that particular concern.
The remaining amendments in the group address one of the other concerns of the right reverend Prelate; one more broadly shared by all sides of the House: that is, the need to ensure that the vital role played by church representatives and parent governors in advising local authorities on education areas is protected. The Government greatly share the wish of the House to ensure that that contribution continues in future. That is why we wish to see church representatives and parent governors given a guaranteed role on overview and scrutiny committees dealing with education.
It was not felt that the amendments we brought forward in Committee adequately met those requirements. We have looked at the proposals brought forward by the right reverend Prelate and have agreed that more detail was needed. That is why Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 38 remove the previous subsections from Clause 19 and Amendment No. 86 replaces them in greater detail in Schedule 1—as it now is—to the Bill.
I hope our amendment meets those concerns. I believe there is one issue addressed by the right reverend Prelate's earlier amendment which we have not addressed. It is the issue of the Bill requiring that there must be an overview and scrutiny committee dealing solely with education. In fact, what we have done goes somewhat wider than that request. For each executive function, there is a duty for there to be at least one overview and scrutiny committee. Education will be the responsibility of the executive and will therefore have to be covered by at least one committee.
However, we did not intend to limit those committees to the traditional narrow silos of responsibility along the old departmental lines of housing, education and so on. We should expect councils to take a more imaginative, joined-up approach to the structure of the committees, as they would to the executive. For example, an overview and
432
scrutiny committee might well be set up to look at issues around lifelong learning or social wellbeing and in that context address issues relating to education. The Government would certainly want both church and parent governor representatives to be involved in such discussions. That is why we did not wish to restrict the committee remit unnecessarily.
Amendment No. 86 therefore guarantees the place, with voting rights, of church and parent governor representatives on overview and scrutiny committees which are examining education as part or all of their remit. I believe that that meets in a slightly different way the concerns expressed in Committee and ensures the important continuing strong presence of church and parent representatives at the centre of the council's policy development mechanisms. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 in the Minister's name answers the concern I raised in Committee about the ability of members of the overview and scrutiny committees to control their own agenda. The important power to place items on the agenda will strengthen the position of all members, in particular, those appointed to represent the Churches, faith communities and parent governors, who might otherwise—we must admit—be a little overwhelmed by the local political parties. Those powers will be necessary for the effective scrutiny of the executive actions. I warmly welcome the Government's response.
On behalf of the Churches I want to welcome the intention of Amendment No. 86 to set out in a schedule the process for appointing church representatives and representatives of the faith communities where they are providers of schools within the area of a local education authority to any overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee dealing with educational matters. I welcome also the force of paragraph 5 of the schedule in particular. In recent years, some local education authorities have questioned the right of church representatives to vote in committee on matters affecting the provision of church schools. This has been to prevent them from undertaking the very duty for which they were appointed. While church representatives on education committees are free to express themselves across the range of the educational work of the authority, they were appointed to represent the work of the Church as providers of schools in partnership with the local education authority and we have strongly challenged any attempt to limit their voting on grounds of interest. Paragraph 5 is therefore particularly welcome in that it clarifies the right of church representatives to vote on any education matter.
I come like Oliver Twist asking for a little more. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to express two remaining areas of concern with the amendment which I hope he will be willing to address as soon as reasonably possible. Although neither is of major importance, each would however ensure the smooth implementation of the Government's intentions in every local education authority. As seems

433
to have become my custom in recent days, in both cases I speak with the support of the chairman of the Catholic Education Service.
The first area of concern relates to paragraph 4 of the schedule and is a matter of language. The amendment before the House refers to,
"the persons NN ho appoint foundation governors for Church of England schools in the area",
and again in sub-paragraph (4)(b) to
"the persons who appoint foundation governors for Roman Catholic Church schools in the area"
This somewhat cumbersome form of words is that used in the Education Act 1944 and predates the legal establishment of diocesan boards of education in the Church of England in legislation in 1991, and the legal recognition of the powers in relation to Roman Catholic Church schools of the Roman Catholic diocesan bishop, in legislation in 1993. It would be particularly helpful if we could reflect this change. In practice it has always in the Church of England been the diocesan board of education that has nominated representatives to the local education authority concerned, although in fact a number of other bodies, parishes, deaneries and trustees do appoint foundation governors. A change of the language would avoid potential confusion, intentional or otherwise. Where there is more than one diocese covering the authority in question it would be up to the diocesan boards of education working together to agree among themselves, as they have in the past, which should make the nomination or, if they failed to agree, for the local education authority to appoint from among those nominated.
The other small outstanding area of concern relates to the Secretary of State's power under paragraph 6 of the amendment to give directions to a relevant English authority as to the appointment of church and other faith representatives to appropriate overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees. We can envisage potential circumstances of doubt or disagreement as local education authorities develop their flexible plans for crosscutting working and joined-up thinking as to which committees and subcommittees should receive church representatives. Where this doubt or disagreement affects representatives of other denominations and faiths, other than the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, the Secretary of State has power under this paragraph to settle disagreement and give appropriate directions. Such power, it seems to us, the Secretary of State would not have in relation to the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church representatives. We cannot believe that this was the intention of the Government and we would hope that this can be reconsidered and that the Secretary of State could be given the power under this schedule to deal with the representatives of the two major church providers of schools.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate said, he has written to me on both these points. On the second point it was not the intention of the drafting to achieve that outcome in relation to possible
434
areas of dispute, it was merely to differentiate between those who had schools in the area and those who did not. We are looking at that.
On the first point, I am in consultation with colleagues in the DfEE to ensure that the phraseology we are using reflects fully that of the latest Education Acts, but by so doing does not exclude any other persons appointing. Those two items are in train. I regret that I am actually not able to give the right reverend Prelate the final formulation, but the discussions among officials are still continuing. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves this House we will have resolved those matters.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13, line 9, at end insert—
("() An overview and scrutiny committee shall be chaired by a member elected by the committee.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the position of the chair, or even chairman, of the overview and scrutiny committee. I raised this issue at the previous stage of the Bill when I expressed my concern that in some old-fashioned authorities there might be a temptation on the part of the administration to put into the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee someone who could be relied on to make sure that things went okay for the executive. I would propose that the chair of the committee should be a member of the opposition, but in some authorities there is no opposition; there is a one party state. We cannot legislate for that situation.
At the previous stage the Minister said that this must be a matter for local decision. My proposal is that it should be for the committee to elect the chair. I recognise that that is by no means a watertight method of avoiding the situation that I described where a member of the administration in all but name is put into place, but it would ensure that, at any rate formally, the chair could not be imposed by the executive and by those who have the responsibility for running the authority, if I may so express it.
I have been searching for a better way of dealing with what in a handful of authorities could be a real issue. I am not convinced that this is the best way but it is the best I have been able to think of. It would be helpful if the Government could give some assurances as to how the system could not be rigged or abused. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am still not clear why the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wants to place this requirement on the face of the Bill. We leave it to councils to decide how chairs of committees should be selected and we do not see any case for acting differently here. We believe that the precise arrangements should be left to local choice. In our guidance we point out that councils might consider it appropriate to have some or all of these committees

435
chaired by people who are not members of the ruling group. As the noble Baroness said, in a small number of authorities there are no minority members. But they are a small group. We believe it is important for all executive functions to be scrutinised, but it is for councils to decide how that should be done.
The noble Baroness seeks an assurance that it would not be possible for people to "rig" support. A separation between executive and overview and scrutiny is precisely aimed at preventing that power bloc of dead decision-making being taken outside the processes of the authority. I hope that I have managed to convince the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I cannot say that I am convinced. I do not believe that simply designating someone as having an overview and scrutiny function will change the culture in an authority if that person is naturally sympathetic to those who have been his or her colleagues and who have run the authority in a way of which none of your Lordships would approve. It may change the culture over a long period; however, I do not think that it will address the situation in the early and medium term of the new arrangements being in place. It is a nice hope, but I do not believe that the title will change the culture. I am pretty clear in my own mind that some of those authorities that have brought local government generally into disrepute, or have reduced the reputation of local government, will find one of their number who will take up the position of chair of the overview and scrutiny committee and help his or her colleagues run the committee in a way that is as close as possible to the old arrangements.
I shall not pursue the matter now. However, I ask the Government to understand that this is a genuine concern on my part. Again, we are seeking to move in the same direction as the Government. We do not oppose what they are doing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 13, line 12, leave out ("subsection (9)") and insert ("any provision made by or under paragraphs 6 to 8 of Schedule 1").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 13, line 15, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert—
("This provision shall not apply to a committee or subcommittee of an area committee which includes a minority of members who do not carry out executive functions.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45. The amendments seek to place on the face of the Bill the fact that area committees, when exercising the appropriate overview and scrutiny function, which the Government helpfully said at the previous stage they might do, should not be subject to political balance requirements.
I fully accept the Government's position that area committees would be able to exercise this function. However, there would still be a requirement for councils to have an overarching scrutiny and overview committee that would ensure consistency throughout the authority. It is important to make it clear on the face of the Bill that area committees are exempted from political balance requirements, particularly in the light of the Minister's comment in his letter; namely, should an area committee happen to be politically balanced because that is how the electorate voted it in, it may discharge the overview and scrutiny function.
It would be a curious state of affairs if among, say, four area committees, one happened to reflect the exact political balance of the council and that committee could exercise the whole overview and scrutiny function whereas the other three could not. I appreciate that that is most unlikely to happen. However, our amendments would further clarify the situation. It is important to make sure that area committees are rightly able to scrutinise the delivery of local services and are not threatened with being unable to do so as a result of not being politically balanced.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point of concern on this subject regarding executive members. I have become more unclear as we have discussed the Bill as to exactly how an executive member will be able to represent the electorate at all. An executive member will not be able to be a member of the scrutiny and overview committee; and I gather that he or she will not be allowed to be a member of the area committee either. It seems to me that if the member is not able even to be a member of an area committee, it will be difficult for him or her to fulfil any kind of representational role, except in relation to purely regulatory functions. That may be the intention of the Government. However, 10 wards or divisions within a local authority area will effectively lose their representation altogether. In multi-member wards that is perhaps not so serious but in single member wards, which are quite common in my part of the country, the local electorate will begin to think that it is getting a very poor deal if the person it elects is not able to be a member of an area committee, where a good deal of the day-to-day business of the council takes place. In moving this amendment I look forward to the Minister's comments upon that difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government understand the thought behind these amendments. However, they do not address the matter effectively and we cannot accept them. We believe that every council should have at least one authority-wide

437
overview and scrutiny committee, as we made clear in draft guidance. Such committees should take a broad corporate view across the whole of the executive's decisions in developing and reviewing policy. There is nothing to stop a council from setting up area committees or fora—in some cases it would be very positive—to conduct reviews of policy and executive decisions, with particular emphasis on the impact on their areas. The recommendations could then feed into the wider review being conducted by the council-wide overview and scrutiny committee; or they could be sent directly to the executive or be fed into a full council debate on the particular policy area in question. We have encouraged that multifarious approach in the draft guidance, which makes clear that the Government recognise that in many authorities, area committees have an important role to play in bringing decision-making closer to the people. But in the end we believe that there must be a requirement for at least one authority-wide overview and scrutiny committee to take a corporate view and to avoid unnecessary and damaging turf wars between areas within the authority.
As far as concerns the role of executive members, we have indicated that nobody should scrutinise his or her own actions. Therefore, executive members cannot be members of overview and scrutiny committees but they can be members of area committees. They are also members of the full council. Therefore, in reply to the noble Baroness, there are at least two points at which they can fulfil the role of representing their constituents even within one-member wards. Area committees are also exempt from political balance, as is made clear in regulations. Those regulations will not change in relation to area committees once the new system is in place.
As to Amendment No. 37, it appears that the noble Baroness seeks to allow only area committees with a majority of members who carry out executive functions to discharge the overview and scrutiny function. That seems to us to cut across the fundamental principle that no councillor should scrutinise his or her own decisions. That is why members of the executive cannot be members of overview and scrutiny committees and why members of area committees, who discharge functions delegated by the executive, cannot in that context scrutinise their own decisions. The amendment of the noble Baroness would cut across that general principle.
However, I hope that the noble Baroness is not led to believe that the Government seek to restrict area committees from playing a real and important role in the development of policy and holding the executive to account. That does not mean that they need a specific power formally to discharge the overview and scrutiny functions. Therefore, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that not only are area committees a potentially important part of the new structure but also that executive members are not quite as constrained as the noble Baroness alleges.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, which goes a long way towards answering most of my worries. However, the last paragraph of Annex E of his letter to my noble friend Lady Hamwee clearly states:
"That is why members of the executive will not be allowed to be members of area committees".
I shall read carefully his reply in Hansard and, if necessary, return to the issue at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 13, line 42, leave out subsection (13).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Access to meetings and information etc.]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. Amendment No. 42 is the Government's proposed replacement for Clause 20 to which my amendments apply. Amendment No. 44, which stands in my name, is an amendment to government Amendment No. 42. The points in support of my amendments relate to Clause 20 as it stands at present, and are in opposition to the Government's amendment.
There are two issues in connection with openness and access to information: the openness, transparency and accountability of decisions of the executive, including meetings of the executive and extending to notice of decisions that are to be made and the papers relating to them; and decision making by individuals including elected mayors, and the framework for openness and advance notice.
Clause 20 does not seem to meet the requirements. It leaves access to information to be dealt with by regulations. They may maintain current levels of access. They may allow new executives to meet in private without prior notice of what will take place. Amendment No. 42 makes the situation worse. It spells out that executives can meet in private. It gives the power of decision on that to the executive, and not to the full council.
The access to information relates to records of decisions. There is no framework for agendas and papers to be made available in advance.
There is a provision for publication of information but only on decisions after the event in the case of the "strong mayor" model. There is a requirement that a written record has to be kept. But there is no longer any reference to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. I accept that the current Clause 20 could have allowed the Secretary of State to issue regulations bringing executives within the provisions of the Act. It is now clear that the Government do not intend to do so.
We on these Benches are extremely disappointed at the route the Government are taking on the issue. Other debates have expressed disappointment about

439
the tentative and unambitious nature of the Freedom of Information Bill. In this Bill, we are going backwards. The clause would mean losing prior information about decisions to be taken. That would affect non-executive members of the council, the media and the public. As we have stated in previous debates on this and other issues, the non-executive members of the council have an important role as a conduit to the public, and in expressing what the public would say were they in a position to do so.
It is sad, too, that we have the provision in the Bill so close to the new provisions on probity and ethics. Greater secrecy and more ad hoc decision-making will make it harder for the monitoring officer to regulate. It will make it harder for the overview and scrutiny committee to exercise its functions and it will be harder to scrutinise declarations of interest, the award of contracts, and the appointment of other bodies and so forth.
No doubt the Minister will defend his proposed new clause and will promote it. We shall hear the reasons why in a moment. If I can amend it and oppose it in advance, that is what I am doing. However, the procedure means that what I am doing is moving that the current Clause 20 is made subject to Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this stage, I am speaking primarily to my Amendment No. 42. In Committee, I promised that we would look at whether we needed to set out the key principles underpinning our policy for accountable decision-making. Amendment No. 42 replaces the previous Clause 20.
As I made clear in Committee, the Government's starting point is to be transparent and accountable The principles are that a council's policy development must be inclusive, allowing the local community to make its input. It ensures that local people know who the decision takers are; what the decision takers are planning to do; what they have done; and why they have done it. Our system is based on those provisions.
The new structure we are putting forward in its totality will provide both accountability and transparency and, to some extent, set out the provisions for meetings of the executive which need to be seen in the wider context. Those arrangements cover the inclusive process of formulating policy; the identification of individuals who are personally responsible for implementing the budget and its framework; the accurate recording of decisions and their timely publication together with background and factual papers which were made available to the decision makers; and the vital role of the overview and scrutiny committees, meeting in public, to discuss and make recommendations on the development of policy and to hold each executive member responsible for what he or she has done, or the executive as a whole has done.
This is a whole new structure of accountability and transparency and will open the door for wider engagement in the council process. The executive will
440
need to make clear from the outset what it plans to do; who on the executive takes particular decisions; and how it is intended to involve stakeholders and the community. There will be a continuous dialogue between members of the executive and the relevant overview and scrutiny committee. It is through that process that local people will discover the background as well as the individual decisions.
Amendment No. 42 puts those arrangements in place. It spells out the key elements of our policy. Coupled with Clause 19 on the role of the overview and scrutiny committees, it sets out the totality of the approach to transparency and accountability. An executive may choose whether or not to meet in public. Whichever decision it takes, it must ensure that proper records are taken and executive decisions, whether made by individuals or the executive as a whole, made publicly available together with all the background reasons and so forth. We intend by regulation to make failure to make or publish such records an offence. That arrangement would ensure that the executive is, in reality, not a small committee. It comprises several people, each with personal responsibility for delivering publicly aspects of the council's agreed policies. An executive will discuss such issues, but it will often be the individual who takes the final decision. Obviously, that will be the case particularly where there is a directly elected mayor.
If one applied the traditional access to information regime or made the executive in some way subject to that regime, as the noble Baroness's amendment attempts to do, that would fail to recognise the nature of the executive. Amendment No. 44 does not recognise that either. The amendment at least concedes that policy formulation needs to be carried out away from the public gaze, but it still does not recognise that the key role of the executive is to make and report those decisions. If other councillors are allowed simply to attend the meetings of the executive, that fails to recognise the reality of the executive as a group of accountable individuals. That risks sending back decision-making into entirely private, unaccountable and unrecorded meetings.
I believe that what we have provided more effectively meets the reality. Indeed, Amendment No. 43 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognises that the key is not whether meetings are in public or in private but whether they are accountable. That is the key point of our whole operation. His amendment seeks to extend the duty to record decisions to those meetings where the executive chooses to meet in public. It has always been our intention that, where the executive chooses to meet in public, it should be subject clearly to Part VA of the 1972 Act. They are public meetings of the full council and council committees and they include meetings of the executive. There is little value in allowing the public to attend a meeting if they are not told in advance the subject of the meeting. To that extent, I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I can confirm that it is our intention that Part VA

441
should apply to all meetings which are open to the public, subject to any necessary modifications of those provisions under the new structure.
I believe that our amendment puts the whole issue in the framework of enhanced accountability, whereas the noble Baroness's amendment attacks one particular aspect of the new provisions; namely, the issue of public or private meetings. As I said, I believe that the issue is not whether meetings are held in public or private; it concerns accountability. We believe that our provisions and the regulations that could flow from them will ensure accountability. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the benefit of noble Lords, because the amendments are grouped, it may be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, were now to speak to his amendment to Amendment No. 42.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, with the concurrence of the House, I am happy to deal with my particular amendment, which seeks to amend government Amendment No. 42. As the Minister has already said, my amendment seeks simply to ensure that where meetings are held in public, proper records are kept.
I found the wording of Amendment No. 42 to be somewhat different from the words that the Minister used in his description of the Government's intentions. I found the wording of the amendment quite curious. It refers to:
"Meetings of a … authority executive, or a committee of such an executive, are to be open to the public or held in private".
It goes on:
"Subject to regulations under subsection (9), it is for a local authority executive to decide which of its meetings, and which of the meetings of any committee of the executive, are to be open to the public",
etcetera. Fair enough. Then it says:
"A written record must be kept of prescribed decisions made at meetings of local authorities executives, or committees of such executives, which are held in private".
Immediately I wondered what on earth happens to the bulk of the business of the body which is held in public.
I think the Minister has given me an assurance, for which I am grateful, that the old rules would apply. However, the old rules do not appear to apply in the amendment, as drafted. However it may be that they do because I see in Section 10 a mention of the Local Government Act 1972.
I shall need to study this and take advice on what the Minister has said. If his assurance is correct and the position is covered, he will hear no more from me about the amendment. I shall be happy not to move it at this stage. However, we need to consider this carefully to ensure that the position is properly covered.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne-Domer: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my disappointment that after all the discussions through the Nolan Committee and the
442
Neill Committee, we now have on the face of the Bill the fact that the executive can meet in private. I accept the comments made by the Minister in Committee that if that were not the case such business would be conducted at group meetings, and so forth. However, surely it would be better at least to require the executive to meet in public, for a written record to be kept of group meetings and for whips to be declared.
This is not a step forward in openness, transparency and accountability, however often the Minister says it is; it is not. The effect will be that when a local authority has consulted the public, conducted its MORI polls and public opinion panels, the executive will be empowered to make policy decisions. However, the public will not know which decisions are being made. They will not be able to express any view to individuals of that executive before such decisions are made. Some of the people most disempowered by this provision are the minority groups which will probably not be picked up by MORI polls, public opinion panels and focus groups.
Earlier this evening we discussed equality of opportunity. Those with loud voices and word processors will not be too disadvantaged by this process. However, individuals with great interest in particular issues, or minority groups, will simply not know that quite often crucial decisions are being taken about which they can voice no opinion until after the event. They will be considerably disempowered.
Whichever way I see the amendment tabled by the Government I see it as a piece of disempowering legislation. I remain fundamentally disappointed that the Government have not gone the whole way and ensured that local authority meetings, whether executive, scrutiny committees, full council or whatever, should be held in public. As we move towards a new era of local government, I should have thought that would be the least we could expect.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I should make clear that in speaking to my amendment to that tabled by the Government, I stated that I opposed the government amendment as it stood. My amendment is a bit of "tweaking". Frankly, I would rather not see this clause in the form in which it is proposed.
This is a subject to which we must return. The Government are badly letting down local communities and local government. The reputation of local government will not be enhanced by allowing private decision making, which has done so much in the past to bring down the reputation of local government in the eyes of the public.
I return to Amendment No. 39 and with considerable reluctance—I doubt that there are enough people present to vote on the matter—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 42:
Leave out Clause 20 and insert the following new clause—
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ETC
(" .—(1) Meetings of a local authority executive, or a committee of such an executive, are to be open to the public or held in private.
(2) Subject to regulations under subsection (9), it is for a local authority executive to decide which of its meetings, and which of the meetings of any committee of the executive, are to be open to the public and which of those meetings are to be held in private.
(3) A written record must be kept of prescribed decisions made at meetings of local authorities executives, or committees of such executives, which are held in private.
(4) A written record must be kept of prescribed decisions made by individual members of local authority executives.
(5) Written records under subsection (3) or (4) must include reasons for the decisions to which they relate.
(6) Written records under subsections (3) and (4), together with such reports, background papers or other documents as may be prescribed, must be made available to members of the public in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may make provision for or in connection with preventing the whole or part of any record or document containing prescribed information from being made available to members of the public.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) with respect to the access of the public to meetings of joint committees, or sub-committees of such committees, at which decisions are made in connection with the discharge of functions which are the responsibility of executives (including provision enabling such meetings to be held in private),

(b) for or in connection with requiring written records to be kept of decisions made at meetings which by virtue of paragraph (a) are held in private,

(c) for or in connection with requiring written records falling within paragraph (b) to include reasons,

(d) for or in connection with requiring any such written records to be made available to members of the public,

(e) for or in connection with requiring documents connected with decisions to which any such written records relate to be made available to members of the public.

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) as to the circumstances in which the whole or part of the proceedings at meetings mentioned in subsection (2) are to be held in private,

(b) with respect to the information which is to be included in written records kept by virtue of this section.

(c) with respect to the reasons which are to be included in any such written records.

(d) with respect to the persons who are to produce, keep or make available any such written records.

(e) for or in connection with requiring any such written records to be made available to members of local authorities or to overview and scrutiny committees or sub-committees.

(f) for or in connection with requiring documents connected with decisions to which any such written records relate to be made available to members of local authorities or to overview and scrutiny committees or sub-committees,

(g) for or in connection with requiring information to be made available by electronic means.

(h) for or in connection with conferring rights on members of the public, members of local authorities or overview and scrutiny committees or sub-committees in relation to records or documents.

(i) for or in connection with the creation of offences in respect of any rights or requirements conferred or imposed by virtue of this section.

(10) In this section—
"joint committee" means a joint committee falling within section 101(5)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972,
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, as amendments to Amendment No. 42, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 42 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  WEU Membership
  WEU Membership
  Government Computer Network: Protection
  Government Computer Network: Protection
  Millennium Dome: Staffing
  Millennium Dome: Staffing
  New Millennium Experience Company: Payments to Designers
  New Millennium Experience Company: Payments to Designers
  New Millennium Experience Company: Overtime Payments
  New Millennium Experience Company: Overtime Payments
  New Millennium Experience Company: Termination Payments
  New Millennium Experience Company: Termination Payments
  New Millennium Experience Company/Koch Hightex Dispute
  New Millennium Experience Company/Koch Hightex Dispute
  Millennium Dome Displays: Life Expectancy
  Millennium Dome Displays: Life Expectancy
  Millennium Dome: Living Island Zone
  Millennium Dome: Living Island Zone
  Statutory Interpretation
  Statutory Interpretation
  New Millennium Experience Company: Appointment of M. Gerbeau
  New Millennium Experience Company: Appointment of M. Gerbeau
  10 Downing Street Website
  10 Downing Street Website
  Legislation: Compatibility with EU Law
  Legislation: Compatibility with EU Law
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Prison Accommodation
  Prison Accommodation
  HM Prison Armley
  HM Prison Armley
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Armed Forces Meat Supply
  Armed Forces Meat Supply
  Bowman Communication System
  Bowman Communication System
  Healthcare: Administrative Costs
  Healthcare: Administrative Costs
  State Pensions: Backlog
  State Pensions: Backlog
  Pig Offal Subsidy
  Pig Offal Subsidy
  British Beef: French Ban
  British Beef: French Ban
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  IACS Area Aid Applications
  IACS Area Aid Applications
  Epichlorohydrin
  Epichlorohydrin
  UNIDROIT Convention
  UNIDROIT Convention
  Khmer Sculptures
  Khmer Sculptures
  Constable Sketches: Theft Investigation
  Constable Sketches: Theft Investigation
  Museums: Security Arrangements
  Museums: Security Arrangements
  New Opportunities Fund and Non-maintained Special Schools
  New Opportunities Fund and Non-maintained Special Schools
  Football: Supporters Direct Scheme
  Football: Supporters Direct Scheme
  Women's Incomes
  Women's Incomes