Sitting of 12 January 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement on the decommissioning process in Northern Ireland. [103413]
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What progress he can report on decommissioning of weapons. [103415]
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will set out a timetable for the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [103417]
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will set out a timetable for the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [103419]
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: What discussions he has held with the Taoiseach on matters relating to the decommissioning of paramilitary arms. [103421]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): Decommissioning remains an essential part of securing full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland agree that decommissioning should begin as soon as possible. The report published on 10 December by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reaffirmed that, and noted that a timetable for voluntary decommissioning is best agreed with the authorised representatives of the paramilitary groups. I discussed that with the Taoiseach when I met him during the inaugural British-Irish Council meeting on 17 December. I look forward to receiving the commission's next report, later this month.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and the commitment that urgent decommissioning remains part of the Good Friday agreement; the murder of Richard Jameson is the most recent reminder of why decommissioning is essential. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the people of Northern Ireland that the British
    260
    Government's opinion is that any decommissioned arms should be destroyed, rather than dumped, and that, if destruction does not prove to be possible in the short term, any weapons that are dumped remain permanently secure?
    Mr. Mandelson: The people of Northern Ireland can remain assured that decommissioning remains absolutely central to the fulfilment of the Good Friday agreement. It is not possible to have progress on one part of the Good Friday agreement, but for another to be forgotten. If that were to happen, confidence would simply drain away from all that we have achieved in Northern Ireland.
    The methods of decommissioning are for General de Chastelain to determine, providing that the weapons are destroyed or made permanently inaccessible and that there is independent verification of the destruction or the putting beyond use that has occurred. I have great confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues to ensure that that process is properly verified.
    Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State must know that, across the United Kingdom, and beyond it, there is huge good will towards the peace process in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us what plans he has—either with the Taoiseach or with other parties in Northern Ireland—to ensure that the process that he has just described, under General de Chastelain, is not only seen to produce decommissioning, but has the community's confidence that that is really happening, and happening now? In that way people will see progress made in every month until May, rather than three months of tension before the final agreed date.
    Mr. Mandelson: We can generously understand the reluctance of people in the republican movement to decommission except in the context of an overall settlement. However, that settlement has now been put in place: we have the Good Friday agreement, and that condition has been fulfilled. Therefore, we may reasonably expect, as the people of Northern Ireland do, that decommissioning should now start apace, so that it can be completed within the one timetable—the one deadline—that has been established under the Good Friday agreement, which is May 2000. However, for that deadline to be met, a start must be made. All of us—every party that has signed up to the statement, and the belief that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process—will want and expect that start to be made very soon.
    Mr. O'Brien: I have listened very carefully to the Minister's replies on decommissioning. Does he agree that, in the absence of early and urgent decommissioning, in a free and civilised society, it is wrong to have Ministers of Health and Education who continue to be inextricably linked with a fully armed terrorist organisation?
    Mr. Mandelson: No, I do not. If one were to believe that that is wrong, one would question the very basis of the peace that has been struck, the ceasefires that have been maintained, and the normalisation of politics that has been returned, at long last, to Northern Ireland.
    I do not think that we should take for granted exactly what has been achieved. On most bread and butter issues in Northern Ireland, we now have, for the first time in

    261
    25 years, power back in the hands of Northern Ireland politicians. We also now have an Executive in Northern Ireland who are representative of the whole community in Northern Ireland: there are no longer any outsiders in Northern Ireland politics, which is to be welcomed. Moreover, politics in Northern Ireland are no longer dominated by the age-old constitutional quarrel that has bedevilled them for so long.
    Obviously, for those conditions to be fulfilled and for the institutions to be sustained, we need progress on every part of the Good Friday agreement, and that means early decommissioning. That is what I hope and assume will now take place; otherwise, many people in Northern Ireland will feel cheated because one side has not fulfilled its side of the bargain.
    Mr. Waterson: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that nobody is keener on peace in Northern Ireland than my constituents, who saw my predecessor, Ian Gow, murdered? However, they have seen hundreds of terrorists released and ministerial portfolios given to those with clear terrorist links. When can they expect something tangible in return?
    Mr. Mandelson: We have already seen significant progress on decommissioning. The establishment of the political institutions in Northern Ireland has created a new context in which decommissioning can and should occur. For the first time, all the main paramilitaries have appointed representatives to General de Chastelain's decommissioning body. In December, the general and his colleagues reported that those and other events
    "provide the basis for an assessment that decommissioning will occur".
    Further discussions are continuing, and General de Chastelain will report again this month. I hope and assume that he will be reporting further progress.
    Dr. Godman: With reference to my question concerning the Taoiseach, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that there is broad agreement between the two Governments concerning the need for decommissioning to take place on or before the May deadline. In light of the impressive developments that have taken place—to which my right hon. Friend has referred—does he agree that the time has come for the leader of the Ulster Unionist party to give the most serious consideration to a rethinking of his February deadline? If he were to do that, those impressive developments would surely take strong and healthy root in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mandelson: It is not unreasonable for the process to be put on some sort of probation while progress is made on the implementation of all parts of the Good Friday agreement. Let us be under no illusions: the implementation of the agreement depends on trust being built by all sides and on all sides. It requires reciprocal confidence-building measures, so that everyone can be assured that every part of the agreement is being properly implemented. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the Ulster Unionist party has the expectation—which is shared by the British Government, the Irish Government,
    262
    the American Government and all the other political parties in Northern Ireland—that an early start is made on decommissioning.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State as concerned as I am that intelligence reports give no indication that Sinn Fein-IRA is preparing for decommissioning within the time scale that we all expect? Does he agree that we cannot go on trying to purchase disarmament by increments? Will he assure us that the ethos of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be neither diminished nor distorted in order to flatter Sinn Fein-IRA into a process of decommissioning to which it already assented during the Mitchell review?
    Mr. Mandelson: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman makes the link between decommissioning and the Patten report. I will do nothing that undermines the ethos or the organisational cohesion of the RUC and whatever police service flows from our implementation of the Patten report; nor will I tolerate any action that impugns the integrity or the professionalism of the police in Northern Ireland. Equally, the police themselves recognise that a fresh start is needed in policing in Northern Ireland so that it is effective and embraced by both communities. Therefore, in implementing the Patten report, we will be mindful of those things, and I will make clear the Government's decisions on its implementation in due course.
    Mr. John Hume: Will the Secretary of State point out to all the people who continually ask negative questions about decommissioning that they are being most unconstructive and ignoring all the positive things that have happened, with peace restored to our streets? They do not seem to have noticed that the main political parties, the official Unionists, my party and Sinn Fein are all totally committed to the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, which includes the full implementation of decommissioning, demilitarisation and disarmament. We must take the positive view, as all the negativism is only in danger of stirring up trouble.
    Mr. Mandelson: How nice it is to see the hon. Gentleman back among us, restored to good health. He is absolutely right: we should give credit for the political progress that has been made. It is easy for some to underestimate the sheer enormity of what has been achieved in Northern Ireland following the breakthrough made at the end of the Mitchell review.
    Of course there is no room for complacency, but the fact is that the age-old argument over constitutional issues that has dogged Northern Ireland's politics for so long and resulted in its local politicians being shut out of government for more than a quarter of a century has been ended, and I hope for all time. The issues are now agreed and settled on the basis of consent. That is a major breakthrough and we must do everything that we can to cherish and protect it, whatever pressure it comes under.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I very much hope that decommissioning will work, but will the Secretary of State confirm that it is inconceivable for Sinn Fein Ministers to remain in office if it does not take place?
    Mr. Mandelson: I can only repeat what I said to the House before: if there is a report from General de

    263
    Chastelain and his colleagues that there is a default on the part of any party signed up to the process—just as would be the case if one of the other parties defaulted in relation to devolution—the Government will take action to suspend the operation of the institutions, as I do not believe that it is right for any party to profit from a default. The whole process would then go back into review and we would do everything that we could to get it back on track as quickly as possible.

    Restorative Justice
    Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on the development of restorative justice schemes. [103414]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingrain): The experience in many jurisdictions is that restorative justice has a role to play in making offenders more aware of the consequences of their actions, facilitating reparation to victims and allowing reconciliation between offender and victim or between victim and the wider community. It is extremely important that the rights and interests of both victim and offender are protected. Such schemes must be complementary to the criminal justice system, not an alternative to it. Investigation of crime is the responsibility of the police and the determination of guilt or innocence solely the responsibility of the courts.
    Kali Mountford: Does my right hon. Friend believe that there are lessons to be learned from the experience of restorative justice for the rest of the United Kingdom? I welcome what he said about the complementary nature of restorative justice: it would not be good for it to take the place of the due process of law. Will he comment on what an important part it plays in returning to a normal social environment and leaving behind the horror of the past?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree with all those points. If we are able to get schemes in operation in addition to those that we are already piloting in Northern Ireland and to draw on international as well as British experience, that would further normalisation in Northern Ireland, which I am sure that everyone would welcome.
    Mr. David Trimble: Does the Minister agree that some of the restorative justice schemes that are operating in Northern Ireland could be accurately described as alternative justice schemes? Does he also agree that those schemes are operating wholly outside the legal system and involve significant abuse of the rights of the people who are caught up within them? Will he give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced to ensure that the only restorative justice schemes that operate are those that have a clear legal basis, are integrated into the legal system, fully respect the rights of those involved and comply wholly with the letter and the spirit of the European convention on human rights?
    Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman has hit on an important aspect of some of the developments that are taking place outwith the normal process of the rule of law which ignore that important right of everyone—offenders and victims—to the protection of his human rights. Some
    264
    schemes clearly do not conform to what is desirable, do not recognise the police and, indeed, may not even recognise the due process of law. Such schemes do not fall within the ambit of restorative justice but of a different type of civil administration and are, therefore, unacceptable. A review of the criminal justice system is due to be completed shortly and we will report in due course to the House.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, and whether we like it or not, a perceived vacuum in policing is being replaced by paramilitary actions and their distinctive brand of restorative justice. How long does the Minister think it will be before that paramilitary action is replaced by the rule of law?
    Mr. Ingram: It is not just down to those who administer the rule of law—the police, the Government or the criminal justice system—it is also down to the community to recognise the primacy of the rule of law and to co-operate with those schemes that have been defined and conform to the fundamental principles that I enunciated in an earlier answer. [Interruption.] I would hope that that could be achieved immediately, but we will continue to work to remove that unsatisfactory and unwelcome aspect of society in Northern Ireland.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if conversations were a little less noisy. It is difficult for Back Benchers and Ministers to be heard. [Interruption.] Order. I am asking for conversations to be less noisy. I can hear what hon. Members are saying, but I want to hear what they say when they are on their feet.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    But does not the Minister think that the many victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland are unlikely to have much confidence in restorative justice when they see what they believe to be clear commitments in the Belfast agreement being altered? How can anybody have any confidence when weapons that were meant to be handed in and destroyed will now be made permanently inaccessible in secret arms dumps that will be known to the terrorists? No weapons will be handed in or destroyed, so they will still be accessible.
    Mr. Ingram: Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the earlier reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We listened to the hon. Gentleman's question and he should have listened to the reply that was given on the point that he has raised. That issue is a matter for the independent commission under John de Chastelain to verify. It has to provide security on the decommissioning of weapons and we have placed our faith in it. I had understood that the hon. Gentleman's party had done so also.
    Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): Does the Minister appreciate that many people in Northern Ireland feel that the principles of restorative justice would

    265
    be more firmly founded if those officers of the RUC who issued death threats to Rosemary Nelson were prosecuted and if there was an international inquiry into her murder?
    Mr. Ingram: I should have thought that it was much more important that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice and that support was given to those who are investigating that crime in order to bring those responsible for such a terrible deed before the courts. I understand the way in which my hon. Friend has framed his question, but he has gone slightly wider than the subject of restorative justice schemes. I am happy to discuss with him further the detail of our attempts to ensure that proper restorative justice schemes are applied in Northern Ireland.

    Security
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the current security position. [103416]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Over recent months, there has been a marked decrease in the overall number of security-related incidents, and the main paramilitary groups are maintaining their ceasefires. There remains, however, a threat from dissident paramilitaries on both sides who are opposed to the Good Friday agreement.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Although I wish the Government well in their complex and difficult endeavours, is not it a matter of real concern that the killings and beatings appear to be continuing, as we saw only yesterday? Do the Government have clear evidence that the incidence of killings and beatings is being reduced? Will the Minister remind all the parties involved that a sound and stable peace will depend on them all abandoning the Mafia-type violence that has been in evidence for so long?
    Mr. Ingram: I am sure that the whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of that violence. Earlier, I said that there has been a marked decline in the number of such incidents, but even one is one too many. The solution does not lie only with the RUC, the criminal justice process or even with the politicians. The overall society in Northern Ireland must stand up and condemn such actions, give evidence about them and bear witness to them.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that the prospect for maintaining and improving the current security situation would be greatly enhanced by the early introduction of the Patten report? The report's proposals would make the police service more efficient and, most importantly, would allow it to attract greater cross-community support. Will the Minister enlarge slightly on the answer given by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) as to when the relevant legislation will be introduced? Will he assure the House that the Patten report will be implemented in full, and that there will not be cherry-picking to suit the positions of political parties?
    Mr. Ingram: The Patten report examines new ways to deal with policing in Northern Ireland, and the importance
    266
    of that was recognised in the Good Friday agreement. The report is in the public domain and there has been a long consultation period on its contents. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, he will address the House on the matter in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that the murder of Richard Jameson this week illustrates very clearly that the terrorist threat is ever present? Will he therefore give the House a guarantee that there will be no reduction in armed forces levels, or any other security changes, unless the Chief Constable and the Army's General Officer Commanding believe that any such change would be safe?
    Mr. Ingram: First, it would be proper to sympathise with the family of the victim of that tragic incident. As for the on-going development of the peace process, we hope that no more such crimes—ones that groups devoted to terrorism, paramilitarism or some political process seek to justify—are committed.
    As to the future, assurances have been given time and again that reductions in levels of security will be threat-dependent. Decisions in that regard will be made according to the best available advice.
    Mr. MacKay: I wish to return to the deeply regrettable murder of Richard Jameson. If the Chief Constable informs the Minister that the Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible, it will be clear that that group is no longer observing the ceasefire. In those circumstances, will the Minister guarantee that no more prisoners belonging to that organisation will be released from jail?
    Mr. Ingram: As we have advised the House time and again, the whole question of prisoner releases is kept under constant review. That would apply in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous confidence that exists in the work that he has done for demilitarisation in Northern Ireland? The reduction of British troop numbers, the closure of vehicle checkpoints and the opening of the border can only help to improve confidence in the security situation there. Should not my right hon. Friend make greater use of what has been achieved in that regard to encourage people to think positively about decommissioning, as the British Government are carrying out what they said that they would do? Would it not be better to talk about the Government's positive achievements in Northern Ireland than to indulge in the nit-picking approach displayed by the Opposition, who appear to want to set back the whole peace process?
    Mr. Ingram: The very principle underlying the points made by my hon. Friend were of course set out in the Good Friday agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published shortly before Christmas a paper setting out the way forward for the normalisation of the security profile, which it says is dependent upon the level of threat. Any further security reductions,

    267
    which have been considerable over the past year and a half, will be dependent on the best security advice available at that time and in the future.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I am sure that the Government and the Minister will join me in condemning the tragic murder of Richard Jameson in Portadown. Given that last year the Government determined that the IRA ceasefire was intact following its murder of Charles Bennett, what confidence can we have that the Government will apply standards that can be upheld in determining whether a ceasefire has been breached in respect of the murder of Mr. Jameson? Can we have any confidence that the Government will act in those situations to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has been very vocal in his opposition to early releases, but a court assessment has found in favour of the Secretary of State's judgment in terms of the quality of the ceasefire of that particular terrorist group. We continue to monitor the actions of those who are so engaged; judgments are made, and we have shown that we will act resolutely and firmly, based on the evidence that is provided to us on the best security advice available.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Heppell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families of the seven fishermen who are missing at sea off the Isle of Man. Our profound sympathy is with them all.
    Mr. Heppell: May I say what an honour it is to ask the first question of the millennium? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I only hope that it is not the last.
    Is the Prime Minister aware of the reports of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and of Saatchi and Saatchi showing that after two decades of Tory Government, we had the worst poverty record in the developed world? But my right hon. Friend will be reassured to know from the Saatchi and Saatchi report that at least the Tories were embarrassed about it. Under this Government, 170,000 jobs have been created under the new deal. In my constituency, youth unemployment has been reduced by 75 per cent. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Leader of the Opposition to be embarrassed about the lack of support
    268
    for measures that directly tackle poverty? Or is the Tory party now so extreme as to be incapable of embarrassment?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister will select from that question the section which relates to his responsibilities.
    The Prime Minister: Delighted to do so, Madam Speaker. The new deal has meant that 170,000 young people have gone from the dole into work, into unsubsidised jobs. There are tens of thousands more.
    Mr. John Bercow: Rubbish.
    The Prime Minister: It is a pity that the Conservative party opposed the new deal, but it always has opposed measures that reduce unemployment and help people who are poor. I met some of these young people yesterday. For the first time in their lives, they have some hope, confidence and prospects for the future. I hope, just for once, that the Conservative party will stand up for unemployed people.
    Mr. William Hague: First, may I associate the Opposition entirely and sincerely with the Prime Minister's remarks about the missing fishermen?
    Turning to the Government's responsibilities, when the World Health Organisation says that this country's preparations for a flu outbreak have been among the worst in Europe, when people have had their cancer operations cancelled for the fourth time, and when families of relatives who have died say that they are angry with the Government for saying that the national health service is coping, does the right hon. Gentleman stand by the remarks of the Secretary of State for Health—that the NHS is coping well?
    The Prime Minister: Let me read out what the chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr. Ian Bogle, has said:
    "All parts of the health service have been put under pressure, but doctors and nurses are coping well, from GP services to intensive care. Thanks to the high level of planning across the country, we are coping."
    As the right hon. Gentleman has opportunistically sought to make capital from this matter, let me point out that half the patients currently in intensive care have illnesses related to flu. Some 600,000 people attended accident and emergency units during the Christmas period, a rise of 32 per cent. Accident and emergency admissions were up 13 per cent.
    I agree that there are real capacity constraints, and we need more doctors, nurses and intensive care beds. For precisely that reason, we are putting extra investment into the health service. I said that the right hon. Gentleman was being opportunistic because he has opposed that investment.
    Mr. Hague: Why does not the Prime Minister wake up and recognise that the system is not coping for some people? That is the fault not of hard working doctors and nurses, but of a Government and of Ministers who did not prepare for the winter. Why did the Prime Minister not

    269
    listen last night to the daughter of a woman whose operation had been cancelled for the fourth time? On the news, she said:
    "I think it is about time Tony Blair started to realise the reality that NHS hospitals are facing on a day to day basis. The Government is trying to cover it up by saying that hospitals are coping, but they are obviously not."
    The situation has been made worse by the Prime Minister's broken promises and by his political distortion of clinical priorities. He has become another Labour Prime Minister saying, "Crisis? What crisis?" If the NHS is coping well, will he give us the statistics for which we asked a month ago? How many people are waiting to see a hospital consultant, and how does that compare with the figure when the Government came to power?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has attacked the waiting list pledge, as a result of which we have reduced in-patient waiting lists by 80,000. I have outlined previously what has happened on out-patients, but more are being treated than ever before. I do not for a moment dispute that the pressures on the health service as a result of the flu outbreak have been serious. Half our intensive care beds are occupied by people with illnesses related to the flu.
    I also accept that there are genuine capacity constraints, and that we need to build capacity. Let me once again tell the right hon. Gentleman the facts about what we are doing. Since our campaign to bring more nurses into the health service, 2,600 nurses and midwives have returned to employment. A further 2,500 nurses and midwives are undergoing practice courses to return. As a result of the increase in pay that we gave to starter nurses last year, there has been a 24 per cent. increase in the number taking degree courses this year. Applications for midwifery training have risen by 50 per cent. Four hundred more cancer specialists and 400 more cardiac specialists are in training.
    All those things take time—three years to train a nurse and seven for a doctor. It takes years to build hospitals. The difference between the Government and our predecessor is that we recognise the constraints in the health service and are tackling them. Our job is to modernise and improve the NHS, while the right hon. Gentleman's proposals involve privatising a large part of it.
    Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister have the courage to give the information that I have requested? We had the first question of the millennium from the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell); can we have the first answer from the Prime Minister? Some 248,000 people were waiting to see a consultant when he came to power, and there are 512,000 now—VIPs and ordinary people, as his friend Lord Falconer would probably put it. The only thing that has risen faster under the Government is the cost of political advisers. Does that not tell us all that we need to know about a Government more interested in style than in substance, in making promises than in delivering on them, in blaming others than in taking responsibility— and more interested in spin doctors than in real doctors?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that not a single fact of what I said did the right hon. Gentleman dispute. While we are being lectured by the Opposition, let us not forget that, under the previous, Tory Government— [Interruption.] Let me give them the figures: 40,000 beds
    270
    had been cut, when we came to office; nurses in training had been cut; and spending as a percentage of national income had also been cut.
    I have done some research on the right hon. Gentleman's time as Secretary of State for Wales—this is the man who lectures us. In his time as Welsh Secretary, he cut the number of doctors; he cut the number of hospital beds; and he cut the number of nurses, midwives and health visitors.
    As for "real" doctors, the extra doctors in training are real, the extra nurses in the health service are real, the extra £21 billion is real. Let us never forget that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is to make sure that everyone with a non-urgent operation has to take out private health insurance. That is not the answer to the health service. Yes, there are problems, but the choice is between modernising and rebuilding the health service under us, or privatising it under the Tories.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Is it not important that we consider the experience of other countries which are suffering from the same flu epidemic? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States of America, which spends twice as much on health as we do, but in a largely private health system such as the Opposition are proposing, is struggling, as are we and other European countries? That is despite the fact that, in the States, up to a third of the beds in many hospitals are normally vacant. They still cannot cope with the extra cases. Is that not a lesson for us as regards the foolhardiness of Tory policies?
    The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we shall not implement them. If I might expand on the remarks of my hon. Friend, there were reports in The New York Times, during the past two days—[Interruption.] I was going to read them out in response to further questions from the Leader of the Opposition, but I never got any. In The New York Times, for example, it was reported that the wave of flu has become widespread, overwhelming emergency rooms, filling hospital beds, and forcing postponement of operations. In many overcrowded rooms, people are simply leaving without being treated. In Ireland, hospitals in Dublin and around the country were forced again to cancel almost all routine surgery and procedures. In Sweden, all the intensive care facilities are full; some non-urgent operations have been cancelled and closed-down wards are having to be reopened. Elsewhere—in Italy, Norway, Germany, France and Switzerland—there are huge problems as a result of the flu outbreak.
    Having said all that, let me return to the point: we accept that there are fundamental capacity constraints in the national health service; we are working to tackle them. However, the way to tackle them is not what is being urged on us by the Opposition, who say that private health care will take the strain. It simply will not. The only alternative is to get money and reform, over time, into the national health service—and that we will do.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: As the Prime Minister does like to keep his promises, does he not have to admit that his promise to save the NHS is, in the depths of the current crisis, looking very threadbare indeed? As he is recommending—correctly—more money for the NHS,

    271
    will he make it his priority not to go ahead with another Tory-style tax cut in April, but to give that money to the health service instead?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman needs to co-ordinate his remarks with those of his economic spokesman, who attacks us for putting up the tax burden. Let us get it straight; either we decide that we shall put in the extra investment or we do not—it has to be paid for. We are putting in extra investment. We said that there would be two tight years, and there were, because we needed to sort out the financial deficit. This year is the first year of substantially increased funding. Next year will be the same. The year after that will be the same. If we carry on running a stable economy, we shall get the extra resources for a good three years after that. Already, next year, the proportion of national income spent on the health service is to rise to more than 6 per cent. for the first time. I accept that, meanwhile, there are people suffering and not getting the care that they need in parts of the health service, but it must be done stage by stage, over time, in a way that is consistent with the proper running of an economy.
    Mr. Kennedy: Going back to the issue of promises, may I ask the Prime Minister about another matter—his promise to pursue an ethical foreign policy? Does he support the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary in opposing the resumption of the sale of arms to Pakistan until democratic guarantees are in place, or is he going to support the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, which appear willing to put profits before conscience?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's question is based on a misunderstanding since, as far as I am aware, there is no dispute between Government Departments. The same rules will apply as apply to any arms sales, but as far as I am aware, there are no proposed sales taking place.
    Mr. James Wray: I know that it is outwith the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, but I should like him to assure the House that there will be a fair and just decision regarding the entry to Britain by Michael Tyson. I am appalled by the way that the four candidates for London mayor have used Mike Tyson as a political whipping-boy, and I am concerned regarding the economic effect that it will have on hoteliers and the service industry in Manchester.
    The Prime Minister: Anyone would be ill advised to use him as a whipping-boy. I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in boxing, but the matter is being dealt with by the immigration service, and it must deal with it according to its rules, in the normal way. That is the proper thing to do—to play it by the book.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The Home Secretary has described the English as very aggressive and violent. Does the Prime Minister agree?
    The Prime Minister: That is a complete misconstruction of what the Home Secretary said. I say this as one very peaceful English person to another— [Interruption.] Well, I was born in Scotland but brought
    272
    up in England—I am delighted to say—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with the Home Secretary that the last thing that we want is a resurgence of English nationalism. I am British, and proud to be British.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Prime Minister's Government has, since May 1997, dealt with many of the bad policies that we inherited from 18 years of Tory rule. Will he look at an issue that is causing housing problems in many parts of the country—the fact that we treat VAT on new build totally differently from VAT on improvements and repairs to our housing stock? Is it not time that we had parity, to enable us to deal with our housing in a better way?
    The Prime Minister: I think I should treat that as an early Budget submission and leave it to the good offices of the Chancellor.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Sussex the bodies of my constituents are being transported around the county, from overflowing hospital mortuaries, in vans that are normally used to transport rubbish to the local tip? Is he aware that the only reason we have any empty intensive care beds is the lack of staff to attend to them; or that at Worthing hospital, where we already have some of the longest waiting times in the entire country, all elective surgery has been cancelled, affecting particularly harshly my many elderly residents?
    Will the Prime Minister now apologise to my constituents and to all the NHS staff who have been caused great distress and suffering? Will he apologise, rather than continuing to con them with these soundbites about the NHS never having been better than under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: What I said was that there were real problems in the national health service, and that we were tackling them. For example, there are 100 more critical care beds, which include intensive care beds, this year than last. In all parts of the country we are trying to bring in more doctors and more nurses, but as the hon. Gentleman's constituents would know, it takes time to train doctors and nurses and we are tackling these problems.
    Mr. Loughton: How much longer?
    The Prime Minister: It will take time, but the hon. Gentleman should remember, when he is talking about waiting lists, that waiting lists are now 80,000 below the level that we inherited from the Government whom he supported.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, child poverty trebled under the previous Government. Is he also aware that the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that, within two years, 800,000 children will be lifted out of poverty as a result of this Government's initiatives? However, the Child Poverty Action Group warns that more may still need to be done to abolish child poverty altogether within

    273
    20 years. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ministers are aware of these findings and work together closely to achieve the target that he has set?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased that the Child Poverty Action Group has indicated that our policies will indeed lift children out of poverty. That helps to correct some of the reports published recently that were mainly based on statistics up to the time we came to office. As a result of the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the increased child benefit, we will lift a very substantial number of children out of poverty. That is only the first step. The other thing is to make sure that we carry on the new deal, so that we carry on giving work, hope and opportunity to young people.
    It is appalling, but true, that every single one of those policies was opposed by the Conservative party. Indeed, last week, it made it clear that it was opposed to the minimum wage. People will go into the next election knowing, if the Tories win, that if they have a minimum wage, it will be taken away from them; if they have the working families tax credit, it will be taken away from them; the extra child benefit will be taken away from them and the new deal will be scrapped. Only someone with the misjudgment of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) could have that as his election programme.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what Blairism is?
    The Prime Minister: It had its first outing on 1 May 1997 and resulted in an election victory and a majority of 179.
    Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend recall a year ago the constant dire warnings from Conservative Members of the adverse effects of the introduction of the national minimum wage? Job losses and worse were predicted. Will he now confirm that independent reports have indicated that the national minimum wage has given 2 million people increases in their pay packets, and there has been an increase in employment of 130,000? Indeed, in Luton, we have seen a drop in youth unemployment of 67 per cent. and large employers, such as Whitbread, have thoroughly welcomed the minimum wage and say that it was introduced well and without any adverse effects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all that suggests that the verbiage from Conservative Members on the minimum wage is about as reliable as their verbiage on tax?
    The Prime Minister: Employment is up by more than 700,000 since the election and long-term unemployment has halved. That is an excellent result. My hon. Friend is quite right. The minimum wage has not had any of the adverse impacts that were proclaimed by the Conservative party. The truth is that Conservative Members opposed it
    274
    because it was an act of fairness. What they do not understand is that, in a modern economy and modern society, fairness and prosperity go together.
    Mr. William Hague: On Monday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said of a particular promise that the right hon. Gentleman had made:
    "The commitment he has made … still stands."
    That was about the Prime Minister's promise to hold a referendum on proportional representation in this Parliament. So when are we having the referendum?
    The Prime Minister: As I explained the last time the right hon. Gentleman asked me about this, as a result of the Jenkins report it is not possible to have a referendum on that particular proposal prior to the election. However, our commitment still stands and the debate goes on.
    Mr. Hague: It was a very simple question, and the Prime Minister said earlier that he had the answers to my further questions. Before the last election, he said:
    "We have made it clear all the way through that we are committed to a referendum and we are committed to it as part of our programme for the next Parliament".
    The Government's annual report says that item 130, which is a referendum on voting systems, is "on course." When will that happen? As the Prime Minister has now consulted the whole Labour party on that matter, will he tell us what the result was?
    The Prime Minister: We said that we would have a commission, which has looked into the matter and reported. We shall of course abide by the commitments that we have made.
    Mr. Hague: Has the Prime Minister seen the Home Secretary's comments? I shall have to turn to another page of my notes for them, but they are well worth waiting for. He said that the results of Labour's grassroots consultation exercise on the voting system, which showed a five-to-one majority against change,
    "pretty accurately reflects the mood throughout the party towards PR".
    Does the Prime Minister agree with that, and if so, why does he not now get on and hold the referendum so that the Conservative party and the Labour party can campaign together against this whole crazy idea?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly looking for the issues on which he can unite with others. As for the Home Secretary's comments, I find them extremely interesting. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] That is a compliment.
    As for the Leader of the Opposition's strictures on the Labour party, I shall offer him some advice. I would bother less about the Labour party than about the party that he is leading. It is not surprising that he wants to give me advice about the Labour party when the biggest queue is the one to get people out of the Conservative party. I think that he realises that, in future, although he will no

    275
    doubt look for all sorts of cross-party issues, he should look to managing his party before he seeks to manage mine.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): Further to the earlier exchanges on the NHS, would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff at the Conquest hospital in Hastings, who, faced with a doubling of emergency admissions over the past three weeks, have achieved the outcome that no one in need has been turned away? In welcoming the significant increase in funding that has made that possible, will he treat with contempt the whingeing by the Tories, who ran down the NHS when they were in power and whose big idea now is more about offering privatisation than encouragement to the staff who are working so hard?
    The Prime Minister: It is absolutely right to say that as a result of extra investment the NHS will get better— I am delighted that that is happening in Hastings—but there is still a long way to go. Hospitals, particularly in some inner-city areas, are still coping with enormous pressures, and we must relieve them.
    My hon. Friend is also right to say that the key issue is the distinction between the policy that we have and the Conservatives' policy. I shall again quote the Conservative health spokesman, who said of the Tories' plans:
    "What we are proposing will revolutionise private health care. What we are starting is perhaps a Trojan horse because with the patients guarantee, most of them haven't thought through the implications of what we are doing."
    We have thought them through. They mean that anyone facing one of a number of non-urgent operations, including cataracts, hernias, and hip replacements, will be forced to take out private health insurance. It is impossible to do that, and the Tories go down that path because of their tax guarantee. They say that they will cut taxes in
    276
    any set of circumstances. That is the biggest example of their lurch to the right and is part of the new extremism of the Conservative party. Hon. Members should not take my word for that; they should take the word of certain Tory Members. Their tax guarantee means that the Tories know that they cannot pledge to spend more on the health service.
    I say again that, for all the difficulties in the health service that we are working on, the choice is clear— modernise it or privatise it.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given his professed commitment to freedom of information and the fact that there is no reference in the legislation or the regulations to any such power, how does the Prime Minister justify the Government's decision to prevent local parents from seeing the list of feeder school ballot petitioners in Ripon?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know the answer to the detailed question, but I am perfectly prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him it. The real difference between the system now and the one before is that, previously, local authorities could decide to close these schools, but now the decision is left to parents by ballot. I may say that no such school has been closed.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: The Prime Minister earlier referred to people suffering. He must be aware that there are many today shivering in misery, with despair deep in their bones, who feel that they have no future and who turn their faces sadly to the wall. Can he offer balm of Gilead or some soothing words to the Conservative party?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I made a new year's resolution to be much nicer to my colleagues, but I will not allow the Prime Minister to respond to that question.

Senator Pinochet
3.31 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances of his decisions in respect of General Pinochet.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The current position is as follows: Senator Pinochet was arrested in London on 16 October 1998, pursuant to a warrant issued by the fifth central magistrates court in Madrid, and he has been held since that date on bail.
On 14 April 1999, following the second judgment of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords the previous month, I issued a second authority to proceed in respect of offences of torture and conspiracy to torture alleged to have been committed by Senator Pinochet after December 1988. On 16 May last year, Senator Pinochet's solicitors applied for permission for a judicial review of my decision. The state of Senator Pinochet's health was not among the grounds advanced by his legal representatives.
At the hearing on 27 May 1999, the application for permission for judicial review against me was dismissed. The extradition hearing took place between 27 and 30 September at the Bow Street magistrates court. On 8 October, the Bow Street magistrates committed Senator Pinochet on all charges to await my decision on surrender.
Reports about Senator Pinochet's medical condition were taken into account by me in taking both decisions on the authorities to proceed, but at those stages I had no reason to doubt his fitness to stand trial. Since the authority-to-proceed stages, Senator Pinochet has not made direct representations to me about his medical condition. However, on 14 October last year, representations were submitted by the Chilean embassy, attaching recent medical reports on Senator Pinochet. They suggested that there had been a recent and significant deterioration in his medical condition.
I have a clear legal duty to operate the Extradition Act 1989 in full. In the light of the information from the Chilean embassy, that duty included involving myself in and informing myself fully of the true facts about Senator Pinochet's health. I therefore asked him to undergo a thorough and extensive medical examination, to be undertaken by an independent team of clinicians. Senator Pinochet gave his consent. He was entitled to the usual patient confidentiality, and he has chosen to exercise that right. He did however agree to the disclosure of the report to me and to the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities.
On the advice of the Government's chief medical officer, I appointed a team of clinicians of outstanding national and international reputation. Its members were Sir John Grimley Evans, professor of clinical geratology of the university of Oxford; Dr. Michael Denham, consultant physician in geriatric medicine at Northwick Park hospital; Andrew Lees, professor of neurology at the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery in London; and Maria Wyke, a consultant neuropsychologist. It was established that none of them had any inappropriate personal interest in the case. Their medical examination of the senator took place on
278
5 January this year. My officials received the team's report late on 6 January. I considered it with advice over last weekend.
The unequivocal and unanimous conclusion of the three medical practitioners and the consultant neuropsychologist was that, following a recent deterioration in the state of Senator Pinochet's health, which seems to have occurred principally during September and October 1999, he is at present unfit to stand trial, and that no change to that position can be expected. I have therefore told Senator Pinochet's legal representatives that, subject to any representations that I may receive, I am minded to take the view that no purpose would be served by continuing the present extradition proceedings.
I have written formally to the Crown Prosecution Service as representative of the kingdom of Spain, to the Government of Chile, as well as to France, Belgium and Switzerland, each of these three countries having outstanding extradition requests before us. Letters have also gone to a number of human rights organisations, inviting them to submit any further representations that they consider that I should take into account, and to do so within the next seven days.
Throughout these proceedings, I have not been able to make any oral statement to the House because of my quasi-judicial role in respect of extradition matters and because of the sub judice rules of the House. I have always made it clear that I would make a full oral statement when the matter has finally been resolved, which of course I shall do. Meanwhile, I must maintain an open mind on this matter, including the representations that I may receive. I hope that the House will understand that until the matter is finally concluded, what I can say is bound heavily to be circumscribed.
Miss Widdecombe: Although I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, may I draw his attention to the widespread concern, which is shared on both sides of the House, that we had to learn of this important decision from the press late last night, and not from a statement from himself to the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it was necessary for us to learn of these matters from the press, bearing in mind that it was not through any leak but rather through a formal Home Office statement, which could surely have been made by a Minister to the House?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at all stages throughout these proceedings he has had the discretion to take the medical condition of Senator Pinochet into account? Will he tell us when a magistrate first commented that Senator Pinochet was unable to attend court? Will he explain why, at that stage, he did not commission the sort of report which he has now, at the final stages, commissioned?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the cost of this entire business has been? He must realise that there has been an immense expenditure of public money, of time and of effort—there has been anxiety on all sides of the argument—in a situation that will result in the end in the senator probably being returned to Chile, which could have happened at a much earlier stage had the right hon. Gentleman had the decisiveness to approach the issue properly? Will he accept that from the start this matter has been handled in a bungling and incompetent way, and

279
that at the end of it no one is satisfied? Spain is not satisfied, Chile is not satisfied, and the British people have been put through an awful lot of expense for no result whatsoever.
I shall be interested to hear from the Secretary of State exactly what this seven days means. [HON. MEMBERS: "A week."] It probably does not mean a week. Will he confirm that, if a legal challenge is mounted in the next seven days, the proceedings could go on well beyond the week in question, and that Senator Pinochet could continue to be held in this country for some time to come? When the Home Secretary talks about seven days, he is not giving the real position.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how on earth he has managed to come to a series of such conflicting decisions in so many cases recently? He arrested Senator Pinochet when the senator was in bed recovering from an operation; by contrast, he let a suspected Nazi war criminal walk out of this country even before the police investigation had been completed. Furthermore, even when he had the clearest possible admissions, he took no action in respect of cold war spies. Does he have any grip on his Department? Does he have any consistency? Does he have any logic? Is not he dealing with this matter in the most shameful way for a man of his high office?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady asked me a series of questions, and, subject to what I said in my statement, I shall do my best to respond to each of them. On the issue of the statement last night, as I have already explained, because these matters are still under consideration by me in my quasi-judicial role and because of the sub judice rules of the House, it has not been the practice—nor, I suggest, could it have been—in these extradition proceedings or in any other for there to be a sequence of oral statements to the House about the decisions that have been made. That has been accepted by the House and has been the practice of previous Home Secretaries and Home Office Ministers for very good and understandable reasons.
From a personal point of view, that has been frustrating, because I have always been ready to come to the House to make oral statements whenever the need has arisen. I would have preferred to do so in this case.
A major distinction should be drawn between the decisions for which a Home Secretary is responsible in other areas and those for which he is responsible in a quasi-judicial capacity. It is inevitable in this process that the parties to extradition proceedings must be informed of decisions before Parliament, and therefore the public, can be informed. We had to inform the parties last night. It was my hope and intention that a proper written statement, which would also have been reported to the House as a written statement, could have been made this morning. Not because of any direct action by the Home Office, but because it emerged late last night that the news of my decision in this case—that I was minded to complete these extradition proceedings—was about to be made public, I deemed it appropriate to issue the statement last night. Otherwise, there would have been considerable confusion about the matter.
The right hon. Lady asked whether, at all stages, I had a discretion to take the senator's medical condition into account. At all stages I have been under a duty to take all circumstances into account in respect of the senator, including his medical condition and any representations that have been made to me about it.
280
A full estimate of the cost of the extradition proceedings cannot be made until the matter is finally at an end. There are currently legal proceedings still before the High Court.
I am surprised that the right hon. Lady did not properly appreciate the fact that we are signatories to a number of conventions on extradition, including the European convention on extradition. It was her Government who passed the Extradition Act 1989, which imposes the clearest possible duties on any Secretary of State, on the Government and on other law enforcement authorities in respect of extradition requests from states. It is to her great discredit that she suggested that it was I who ordered Senator Pinochet's arrest; that is not the case.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked what "seven days" meant. "Seven days" means seven days during which I am able to consider representations. The outcome remains to be seen, because although initial and final decisions about authority to proceed are made by the Secretary of State, the extradition process is also subject to legal proceedings. That is the nature of the process in this country, and it cannot be changed in respect of any individual application.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not significant that, in all that barrage of questions, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) expressed no concern for the victims of the terror of Pinochet during his years in office, when he was ready to deny justice to thousands? Because of that, we must be a model of justice in this respect—as, indeed, I believe my right hon. Friend has been.
Does my right hon. Friend's statement imply that he believes Senator Pinochet has a veto over who receives copies of his medical report? Surely representations can only properly be made by the interested organisations if they have full sight of the report. The interests of justice will be met not by a self-serving disclosure to only the Home Secretary and the Crown Prosecution Service, but by disclosure to all groups with an interest in the case, including countries that have sought the extradition, and bodies such as Amnesty International which have intervened. If they are to make proper representations, they must have the full medical facts.
Mr. Straw: In this case, as in all other extradition cases, I have sought to follow the rule of law and to make decisions as fairly and carefully as possible. I have followed the same procedure in respect of the medical report as I have in respect of other extradition applications. I was advised that, at this stage of the proceedings, the question of to whom the report could be submitted—other than me, and the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities—was a matter for Senator Pinochet.
As for representations by other interested parties, I am bound—not least by section 12 of the 1989 Act, but also by a wider discretion—to take into account all representations made to me. That applies both to representations relating directly to the senator's medical condition—I have before me a full, thorough and independent medical report—and to representations relating to other matters.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I entirely appreciate the Home Secretary's

281
quasi-judicial position, but will he tell us on what legal basis—the 1989 Act, or common law—his prospective decision will be made, if he proceeds as he has suggested that he will? Also, will the decision that Senator Pinochet may be unfit to stand trial be based on evidence that not just the Crown Prosecution Service, as the prosecution authority, but the Spanish Government, as the authority requesting extradition, should be entitled to see? It was the Chilean Government, with the assent of General Pinochet, who asked for the medical matters to be taken into consideration.
Without going into more detail, can the Home Secretary tell us whether it is a question of the senator's mental or physical health? Can he tell us specifically whether the test of unfitness to stand trial that applies in this country is the test that would apply in Chile if the senator returned there? In any event, can he confirm that, whatever his final decision, it will not alter the decision of the courts last year that heads of state are not immune from either prosecution or extradition if they have committed offences such as those of which General Pinochet has been alleged to be guilty, and on the basis of which the extradition has been sought?
Mr. Straw: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first and last questions, I and any other Secretary of State have to take decisions in extradition matters on the legal basis of the Extradition Act 1989, the extradition conventions to which we are party in so far as they are regarded as forming part of our domestic law and the weight of judicial authority, including last year's decision by the Appellate Committee of the other place in respect of the applications.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about fitness to stand trial, it is a decision for me and has to be so, given the stage that has been reached in the extradition proceedings. Among the criteria that I took into account were whether the senator would be in a position to follow the proceedings, to give intelligible instructions to those representing him and to give a coherent statement of his case, and of recollection.
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I vehemently support the careful and, indeed, impeccable way in which the Home Secretary has gone about the matter, but, in a personal capacity—not as chairman of the all-party Latin America group—may I say that many people in the continent of South America, many of whom have cause to loathe Senator Pinochet and what he stands for, will nevertheless think, rightly or wrongly, that the decision should be made not in Madrid, not in London, but in Santiago? Will the Home Secretary take that into consideration?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the way in which I have dealt with the matter. I hope that I can continue to work in that way until it reaches a conclusion. As for his other points, of course I note what he says.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my appreciation that the Home Secretary did eventually sanction the medical examination of Senator Pinochet? He will be aware that I represented to him on
282
24 and 26 November my concern about the senator's health. In his consideration of the representations that will be made, will he bear in mind at all times the interests of the people of Chile? Is it not true that Chile is now a democracy in every sense of the word? It is conducting an impeccable presidential election campaign. Have not the Chilean people and the Government whom the newly elected president will have the honour of leading the right to put the matter behind them and to look to the future with hope and every confidence?
Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I note what he says about sanctioning the medical examination. I was aware, of course, of his interest in the matter. I did ensure, as did my officials, that we proceeded as speedily as possible in the complicated process of identifying and assembling a team of independent expert clinicians and then getting them together to make the examination.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have set out— for example, on 15 April 1999 in the Official Report of the House of Commons—the considerations that I took into account when I issued my second authority to proceed.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I offer what limited support I can to what has fallen from the Home Secretary. Those of us who made common cause with him at protests and vigils immediately after the murder of Allende and the nightmare that followed in Chile know that he personally has nothing to prove to himself, to the House or to the international community when it comes to expressing opposition to that regime, but will he reflect on what has been achieved as a result of what he has done and the steps that he has taken in the past 15 months? That odious man has effectively been tried in an English court—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I shall deal with Conservative Members' comments in a moment.
The man's crimes, and the infamy that he has committed, have been revealed in that court, and that court has found in the clearest possible terms that, in respect of those crimes, he has the clearest possible case to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] The court has found as a matter of law—
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to ask his question now. Other hon. Members are seeking to ask questions, and a full statement follows this one. May I have a question now for the Home Secretary?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My Lord—[Laughter.] Madam Speaker, my question is this: does the Home Secretary believe that the case has revealed a very dark side to Conservative Members? Does he agree that, although there are honourable exceptions among them, the case has emphasised the fact that hon. Members sit on two sides in the House?
Mr. Straw: My hon. and learned Friend and the House will forgive me if, in the light of my comments on my quasi-judicial role, I do not follow him.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Although I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming the fact that the Home Secretary now feels minded to bring this

283
unfortunate fiasco to a conclusion, will he confirm that the matter could drag on for months, and that that sick man could be detained in the United Kingdom for many weeks and months? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of how long the process is likely to continue?
Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), is it not true that every political party in Chile has said that they should be entitled to resolve the matter, and that the matter should not be usurped by the British Government, the British Parliament or the British courts?
Is it not bizarre that the Government seek reconciliation between white and black in South Africa, and Jew and Arab in the middle east, and even invite us to sit down with republican terrorists in Northern Ireland, but deny the people of Chile the right to reconcile their differences there?
Mr. Straw: For the reason that I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I shall not respond directly to the hon. Gentleman's comments—if he will forgive me—except to say that, on the issue of the time scale, I have not only endeavoured to secure but have secured a situation in which, after receiving the original reports from the Chilean embassy, I acted as quickly as I could consistent with fairness and care in the case. I shall continue to do that, as I recognise that Senator Pinochet and his representatives would be anxious to secure a conclusion to the matter as quickly as possible.
I have to take fully into account all representations that I may receive. In this type of decision, I am subject to review by the courts, and I cannot anticipate whether that will occur.
Mr. Tony Benn: When the Home Secretary comes to reach his decision, will he consider this aspect? Last year, Britain fought two wars against brutal dictators; many innocent people died, and it was justified on humanitarian grounds. Now, we have someone before us charged with the brutal torture of people, but, apparently, the Home Secretary is minded to release him on humanitarian grounds. Is it not a fact that, whatever judicial considerations have to enter his mind, it is a political decision? If he takes it in such a way as to release that man, it will undermine the ethical foreign policy and the argument that law should be the basis of international relations, and also throw some doubt on his long-held view on applying the fast-track principle of justice when offenders come to light.
Mr. Straw: While it is perfectly possible for people to make representations to me on humanitarian grounds, in this particular circumstance I have come to my preliminary conclusion—that the senator should not be extradited to the kingdom of Spain—on the narrower grounds of his unfitness to stand trial on the basis of the medical evidence that I have received, which is different. Where representations are made to me on wider grounds, I will consider them fully before coming to my final decision.
I must part company from my right hon. Friend when it comes to his assertion that these decisions are political decisions. They are not easy decisions, but I believe that
284
successive holders of my office have sought to exercise the responsibilities placed on them by this House in a quasi-judicial way and to weigh up the facts of each of these and similar cases and the legal duties upon them. That is precisely what I have sought to do in this case.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are aware that, from time to time, this country has had to welcome the leaders of Governments who have been responsible for genocide, terrorism and killings in their own country. However, that is not the point that I wish to make.
Bearing in mind that the medical experts appointed by the Home Secretary have found unanimously that the life senator General Pinochet is not fit to face trial, why has the right hon. Gentleman delayed taking a decision— subject, of course, to the decisions of the courts of law in this country—that it is his recommendation that Senator Pinochet be allowed to return home to Chile, where if the people of Chile wish to judge him, it is their duty and responsibility to do so and not that of this country or of Spain?
Mr. Straw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is hard to lay the charge of delay against me. The medical report was undertaken on 5 January, and it was received by my officials late last Thursday, 6 January. I received the report on 8 January, when it was in my weekend box. I considered it, and made decisions on the matter over the weekend. My preliminary decisions were communicated to the senator's representatives and the other interested parties yesterday. The process has taken, altogether, five days. I do not think that it is appropriate to categorise that as delay.
If the hon. Gentleman is asking me why I have made a preliminary decision and not a final one, it is on the basis of clear advice that I have received, not least because there are other parties to the proceedings who are bound to be entitled to make representations to me before I reach a final decision.
Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind that the law in Chile is such that it is most unlikely that Pinochet will be tried for crimes against humanity, despite what was said earlier, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the following question. Is there not a danger that the wrong kind of message will go out to every mass murderer and torturer around the world, including Saddam Hussein, that the time will come when they, too, having lost power, will not be brought to justice? If Pinochet could be brought to justice in Spain, would not that be the different type of the lesson that we want all those mass murderers and torturers to learn—that there is no escaping from their crimes?
Mr. Straw: I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, but I hope the message that goes out is that this country is one which follows the rule of law.
Sir Norman Fowler: Does not the Home Secretary feel that the public interest would have been better served had he returned General Pinochet to be dealt with by the democratically elected Government of Chile? Is it the Home Secretary's case that General

285
Pinochet's medical condition deteriorated as a result of his detention; or is it possible that he was never medically fit to stand trial at any stage?
Mr. Straw: I took into account the consideration that the right hon. Gentleman invites me to take into account, and that was made clear in the decisions that I set out in full in the Official Report on 15 April 1999; but, judging the matter as a whole, I came to the view that it was right to issue the second authority to proceed, and that decision was acknowledged to be within my authority to make when the divisional court of the High Court decided not to entertain an application for a judicial review of that decision made by Senator Pinochet's solicitors.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the nature of Senator Pinochet's deterioration. As I said in the statement, the unanimous and unequivocal conclusion of the three medical practitioners and the consultant neuropsychologist was that there had been a recent deterioration in the state of Senator Pinochet's health, which seems to have occurred principally during September and October 1999.
Mr. Robin Corbett: May I, too, commend the sensitive manner in which my right hon. Friend has dealt with this complicated matter? Did he hear the Chilean ambassador on the "Today" programme this morning, suggesting that, if he were returned, Senator Pinochet could well face prosecution in Chile? Will he bear that in mind when weighing the medical evidence that he now has against the assertion by the diplomat that Senator Pinochet may recover in the next few days or weeks?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about the way in which I have conducted this matter.
286
On the Chilean ambassador's remarks, the question whether the Senator is fit to stand trial has to be considered on the basis of the evidence before me and in accordance with the law of this country, not that of Chile.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: For most of the past 15 or so months, General Pinochet has been kept in Surrey. The security, housing, policing and other costs must be enormous. How much is being spent, and who will pay? The ratepayers and council tax payers of one county would be being treated very unfairly if the bill fell on their shoulders alone. If Surrey is to pay, will the Home Secretary ensure that it is suitably compensated?
Mr. Straw: As I explained in answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), it is not possible to give a final assessment of the cost until the proceedings have been concluded. I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman with as much information as I can. It has also always been open to all hon. Members to table parliamentary questions for written answer about the current, up-to-date costs, and that can continue to be done.
As for the costs falling on the Surrey constabulary, it is open to any police service to make an application to the Secretary of State if it feels that it has borne a special cost beyond the normal contingencies that police services have to bear; those are considered sympathetically—that will be done by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and myself— and are sometimes accepted and sometimes not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Home Secretary. We shall now take the statement.

Armed Forces (ECHR)
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the outcome of our review of the implications of a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights as it affects the armed forces.
The House will recall that, on 27 September 1999, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in a case brought by four ex-service personnel of the United Kingdom armed forces who had each been discharged on the grounds of their homosexuality. My predecessor issued a statement at the time making it clear that the Government accepted the judgment of the court— as British Governments have always complied with such rulings—and that we would be studying carefully the implications of the decision. He also announced that those cases already in the system—that is, personnel in the process of being discharged on grounds of homosexuality—would be put on hold.
In the light of the court's decisions, it was clear that the existing policy was not legally sustainable. We accordingly asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to set in hand an urgent review of policy in that area. That review has now been completed, and I am able to announce the outcome today.
Our starting point has been to develop a revised policy that preserves the operational effectiveness of our armed forces, respects the rights of the individual, and takes full account of the court ruling. The chiefs of staff accept the need to change the existing policy and have been fully involved in the process of developing a revised policy. I have discussed the subject with them on a number of occasions. They have endorsed the outcome of the review.
We have drawn on the experience of other countries— in particular, Australia—and have taken account of the last formal study of the subject in the United Kingdom, undertaken in 1995. Moreover, we have reflected the court's conclusion that legally we are obliged to adopt an approach that regards sexual orientation as essentially a private matter for the individual.
There is, of course, no doubt that the armed forces are a unique institution and occupy a unique place in our society. We expect a lot of them. They cannot choose the people they work and live with, often in difficult, cramped conditions and for sustained periods. Operational effectiveness depends on team cohesion and the maintenance of trust and loyalty. As a result, standards of behaviour are imposed on members of the armed forces that can be more demanding than those required by society at large. That is why we need a code of conduct to govern the attitude and approach to the personal relationships of those serving in the armed forces.
The code will apply across the forces, regardless of service, rank, gender or sexual orientation. It will provide a clear framework within which people in the services can live and work, and it will complement existing policies, such as zero tolerance towards harassment, discrimination and bullying. I emphasise that we are not tightening the rules on heterosexual relationships.
The code is not an abstract legal document full of rules and regulations. It has been developed by service experts who understand fully the operational needs and
288
day-to-day practicalities of the armed forces. Personal relationships do not ever lend themselves to precise prescription and the code recognises explicitly that
"It is not practicable to list every type of conduct that may constitute social misbehaviour".
Therefore, we have placed at the heart of the code what we call the service test, set out in the following terms:
"Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service?"
In using the code, commanding officers will have to apply the service test through the exercise of their good judgment, discretion and common sense—the essence of command and the effective management of people. I am arranging for copies of the code to be placed in the Library of the House.
The ECHR ruling makes it clear that the existing policy in relation to homosexuality must change. As all personal behaviour will be regulated by the code of conduct with the object of maintaining the operational effectiveness of the three services, there is no longer a reason to deny homosexuals the opportunity of a career in the armed forces. Accordingly, we have decided that it is right that the existing ban should be lifted. As no primary or secondary legislation is required, with effect from today, homosexuality will no longer be a bar to service in Britain's armed forces.
A range of briefing material is being issued to commanding officers to explain the code of conduct and to give them detailed guidance on how it should be implemented. That makes it clear that the chiefs of staff commend the principles of the new policy and are committed to ensuring that it works.
I recognise that there may be some concerns within the armed forces and elsewhere over this new policy, but I believe that the changes I have described offer the best way forward in terms of providing an approach that maintains operational effectiveness, is within the law, and recognises the rights of the individual.
Implementing the changes successfully will be a challenge for leadership at all levels in the armed forces, but such challenges are not new, and all three services will be equal to the task. With the commitment which is in place from the very highest levels of the chain of command, I am confident that our armed forces will adapt to the change in the professional manner for which they are rightly held in the very highest regard.
There will be those who would have preferred to continue to exclude homosexuals, but the law is the law. We cannot choose the decisions we implement. The status quo is simply not an option. The code centres on the paramount need to maintain the operational effectiveness of the armed forces. I have no doubt that it is the best way forward.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: First, I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me an early sight of his statement. I appreciate that courtesy and, given the nature of the subject, I am sure that the House will too.
The Secretary of State referred to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, and set out why the Government have decided to change existing policy. At the outset, may I say that I regret the nature of the ruling.

289
I have always believed—as did both the previous and present Governments—that we should follow the advice of the armed forces. That advice has always been that lifting the ban would adversely affect operational effectiveness.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to state that, because the armed forces have a special function and exist solely to protect our rights, a careful balance has always had to be struck. I regret that the court chose to dismiss the advice of the armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the matter has never been to do with prejudice, but with the operational effectiveness of our armed forces?
However, the fact is that the Government have decided to act on the ruling and to implement the change in policy by means of the code of conduct. As the Secretary of State said, they do so without having to introduce legislation or hold a debate. Today, we must focus simply on the code's practical implementation, in the hope that we can iron out what we perceive to be some of the major problems that may lie ahead.
The code is all about sexual behaviour, as the Secretary of State made clear. I agree with him that, in this context, the only way to write a code such as this is to make it as broad as possible and not to be specific. However, despite the guidance and advice in the statement, the matter boils down to a two-line service test, which in essence comprises only one sentence. How that test is operated will be critical. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore place the guidance and the advice to commanding officers in the Library of the House, so that hon. Members can see how he intends the code to operate in practice?
In addition, I believe that four questions must be answered if we are to understand how the code is to work, and whether it will change how the armed forces operate. The first question concerns the rights of all service men and women.
The issue was neatly summed up by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, now the Secretary of State for Scotland. In our last debate on this matter in 1996, he raised the case of a service woman who had asked him whether her rights would be protected if the ban were lifted. She explained that she would not now be expected to share intimate surroundings with a man, irrespective of whether he had sexual intentions towards her. She went on to ask how Parliament would protect her rights if she had to share accommodation with another woman whom she believed to be sexually attracted her. She said that the matter was not one of prejudice but about her rights to privacy—much as the Government have set out today.
I accept that the question is incredibly difficult to answer, as the Secretary of State said. However, now we have a code covering all sexual behaviour, both heterosexual and homosexual. What guidance has the Secretary of State given to commanding officers for dealing with such a situation? Furthermore, in dealing with such a matter, different services and units may implement the test set out by the right hon. Gentleman but arrive at very different solutions. That could lead to concerns in other units about injustice if they are not treated in exactly the same way as others.
Secondly, what provision has the Secretary of State made in the guidance to commanding officers about those placed in authority over junior leaders, cadets and other
290
young men and women who enter the armed forces at an early age? The right hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment concerning such matters during proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Does he agree that the nature of forces discipline and the way in which the forces operate, which gives huge power to those in authority, places an even greater duty of care than exists outside the forces? How will he deal with that, and what advice has he given?
Thirdly, how do the Government propose to deal with the disparity in approach between the three services as well as between units of each of the services? Recent cases such as the Army Air Corps colonel and a female lieutenant-commander in the Women's Royal Naval Service led to very different outcomes. Even though the colonel was acquitted at his court-martial, he was fired from the Army, while the lieutenant-commander has subsequently been promoted. Such disparities in treatment will have to be dealt with, particularly now that this has widened to such a degree.
As for those serving in the same unit, although problems and conflicts arising from relationships between different sexes have been contained—partly because there are fewer occasions when men and women are in command over each other—there is, as a result of the judgment, a possibility that same-sex relationships that develop quite legitimately outside the barracks or the ship may lead to conflicts and difficulties within those units, especially if the individuals are of different ranks. What guidelines has the Secretary of State given to commanding officers? What advice has he given them about how to deal with such relationships? Should they be declared immediately, and will the individuals be allowed to serve in the same unit or barrack room if challenged, for example, about the possibility of favouritism from others who may perceive there to be an issue?
Because of this huge change that will affect the behaviour of armed forces personnel, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a fundamental review of the effects of the policy at the earliest possibly opportunity? I believe that there should be. As and when the Conservative party returns to power, we will pledge to conduct such a review and act on the advice of the armed forces. I hope that the Secretary of State will do the same.
Surely one of the greatest concerns arising from the judgment is the way in which the convention is being applied to the military. There is a danger that issues such as the role of women in the front line and even our training policy could be decided by the European Court of Human Rights and not by our own Government and armed forces. Has the Secretary of State discussed the matter with other signatories to the convention, many of whom have opt-outs regarding its operation? If he has not, will he undertake to do so as a matter of urgency?
In conclusion, all of us can only hope that there will be no ill effects as a result of this change of policy and that the Government's policy will succeed in resolving the matters that may arise. I hope that the Government will pledge to the House today to undertake whatever action is necessary to rectify any problems that may arise immediately.
Mr. Hoon: I begin by welcoming the significant shift that has been obvious from the comments of the

291
Opposition Front Bench in recent days. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) originally appeared to condemn out of hand the judges of the European Court of Human Rights and questioned their right to decide this sort of question, so I am delighted that he has now accepted the decision. He has set out a series of practical and sensible observations about the way in which it should operate. In particular, he emphasised the paramount importance of maintaining the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. I emphasised that point in my earlier comments, and it is also emphasised in the code of conduct.
The hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that the code is set out in broad terms. It is inevitable, when dealing with delicate questions of personal relationships, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, that commanding officers in particular will have to operate extremely sensitively in dealing with these matters. Again, that is set out in the code of conduct, but it is not practicable to list every type of conduct that might constitute social misbehaviour. Commanding officers already have to deal with issues according to the circumstances in which they arise, as is inevitable when dealing with delicate matters.
I am willing to place the guidance issued to commanding officers in the Library of the House of Commons, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the opportunity to see the detailed way in which commanding officers are to be guided. Ultimately, however, commanding officers must have regard to the circumstances with which they must deal, and they will apply the code of conduct in a sensitive and sensible way according to the cases that confront them.
I was a little disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that we would need to review policy. It is difficult to see where a review might lead. I have made it clear, and he appeared to accept it, that it was necessary to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. If he accepts the importance of implementing the decision, it is difficult to see how it can be reviewed, other than by saying—as, I regret, the hon. Gentleman originally appeared to—that we should seek not to implement it. We are bound to implement the decision, and we have done so in a way that is wholly consistent with operational effectiveness.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the United Kingdom ratified the European convention on human rights as long ago as 1951. It has been accepted by all UK Governments ever since, and decisions have been complied with by successive Governments. As far as discussions with other signatory states are concerned, the hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to know that only one NATO nation appears to have a formal ban on homosexuals being members of the armed forces. Clearly, this has not been a problem for NATO nations.
The hon. Gentleman properly emphasised the point that problems between the sexes are every bit as sensitive, delicate and difficult as problems that might occur involving members of the same sex. The code of conduct deals firmly with such matters on a non-discriminatory basis, which is the only way to proceed. I am pleased to welcome the hon. Gentleman's measured comments. We need to emphasise the need to preserve operational
292
effectiveness in our armed forces to ensure that British forces maintain the excellent standards admired around the world.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I was one of the Members who, when this matter was debated in 1996, supported the amendment tabled by Edwina Currie, to whom I pay tribute.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the common-sense decision that he has taken this afternoon. Since it stems directly from a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, I may point out that, had the Conservative party remained in power, it would have had to make a decision on the matter. As Conservative Governments accepted the authority of the European Court of Human Rights throughout their periods in office, it is difficult to see what other decision they could have come to.
Over the years—indeed, centuries—homosexuals have served at every level in our armed forces with loyalty and distinction. Is it not better, therefore, to accept that fact than pretend that it does not exist? It will not do for people to say that they oppose discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in principle while they act differently in practice.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. He is right to say that as this was a significant decision by the European Court of Human Rights, it was necessary for the Government to implement it. I am equally grateful to the service chiefs for the constructive way in which they have approached a change in policy. It is not enough just to analyse legally the decision of the court; it is necessary to find a policy by which to implement it in the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to the service chiefs for their constructive and positive approach to this matter. They have drawn up the code of conduct, which will allow us both to preserve operational effectiveness and to ensure that the rights of individuals are properly protected, as my right hon. Friend suggested.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I too thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome his announcement. The European Court of Human Rights has shown that homosexual service in the armed forces of the United Kingdom is an issue of civil liberties. In that respect, the sexual orientation of an individual should be no bar to service, either in recruitment or promotion.
I have served with hon. Members on both sides of the House in the parliamentary armed forces scheme and have heard about some of the concerns of members of the armed forces. In my constituency, I have also heard about those concerns, but our armed forces must reflect the make-up of the modern society from which they are drawn. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that there are no occasions on which men or women have direct control over each other. That is clearly wrong. Every warship in the Royal Navy is run according to the chain of command, whether that is male or female.
The Secretary of State pointed out that the implementation of the new code of conduct will be a challenge for the leadership of our armed forces. He is

293
right. Does he agree that great sensitivity to the concerns of gay and straight personnel will need to be exercised, if a cultural sea-change is to be achieved without damaging the morale and efficiency of our armed forces?
The Secretary of State referred to the experience of other nations which have implemented such a code of conduct. Will he tell the House which other countries he has consulted? I met some Australians this week, who confirmed that their overall experience in this matter was positive.
I have a few questions for the Secretary of State. Does he agree that the delay in changing the policy, and the continuation of the Tory fight with the European Court means that the retrospective claims for compensation for dismissed personnel are likely to be substantial? Is he aware that £60 million has already been paid to 5,000 service women, who were obliged to leave the service on the ground of pregnancy?
Does he agree that, as MOD budgets are already tight, the Government's belated realisation that the UK armed forces should reflect their society is likely to cost the MOD money? How many compensation cases does he expect? What is his estimate of the cost?
Finally, will he confirm that, in the UK, if people are fit for the task—whether they are black or white, male or female, straight or gay—they should be welcome in our armed forces?
Mr. Hoon: I shall deal solely with the specific questions put by the hon. Gentleman towards the end of his observations. We delayed only as long as it took to review properly the implications of the court's decision, and to consider extremely carefully their effect on the armed forces. We obviously wanted to ensure that we agreed on a code of conduct that was accepted by the service chiefs and by the armed forces. We took the minimum amount of time to do that. I agree that any continuing uncertainty would have cost money, but, perhaps more crucially, it would have left the armed forces unsure as to which policy they were required to implement. I do not accept that there was undue delay; there was a proper delay—consistent with the need to find the right answer.
I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman precise figures as to the cost of any claims for compensation, because we are still negotiating with those people who are affected. However, when that process has been completed, I am willing to write to him to give him an indication of the costs.
Laura Moffatt: I very much welcome the fact that the Government have accepted with good grace the ruling of the European Court. I look forward to reading, in the next defence White Paper, that sexual orientation will be included with all the other high ideals that we set for our society. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) having a fit of apoplexy, but we are a decent society now and we must reflect the way in which we live today. Unquestionably, the armed forces are up to that job—they are able to respond—but naturally there will be some concerns, especially among people from the lower ranks.
The Secretary of State has told us that the higher ranks are strongly committed to the programme, but will he answer two questions? First, what extra training has been
294
given to members of the higher ranks to enable them to ensure that the information gets through to others in a way that helps them to understand what this will mean for them in their working lives? Secondly, because of the unease from the ranks, is there any way in which people may be able to share some concerns—many of which are unreal? They would be much better put at ease by people who have been properly trained.
I very much welcome today's announcement.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations. I shall deal solely with her specific questions. On extra training, approximately 3,000 packs of detailed information and guidance for commanding officers have been sent out, and should have been opened in connection with the statement that I am making to the House today, so commanding officers will have detailed briefing, which they will pass down the chain of command.
I am confident that the concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned in her second question will be allayed by the clear leadership given by service chiefs. As I said earlier, I am extremely grateful to them for the leadership that they have shown in this difficult area.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he sounded deeply unconvincing when making his statement? Does he further accept that the announcement will be greeted with dismay through all three services, which surely, by their faithful and gallant service over generations, have earned the right to be exempted from these lunatic politically correct nostrums? Will he assure the House of Commons that he will listen very carefully to the chiefs as they report back to him, as this militarily disabling rule comes into force?
Mr. Hoon: I always listen with the greatest care to the hon. Gentleman's observations on the armed forces because I recognise that, in the course of a lifetime's interest in the armed forces, he has accumulated a good deal of knowledge. I am slightly concerned that he might just be out of touch on this question, and that he may not have reflected properly on his observations, especially in light of what the service chiefs have been saying on the subject. The service chiefs have made it clear that they endorse and support the code of conduct. They were largely responsible for its drafting. As the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, it is important that we find ways to ensure that the decision of the European Court is implemented in a way that is consistent with service effectiveness.
Therefore, I do not accept the observations that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has made. Sadly, they sound very much like the observations that were made by very many people—members of the Conservative party, perhaps not wholly familiar with the services—in relation to the admission of women to the armed forces. In the short time that I have been Secretary of State for Defence, I have learned how successful and effective women have been in the armed forces.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision and his announcement today will be very welcome indeed? First, it will be

295
welcome in upholding the authority of the European Court of Justice and its interpretation of the European convention on human rights, which is the basis on which we, as a party, fought the last general election and which has been part of our party policy for a long time.
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that, some years ago, from the Opposition Front Bench, I moved that homosexuality should not be regarded as grounds for debarment from service in the armed forces? I did so for two reasons. I did so, first, for the sake of the human rights of the individuals involved, whatever one may think of people's particular sexual preferences; and secondly, because it removed a major cause of blackmail, suspicion and unhappiness.
In the 1970s and 1980s, we had obvious examples, including the major scandalous trial in Cyprus, in which representatives of foreign powers—the cold war is irrelevant to this—were prepared to use what they perceived as weakness, shyness or disability to blackmail people to force them to release secrets. There are strong and powerful military reasons for accepting this proposal.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend tempts me to make a party political point about the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. I recall that Lord Hailsham and the late Keith Joseph conducted a campaign in the 1970s calling for its incorporation. It is unfortunate that some Conservative Members have forgotten their party's history. [Interruption.] It is suggested that they were not born, but I rather think that they were.
It is right and important that we find a mechanism for emphasising the rights of the individual while not in any way jeopardising the effectiveness of our service personnel. I am sure that this code of conduct, which was endorsed by the service chiefs, will achieve that.
Mr. Julian Brazier: If the chiefs of staff really have not conveyed to Ministers the sheer depths of the anger in the armed forces at being forced to share their homes—the cramped barracks and ships in which they often live—with practising homosexuals, will the Secretary of State say whether, in his forthcoming and fairly frequent meetings with his French counterpart, he will discuss the fact that France has a derogation from all matters connected with military discipline in the European convention on human rights? Are there any circumstances whatever impinging on the morale and effectiveness of our armed forces under which the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to stand up to the European Court and apply for us to have such a derogation?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman needs to study a little more carefully the way in which the European convention operates. He needs to understand that the French derogation was secured at the start of the process. Since 1951, no Government—neither Conservative nor Labour—have sought to negotiate the kind of derogation that he advocates. In reality, it is not possible to secure such a derogation after the event; it would not have any effect on decided cases. I made it clear in my opening remarks that it is not possible for Conservative Members to pick and choose the European Court decisions that they would implement. That is simply not possible.
Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcome to the many people
296
who have long argued and campaigned for lifting the ban on gays serving in the military. In 1998, I took part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and had numerous discussions over many months on this with various ranks. We discussed in detail how military discipline could cope with such a change and, although it was clear that there was resistance to change in all ranks of the Army, it was acknowledged that, when it came to the bottom line, military discipline and regulation would ensure that the code could be operated properly.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating ex-service men and women in the Rank Outsiders organisation on the dignified way in which they have campaigned so successfully on this issue? Will he also ensure that the new codes are monitored effectively, so that the House can have another opportunity to ensure that they have operated properly and have not prejudiced any member of the armed forces?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his measured and thoughtful observations. On his final point, I made it clear that the services' policy of not tolerating discrimination and harassment will apply to those who are affected by my statement.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I think that I am the Member of this House who has the most recent service in the regular armed forces. I do not presume to speak for members of the armed forces because that would be wrong, but I have some understanding of how they feel. The Secretary of State should understand that the vast majority are not homophobic—a dreadful word—and know that there have always been homosexuals in the armed forces, many of whom have served with great distinction.
Does the Secretary of State understand, however, that when members of the armed forces hear of this decision they will, for very good reasons, feel betrayed? They will think that political correctness has triumphed over operational effectiveness and the defence of the realm. Furthermore, they will believe that the Government are undermining our distinguished armed forces so that they will no longer have the respect that they have had up to now. I have a supplementary question on a point that may further undermine the armed forces. Will gay partners be allowed to share married quarters?
Mr. Hoon: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads his contribution, as he may in Hansard tomorrow, he will ask himself whether his first two sentences about the role and attitudes of the armed forces and the position of homosexuals in the past were wholly consistent with his next observation. There was a clear inconsistency in what he said.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to read my statement carefully because it is not in any way motivated by political correctness. It is motivated by a clear decision of the European Court of Human Rights, with which the Conservative party, in the unlikely event of its ever returning to power, would have to deal. That is the position that we have taken. We have dealt with the matter in co-operation with the service chiefs. He is right not to try and substitute his view of the services for those of the chiefs. They have accepted the need to implement the court's decision.

297
I make it clear that homosexual couples will not have lights or access to service quarters because they will not be married and will not therefore be treated any differently from other unmarried couples.
Dr. David Clark: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a sensible solution, which we all accept, to this tricky problem. I welcome the practical response from the Opposition Front Benchers.
In a modern society, it is important that we have armed forces that reflect that society. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to make the point that almost every other NATO nation operates a similar policy? Will he also pass on to the service chiefs the congratulations of Labour Members on the practical, common-sense way in which they have introduced a proposal that will solve the problem without in any way challenging the efficiency of our armed forces?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. On his observation about the practical response from Opposition Front Benchers, I cannot help but reflect that they may have to do a little more work on educating those who sit behind them, but they have made progress in recent days and no doubt that progress can continue.
Every time that an hon. Member has commented on the need for the armed forces to reflect society, it has caused certain Conservative Members apoplexy, not least the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. Regardless of any ideological debate about whether we should try to ensure that the armed forces reflect society, the forces recruit about 25,000—mostly young—people every year, so they inevitably reflect the society in which we live. There are different policies in different countries in NATO, but, as I said earlier, only one NATO country has a formal ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State ensure that, for the isolated people who may need advice, Rank Outsiders will be able to advertise its helpline number in armed forces journals, which it has so far been barred from doing?
The Secretary of State said that the change was being made because the law is the law. Could not he say that it is because human rights are human rights? He said that maintaining the ban was no longer legally sustainable. Does he agree that it is also not ethically or morally sustainable? Does he feel any remorse about, or can he offer any apology for, the careers that have been wrecked under his Government, as well as under previous ones? How many careers have been wrecked under the Labour Government? How much does he think that that will cost? Does he not think that the £10,000 rumoured as the compensation to be offered for the wrecking of careers and the most intrusive, rude and oppressive harassment is pathetic and inadequate?
Mr. Hoon: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this matter has been given very careful consideration; I am sorry that he has not given it quite the care and consideration that I might have hoped for. In the
298
briefing pack for commanding officers, there will be a number of details of further advice and information that can be given to service personnel who need it.
I made it clear that negotiations on compensation were still under way, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on amounts that have been agreed.
I should make it equally clear that, subject to obvious considerations of fitness, we shall look very sympathetically at applications from service personnel who wish to rejoin the services following discharge for homosexuality.
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: While I am a strong supporter of the Secretary of State in this matter, precisely what were the "some concerns" to which he referred in his statement and from whom did they come?
Does the Secretary of State think that the shade of the grandfather of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) would approve of his grandson's comments? What would he think, for example, about the situation of the Chindits? Speaking as a relation of Orde Wingate and as one who knows something about the matter, it is an outrageous slur on the Chindits, the Eighth Army and other units to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the decision is totally unacceptable. Since there are very many Mid-Sussexes floating around, would it not be a good idea to bring to public notice the distinguished service rendered by homosexual personnel and the units in which they operated—frankly, under force majeure— during the war?
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) wants my support, but for once I strongly support his comments.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend intrigued the House by conjuring the vision of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex floating around. I have learned to my cost about debating history with my hon. Friend, so I shall not pursue him on that. However, I shall deal with the concerns that he mentioned.
I made it clear that we recruit about 25,000—mostly young—people to the armed forces each year. They reflect our society, which has a mixed view of homosexuality. It would be absurd for me to pretend otherwise. Those concerns are reflected in wider society, as they will be within the armed forces and will have to be addressed by commanding officers as they implement the code of conduct and this policy. If I pretended otherwise, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that I must pay more attention to who is occupying the Chair. Having carefully avoided all sorts of mistakes in the course of my observations, I apologise for not recognising you.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: A bet that I believe that I would win is that no member of the European Court of Human Rights has ever served in a crowded mess in a ship or in a cramped army bivouac. If any of them had done so, they would not have come to such a ludicrous decision, which will damage military effectiveness.
Does the Secretary of State understand that there is a great difference between those who hid their homosexuality and permitting homosexuality to be overt, which the decision will allow? Does he understand that

299
no matter what guidance he gives, overt homosexuals will be ostracised and threatened in ships and in barracks, for example? That will do profound damage to the armed forces.
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to substitute his own prejudices for, first of all— [Interruption.] If Conservative Members will allow me to finish, I shall explain why I think that the hon. Gentleman is dealing in prejudice. First, he is substituting his own view of the law for that of the European Court of Human Rights. It is not acceptable for hon. Members to say that decisions of the courts should be decided in a different way because the courts cannot possibly interpret the law properly.
We are dealing with the European Court of Human Rights, which has carefully considered the law and reached a conclusion. Right hon. and hon. Members know full well that it is necessary in a democratic society that upholds the rule of law to apply such decisions. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is substituting his view of military effectiveness for that of the service chiefs, who have accepted the code of conduct. They have recognised that they must implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and they are seeking to do so in a way that does not jeopardise military effectiveness in any way.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Secretary of State not understand that his appalling decision will be greeted with dismay, particularly by ordinary soldiers in Her Majesty's Forces, many of whom joined the services precisely because they wished to turn their back on some of the values of modern society?
How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that operational effectiveness will not be impaired when the Government argued before the European Court of Human Rights that
"the presence of open or suspected homosexuals in the Armed Forces would have a substantial and negative effect on morale and consequently on the fighting power and operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces"?
How can he go back on what was the Government's line? Does he not understand the resentment that is felt by some of us in this country that the power to decide the composition of Her Majesty's armed forces has been usurped by a bunch of foreign judges in some continental city, when it should be decided by the people of this country and by this Parliament? Does he realise that he has created an enormous minefield, in which housing will be only one factor?
Mr. Hoon: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman is probably the authentic voice of the Conservative party today. I worry about its future if such prejudices are to be on display. I treat his observations as an attack not on the Government but on the Opposition Front-Bench team. Before he makes such intemperate comments, he should ask himself a basic question. In the unlikely event that he is part of a Government at some stage in the future, what decision would he take in the light of a European Court decision? If he cannot answer that question, he should not have said what he has just said in the most intemperate terms. He should think more carefully about the observations that he makes in the House, otherwise he
300
will condemn himself and his party to a lifetime of opposition. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with that.
Mr. John Burnett: I understand the Secretary of State's predicament, and I realise how difficult this problem is, but there are people who have served in the armed forces who have grave and serious reservations about this decision. Will he address one of the questions that he was asked earlier? I have not read the code of conduct—it has only just been published—but what will be the repercussions on individuals' rights to privacy?
Mr. Hoon: I have dealt with those reservations, so I shall not repeat myself. As for the individual, the essence of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights is to protect the privacy of individuals. I made it clear that, in devising the code of conduct, we had regard to the importance not only of military effectiveness and discipline, but the rights of the individual. Those two matters are complementary, and are set out in the code of conduct. That is why the service chiefs are willing to endorse this approach, and to lead the chain of command so as to ensure that the reservations to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which I accept, do not dominate the debate about the implementation of this policy.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Secretary of State answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), which was based on the example given by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, now the Secretary of State for Scotland, of the woman who felt that her privacy might be invaded in certain circumstances? Why have the Government concentrated their service test on conduct of the individual rather than operational situations? Should not they be giving advice and guidance on whether heterosexuals should be expected to share accommodation with homosexuals, and whether homosexuals should be deployed in the front line in intimate living conditions? Despite this rushed attempt to deal with this most delicate situation, does he agree that this is a much more difficult and complex subject than perhaps he had anticipated, and that this statement is only the beginning of his troubles, not the end of them?
Mr. Hoon: In referring at the outset to the views of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, I had in mind the hon. Gentleman's rather intemperate observations when the original decision was promulgated. He now seems to be rowing back from that and asking practical questions about the implementation of the policy.
I have been accused of delaying the implementation of the policy change, and now I am accused of rushing it. Somewhere in between, the Government may have got it just about right. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had time to study the document properly, but I have made it clear—and I repeat it—that at the heart of the code of conduct is an emphasis on operational effectiveness, and it clearly must also have regard to the privacy of individuals.
Operational effectiveness depends on a number of individuals working effectively together. Given the emphasis in the court's decision on the importance of

301
privacy and the rights of the individual, it is right and appropriate to reconcile the importance of operational effectiveness with respect for the privacy of the individual. That is set out in the code of conduct, and it will be carried through in the operational guidance given to commanding officers. It will allow appropriate and proper decisions on the issue of accommodation that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Point of Order
5.4 pm
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave notice to the Speaker of a point of order that I was asked to raise. I was fortunate to have the 1 pm to 1.30 pm slot in Westminster Hall for a debate on the situation in Serbia and Kosovo. When I went into that Chamber at 12.50 pm, it was stuffy, smelly and airless. It is no exaggeration to say—and others agreed with me—that it smelt like a rather full school pupils' changing room. There may be a ventilation problem, but my point is that it is no place for the House of Commons to conduct its official business.
I ask members of the Speaker's Office and the Office of the Serjeant at Arms to go and not just see but smell for themselves. I am not casting aspersions on the school parties that were present; my point concerns the nature of what we have set up in that place. It is totally unsuitable for prolonged parliamentary activity, at least while it remains as airless as it is now. Could the House authorities examine the matter?
Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, was in Westminster Hall today. I must admit that I did not smell anything, but perhaps I had left when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) arrived.
The hon. Gentleman asked you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make representations to Madam Speaker. Two debates took place in Westminster Hall this morning. One concerned post offices, and a good many people were interested and wanted to sit in the Public Gallery; the other dealt with petrol retailing, and a large number of petrol retailers had come to listen. In fact, the public area was not sufficient for the number of people who turned up. Only a few could go in at a time, for half an hour at a time, so no one had a chance to hear the whole debate. Perhaps that too could be mentioned in your representations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I suggest that concerns about ventilation and housekeeping should be directed to the Serjeant at Arms. Hon. Members with concerns about management and arrangements generally in the new Chamber should contact the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee.

Medicinal Product Testing in Children
5.7 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the clinical testing and licensing of new medicinal products that are to be used for the treatment of children.
The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the licensing system relating to medicines that are likely to be prescribed for children, in response to growing concern about the widespread use in that context of off-label and unlicensed treatments. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that drugs routinely given to children are either not licensed for that purpose, or off-label: that is, they are prescribed in a way that is not in accordance with the instructions on the label regarding age, indication, dose or route of administration. It is no fault of the clinicians; rather, it is a direct result of deficiencies in the licensing system as it stands.
United Kingdom research published in the British Medical Journal in 1998 found that 25 per cent. of drugs were either off-label or not licensed for that purpose, although one in three children in hospital received drugs in that way. For babies admitted as patients, the figures are even higher: 65 per cent. of off-label or unlicensed treatments were given to nine out of every 10 infant patients, many of whom had been born prematurely.
The Government have acknowledged that the issue needs to be addressed. Indeed, the last Government played a leading role in the drafting of existing European guidance, which came into force in September 1997. The opening lines state:
"Children should not be given medicines which have not been adequately evaluated for use in that age group. There is a responsibility, shared by applicants and the competent authorities, to ensure that children have timely access to safe and effective medicines which have accurate, scientifically justified prescribing information."
Guidance, however, cannot ensure that medicines will be adequately evaluated, or that prescribing information will be made available to clinicians. Indeed, no one monitors whether the guidance is being followed.
A Europe-wide study published in this week's British Medical Journal shows the scale of the problem. Sixty-seven per cent. of children who were admitted to hospital in five different European countries over four weeks received unlicensed or off-label treatments. Nearly half the prescriptions were either unlicensed or off-label. Surprisingly, in the main those were routine treatments, prescribed extensively to children.
My Bill would begin to deal with that problem by establishing a proper licensing system for new medicines that are to be used for children. Britain should take a lead by placing a statutory duty on the pharmaceutical industry to supply paediatric data on new products when their use on children is likely.
I must acknowledge the cost implications of the extended testing that would have to be carried out to improve the information available to doctors when prescribing specifically for children. To ensure compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of my Bill, some incentive should be considered that would recognise the additional costs that will inevitably be borne, thereby guaranteeing accurate and timely paediatric data.
304
Since April last year, a reformed system has been operating in the United States. Although it is still relatively early days, indications are that the United States pharmaceutical industry is rising to the challenges and providing adequately evaluated medicine for children in particular age groups.
I stress that the Bill would not deprive children of beneficial off-label and unlicensed treatments. It would simply regulate and evaluate new products coming on to the market to improve the paediatric information that is available to doctors when they prescribe drugs to children. As product licences are reviewed every five years, potentially the new system could be extended to drugs that are already on the market.
Worryingly, as drugs are prescribed in an unlicensed or off-label fashion, no formal mechanism has been established for notifying, collating or processing adverse drug reactions. Indeed, doctors are unlikely to report adverse reactions because they feel vulnerable, having prescribed a drug that is off-label or unlicensed. We do not know the extent or impact of adverse reactions.
Many people will be alarmed at the thought of testing medicines on children, but that, in effect, is what is happening every day in the health service. Under the present system, all children are potential guinea pigs when they enter hospital or see their general practitioner, yet neither children nor parents are aware of it. It is a hit-and-miss and, sometimes, hazardous system. Seriously ill children may be receiving inadequate doses of life-saving drugs, while others may be receiving worryingly high and potentially harmful doses of inappropriate treatments.
It is recognised that children's bodies absorb and process drugs differently from adults. Dosages cannot be based simply on a child's size, weight, body surface area or age. That is why specific, rigorous studies are important. With a closely monitored clinical study, properly designed and structured, as recommended by the existing European guidance, any adverse reactions and failure to respond to treatment would be speedily picked up and dealt with.
I stress that only children who would directly benefit from the drug—those already ill or being treated—would be involved in the testing. In addition, with modern non-invasive techniques, it would be possible to carry out trials with minimum discomfort to children. Of course, every study would have to have the full consent of parents and, where appropriate, of the child, too.
Proper medical trials would make the system far safer than at present, where drugs are prescribed with inadequate information. Currently, doctors are left to sink or to swim with their limited clinical knowledge and judgment. That is particularly the case for GPs or junior doctors who are not specialists in paediatric medicine, but are expected to take responsibility for prescribing to children. They should have the benefit of rigorous testing, carried out by acknowledged experts, to ensure that their prescribing is soundly based. Under the Bill, existing European guidance on the conduct of drug trials would be rigorously and ethically applied.
The Bill calls for children to be treated in exactly the same way as adults. In one important respect, children are no different from adults: they are individuals entitled to the best medical treatment available. Under the current system, they are effectively disfranchised. Ironically,

305
the Medicines Act 1968, which introduced the current licensing system, was a direct result of the thalidomide tragedy—a drug that directly affected children. My Bill would be an important step towards dealing with the deficiencies in the current Act that are already widely acknowledged by everyone involved in prescribing medicines to children.
I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the Bill today, as it coincides with the re-opening of the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry. The inquiry will be focusing on making recommendations that could help secure high-quality care across the national health service, and licensing medicines specifically for children is particularly pertinent to achieving that goal.
My Bill has the support of the Consumers Association, the Royal College of Nursing and academic medical opinion. I am pleased to say that it also has cross-party support, which demonstrates that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the need for change. Such change would significantly improve the licensing system for children's medicines and potentially benefit a very large number of children in the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Love, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. John Austin, Audrey Wise, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Dr. Vincent Cable and Mr. David Amess.

Medicinal Product Testing in Children
Mr. Andrew Love accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the clinical testing and licensing of new medicinal products that are to be used for the treatment of children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 45].
Orders of the Day

  Representation of the People Bill
  2nd Allotted Day
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 December].
  [Mr. Michael Lord in the Chair]
  5.17 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. There has been some suggestion that the Bill's Report stage may be scheduled for debate in the House as early as next Monday. Although Opposition Members should have no objection if that is so, the Committee would be helped if—at some point, not necessarily now— guidance could be provided on the tabling of further amendments that right. hon. and hon. Members may wish to make to the Bill and on the starring of those amendments.
  As the Committee is expected to finish considering the Bill by 7 o'clock tomorrow, and the House will not be sitting on Friday, I am sure that you will appreciate the point, Mr. Lord. The Opposition do not object to scheduling Report stage for Monday, but some guidance on tabling amendments would be very helpful.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. I should like to make a slightly more hardline point than that made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). We believe that it would be preferable to follow the usual rule—allowing a weekend, or several days, between the end of a Committee's consideration of a Bill and the beginning of Report—not least because there will be colleagues who, for whatever reason, may have assumed that Report would be held at a later date and require time at least to read Hansard and decide what amendments to table.
  The normal courtesies—if they are to be followed by Madam Speaker and you, Mr. Lord—preclude moving to a subsequent stage in less than 48 hours. If possible, we should have an indication. Will you, Mr. Lord, confirm at an appropriate time that the normal rule would be that, between the end of the Committee and the beginning of Report, there would be time for hon. Members to read Hansard and to table amendments, with a day in between the tabling and the debate to ensure that everybody had due notice of further stages of the Bill?
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I was not aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I imagine that they will be dealt with in the usual way during the business statement tomorrow, or, if not, through the usual channels.

  Representation of the People Bill
    Clause 1

      NEW SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION.
      Amendment moved [15 December]: No. 1, in page 2, line 44, leave out from "elector" to end of line 2 on page 3.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 2, in clause 8, page 10, line 11, leave out ", 2".

      307
      Amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 14, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 15.
      Amendment No. 4, in schedule 1, page 19, line 28, leave out from "declarations" to end of line 29.
      Amendment No. 5, in page 26, leave out lines 28 to 31.
      Amendment No. 47, in schedule 2, page 27, line 33, leave out "20" and insert "5".
      Amendment No. 48, in page 27, line 33, leave out "20" and insert "10".
      Amendment No. 49, in page 27, line 42, leave out "20" and insert "5".
      Amendment No. 50, in page 27, line 42, leave out '20' and insert "10".
      Amendment No. 82, in page 28, line 2, at end insert—
      "(4A) The third set of conditions is that—

      (a) he was included in a register of parliamentary electors in respect of an address at a place that is situated within the constituency concerned,

      (b) that entry in the register was made on the basis that he was resident, or to be treated for the purposes of registration as resident, at that address, and

      (c) he either, prior to ceasing to be a resident of the United Kingdom, signed a declaration stating an intention to return to the United Kingdom to live within ten years of departure, or, alternatively, he continues to pay income tax annually in the United Kingdom.".

      Amendment No. 51, in page 30, line 23, leave out "20" and insert "5".
      Amendment No. 52, in page 30, line 23, leave out "20" and insert "10".
      Amendment No. 53, in page 30, line 32, leave out "20" and insert "5".
      Amendment No. 54, in page 30, line 32, leave out "20" and insert "10".
      Schedule 2 stand part.
      Amendment No. 7, in schedule 4, page 34, leave out lines 52 and 53.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 35, line 19, leave out from "connection" to end of line 20.
      New clause 1—British citizens overseas—
      ".—(1) Sections 1 to 4 and subsections (1) and (2) of section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1989, are hereby repealed.
      (2) In section 3C of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (as inserted by the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999), in subsection (2), paragraph (b) and the word 'or' at the end of paragraph (a) shall be omitted."
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: When my speech was interrupted on 15 December, I was about to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). There has been a more prolonged intervention in my speech—namely the entire Second Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which the House had on Monday. In that debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an announcement about the content of clause 130 of the Bill, which deals with the subject of this amendment and the others being taken with it. I found both clause 130 and what my right hon. Friend had to say profoundly unsatisfactory. I very much hope that what he said is not the last word. I will come to that in a moment.
      308
      I would like to resume the argument that I was putting to the House when the debate was adjourned just under four weeks ago. When we talk about the overseas vote, Opposition Members seem to indicate that my amendment would remove some major right. In fact, this fancy franchise is a flop. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has fantasised in this House about possibly 3 million overseas voters being removed if my amendment were accepted.
      When the Conservative Government introduced the overseas vote, they did so unilaterally and not as a matter of consensus, as the present Government are seeking with this Bill. They introduced the measure against my opposition, as shadow Home Secretary, and that of the party which I represented.
      Mr. Greenway: The intervening period has allowed us the opportunity for further research. When I seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Lord, I will give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the consistency that he has shown. However, he cannot say that there was no consensus on that matter. In its report in the 1982–83 Session, the Select Committee on Home Affairs unanimously supported a recommendation that all UK citizens registered in EEC countries should be permitted to vote in British parliamentary elections. The thoroughness of the report indicated that there was cross-party consensus for there to be overseas electors, and the subsequent legislation sought to implement that report.
      Mr. Kaufman: That is not what emerged from the 1984 debates. The Home Affairs Committee in that Parliament took the view that there should not be an overseas vote, and did so unanimously. It is as simple as that.
      Whether or not that is so, let us look at what the Conservative Government of the day envisaged might happen—and what might happen, let us be clear, on the basis of the seven-year period with which they started. They forecast that there would be 800 overseas votes per constituency in the seven years, representing half a million overseas voters. The latest figure—for last year— was 13,677: 21 per constituency. That is the extent of this huge, allegedly unalienable right, introduced in any case only 16 years ago, that the Conservative party persists in demanding.
      The greatest number registered—I mean people registered to vote, not actual votes registered—throughout that period was 34,454 in 1991, which is 53 per constituency or 0.08 per cent. of the electorate. In 1990, the figure fell to 1,836—on the kindest possible calculation, that is 0.00 per cent. of the electorate—and that was after legislation extending the period to 20 years.
      The amendment is not designed to stifle an insatiable demand for democracy among expatriates.
      Mr. Graham Brady: The right hon. Gentleman has explained that few people want to take advantage of the right that they have, but does not the fact that those few people do take advantage of it suggest that they feel strongly that they want to participate in the national life of their mother country, and is not that a good argument for continuing with that right?
      Mr. Kaufman: A more direct way of their participating in our national life would be for them to live here rather than trying to affect directly how the country is governed after 20 years abroad.

      309
      The hon. Gentleman has intervened at a felicitous moment, because I was coming to the effect that even that tiny number of people can have. I see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), whose return to the House we welcomed in 1997. He was defeated in the 1992 general election by 19 votes, after three counts; 65 overseas votes were registered; 38 were cast by proxy—the majority from South Africa—and the proxies were well-known local Conservative party activists. He was out of the House for five years, not because the people of Vale of Glamorgan did not want him as their Member of Parliament but because a small group of Conservatives in the constituency defeated him on behalf of people who would never have been represented by him one way or the other.
      Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that I am the only Member of Parliament ever to have lost a seat in a general election when the majority of votes cast by constituents resident in the constituency supported that candidate. He may not be aware of the sense of outrage in the constituency after the 1992 result, which I believe was reflected in the 1997 election, at which I gained the largest majority ever seen in the seat.
      Mr. Kaufman: That experience illustrates the illegitimacy of the fancy franchise introduced unilaterally by the Conservative party and multiplied by four in the periodicity deliberately to suit itself: not to enfranchise the electorate but to enhance its own electoral prospects, as can be seen by the incidence of application to be registered.
      5.30 pm
      It is not simply that the services of my hon. Friend were denied to the House for five years, but that—given a tiny quirk of the vote in other constituencies—the overseas vote could have affected the government of the country. In the 1992 election, the overall Conservative majority was only 21. Eleven seats the other way and the Conservative party would not have had a majority. It would have lost the election and probably been replaced by the Labour party, even though it did not have an overall majority.
      The overseas vote can decide not only who wins or loses in an individual constituency, but who governs a country in which large numbers of people who apply for the vote have chosen not to live for a generation and in which their children may never have lived at all. Tax exiles can decide the Government who decide what the taxes are. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who was an Undersecretary at the Home Office when the second piece of legislation went through, admitted the position. He said that it might be true that the legislation would extend the franchise to a number of people who might be described as tax dodgers and thus were perhaps unworthy. Of course, the Conservative party may draw its most devoted support from that sort of person.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Before we leave the subject of the Vale of Glamorgan example, can the right
      310
      hon. Gentleman tell us whether the overseas voters in that constituency in the 1992 general election had never had a connection with the constituency? Is that also part of his case, or had they had a connection but left to live overseas? There is a huge difference between the allegation that votes were cast in Vale of Glamorgan on behalf of people who had no link with the area and the allegation that the right to vote was exercised, under the rules of the time, by people who lived abroad but had a secure link to the area.
      Mr. Kaufman: I do not accept the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw. He may regard my view as banal and elementary, but I believe that if one wants to decide the Government of a country, one should at least have the courtesy to live there. The hon. Gentleman earlier raised the case of his brother. Although I know that the Liberal Democrat party has a different policy for every street, having a different policy for every brother would be taking things too far.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am especially interested in this point because two relatives of mine live in Palma, although as far as I am aware they do not live there because I live here. They have both contributed substantially to this country over a long time and have paid, and continue to pay, taxes in this country. They are not worthy objects of the right hon. Gentleman's waspish denigration. Why should not they have an opportunity to contribute to the democratic process in this country when they have contributed substantially to its fortunes?
      Mr. Kaufman: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman's relatives wished to get away from him they would have moved further than the Balearic islands, and perhaps they should consider that in their future residential dispositions.
      The vote in this country is based on residential qualification. People who live abroad and have some sentimental or fiscal connection with this country are not in the same position as those who live here and are subject to the decisions of Parliament and the Government.
      My approach to the matter is extremely simplistic, which makes me impervious to interventions such as that from the hon. Gentleman. If I were to approach the matter on an "if and but" basis, I would be vulnerable, but the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out that my position on the matter has been consistent for 16 years. I intend to maintain that position until my colleagues on the Front Bench—so brilliant in so many other ways—learn the appropriate lesson on this issue.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as, before he came into the Chamber, I was pointing out that he sought to intervene when I was speaking four weeks ago.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is right to say that I tried to intervene on him in the previous century. However, he cannot have it both ways. He said that, given the small numbers involved, he was not trying to make a party political point,

      311
      but then he gave the example of the 1992 election result in the Vale of Glamorgan constituency, which he clearly considers to be a party political matter.
      How does the right hon. Gentleman know the outcome of that election? It was a secret ballot. How does he know that the overseas voters in the Vale of Glamorgan election all voted Conservative? After all, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), was born in South Africa and lived there for a long time. He used to be so left wing that it is doubtful that he would have been able to get into the new Labour party. However, he certainly is not, and has never been, a Conservative. Is the right hon. Gentleman making an uncharacteristically spiteful political point, or not?
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I urge hon. Members who intervene to do so briefly and succinctly, so as to ensure an orderly debate.
      Mr. Kaufman: I am interested that the hon. Member for Lichfield assumes that, if a point is political, it must be spiteful. As far as I am concerned, I am making a party political point. I often make such points, and have spent a lifetime doing so. The case that I am arguing has natural justice on its side, but I am also putting it forward on behalf of the Labour party. I was elected by my constituents to act on behalf of the Labour party, and I shall continue to do so.
      When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced the Bill on Monday, he said that he was going to reduce the period of the overseas vote from 20 years to 10 years. He then said that the Select Committee on Home Affairs had recommended a reduction to five years. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows the amity that I bear for the Government—if amity can be regarded as a synonym for grovelling sycophancy. However, as Chairman of a different Select Committee, I sometimes wonder what the point of Select Committees is if Governments are able to ignore their recommendations.
      The previous Government ignored the recommendation of a Select Committee and introduced the overseas vote. This Government saw what a Select Committee of this House, in this Parliament, said on the matter, and decided to ignore it. I do not see the point of Select Committees doing all the work that they do if Governments then brush their conclusions aside.
      Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
      We should be clear that we are considering a franchise which the previous Conservative Government introduced, despite strong opposition from Labour. The period initially proposed was seven years; under pressure, the then Government proposed to reduce that period to five years. Now my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes that he is doing justice to the issue by reducing the period to double what the Conservative party originally regarded as acceptable. That simply is not satisfactory. Ten years is far too long—there could be three general elections during that period.
      312
      Is clause 130 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill set in stone, or will the Government consider amendments to it on their merits? If so, I shall seek to table an amendment to that Bill comparable to the one before us. Are the Government at least ready to consider the five-year period recommended by the Select Committee and originally introduced by the Conservative Government 15 years ago? I would like to be able to work with the Government on this issue, but one needs a certain amount of flexibility if their most loyal supporters are not to become—on one issue, at any rate—a little disenchanted with them.
      I hope that the Minister will respond in a way that will allow me to withdraw the amendment and seek to table another one to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Before I sit down, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), as I said I would. One must be courteous to one's colleagues.
      Mr. Linton: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree that there is no harm in being accused of making party political points. After all, we are elected to this place as members of political parties. However, I remind the House that the Home Affairs Committee report had unanimous support from members of all three parties in recommending a reduction from 20 years to five. That policy was overturned by the Opposition only when they realised that the implication of that would be to deprive them of the monthly cheque for £83,000 from Mr. Michael Ashcroft. That is a clear case of changing policy for cash.
      Mr. Kaufman: The best way to deal with what one might call the Ashcroft issue would be to abolish the overseas vote. The problem would be solved just like that. However, I accept what my hon. Friend says.
      Mr. Fabricant: As I said earlier, the right hon. Gentleman has taken an uncharacteristically partisan approach. He said in the last century that he has been consistent—
      Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman please stop talking about the last century? We are in the 20th century until midnight on 31 December this year. Let us at least get that right.
      Mr. Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. In fact, the former Dean of Lichfield, the Very Reverend Dr. Tom Wright, who has now moved to Westminster abbey, pointed this out to me. I had avoided the great cliche of saying the last millennium, but I can certainly refer to the last year.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Fabricant: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend, whom I know to be an expert on dates, among so many other things.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will recall that the right hon. Gentleman said only a few moments ago that he had displayed either grovelling sycophancy towards the Government or, at any rate, a suitable synonym for such

      313
      grovelling sycophancy. Has he not just demonstrated, by his very sound attitude to the advent of the millennium next year, that he has done no such thing?
      5.45 pm
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. Interventions must be relevant, and must relate to the matter that we are debating. They should not be about whether we are or are not in the new millennium.
      Mr. Fabricant: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Winterton.
      Last year, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he had been consistent on this matter. He said, in fact, that he had said as early as 27 June 1984 that people who live overseas should not have the right to vote. However, his consistency does not necessarily mean that he is right. In fact, for once, the right hon. Gentleman may be desperately wrong. Those who live abroad—whether or not they pay United Kingdom tax—have an interest in the country whose nationality they choose to keep. If one chooses to live abroad, one may seek to become a citizen of the country where one lives. That does not necessarily bring tax disadvantages—it may bring an advantage—but if someone chooses to remain a citizen of the UK, he or she has an inherent interest in how the country is governed.
      People may also have a fiscal interest, no matter whether they pay taxes in the UK. The rules of double taxation mean that someone who does not pay tax in the UK will still pay tax elsewhere. The Government claim— not always correctly—that they levy low taxation, although it is rising. There may be no fiscal advantage to living overseas. One may still have a financial interest in the UK if one is not paying tax here. Many people own property, although, of course, they pay property taxes. Many people have friends and relatives who pay tax. Many people who live overseas have trusts in the UK for the benefit of relatives or others, and those would be subject to UK taxation and affected by the economy and welfare of the nation. The whole point of voting at a general election is to try to decide what is best for our nation on tax, welfare and the economy.
      It is fundamentally wrong to argue that those who live overseas should not have the right to vote. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's protestations, I believe that the amendment is politically motivated, and that is quite wrong. Over the years, it has been felt in the House of Commons that issues such as voting rights—whether by first past the post or proportional representation, for example—should be proceeded with by means of consensus. It is for that reason that the Committee stage is being taken on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee.
      The right hon. Gentleman's amendment is fundamentally wrong. We decide whether or not people should vote entirely according to their ability to make a choice. Voting is a function of age and ability. I believe
      314
      that it is still illegal for people living in mental institutions to vote. There may be changes in the law, and perhaps the Minister would clarify the point.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)indicated dissent.
      Mr. Fabricant: They are not banned from voting?
      Mr. O'Brien indicated assent.
      Mr. Fabricant: In the past, there was a principle that those who had been committed could not vote.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I seek elucidation. Is not new clause 1 discriminatory in the sense that, if I were rich and lived abroad but could afford a home in this country—or owned a house on which I paid rates—I should be entitled to vote? I should be on the electoral register, even though I did not have to pay taxes because I should be in the country for only 12 weeks in a year. Surely, the new clause discriminates in favour of the rich, who can afford to have a second home in Britain. The central point seems to be that of citizenship— perhaps my hon. Friend can help me in this matter.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The central point is not whether people are rich or poor, but the perception of whether they are likely to vote Labour or Conservative. My hon. Friend, whose constituency almost abuts my own, is right to state that the whole question is one of citizenship. As I pointed out in my preamble, people who are prepared to remain part of the United Kingdom by retaining British citizenship, despite the fact that to do so might disadvantage them fiscally when they are living abroad, are proving their interest in the welfare of the UK. Is that not right? Surely, if one is a citizen of a democracy, one's most fundamental right is the right to vote.
      It is all very well for Labour Members to say from time to time, "No representation without taxation"—a strange reversal of the war cry of the Americans when they sought independence—but that is not the case. Many poor people, who do not pay tax, voted Labour—quite rightly so. Sadly, after two and a half years, more poor people pay tax than was the case before the Government came to power. However, the Labour party does not claim that because people do not pay tax, they should not be allowed to vote. That would be a return to the 19th century.
      Mr. Bercow: I do not think that my hon. Friend has entirely done justice to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Does he agree that this matter is extremely significant for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? It would be a damning indictment of his amendment if its effect—deliberate or inadvertent—were to protect people living abroad who own property in this country, at the expense of people living abroad who do not.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; the measure is discriminatory. We should discriminate on one factor and on one factor only: United Kingdom citizenship. If people choose to remain citizens of the UK,

      315
      whether that advantages or disadvantages them fiscally is irrelevant. If they remain members of the UK, there should be no discrimination against them; they should be allowed to vote.
      Mr. Linton: The hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) are both right. In fact, they are both wrong. It is not enough to spend the night of 10 October in some residence in Britain in order to qualify for a vote; the qualification depends on where one is resident on that date. To be resident—whether for electoral or income tax purposes—one has normally to reside at a place. People who are normally resident overseas would not qualify for a vote in the UK, even if they owned a house in this country and spent the night of 10 October there. That has not been tested in the courts, but it is the understanding of electoral registration officers.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right. Technically, one has to be resident. After all, many Members of Parliament own more than one home, especially if their constituency is beyond commuting distance from Westminster. Technically, people have to be resident not only on the day, but on that very evening. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point. However, we all know that, in practice, that is not the interpretation. Hon. Members or electors may not be at home on that night, so they may not be technically resident. In that case, the electoral returning officer might say, "Perhaps they are away on business or on holiday." The form is not filled in with the idea that one has to be present on that night.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: The point under discussion would have been clarified to some extent if my amendment to prevent double registration had been accepted. That would have made it clear that one is supposed to register where one is fully resident. It would have avoided having people flitting about—as MPs do— and being registered in different places. That was a worthwhile amendment; it would have helped to clarify new clause 1, which I hope to defend later.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am not sure whether I shall vote with the hon. Gentleman—I shall listen to the arguments—but I have some sympathy with what he said last year. If the Government are to introduce, in due course, a national register of electors, that would be an especially effective way of ensuring that people do not vote twice in two constituencies for the same assembly—whether that be Parliament or one of the regional assemblies that I so abhor.
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again, but his speech is so interesting that it provokes interventions. As the law stands, and given the failure of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), is not the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) factually wrong? At present, it is perfectly legitimate for people to be on the electoral register at two addresses, so long as they vote only in respect of one of them.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I pointed out that if the amendment tabled by the
      316
      hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire had been accepted, it would have prevented someone from voting twice in two constituencies for one assembly. Perhaps we could have some clarification from Ministers of whether it is still legal for someone, such as a student, to vote twice for two different assemblies—that is, to vote at home with a postal vote for a local council and, in the same election, to vote for a different council in the university town in which he is living—I see that the Minister agrees. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would have ensured that there could not be multiple voting for the same assembly.
      Mr. Linton: Just to ensure that the House does not suffer under a misapprehension, the definition of residence is not residing in a place for one night. According to the Inland Revenue, it is somewhere between residing there for more than half the year, which will guarantee that one is qualified for residence, and for a period from a quarter to one half of the year, which will entitle one to residence. That is why people can be resident in two places. That is why they can be resident overseas even though they spend a quarter of the year in this country. In an application for electoral registration, people can have dual registration—a practice to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I would like to see an end—but one cannot be resident overseas and have a vote in this country.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I make another plea to the Committee for brief interventions, so that we can make progress.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is right in the point that he makes about the Inland Revenue. That applies to the rules whether one is paying UK taxes, or paying only overseas taxes under a double taxation agreement. However, he is not correct in saying that just because that is the Inland Revenue's interpretation under finance legislation, it has any implication for residency rights under Representation of the People Acts. As I understand the matter—again I seek clarification from the Under-Secretary of State whose constituency almost abuts my own—it is the evening of 10 October that determines whether one is resident.
      The measure is blatantly unfair. I have friends who have worked overseas for UK companies, in unpleasant climates and in unpleasant countries—I shall not say where—but who are very active in politics. Furthermore, the assumption that such people are always Conservative is patently wrong. I gave the example of the Minister who lived in South Africa, where he was brought up. He had an overseas vote and obviously voted Labour, or, in his case—for all I know—communist.
      6 pm
      Mr. Bercow: I think he was a Liberal.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend tells me that the hon. Gentleman is a former Liberal.
      I have a friend from university who worked for Unilever and worked overseas, His father was general secretary of the north-east region of the Communist party. My friend used his postal vote. He told me that as there

      317
      were no communists in the constituency in which he wanted to vote, he was forced to vote right wing, as he put it—he had to vote Labour. Therefore, the assumption that all overseas voters are Conservative is patent nonsense.
      Nevertheless, the amendment is blatantly unfair. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, the whole test is that of citizenship. I firmly maintain that if one chooses—one does have choice in the matter—to remain a citizen of the United Kingdom, one has an interest in the United Kingdom. If one has an interest in the United Kingdom, one of the oldest democracies, with the second oldest Parliament— the oldest being the Althing in Iceland, which I have had the privilege of visiting several times—one has the right to vote, and that right should not be taken away.
      The right hon. Member for Gorton says that it is wrong for Governments to ignore Select Committee reports. Unfortunately, Governments do. Some Select Committees are more listened to than others. A recent report by The Guardian gave marks according to the publicity that various Select Committees get, and it was interesting to note that every Select Committee got either nul points or one star, and only one Select Committee got four stars. That was, surprisingly, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I suspect that both Conservative and Labour Governments listen to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee because it has the oxygen of publicity. The point that I wish to make, without going off the point, is that the Select Committees that seek obscurity sometimes deserve to be ignored by Governments.
      I shall not try your patience any more, Mr. Winterton. Citizenship is the issue. If people choose to retain United Kingdom citizenship, they choose to belong to a mature democracy. A mature democracy offers its citizens voting rights, and those voting rights should not be taken away.
      Mr. Barnes: I shall speak to the amendments that stand in my name, but first and foremost I want to support new clause 1 and the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and to reinforce his opposition to schedule 2 standing part of the Bill. In fact, my amendments are merely fall-back provisions in case my right hon. Friend's attempts to abolish overseas electoral registration should fail. My fall-back provisions are to some extent pre-empted by clause 130 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, but they have been tabled in this Committee as fall-back measures and allow us to discuss the principles that they involve.
      My name appears on the amendment paper in support of every one of my right hon. Friend's amendments. They show the clear, principled position to which we should adhere. I believe that people who move overseas become part of a fresh society, in the sense that they are subject to the laws and provisions of that society and will be linked with it by their family relationships. Their children are growing up in that society. Therefore the major things that happen to them depend on what is happening in that society—not on a few decisions on taxation taken in this country.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: That simply cannot be right, can it? It is the central feature of
      318
      citizenship that one owes rights and obligations to the state in return for protection. If a person goes to live abroad and is arrested, that person continues to look to the British consular service for protection until he has taken the citizenship of another country. Surely that in itself is a justification for being allowed to keep the right to vote, and to influence elections, in the country whose citizenship one claims.
      Mr. Barnes: That is not such a powerful argument. It is an argument about the nature of citizenship, links with this country and the services that a citizen expects, but why should a citizen who lives elsewhere expect the right to vote in his country of citizenship? Masses of other matters affecting a person's life are determined by the country in which he lives. Ideally, that is where the vote should be exercised while they are resident.
      Hon. Members may remember that I introduced an amendment earlier to say that the names of overseas residents in this country, in addition to those from the Republic of Ireland and from the Commonwealth, should be on registers in this country. I believe that that applies to about 680,000 people. Therefore, the principle for which I am arguing is consistent with my earlier arguments. The argument that people should vote where their links and connections are is overwhelming. It overrides the arguments about citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in a metaphysical sense as though it were the only thing that mattered in every set of circumstances and overrode every other consideration.
      Under the rolling register proposed in the Bill, United Kingdom citizens who go overseas can immediately re-register once they re-enter the United Kingdom for residential purposes. If a citizen feels that he very much belongs to the United Kingdom, and is drawn to the United Kingdom at every opportunity but his work sometimes takes him elsewhere, that presents no problems. When he is in the UK, he can re-qualify again in order to register; the Bill allows that to be done very quickly.
      We should not mix compulsory registration with a system of voluntary registration. Compulsory registration is democratically superior to voluntary registration. We should expect everyone in a society to be obliged to appear on an electoral register. It should then be their decision whether to exercise their franchise, but we should ensure that no one who is part of a society misses out.
      Voluntary registers are obnoxious, because if we operated voluntary registers in this country, some groups would be included in the registers and others would be excluded. We would by no means have full democratic arrangements. Voluntary electoral arrangements overseas have the same failing. There is no mechanism by which we can oblige everyone who is overseas to register, and it is sensible not to mix up these two arrangements but to stick with the stronger principle—compulsory registration.
      Compulsory registration ensures that those who are rootless, poor and alienated are incorporated into electoral systems. Voluntary registration would exclude them. If we operated such a system, it would be like the system that exists in America where there has been a massive lack of registration. The principle of compulsory registration rules out the arrangements for overseas registration.

      319
      In 1984–85—when, finally, a period of five years was established—my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton vigorously fought against the establishment of overseas registration rights. In 1989, that period was extended to 20 years. I had entered the House by then, and was one of a small group of Labour MPs who, at every conceivable opportunity, opposed the measure to try to extend the period, first to 25 years and then to 20 years. In 1989, I studied the speeches that my right hon. Friend had made in 1984–85—speeches from which he has quoted—and was glad to see that the Labour party had put up a vigorous battle in the House of Commons on these matters. I was only sorry that that did not occur on the later occasion, because there was at least an opportunity to say, "We shall go no further than the five-year provision."
      The Labour rebels who attempted to hold the line at five years were consistent in their voting. There were six Divisions against the measure, including in Committee, on Second and Third Readings and on the money resolution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the people who were the most involved in rebelling on those matters were all members of the socialist Campaign group. They voted four, five or six times against the measure. In fact, the only people who voted against it on six occasions were myself and Dave Nellist. People in the Labour party with democratic socialist principles that they extended to electoral arrangements were concerned by what was happening then. However, it might seem a strange alliance for someone from the socialist Campaign group to tuck in behind the amendments that were so vigorously moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton.
      Mr. Kaufman: As my hon. Friend will know, I was at that time a member of the shadow Cabinet and, therefore, bound by collective responsibility. Had I not been, he would have had my company in the Division Lobby.
      Mr. Barnes: I believe that that is the position that my right hon. Friend would have taken. I know that he was quite upset at the deal that Labour shadow Home Office representatives were engaged in. A low-level deal was reached to extend the provisions for postal and proxy votes and to increase the amount that could be spent on by-elections by allowing the Conservatives to increase the time that one could be out of the country for up to 20 years. That was entirely unacceptable.
      Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, but I am anxious about his call for compulsory registration. What would he say to someone who felt at risk of violence and chose, however unfortunate it might be, to come off the register?
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is not in order as it does not relate to the amendment. Unless he can prove that it does, I trust that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will continue his speech.
      Mr. Barnes: May I just say briefly that we have compulsory electoral registration in this country? That is
      320
      the basis of our system. If Members do not agree with that system, they should table amendments to the Bill and use the other procedures of the House to change it.
      Mr. Shepherd: In what way do we have compulsory registration in this country? My local authority makes inquiries and prints the register out on a pretty rote basis. However, there is no compulsion to register.
      Mr. Barnes: If someone fails to register, he can technically be fined £1,000 for failing to fill in a registration form. Millions of people are missing from the electoral register, so it is obvious that this aspect of the law does not work all that effectively. I am not in favour of bearing down heavily on those who are not on the register. I support the Bill, which is trying to get the people who are missing from the register back on it.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. Bearing in mind the number of amendments that have been selected for debate, it is important that we have an orderly discussion. Will the hon. Gentleman please return to consideration of the amendment?
      Mr. Barnes: I will now consider the amendments tabled in my name. So far, I have spoken to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, but to which my name has been attached.
      6.15 pm
      My amendments would restrict the period of the operation of the overseas vote to five or 10 years. The Select Committee on Home Affairs suggested that the period should be five years, and 10 years is the proposal which the Government have made in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. That proposal has been supported by the Liberal Democrats. However, I have also attached my name to amendment No. 82, which the Liberal Democrats' tabled and which would not allow someone who is not initially registered in this country to be registered overseas. At present, a babe in arms can be taken overseas and is able to vote in this country on his or her 18th birthday. The Liberal Democrat amendment would not permit that. Furthermore, a declaration should be signed by a person overseas to say that he or she intends to return to this country at the end of the 10-year period.
      I have adopted the Liberal Democrats' proposals, in connection with the five-year provision, in amendment No. 119. It is a starred amendment, because I tabled it only yesterday. However, I want the principle in the Liberal Democrats' amendment to operate in connection with the five-year as well as the 10-year arrangement. I am a bit disappointed that the Government have chosen a separate Bill to deal with that item. It is perverse that we should discuss overseas votes and the period of time in which one can have an overseas vote under this Bill when the decision will be made in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which has the objective of amending this Bill. The House has yet to decide whether it will pass this Bill.
      I hope that the Government will respond to my right hon. Friend's case and will end such undemocratic and unacceptable arrangements. If not, I hope that we shall provide for a shorter period for registration overseas that

      321
      will contain the necessary checks. That will act as a staging post in clearing the matter up until my right hon. Friend's views win the day.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred to amendment No. 82, which was tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. However, it is not the lead amendment, which we began to debate last month and last year, if not to say in the previous century or millennium. It would not result in a trivia quiz question if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were involved, but he has probably made the longest interrupted speech that Parliament has heard for a long time. It began a month ago today and only finished this afternoon. I understand his position, but I disagree with it and take a different view.
      When I intervened earlier, I was not special pleading on behalf of my older brother who was abroad but who has now returned to the United Kingdom. I used that case as an example of someone who had lived in the UK for a considerable part of his adult life and who had been sent by his employer to work abroad. He had no choice in the sense that that was there the job was; he could not go anywhere else. When the job finished, he returned. He never changed his intention to come back, but the question of how long he was outside this country was not in his hands. He happened to be in a Commonwealth country—Cyprus—but his case is replicated throughout the country. Anyone on any pay grade in any constituency could find himself in that position.
      My hon. Friends and I reflected on what is not a theological position; there is no absolute view of what is right or wrong. Each country legislates appropriately. Commonality of legislation is an issue when it comes to voting for the European Parliament. If there is one set of rules in one country and another set in another, one begins to have a varied process for choosing representatives. However, let us put that issue aside for a moment. We are concentrating on elections in the UK and we are free to choose our own rules.
      The right hon. Member for Gorton reminded us that we went from no overseas voting to it being allowed in a period of five or 10 years. A period of five years was decided on, but that suddenly shot up under the Conservative Government to 20 years. In the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, the Second Reading of which we debated on Monday, the Government now suggest that the period should be 10 years. I want to explore two or three issues in relation to that and urge the Minister to reflect that the distance between the Government's current position and ours is very small. If it is appropriate, I am happy for the matter to be considered under the other Bill and I hope that we can reach maximum consensus.
      I intervened earlier on the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the history of this issue. I refer to the relevant and interesting example of Vale of Glamorgan, where the right hon. Gentleman's colleague was clearly turfed out by people who were not in the constituency at the time of the election. There is no suggestion that those people did not have a connection with the constituency. They voted by proxy and the evidence showed that many of them had declared themselves to be Conservatives, and clearly the
      322
      majority determined the result. However, it appeared that they fell within the rules because they had a link with the constituency and were calling on someone local to act for them.
      That is not nearly as awful as people looking at a map of the United Kingdom, choosing Vale of Glamorgan because it is a very marginal seat, and saying that they would exercise their franchise there, even though they had never had a link with the constituency. We must have a system in which people cannot pervert the normal process by choosing where they place their vote because that right is not open to everybody else. People who have one home or who qualify to vote on the basis of one home do not have freedom to choose where they vote, and no one else should have that freedom either.
      Those who are abroad must have their vote in the place where they last had a link—this is where the argument about young people applies—otherwise there will be abuse of the system and the people who are resident in this country all the time feel that they are not equally valued.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: Yes, but I want to keep my contribution brief.
      Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that at the moment there is a mechanism whereby one does not have to have a local link? Surely the point is that to vote in a constituency one has to have a connection, and there is no way that someone could, as he said, scan the map to find a marginal constituency in which to vote.
      Mr. Hughes: That point raises several issues. That should be the position, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the law is not entirely clear about that. Secondly, we are debating what the law should be, and I want us to make sure that at the end of this process we make the law as clear as possible.
      Thirdly, if we are to be fair and have a system that does not allow arbitrary choice, we cannot have a rule that allows people living in Cyprus or India, for example, who have not lived in this country since birth, suddenly to come on to the register at age 18 and pronounce where they will have their vote. I am flagging up the need to end up with an Act that makes sure that that problem is solved.
      It is perfectly proper to have a debate about whether the criterion for voting should be citizenship or residence at the time of the election. If, at the end of the day, we decide that someone who is abroad and can vote nowhere else has sufficient connection with this country to vote here, we need to define that connection. There are several ways of doing so. The first is that the person concerned is a UK citizen and that he keeps his vote here no matter whether he has a right to vote elsewhere.
      The second definition is that the person has a residence here and is based here, even though he may not be here very often. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned, that means that the person has a choice. That criterion would be discriminatory on the basis of property and wealth and should be rejected.
      The third way of defining a connection is to ensure that before they leave the country people make a statutory declaration that they are leaving for a limited period.

      323
      Although that is not a perfect system, the declaration could be taken into account in other matters such as tax. There is every difference between people who leave this country to live somewhere else and say for tax purposes that they are not a UK resident, and people who have lodged in a public place a declaration to return. That declaration clearly has tax implications, so it is likely that people would not make it without thinking seriously about it.
      The fourth way is to introduce a mechanism by which people can attest to the impermanence of their move abroad.
      Mr. Greenway: On the hon. Gentleman's point that people who choose not to pay tax in this country should not be allowed to vote, has he considered that many of them choose not to pay tax in this country under double taxation agreements because they have to pay tax in the country where they are working, often for a British company?
      Mr. Hughes: I have considered that, and I have discussed the subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who is much more expert in these matters than me. We have never pulled together in UK law, certainly not in English law, the various entitlements that people can have. They are entitled to certain rights because of their citizenship here; they have other entitlements because of their domicile here—domicile is a complicated area of legal definition— and they are given other entitlements by virtue of their residence here, but if they are well advised and know their way around the system, it is still possible in law for them to play the field and vote in a certain place and be exempt from tax or have their tax liability reduced.
      I do not expect a portmanteau answer from the Minister now, and I appreciate that the Bill is concerned with electoral reform, not taxation, but we should try to use the opportunity to make sure that we do not have additional criteria that further complicate the rights and entitlements of people who go abroad and return home. At the moment, the law is complicated in defining people's liabilities to the state and their rights. We should at least ensure that people's entitlement to vote and obligation to pay tax flow as similarly as possible from the status of their residence, and are not made too complicated.
      Mr. Grieve: That is simply impossible. A French national living in the United Kingdom, paying UK tax, would have no entitlement to vote. Unless we depart from the basic principle and extend the vote to all residents by making residency, not nationality, the sole criterion, we will never get the clarity that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
      Mr. Hughes: Of course I understand that a French national living here may have taxation obligations here but not the right to vote, other than in European Union elections. I was simply saying that when we legislate to provide, in this Bill or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, a new definition of people's right to vote here, we should make the whole system of rights and entitlements less, not more, complicated than it is now. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, we should not end up with
      324
      legislation that discriminates in favour of the well off and well advised. Everybody should have equal opportunity to exercise their franchise.
      Mr. Bercow: I fear that the hon. Gentleman might not achieve the equity and simplicity that he seeks. Would not a requirement for a declaration of intent discriminate unfairly against those persons who, through no fault of their own, were not at the time of emigration in a position to know whether, and therefore when, they would return?
      Mr. Hughes: I understand that. We are getting into a lot of detail, although in Committee we probably need to do so. All one can ever do is declare that, in so far as it lies within one's power, one intends to return. Some people are posted abroad indefinitely and of course they cannot say how long they will be away. That is the purpose of our probing amendment, No. 82, which would at least allow one to declare one's intention to return within 10 years. The hon. Gentleman could suggest the alternative proposition that one should be able to declare one's intention to return at the earliest date on which one's employment allows.
      Mr. Linton: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the provision that he is defending is the very one that allows some people, including some who have been mentioned in this debate, apparently to vote in two countries and pay tax in neither?
      Mr. Hughes: That is exactly why we need to try to pull together all the different pieces of legislation. The benefit of Committees such as the Home Affairs Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman sits and alludes to often, is that evidence can be taken and conclusions reached about how best we can do that.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly reminds us that the Home Affairs Committee expressed the unanimous view that there should be a five-year rule. We argue for a 10-year rule not because we have a fundamental objection to the five-year proposition but because of the pragmatic consideration that in a global economy people move around more often and are away for longer periods. The more that we thought about it, the more we came to that conclusion.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman that whichever conclusion we reach—the five or 10-year proposition or anything other than the stipulation that one cannot be absent at all, with which we began the debate—we may need to find a mechanism through which people may declare their intentions, such as a register kept for the purpose. Otherwise, the system will be open to abuse and misinterpretation.
      Hon. Members want to deal with the crude abuse of the system by those who leave this country for ever, have no intention of returning and, to use the cliche, live a life of Riley on the Costa del Sol or Brava, or somewhere else, but continue to have a vote and the ability to influence this country. The public certainly regard that as an abuse of the system. If people are definitely returning to this country, and soon, or are planning to do so, that is one thing, but if they have retired or settled elsewhere, there must come an early point at which their interests and right to influence the political system move with them.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Shepherd: I am concerned about the retirement element of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I notice in my constituency—I am sure that it is so for him, too—that, with early retirement, people are spending increasing time abroad. Taxation may be one reason, although for health reasons they may want a sunny climate. Nevertheless, their entire family and interests are still focused on the United Kingdom, they are not often integrated into local societies elsewhere, and, as they become older and often need medical advice, they return to the UK. Their link with the UK is clear, substantial and constant. Should they be deprived of the vote after 10 years?
      Mr. Hughes: That is a valid question. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) took the original view that there should be no time limit. That is a perfectly proper alternative view at the other end of the spectrum to that of the right hon. Member for Gorton. To take the example given by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, someone may retire early and live in Spain but never become a Spanish citizen. Their assets, savings, tax liability and family might remain in the UK, and they might always return due to illness or to recover or to die.
      We are not rejecting the proposition because it is wrong; it is a matter of struggling, as a Committee, to find a mechanism that prevents abuse of the system by those who intend never to return and who take all their interests elsewhere, but protects those who retain an interest in this country. Our considered view was that the 10-year proposition was about right, but that there may need to be some way of checking its operation. Otherwise, people in such a bracket will have the advantage of a vote here even though they may be as certain on leaving that they will never return as those who have been away for two or 20 years. That is why a simple 10-year rule may not be sufficient.
      At the end of the day, the Committee must come to a view. The major point of dissent from the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Gorton is on the basis that one should not lose one's right to vote here just because one is out of the country, especially when for family, commercial or business reasons one has no alternative but to make such a choice. I hope that the Committee will come to a different conclusion from the right hon. Gentleman's.
      Mr. Denis MacShane: This debate has opened up some interesting themes about citizenship, which are complex. Is one a citizen because one's bloodline is of a given nation, as say the Germans; one was born in the nation, as say the Americans; or for other reasons? I was nervous to hear the idea emerging from some quarters that the Inland Revenue should decide who is and who is not a British citizen.
      I have some interest in this debate, as will many people who are listening to it or will read it on the net tomorrow. We should have some regard for the 9 million fellow British citizens who will take some interest in the proceedings of this Committee.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. MacShane: May I make a little progress? I am trying to be brief.
      326
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) began this excellent debate just before Christmas, but never could we have envisaged that the discoursus interruptus—if I may call it that—would cause such a follow-up, comprising many excellent contributions. He described himself as a grovelling sycophant. I hope that there is no one in the House who has greater admiration for his many talents than me.
      Mr. Kaufman: I hope that there is.
      Mr. MacShane: It takes one to know one.
      Some might feel that my right hon. Friend was adopting a little Englander or anti-internationalist approach, but given his distinguished record as a shadow Foreign Secretary, his many wise writings on many aspects of international affairs and the deft way in which he managed to transport all his wonderful Select Committee to Hollywood for a lovely week of lying around on sun-loungers watching Hollywood films, one sees one of the great internationalists of the House and someone who knows the world intimately. However, it was not always thus.
      In my right hon. Friend's wonderful book, "My Life in the Silver Screen", which I recommend to the Committee, he says that, as a boy,
      "I saw numerous westerns, all of which"—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. All this might be extremely interesting and very accurate, but it is not relevant to the debate—unless the hon. Member makes its relevance clear in the next few moments, as I hope he will.
      Mr. MacShane: I shall if I may, Mr. Winterton. This debate is about whether our many citizens who live overseas should have the right to vote.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. MacShane: No.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton tabled the amendment that will take away such citizens' right to vote. In his book, he says:
      "I saw numerous westerns, all of which I enjoyed but none of which I could understand, as I had no idea in which country the West was situated".
      He has moved on from those boyhood moments to become a great internationalist, so I am surprised that he is inviting hon. Members, for the first time since I became a Member, to reduce the franchise. I thought that, on the whole, the British Parliament had always increased the franchise.
      Mr. Barnes: Labour has not always tried to extend the franchise. Property and university votes were done away with because they were wrong—and it is wrong in connection with overseas votes.
      Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is talking about people who had two votes in elections to this Parliament, but I am talking about those who have only one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and others propose to take away that vote.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. MacShane: I am trying to make maximum progress to allow others to make proper speeches.

      327
      There are 650,000 British citizens currently living in the European Union who have a very close connection with and an interest in what happens in this country. There are 214,000 service personnel who live overseas sometimes for quite long periods, as we know from other debates.
      Mr. Kaufman: They all have proxy rights.
      Mr. MacShane: They do not all have property rights.
      Mr. Kaufman: Every British service man and service woman abroad has the right to apply for a proxy vote and to exercise it. My amendment would not deprive them of the right to vote.
      Mr. MacShane: The point is that all British citizens overseas may at times of high emergency or war be placed under some control by the Government. It seems rather odd that we may theoretically invite them to make sacrifices for the country but not allow them to vote if they so desire.
      There are 840,000 people receiving United Kingdom state pensions abroad, and those people are directly connected to this country. That is a valuable network of British citizens, and it does not matter whether or not they are residents in this country. When Palmerston enunciated the great doctrine of civis Britannicus sum, he did not say that it was necessary to reside at 24, Park villas in Gorton to have British citizenship.
      The paradox is that we allow more and more people to vote in this country who are not holders of British passports. Every European Union citizen living in this country may vote in European Parliament and local government elections.
      Mr. Fabricant: I agree with most of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I am rather confused about the motives for them. Are they to be regarded as sycophancy for the Government Front Bench or is he advancing them because he voted in overseas elections when he was living in Switzerland?
      Mr. MacShane: I could not vote in Switzerland when I lived there briefly.
      I return to the key point. It has been suggested that we take away the right to vote from our own passport holders, but we are extending that right to nationals of foreign countries in this country. Every Irish citizen who comes here has the right to vote and, indeed, to stand for Parliament. I have no problems with that because it is a tribute to the tolerance of this country. It is wrong to reduce the right to vote to our passport holders when we extend that right to so many nationals of foreign countries who are foreign passport holders.
      It is all the more perverse to reduce the right to vote of our citizens abroad when other countries are seeking to extend the right to vote of their citizens who are abroad. I expect that later this year we shall all on the Government Benches go to parties organised by Democrats Abroad, as they seek to get support for their candidates in the American election. Conservative Members may go to parties organised by Republicans Abroad. No American citizen has his right to vote taken away from him because he lives abroad. German citizens are allowed to live
      328
      abroad for 25 years before the right to vote is taken away from them. Spain allows all its citizens abroad to vote. Italy and Switzerland have recently changed their constitutions to allow their citizens abroad to vote. Many more citizens of all countries, including the United Kingdom, are living in the European Union or further abroad. It must be recognised that we now live in a more global economy and society.
      A day or two ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton told me that the man who makes excellent salt beef sandwiches in St. John's Wood flies home to Israel to vote. I presume that he is an Israeli citizen and that he does not lose the right to vote because he provides excellent salt beef sandwiches in St. John's Wood.
      India allows all of its citizens who are abroad to vote. The many Indian passport holders who live in this country can vote in their elections back home.
      There are two more brief arguments with which I must deal. There is the question of residence and whether only one address should count. That would certainly present problems to Members of this place. When I was the local Labour party secretary in the Birmingham, Selly Oak constituency, I was encouraged to get all the students on to the electoral roll. Labour won that seat with the help of the students' votes in 1974. We lost it in 1979 because the students momentarily, or for another 18 years, swung back to the right.
      Plumping is important and it needs to be dealt with by regulation. That is plumping in the sense of, for example, people putting all their votes into Vale of Glamorgan or any other particular place.
      I do not know whether the amendment will be pressed to a Division. If it is, I ask the House of Commons not to send the message contained within it to our citizens who are working overseas. They might do so for a few years or for much longer. They are British citizens and we are proud of them. We shall not take from them the fundamental expression of citizenship in the modern world, which is the right to participate in the democratic process.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Grieve: I do not always agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), but on this occasion I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) because although I was present for the start of his speech before Christmas, I missed part of the middle and end of it this afternoon.
      We have dwelt on citizenship, which is a key factor in whether someone should be allowed to vote. Some surprising arguments have been advanced because they seem to denigrate citizenship and to suggest that it is only a series of privileges to be abused. As Lord Haw Haw discovered to his cost, the abuse of his privilege of obtaining a British passport in 1940 before he zipped off to Germany to make his broadcasts cost him rather dear. He abused his citizenship rights and paid the penalty.
      Citizenship carries rights and obligations. Someone who installs himself for 40 years in a foreign country but chooses to keep his British citizenship is retaining a privilege and a right that may be useful to him in terms of consular access if he has difficulties, but one that

      329
      places him under obligations. When someone is under obligations to a state, surely that gives him a right and an entitlement to have a voice in the way in which that country is run. It is a fundamental issue. The argument that is advanced by the right hon. Member for Gorton and others who wish to get rid of this right surprises me.
      In part, I have a French background. I contrast the approach that appears to be adopted by France and the attitudes that seem to be advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. If a French citizen is overseas, that is seen as a great plus. He is out in the wider world and perhaps representing the interests of France for as long as he may be able to promote them. The French invite such people to their embassies every 14 July. They send newsletters to keep in touch with them and they encourage them to vote. They try to involve them as much as possible in the life of their country, with which they may have only the remotest contact.
      Curiously, we have before us another form of Frenchness. I do not think that I have ever heard a greater series of Poujadiste arguments than those that have been put forward this afternoon in favour of getting rid of the overseas electoral register. They are all about people who are supposed to be milking the milch cow. It is alleged that they are abroad because they cannot pay tax. It is suggested that they are enjoying privileges while not fulfilling their obligations. Such a mean-minded set of reasons for getting rid of the overseas right to vote has rarely been heard.
      Mr. Fabricant: I could not help but intervene on my hon. Friend when he mentioned that he is half French, given my surname, which is of French origin.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that the French encourage their nationals to visit their embassies when abroad because although they may not be paying French tax, when they are working for French companies they are earning money for the French economy for the benefit of that nation? British embassies and commissions abroad do the same for our nationals who are working abroad. Although such people are not paying tax, they are still contributing to the welfare of the United Kingdom and therefore should be entitled to the vote.
      Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend, but this issue goes wider than that. Someone living abroad may feel sufficiently connected with the United Kingdom to retain his citizenship. He may be a dual national, and dual nationals may vote in elections in two countries at once. If such a person feels sufficiently connected to be prepared to maintain the obligations of citizenship, it appears to me fundamental that that should give him an entitlement to be heard on how the country is run. It is as simple as that.
      Mr. Barnes: For how many years?
      Mr. Grieve: I would not have quibbled with the 20-year rule, but I note with interest that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has suggested that it should be for as long as citizenship is maintained. As an issue of principle, I do not disagree with that one iota, although I would not necessarily interfere with the present system.
      330
      There is a degree of mean-mindedness in the whole approach. As the hon. Member for Rotherham rightly said, it is profoundly ironic that, at a time when we have extended the franchise to large numbers of residents who have, for one reason or another, chosen not to take up the obligations of nationality and British citizenship, the amendment would deprive people who usually feel intimately connected with this country, loyal to it and interested in its well-being, of the right to vote. It would amount to kicking them out. I am wholly against it. The amendments are ill-considered, and I hope that the Committee rejects them.
      Mr. Greenway: Arguments on the rights of United Kingdom citizens overseas to vote in parliamentary elections in this country have been well rehearsed and documented over a long period. This debate, like previous debates on the Bill, has been characterised by references to the history of the past 15 years or so on this and other electoral issues.
      The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who proposed this amendment, made his position clear on Second Reading and in the debates on both sides of the Christmas recess. A study of the official record shows that he has, as he has always maintained, never been enthusiastic about this measure, and was unhappy about it in 1984. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and a former Member, Mr. Dave Nellist, whom we all miss, have been absolutely consistent throughout all the debates.
      The right hon. Member for Gorton has two difficulties. First, although he may say that he has always opposed this measure, he was a senior member of the shadow Cabinet in 1989 when, at the instigation of the then Opposition, the current 20-year rule was introduced by an amendment. Reference has been made to the fact that he was the shadow Foreign Secretary at that time, so he cannot walk away from joint responsibility for the decision that was taken.
      I suspect that in years to come, we will learn what views he expressed to Lord Hattersley, who as shadow Home Secretary sanctioned the tabling of the 20-year rule amendment by his junior colleague, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). It is worth reminding the Committee of what he said in 1989. He said:
      "a number of people will leave this country perhaps to… work in Europe or in other parts of the world but will still maintain a lively interest in the affairs of this country."
      He went on to say that it was right that they should retain the right to vote and added:
      "I believe 20 years is a sensible compromise".—[Official Report, 5 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 411.]
      That has been the settled position ever since.
      The right hon. Member for Gorton has a second, more contemporary difficulty. As he admitted, his party does not agree with him. The excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) shows that there is some good sense on this issue among Labour Back Benchers. I greatly applaud what he said. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, he makes a gesture that seems to show that, rather than being sycophantic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) suggested, he may have done himself some damage. As a fellow Yorkshire Member, he has not

      331
      done himself any damage as far as I am concerned. It is always good for us to have a supporting contribution from Labour Members.
      I also want to comment on the Liberal Democrat view. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke to the Liberal Democrat amendments. We know what the right hon. Member for Gorton thinks, and it looks like we know what the Government think, but we are less clear about the Liberal Democrat position. In 1989, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) argued that there should be no limit on overseas voting rights. I shall not detain the House with direct quotations, but anyone who studies Hansard will see that his position was unequivocal.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey accepted that, but seemed to suggest that there was now evidence of abuse and that that was why the Liberal Democrat position should change. In this debate, and when we touched on this issue on Second Reading on 30 November, no one has produced a shred of evidence of abuse. It has all been general innuendo. People have taken the opportunity to air their dislike of overseas voters having any rights.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the implicit suggestion of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that Britons living abroad are ordinarily ignorant about what is taking place in this country was never true, and is likely to be even less true now with the development of technology in general and the internet in particular? Such people are often very well informed about the affairs of this country.
      Mr. Greenway: As always, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I shall come on to the changed circumstances of the world as it is now, because I agree with him that, if anything, it should encourage us to be more generous to British citizens living overseas and not less, as the amendment asks us to be.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that I understand the argument for an indefinite right. If he is arguing for that, does he accept that it should at least be qualified by a requirement to establish whether persons who have left these shores want to retain their link with this country and intend or hope to come back one day?
      Mr. Greenway: I have not argued for an indefinite right. I reminded the House that that is what the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross argued for in 1989. I am arguing that the settled position that was reached by the House in 1989 should remain. I shall come on to other aspects of the debate, which may answer some of the hon. Gentleman's other points.
      I want the hon. Gentleman to concentrate a little more on his own position. The Liberal Democrats support a 10-year limit in the amendments to which they have put their names. Their then home affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), said as recently as September that it should be seven years. On Second Reading, when this matter came up, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey advocated caution and further consultation. He said:
      "We must not act in haste and repent at leisure."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 192.]
      332
      Yet here we are, less than five working weeks later, being asked to accept a high-falutin amendment that suggests that people should sign a declaration before going abroad, and reintroduces the argument about taxation.
      7 pm
      That is another issue on which the Liberal Democrat view has changed dramatically. In the 1989 debates, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was scathing about the suggestion of a Labour Back Bencher that there should be a taxpaying requirement. I consider the proposal of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to be as nonsensical and impractical now as it was then. United Kingdom citizens move to live abroad—in many cases, because of their work. They may or may not pay tax, depending on their circumstances. Double taxation agreements are there to protect citizens of all countries, and to ensure that they need not pay tax twice. They choose to pay tax in the third country rather than here to avoid double taxation, not so that they can walk away from any obligations that they may have to the United Kingdom. Many expatriates working abroad would be both disadvantaged and disfranchised by the Liberal Democrats' proposal.
      United Kingdom citizens who go abroad because of their work, often at short notice, experience a huge amount of disruption in their personal and domestic lives. It is doubtful whether they will give much thought to then-voting rights, and they are unlikely to give priority to signing the declaration proposed in amendment No. 82.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way briefly? Mr. Greenway: I will give way one last time.
      Mr. Fabricant: Would not the signing of such a declaration be a pointless exercise in any event? People who wanted to retain the vote, and to make a declaration, could do so, even if they intended to remain abroad for any length of time. This is woolly thinking, which, if I may say so, is typical of the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Greenway: I am glad that I allowed my hon. Friend to intervene.
      We live at a time of increased globalisation. More and more people in all walks of life—and, I dare say, in all classes—are moving to live and work abroad; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) reminded us, the internet has led to additional globalisation, and allowed people who still have British passports and British citizenship to be fully informed about what is happening in their country of origin.
      People who leave to work abroad often do so on a temporary basis, not knowing whether and in what circumstances the move may become permanent. We strongly believe that those people, as United Kingdom citizens, have a right to expect the House of Commons to protect their interests, which include their right to vote in parliamentary elections. The hon. Member for Rotherham made that point forcefully. What Parliament and the Committee must decide is for how long that voting right should remain. Until recently, the status quo of 20 years was regarded as a settled position, and we see no real case for change. The Government have argued that there should be no change to the franchise in the Bill, because

      333
      it implements the recommendations of the working party. We hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still the Government's view.
      There were no discussions, and consequently there was no consensus in favour of the change, in the working party, but the Government have decided to include an amendment to 10 years in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which will implement the recommendations of the Neill committee. That committee, however, did not consider the issue either. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made that point forcefully during Monday's Second Reading debate, but neither the Home Secretary nor the Under-Secretary of State chose to respond to it.
      The report of the Select Committee, of which both the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield are members, will show that Mr. Gardner, who gave evidence on behalf of the Labour party on overseas voting rights, told the Committee that a reduction in the 20-year entitlement was not a priority for Labour. We consider the argument that the franchise issue is closely linked with the funding issue, which the Home Secretary advanced on Second Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill on Monday, to be both spurious and insulting. Those issues should be considered separately.
      This week, the Government promoted a Bill that suggested that voting rights should continue for 10 years. Now, we are about to hear the Minister argue that the right should be retained for 20 years. The Minister has admitted to me in written answers that the Government have made no estimate of the number of people who will be affected by the change. We think that it is around 3 million; the hon. Member for Rotherham said that it could be as many as 9 million. Surely that alone is an argument for thinking again before lowering the limit. I apologise for singling out the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, but anyone who heard his speech will realise that the proposals that we are being asked to accept have not been thought through.
      The right hon. Member for Gorton and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire were consistent to an extent, but there are fundamental disagreements between us. Given the confusion, argument, counter-argument and profound concern about the political motivation for any proposed change, the Government should have consulted before proposing 10 years in the Bill that was debated on Monday. We have said that we will support the Neill Bill, but support for that Bill should not be seen as support for the argument in favour of 10 years. Today's debate has shown that more thought is needed.
      If the 20-year rule is reduced or, worst of all, abolished, Parliament will disfranchise British citizens for the first time since 1832. This is a shameful, spiteful, mean-minded and ill-judged proposal that the Committee should reject.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his robust and eloquent speech, but I would have expected nothing else. My right hon. Friend is known to be a doughty campaigner for the causes that
      334
      he champions, and he has considerable knowledge and experience of electoral law—as, indeed, does my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I also listened with interest to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who put his case very well. Some of the issues that he raised are worthy of further consideration.
      Having said that, however, I must add that I have been reminded somewhat of Sherlock Holmes's "dog that did not bark in the night" in the case of Silver Blaze. We have spent a good deal of time, before Christmas and this afternoon, discussing an issue that does not currently feature in the Bill—and, in my view, should not feature in it.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading that he believed that the rights of overseas voters and, in particular, the time that they should be allowed to remain on an electoral register after leaving the United Kingdom were serious issues that needed discussion. They are contentious issues, as has been shown by today's debate. He said that the Government hoped that, if possible, any changes in the period should be made on the basis of consensus. Most important, he suggested that such discussions should take place in the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. That Bill contains a provision that would reduce the period for overseas voters to 10 years, as we discussed during its Second Reading on Monday.
      As today's discussions have demonstrated, the right to be on the electoral register is in many ways closely tied to the issue of who may make donations to political parties. That is one good reason why it would be better to leave discussion of the 20-year rule to the other Bill. I have no doubt that we can expect a lively debate on the issue at that time.
      Another reason is that the Representation of the People Bill is intended to give effect to the recommendations of the working party on electoral procedures, which, I remind the Committee, was an all-party group that proceeded on the basis of consensus. With the small exception of the new false particulars offence in schedule 5, we have deliberately avoided going beyond the recommendations of the working party. The amendments would breach that principle.
      The Government hope that the Bill will receive a fair wind in its passage through both this House and another place. That will enable the first innovative pilot schemes to be run at next May's local government elections. That timetable would be jeopardised if we embarked on consideration of a potentially controversial issue such as the time during which overseas voters may claim the right to vote. In the light of what I have said and in the knowledge that there will be an opportunity for full discussion of those issues, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members not to press the amendments to a vote.
      I do not want to advance all the arguments. We have had much discussion today and I know that the Committee wishes to move to other important issues, but we take the view that 20 years is probably too long. People who have been away for effectively a generation may have little or no knowledge of contemporary issues in the constituency in which they vote. It is difficult to argue that a person should vote in an election for a Government of whom he has not been a subject for 20 years. However, as the

      335
      period away decreases to 10 years, the argument for reducing the period loses some of its strength. Although it may have some force, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, it has less force than that for reducing the 20-year period.
      Mr. Brady: Has the Minister considered the position of pensioners who may have contributed taxes and national insurance throughout their working lives, who then go to live overseas—but depend on pensions, the level of which might be fixed by the House and by the British Government? Surely those people have a right to be enfranchised and to have a say, given that they have contributed not to a fully paid fund, but to something that will have variable benefits to be paid by decision of the Government. Those people should have some say in the matter.
      Mr. O'Brien: There are strong arguments on both sides. Some people say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton did, that people should live in the country in which they vote for the Government. Others say that people may live outside the UK; be retired outside the UK, having contributed during their working lives; be abroad on business; or work for the United Nations, the European Union, charities overseas or commercial organisations, important as those are.
      7.15 pm
      Many of those people may retain homes in this country. Their children may go to school here. Many may have a clear intention to remain permanently here in future. Many may retain, as has been said in previous debates on the issue, a lively interest in affairs here. There is an argument that we should not deny them a vote. However, others who are resident abroad, perhaps for tax or other reasons, have no intention of ever returning here, yet for 20 years they are entitled to vote. There is arguably some unfairness in that.
      It is difficult to create complex criteria that would be fair to everyone. People are so multifaceted and live in such a multitude of circumstances that any test that tries to apply to all of them would be so unnecessarily complicated that it would end up being arbitrary. We have concluded that although 20 years is too long, 10 years is a compromise that we hope the House will eventually be able to accept. There is an argument for ensuring that such debates do not cause unnecessary dispute. It is right that they be lively, but it is also right that the franchise and elections should not be the subject of substantial unnecessary dispute, with Governments chopping and changing after every election the way in which the franchise operates.
      There are strongly held views and we need to look for a balance. The proposed reduction of the qualifying period for registration as an overseas voter from 20 to 10 years is a balanced and equitable response to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. As the Committee unanimously recognised, the existing 20-year qualifying period is excessive. It recommended restoring the original five-year qualifying period, but that may go too far in the other direction. As I have said, many people who work abroad for international organisations may reside abroad for more than five years, but have every intention of returning permanently. A reduction to 10 years strikes a balance.
      336
      I want to make it clear that it is not a question of making it difficult for particular individuals to make donations. The Government have reached a view on the matter on the basis of principle and of trying to achieve consensus.
      Mr. Grieve: There is no consensus.
      Mr. O'Brien: We are trying to bring about some sort of consensus. I accept that, as has been demonstrated in the debate, a consensus does not exist at the moment, but. as we progress, I hope that we will be able to come at least to a compromise, if not a consensus.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has asked whether clause 130 is set in stone or whether the Government will continue to think about it. We have always listened with great care to his views. I urge him to withdraw his amendment now and we will listen with care to his views during consideration of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. We have a considered view, but we will continue to listen. Perhaps our view is not set in stone, but it is a considered view. We will continue to listen to the debate. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Barnes: I hope that one of the groups that will not be greatly listened to in connection with overseas votes is the Conservative party and the Conservative Front-Bench team. When a measure was introduced in 1989 to extend the period to 25 years, and it was set at 20, the Conservative party tried to destroy electoral registration in this country through the linking of the poll tax to the electoral register. That led to 1 million people not being enfranchised.
      Mr. O'Brien: I must make it clear that we listen to all views if they are properly put forward. We will listen to them with proper care. If they are put forward in a less than considered way, we will give them the credit that is due.
      The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked about people in mental hospitals. People who are detained in mental hospitals are not, and never have been, banned from voting. However, they have been effectively disfranchised as they have not been able to register in respect of the hospital where they reside. The Bill would remedy that anomaly.
      The hon. Gentleman raised citizenship issues, as did the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). However, although citizenship issues are important, they are not the only issues. In parliamentary elections, people who may be able to vote include British citizens, some Commonwealth citizens, Irish citizens and some overseas electors—who may also, of course, be citizens of other countries. In European parliamentary elections, British, Commonwealth and European Union voters—including Irish voters—may be able to vote. Different rules apply in local government elections. The issues are, therefore, neither simple nor attached only to citizenship. Moreover, there are restrictions on who is able to vote, based on age and various other factors.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked whether overseas voters would be able to pick and choose their constituency. People must be registered at the last address at which they were registered

      337
      in the usual way. People who were too young to be on the register when they lived in the United Kingdom must be registered at an address where they previously lived and where a parent or guardian was registered.
      Therefore, to some extent, there is already a requirement for a constituency link—which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is seeking to strengthen—and that is one of the issues that we shall be able to address in our consideration of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his arguments then. There may well be ways of strengthening and making clearer the role of that link. Although I am currently not convinced that using the Inland Revenue is the best means of accomplishing that goal, we shall continue to listen with great care to the arguments being made.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) urged us not to legislate in haste on the issue and repent at leisure. However, we have a little more leisure time to consider the matter—at least until we again consider the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Strong arguments have been made on both sides of the franchise issue, and we shall have to try to reach if not a consensus, at least—to take the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—a compromise, so that we are able to go forward with some sense that we have achieved fairness.
      On that basis, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton will withdraw his amendment, and that the hon. Members who tabled the other amendments will not press them.
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and some other Conservative Members have said that the franchise should be based on citizenship, and that, if that happens, there should be no terminal period for that franchise. However, the Conservative party—which those hon. Members have voted for and supported at every level—has imposed such limits. Therefore, the principle that those hon. Members support—I respect their right as individuals to support it—has not been supported by the Conservative party in government.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned confusion on the issue, and said that he is opposed to chopping and changing policy. However, the Government whom he supported consistently chopped and changed on the issue. At various times, the previous Government offered the House four different time limits on the overseas vote: five years, seven years, 20 years and 25 years. It is therefore perfectly clear that Conservative Members do not regard time limits as a matter of principle; if they did, they would have decided on a figure and stuck to it. They seem to regard time limits as a convenience, or as something that they can get away with.
      Some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), described overseas voting as a cherished right and the obligations of citizenship. However, overseas voting is not an obligation but an option. Moreover, it is an option that barely anyone takes up—although the results of people taking it up may be extremely invidious.
      338
      With deep affection, I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that he still needs to learn a lesson or two in sycophancy.
      Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way; the Committee wishes to conclude this debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham described 9 million people and 840,000 pensioners who potentially could be overseas voters. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) also mentioned pensioners' interests. If 840,000 pensioners are concerned about their pensions—the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware that those people's pensions are frozen when they move residence from the United Kingdom—and feel strongly about the issue, they could register to vote. We could have 840,000 overseas voters who are pensioners.
      Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to wind up.
      In fact, of the 9 million potential overseas voters mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and of the 3 million people mentioned by the hon. Member for Ryedale, 13,000 people are registered. We are speaking, therefore, not about an inalienable right, but of an option that only a handful of people decide to exercise, with possibly highly invidious results— including, as we know, the defeat of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith).
      I can therefore tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, in response to his request, I shall withdraw my amendment. He said that he wants a consensus—which is fine—but I should be very grateful if he took into account the fact that consensus does not simply mean agreement between Ministers and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, but also agreement between Ministers and Labour Back Benchers. Provided that Ministers realise that 350 Labour Back Benchers have at least as great a vote as 160 Conservative Members—their number seems to be decreasing—and 46 Liberal Democrat Members, and that we have at least twice as much right as Opposition Members to participate in a consensus, I believe that the Minister's promise to listen might result in something that is acceptable to all of us.
      On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clauses 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      RESIDENCE: PATIENTS IN MENTAL HOSPITALS WHO ARE NOT DETAINED OFFENDERS OR ON REMAND
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Clause 4 is the result of work done by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his colleagues on the working party, seeking to correct clear civil disadvantages that have quite wrongly

      339
      been imposed on some of our fellow citizens. As mentioned earlier in the debate, the provision will enable those who are in mental hospitals, but who are not detained as offenders or on remand, to vote.
      One of the last scandals of the old mental institutions— asylums—is that those who were physically ill and in hospital could vote, provided that they arranged to do so through a postal or proxy vote, whereas those who were in a mental hospital were not able to do so. That was disgraceful.
      I should like simply to acknowledge that clause 4 will ensure that we remove some of the remaining stigmas attached to mental illness, and that it will make it absolutely clear that the distinction should be between those who have committed offences and are locked up because they are offenders, and those who may have temporarily lost their liberty or who are unable fully to exercise their liberty simply because they are mentally ill. It is a bit of enlightenment that should have occurred before the first year of the new millennium—if that is what it is—but it has come, and we welcome it.
      Mr. Fabricant: I support this clause. MIND, which also supports the clause, estimates that 50 per cent. of those concerned would now be entitled to vote, and that the remaining 50 per cent. would benefit from the changes to the voting rules set out in the clause. That is all right and good. Judi Clements, chief executive of MIND, says:
      "For decades, thousands of detained patients have been denied the fundamental right to vote, that the vast majority of us take for granted. This could be a huge victory for the many people who could play their part as UK citizens."
      It is interesting to note that the word "citizens" is used, given the earlier debate.
      7.30 pm
      MIND has also backed a controversial plan to extend the vote to mentally ill people who have been through the criminal court—a subject that was dealt with earlier. Judi Clements said:
      "This is a far smaller number, but it is inconsistent to give some people on psychiatric wards the vote and not others. They are not being held in prison, but in hospital."
      I disagree with that. If persons have committed crimes, the fact that they are in a mental hospital as opposed to prison is an inconsistency. It is right that the Government agree with that and have said that, as those who have committed a criminal offence and are detained in prison are not allowed to vote, the same should apply to those held in a mental hospital.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: Surely if somebody is so confused that they are in a mental hospital, they are too confused to determine whether they should vote for the Conservatives, the Labour party, the Liberals or any other party.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend—for whom I have the highest regard—he is labouring under a delusion about the numbers and the sort of people who enter mental hospitals. An interesting statistic is that 25 per cent. of people in the UK will, in the course of their lives, suffer from mental illness—although, of course, only a minority will go, either voluntarily or by force, into a mental hospital.
      340
      Many such people are not confused at all. Many suffer from anxiety or depression, but not from dementia. Many do not suffer from psychoses such as schizophrenia, which might induce confusion. If I can remember some of my university studies on schizophrenia, there is catatonic, simple and hebephrenic—there are so many different types of schizophrenia, most of which do not involve confusion, as such. My elongated answer to my hon. Friend's reasonable point is that the vast majority of those in mental institutions are easily able to determine which way they wish to vote.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to support the hon. Gentleman and allay the concerns of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many people who may be too ill to concentrate on voting because of periodic mental illness recover from that quickly—schizophrenia is a good example—just as many are too ill to vote when they are in hospital for a physical ailment? People are not taken off the register because they go into a coma or have an operation.
      Many elderly people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaby—indeed, in all of our constituencies— in theory may not be as capable of voting as many others. However, there are provisions for dealing with them, such as proxy voting and voting by post. Eventually, if they decide that they are not up to it, they will not do it. However, we cannot categorise one group as being more incapable than another.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises a sound point. It is difficult enough for doctors to diagnose various types of mental disorder, without the Government or Parliament trying to diagnose, for the doctor's sake, those who may or may not be temporarily confused. Most people listening to the soundbites and spin from the Labour party are confused most of the time—I certainly am.
      Mr. William Ross: I was always under the impression that the reason why people in mental hospitals were excluded from the right to vote was that it was held that they were not capable of making a rational decision. If that is incorrect, I am glad to be corrected. However, we are talking about a group of people who, by any standard, need care because of their mental condition—perhaps throughout their life. Under the changes that are now being made, where do they stand if they are in a mental hospital?
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises a fascinating point. The course of mental illness changes, and people can go in and out of confusion as the course of treatment varies. At one time, certain types of schizophrenia were seen to be permanent. However, with drug treatment and a suitably effective regime, people can drift into and out of consciousness in terms of their ability to make a rational decision on casting their vote:
      The hon. Gentleman said that, in the past, it was felt that people in mental institutions should not be allowed to vote. I remind him not only that that was a function of people's prejudices against those spending time in mental institutions, but that there were times in the 1920s when people were put into institutions simply because they had given birth to a child out of wedlock. People were put into mental institutions in the Soviet Union simply

      341
      because they disagreed with their Government. Not only do we have the problem of deciding who is and who is not capable of voting in a mental institution—and at what time they are capable of voting—but there can be doubt as to whether some people should be in a mental institution or not.
      The Government have moved with the times on this matter, and I am pleased that my Front-Bench colleagues support the clause.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising this issue, which was liable to have passed almost unnoticed. As he rightly said, clause 4 is also about residence, but with reference to the registration of detained and voluntary mental patients.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was labouring under a misapprehension. At present, voluntary mental patients are entitled to register at their home address by means of a patient's declaration. This clause removes that requirement. It also enables all patients in mental hospitals, other than those who are detained as a result of criminal activity—an important qualification—to register in respect of the hospital, if they are liable to be there for some time, or at some other address, such as the address where they would be living if they were not in hospital.
      It is important that people resident in mental hospitals, whether they are voluntary or detained patients, should have the same right to register as anybody else. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) talked about confusion, and his point was well answered by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). Mental illness is not a static condition, and it can move over time. To rule someone out, or to make legal judgments about the state of someone's mental health on a continuing basis, would be inappropriate. It would also be a minefield in terms of electoral law.
      We must therefore assume that most of those in a ward or a special hospital are there on the basis that they have a condition that may or may not be curable, but that they should enjoy more or less the same rights of citizenship as everybody else, including the right to vote.
      Mr. Grieve: I wholly agree with the Minister. We all know from experience in our constituency surgeries that some of the people who come to see us are not in mental hospitals but are clearly in a state of confusion that would make it impossible for them to exercise their right to vote, but we do not take them off the electoral register. I am convinced that many people who are detained under the Mental Health Acts are perfectly capable of rationally exercising a right to vote, so in amending the law as the clause does we are removing an anomaly and a stigma that are quite unnecessary.
      Mr. Howarth: I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and I share an interest in Ashworth special hospital, which is in my constituency. Some of the well-known patients are in there because of a criminal conviction, but others are there simply because they need a period of help to overcome difficulties with
      342
      their mental health. It would be wrong for those who are there, possibly for a short time but possibly for quite a protracted period, to be excluded from the franchise.
      It is important that those who are resident in a mental hospital, whether they are detained or voluntary patients, should have the same right to register as anybody else. There is no reason why people should be disfranchised because of their mental health. I hope that the consensus that we have established will hold, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      RESIDENCE: PERSONS REMANDED IN CUSTODY ETC.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: This clause is also an improvement. In the past, if one was unconvicted in prison, one had the right to vote in theory, but that right would normally be registered at one's home, so in fact one would lose one's vote because if one was in prison at the time of registration, no one would do anything about it.
      Those of us who have prisons in our constituencies—I am not one, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) has the largest number of prisoners in his constituency—may suddenly inherit a large number of voters in the form of the unconvicted prisoners temporarily resident in one of Her Majesty's institutions. It is clearly right to give people the right to vote where they are, and if they are unfortunately resident on remand in a prison for several months, that is where they should be able to vote.
      People on remand are often of very little fixed abode elsewhere, and the prison may be the most permanent residence that they have had for some time. The measure will not affect huge numbers, but it brings into the political process people who were previously kept out, which is welcome.
      Mr. George Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the clause is designed to make it easier for people who are remanded in custody to register as electors. Remand prisoners currently have the right to vote— although some of the press reporting would have us believe otherwise—but they are often disfranchised in practice because they cannot register in respect of their home address while they are detained elsewhere.
      The clause provides that people on remand may be registered as if they were resident at their previous address or may register in respect of the institution where they are held. The basic principle is that remand prisoners are by definition unconvicted, and although it is right and appropriate that those who are convicted and serving a prison sentence should be deprived of the right to vote as part of their punishment, that should not be the case for those who have not been proved to have committed an offence.
      The clause enables people to enjoy rights that they already had but that they were denied because of their detention on remand.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Fabricant: I understand the Minister's argument, and the argument advanced by both the Government and the Opposition that convicted criminals should not have the vote, but I wonder what his view is on the recent conclusion of the South African and Canadian Governments that the disenfranchisement of convicted criminals is unconstitutional on human rights grounds. Has he given any consideration to what view the European Court of Human Rights may have, given the statement that was made earlier today regarding the armed forces?
      Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman consults the front of the Bill, he will find that, as with all legislation, there is a declaration by the Secretary of State that its provisions are consistent with the European convention on human rights. In those circumstances, I am sure that he will accept that the matter has been deliberated on and considered appropriately and would not be in the Bill if there were any problems with it. He will forgive me if I do not stray into speculating on what arguments may have taken place in other parts of the world. I am simply not familiar enough with the debates that took place there.
      It has suddenly occurred to me that the disenfranchisement of prisoners is consistent with the jurisprudence of the convention. I am sure that that is the answer that the hon. Gentleman would have expected from me. With that assurance, I am sure that he will support the clause, which I commend to the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      NOTIONAL RESIDENCE: DECLARATIONS OF LOCAL CONNECTION
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 23, at end insert
      "and shall be accompanied by at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant is a living person and at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant has resided at the required address, provided that this requirement shall be satisfied by the production of a single item of documentary evidence only, if that item demonstrates both that the declarant is a living person and that he has resided at the required address.
      (3A) The items of documentary evidence required for the purposes of subsection (3) shall be any of

      (a) a valid United Kingdom passport;

      (b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;

      (c) a printed statement from a bank or building society authorised to do business in the United Kingdom and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration;

      (d) a copy of any of the foregoing certified by a commissioner for oaths;

      (e) a letter from an officer of a registered charity active within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address;

      (f) a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address,

      344
      or such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3).
      (3B) If a person makes a declaration of local connection supported by items of documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3A) and one or more items of that documentary evidence are false, he is guilty of an offence.
      (3C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3B) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale.
      (3D) The declaration of any person convicted of an offence under subsection (3B) of this section shall be rendered void upon his conviction.".
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 113, in page 8, line 23, at end insert
      "and shall be accompanied by at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant is a living person and at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant has resided at the required address, provided that this requirement shall be satisfied by the production of a single item of documentary evidence only, if that item demonstrates both that the declarant is a living person and that he has resided at the required address.
      (3A) The items of documentary evidence required for the purposes of subsection (3) shall be any of—

      (a) a valid United Kingdom passport;

      (b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;

      (c) a current passport issued by the Government of a member state of the European Community;

      (d) a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by a United Kingdom Government department;

      (e) a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency or the Great Britain equivalent;

      (f) a card made of plastic issued by the Department of Health and Social Security with a name and national insurance number embossed on it;

      (g).in the case of a woman married within two years prior to polling day, a certified copy of extract of any entry of marriage issued by the Register General in the United Kingdom;

      (h) an United Kingdom identity card bearing a recent photograph of the elector;

      (i) a printed statement from a bank or building society authorised to do business in the United Kingdom and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of declaration;

      (j) a copy of any of the foregoing certified by a commissioner for oaths;

      (k) a letter from an officer of a registered charity active within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address;

      (l) a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address, or such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3).

      (3B) If a person makes a declaration of local connection supported by items of documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3A) and one or more items of that documentary evidence are false, he is guilty of an offence.

      345
      (3C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3B) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale.
      (3D) The declaration of any person convicted of an offence under subsection (3B) of this section shall be rendered void upon his conviction.".
      Mr. Evans: I hope that the consensus that we witnessed on clauses 4 and 5 will also be evidenced on clause 6.
      One of the more depressing aspects of the Bill is the admission that there is in our society a small group of people who for various reasons are denied what most of us would regard as a basic necessity of life in a civilised society: a roof over their heads. I appreciate the fact that the term "homeless" is divided between rough sleepers and those who are between homes, perhaps in temporary hostel accommodation or living with relatives while awaiting rehousing, but I am concerned with those in the first category.
      The Bill brings the situation into the 21st century and admits the fact that we have a group of people in our society who are genuinely homeless. The position varies in different parts of the country. The Minister will know of the problems in his constituency, as I know of those in mine. I have the good fortune to represent a rural constituency, and when I asked one of the local government officers there today what impact she thought the Bill would have when it was enacted, she said that she thought it would have none whatever, because nobody in Ribble Valley was sleeping rough and therefore unable to be on the register.
      I spoke to the returning officer in Ceredigion today and he, too, said that there was very little problem there, but we know that in urban areas there are enormous problems. Many of us walk up Victoria street at night on the way home. It is one of the most depressing journeys that we can make. The problem has existed for many years, so I will not try to apportion blame. In the shop doorways there are people sleeping rough, with blankets over them, in a sleeping bag or, even more depressingly, with nothing more than a cardboard box.
      Near McDonald's and the Army and Navy store in Victoria street, there are at least 20 individuals sleeping rough—I walk past them every evening on the way back to my flat. Shelter estimates that between 1,500 and 2,000 people sleep rough, but no one can say with certainty how many do so. It is a dreadful shame that those people are denied the opportunity to vote that is given to everyone else. They suffer the indignity of living how they do and they should not suffer the further indignity of not being allowed to participate in the democratic process. Indeed, some people may argue that the homeless should have more of a say in what happens because of the conditions in which they live.
      We approach this issue with a determination equal to that of the Government. People should not be excluded from voting, but we wish to ensure that that is achieved as sensibly as possible. Our concerns were raised by Paul Gribble, who was the Conservative nominee on the working group, which said of the definition of locality:
      "We recognise that this could be thought to open the system to abuse if a candidate or political party sought to use such declarations to falsely register supporters in the electoral area immediately before an election."
      346
      In a letter to the shadow Home Secretary dated 20 September 1999, the Home Secretary said about the possibility of fraud:
      "I think that it is important to recognise that the declaration of locality route would be a last resort. The homeless would be encouraged to register wherever possible in respect of an address with which they could establish a link, such as a hostel or day centre which they used regularly."
      He added
      "I do not believe that Mr. Gribble's fears are well grounded; but I would of course be happy to discuss this point further to see whether we could modify the proposal in some way so as to meet your party's concerns."
      That is what we are trying to do this evening and in that spirit we have tabled amendment No. 13, which is similar to amendment No. 113.
      Amendment No. 13 would require some documentary evidence of a person's link to a locality, such as a valid passport or UK driving licence. We appreciate that production of such items may not always be possible so we have also included other items, such as:
      "a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address".
      We have made six suggestions and I am sure that the Minister and his officials have considered other forms of documentary proof that would not block people's right to vote but would also ensure that the right is not abused.
      We seek to ensure that some proof is given that a person is eligible to be registered in a particular area. The amendment would also make it an offence to make a false declaration, and of course any such declaration would be null and void. It is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Government will consider our proposals so that we can extend the franchise without opening up any opportunities for fraud in the registration procedure.
      Mr. William Ross: Amendment No. 13 attracted my attention when I read the list of amendments and the House will see that amendment No. 113 is a repeat, except that it adds a few more documents. The documents that I have added to the list are those that are required in Northern Ireland before a ballot paper is issued. I would have thought that that would be a good starting point for considering the need to require some sort of documentary evidence of identity or association with an area.
      The Minister will also be aware that the Conservatives have tabled amendments to clause 10. They concern voting taking place on more than one day and would require similar forms of identification. The Conservatives are following through on the issue of identification, which has been necessary in Northern Ireland for many years.
      I tabled amendment No. 113 to try to ensure that whatever documentation is needed in London is also needed in Londonderry, Edinburgh, Belfast or wherever. We should have a common means of identification throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will consider the issue and come up with a common set of documents encompassing those already required in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, the legislation in Northern Ireland talks about full and provisional driving licences, but the term "valid" covers the point.
      I have also included in the amendment the possibility of using a United Kingdom identity card bearing a recent photograph of the elector. I am well aware of all the

      347
      arguments, because I have listened to them for the past 25 years in this House, about the possible intrusion into the privacy of individuals that identity cards would cause. However, I do not share those concerns. So much information is held on computers in every bank, building society and sales point in the country that no one should be worried about identity cards. Such a document would give great protection against fraud, including electoral fraud, and the Minister will be aware from his experience in Northern Ireland of our concerns on that issue. I do not believe that most people would have a problem with an identity card, and the warnings about invasion of privacy are nonsense and should not be given much weight.
      I speak in support of amendment No. 113 in the same spirit as the official Opposition moved amendment No. 13. I wish to ensure that common identification is required throughout the UK and to make a further plea for the Government to reconsider the issue of having a proper identity card that could be used for this and other purposes.
      Mr. David Heath: Clause 6 is interesting, as are the amendments, and there are some basic merits to both. I welcome the intention to extend the franchise to people who have been left out, and I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that that is a timely amendment of our constitutional arrangements.
      I admire the care that the parliamentary draftsmen and Ministers have put into the drafting of the clause, even to the extent of enfranchising homeless peers. I have no idea whether they comprise a growing sector of the community, although recent events may have increased their numbers.
      8 pm
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley is right to say that there is a potential problem of personation. We should all be worried about whether personation is encouraged by any provision in the Bill. However, I do not think that the remedy suggested by the hon. Gentleman is right. His proposed list of qualifying documentary evidence would sit poorly with the circumstances faced by many homeless people. Few of them will have a driving licence, or carry with them a UK passport; even fewer will have a bank account or the regular statements that such an account produces. There is a sense of unreality about some of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.
      Some elements of the proposed documentary evidence, such as accreditation from a hostel, appear more relevant to homeless people. However, many homeless people never see the inside of a hostel. In the metropolis such places are oversubscribed, and they do not exist in rural areas, so a person could not gain the necessary accreditation within the qualifying period.
      Mr. Evans: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says, which is why we have tried to broaden the documentation that might be applicable. Indeed, the amendment refers to
      "such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3)."
      348
      Local police officers and charity workers often find people sleeping rough. Under that provision, they would be able to provide a note stating that they know that a person sleeps in a certain place on a regular basis. The effect of the amendment could be quite broad.
      Mr. Heath: That intervention helps the discussion, as it is now clear that there is no secret agenda to limit the improvements to the franchise that the clause is trying to introduce.
      In addition, I applaud the approach adopted by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who has also proposed a widening of the documentary evidence that could be deemed acceptable. However, he identified the other difficulty that I have with the amendment. The same level of documentary evidence required to avoid personation should also be required of every elector on the register. There is no obvious reason why people qualified to vote through declarations of local connection should face a more onerous test to prove that they are who they purport to be than any other electors in the United Kingdom. Different tests apply in Northern Ireland, so the same difficulties do not arise there.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Identification is important. The tragedy is that presiding officers consider that a document is not valid if it is even one day past its expiry date. In Northern Ireland, driving licences contain a picture of the person to whom it applies. We must be careful that we do not prevent people from voting by the use of over-precise legal language. Rather than yielding to the arguments of civil libertarians, would it not be better to adopt a common identity document, with a picture, for everyone?
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has assisted the debate. The difficulty that he has described may apply when we attempt to identify what is appropriate documentary evidence. However, my point is that the same considerations should apply to all voters, regardless of how they are registered.
      The situation in this country at present is extraordinary. A person can roll up to a polling station and claim to be someone on the register, but no check is made to confirm that person's identity.
      Mr. Grieve: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but are we not concentrating too much on how people get registered? One of the problems with personation is that people turn up at polling stations and impersonate others who have been registered previously. The anxiety about those who are of a peripatetic disposition derives not from the fear that they will impersonate other people when they register, but that they will take advantage of other people's absence from an area to impersonate them and take advantage of those people's votes at an election.
      Mr. Heath: I understand that concern, but it applies to every registered elector. That is precisely the point that I am making.
      The hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for East Londonderry have identified a real problem. I am not convinced that their proposed solutions are the right way to deal with that problem. In fact, I am rather convinced

      349
      that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is not the right answer, as it will discourage homeless people from registering.
      However, the Government must consider the matter carefully. At the very least, when and if the Bill is enacted, they must review the practical effects of the new arrangements over their first few years in place. If there is any evidence that the opportunities for personation have been extended and that people are abusing the system, the question of appropriate documentation will have to be examined again. That documentation must be sufficient to identify voters when they register and when they vote. I do not think that we have got there yet, but I look forward to the Minister's response.
      The Chairman: I call Mr. Michael Fabricant.
      Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Haselhurst.
      The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman continues to address me in that way, I shall begin to think that he knows something that I do not.
      Mr. Fabricant: I argued, Sir Alan, at some length against the proposal of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to reduce the franchise, so it would be churlish of me to argue against this clause, which would extend it to homeless people. However, the possible difficulties of the provision have already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The potential for personation and multiple voting is very great, and I welcome what the hon. Member for Somerset and Frome—
      Mr. David Heath: Somerton.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am not doing very well, Sir Alan, with proper names or constituencies: perhaps I should just sit down. However, I shall not ask hon. Members for a judgment on that, as I suspect that I know what the answer might be.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is absolutely right to say that the political effects of extending the franchise to the homeless would have to be monitored—there are difficulties in identifying people who turn up to vote and ensuring either that they are not voting in multiple locations or that other people are not voting for them in other parts of the country simultaneously.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: A homeless tramp registered to vote in the constituencies of, for example, St. Helens, South, St. Helens, North and Makerfield would have to rush around on polling day to vote for all the Labour candidates in those areas. On his income, how could he afford to do it? That is a rather farcical example, but is not the reality that the homeless do not register or vote because they are homeless?
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about the practicality of voting. I shall give him an example of what might happen in practice.
      350
      Many homeless people have moved to the area of Brighton and Hove in recent years, and many residents of that area feel that their town has been taken advantage of. It is very easy to walk through three constituencies— Hove, Brighton, Pavilion and Brighton, Kemptown—in 15 minutes. It is possible for someone to be able to vote in three constituencies—it does not require money to do so. I emphasise that I am not suggesting that people will do this, but it is possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield gave an example of someone who did not have voting rights who could pick up a slip of paper, walk into a constituency and vote. That would be personation.
      We agree with the clause in general, but it will be important to monitor its practical effects.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am thinking back over my practical experience, and declaring an interest as a practising lawyer. I can remember only one case of double voting and repeat voting in the past 30-odd years. I have asked many of my colleagues if they can remember any, and they cannot. Repeat voting does not seem to be an English habit.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but it surprises me, given that he is a very experienced lawyer. He will be aware of the difference between a crime being detected and a crime being committed. Multiple voting and personation were discussed when we debated this issue last year, and we just do not know how much it happens. I suspect that it is not material; I suspect that Governments have not fallen as a result of such practices. But for heaven's sake, when we introduce legislation, we try to ensure that crimes are not committed.
      I welcome an extension of the franchise, but we must be sure that it will not be abused. Just because the hon. Gentleman cannot remember such a crime being committed, it does not mean that it does not happen. It can be argued that the influx into hostels of people who have the franchise has changed local election voting patterns slightly. We cannot be so sure that these practices might not occur. I am simply asking that the legislation is good legislation and that it is regularly reviewed. Will the Minister give an assurance that the practical effects of the legislation be monitored and reported to Parliament from time to time, as is applicable, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome requested?
      I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on identity cards. Although it would not be appropriate to discuss the benefits or otherwise of identity cards now, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the majority of people in the country would not object to the issue of identity cards. The only objection, perhaps, should be to the compulsory carrying of identity cards at all times. All Members of Parliament have identity cards, but if we carried out a straw poll in the Chamber tonight on how many of us were carrying them, I suspect that the result would not be 100 per cent.
      With those reservations, I support not only the amendment but the clause.
      Mr. Keith Darvill: I oppose the amendment. I understand what Conservative Members have been saying, but their proposals would upset the balance.

      351
      Clause 6 is to be welcomed; it is an innovation, and will extend the franchise. However, the amendments would create hurdles that those making a declaration would find difficult to overcome. Homeless people wishing to take advantage of the extension might not have any of the documents listed in the amendment in their possession. If I could be convinced, however, that using either information technology or some other form of identification would be simple and would not prevent those wishing to make a declaration from doing so, I might be more in favour of the amendments. Otherwise, I urge the Committee not to accept them.
      8.15pm
      Mr. Grieve: I have a number of brief points to make. First, I welcome the thrust of the Bill. It is very desirable that the franchise should be extended to all those who are entitled to it and that they should be able to avail themselves of it easily. It is clear, therefore, that homeless people are a category that should be addressed.
      As was said earlier, there is anxiety about the growth of personation at elections. I spent a lot of time in an inner-city constituency, where that anxiety centred on the tendency to encourage those leading a more transient existence, particularly in hostels, to register and the problem of what happened to the polling cards on polling day when those people had moved to other addresses. Personation can in general be detected only if the person being impersonated turns up to vote. If they do not, there is an opportunity under the existing identification rules for that person to be impersonated and for someone else to exercise, quite wrongfully, their right to vote.
      My anxiety about the extension of registration rights is not about the peripatetic tramp. I have every confidence that if he decides to be registered, he will exercise his right to vote properly if he chooses to do so. I am concerned that someone, taking advantage of the fact that such a person is unlikely to exercise his right to vote, will impersonate him.
      Mr. Bermingham: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's experience is the same as mine in that, by and large, year in, year out, at both local and national elections, polling stations are manned by the same polling clerks, who get to know the voters. I know all the clerks in my area, and they get to know the electors. Polling clerks are our best defence against the wandering multiple voter. That is why I said earlier that if anyone had evidence of such a practice, would they please give it to me.
      Mr. Grieve: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about that. In an urban environment, such as the one in which I was a councillor, I do not think that polling station staff are in a position to carry out that kind of detective work.
      So how do we address this problem? I accept that this may not be the best place to do it. We need to consider the problem in the round. It might also be unfortunate to do it precisely when we are concentrating on trying to encourage certain categories of people to register and to vote. However, the point requires attention.
      I have never been in favour of identity cards, so I accept that there is a catch-22 surrounding my argument in deciding how to deal with this thorny problem.
      352
      I cannot say for certain whether the problem is growing.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the proposition of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) against that of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). In more than 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I know of various occasions in my constituency when people have turned up to vote to find that someone has voted in their place. I have a 25 per cent. turnover of electors a year, and the electoral staff, who are very competent, do not even begin to think that they can monitor electors, even if they work in the same polling station from one year to the next, which is rare. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it is a question of finding a way to deal with the problem.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was drawing to a close, but shall give way once more.
      Mr. William Ross: Two points have been raised. First, it is not the role of electoral staff to identify electors. That role has always been taken in Northern Ireland by party representatives who can challenge those who try to personate. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is dealing with an amateurish personation. It is a very different ball game in West Belfast.
      Mr. Grieve: I do not feel qualified to comment on circumstances in Northern Ireland, although I know from anecdotal evidence and otherwise that there appears to have been a particular problem of personation there. That is why separate rules have been devised. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The amendment has been tabled in good faith to ensure that the issue is discussed. The point will not go away, and I believe that we shall have to reconsider it later.
      Mr. George Howarth: I entirely accept that the Opposition's motive in tabling the amendment is honourable and reasonable. They are trying to achieve the laudable objective of preventing electoral fraud. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out that I chaired the working party that considered the proposals when I was a Home Office Minister. It was one of our rules that every proposal should be treated with care so that no suggestion that we made would compromise the integrity of the ballot in any way. Although there are problems in some parts of the United Kingdom, to which I shall refer later, our electoral system is, if not entirely free of fraud, well respected, and it has a lot of integrity.
      Mr. Fabricant: Following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)— no longer in his place—how can the Minister be sure that there is not much fraud? What research does the Home Office do? If fraud had been committed by personation and had not been detected, surely the Home Office would not know of it.
      Mr. Howarth: I do not want to be drawn into examples arising from the general election or any other recent election. The Home Office can conduct a review after every general election. If there is any evidence, it is generally, for obvious reasons, political parties that uncover it before passing it on to the Home Office. I do not suggest that the system is wholly free of fraud.

      353
      There have been cases, and some, I think, are under investigation by the police in certain parts of the country at present. However, a pattern to fraud would tend to be noticed by presiding officers or the political parties. In one or two recent cases, a political party has complained about the activities of another, throwing some light on what has been happening. We cannot be absolutely certain that there is no fraud, and we must be vigilant. We must consider all proposals, but must also examine whether they would compromise the integrity of the ballot.
      It is a fundamental principle that everyone has an equal right to vote. Since the adoption of universal suffrage, everyone, irrespective of wealth or status, has been concerned to know that that principle is being upheld. I fear that the amendment might send the wrong message to a section of the community. I know that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) does not want that to happen. If we agree that the right to vote applies to everyone, we must also agree that everyone must have the same right to register. We cannot have one without the other. We must be careful, therefore, before erecting any obstacle that would affect one section of the electorate and not another.
      That, inadvertently, is what the amendment would do. Registration would become harder for those who wish to register by means of a local connection than it would be for other electors. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who tried to take a balanced view, referred to that danger in his short speech. It would be inappropriate to ask homeless people or mental patients to produce bank statements or passports. Meanwhile, a head of a household who registers in the normal way may, when filling in the annual form, add a new name that was not on the form in the previous year. The registration officer would accept that without any requirement for documentary evidence establishing that the new person was alive and resident at the address in question. It would be taken on trust.
      Mr. William Ross: Am I mistaken, or is it the case in Great Britain and Northern Ireland that any elector can challenge a name on the electoral register?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. Normally, a head of household fills in a form. There is no reason why the same rule should not apply to those who register by means of a declaration of local connection. Anyone who doubts the validity of a person registered in that way will be able to object to registration, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. One of the Bill's purposes, however, is to make it easier for people to register, particularly those people disadvantaged by existing rules. To impose an additional and difficult burden that other electors would not have to face would run totally counter to that principle.
      Mr. Evans: Will the Minister concede that someone who knowingly filled in a registration form incorrectly and falsely would be committing an offence and could be fined?
      Mr. Howarth: As I understand it, that is the case.
      Mr. Ross: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I was about to deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I am more than happy to accept his intervention.
      Mr. Ross: The measure introduces the principle of rolling registration, thus the time scale before an election might make it impossible for someone to object to a name on the register. Could the Minister deal with that point?
      Mr. Howarth: Certainly. The register would be more up to date and people would have a longer time in which to register, so the difficulty described by the hon. Gentleman could arise. However, we have to judge whether inserting an obstacle for certain groups is justified by giving other groups longer in which to object to a particular entry. We should all want to be convinced that the problem was important enough to be catered for in that way before we took that course.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Like me and other Members, the Minister probably receives a regular update of the electoral register. I receive one every month from my electoral services department. That gives one a means of checking and assimilating information. What is the plan for providing information about the rolling register to parties, councillors and Members of Parliament? Without such a plan, throughout the country, the problem of spotting someone who is registered at two addresses will grow rather than diminish.
      Mr. Howarth: I must be honest. The hon. Gentleman and other Members will be aware that I am on a no fee loan to the Home Office for the purposes of the Bill. That came about because I chaired the working party, although no one felt it necessary to explain to me why my presence was required. I am thus not wholly up to date with developments in the Home Office. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman needs to be dealt with and I shall ensure that the appropriate Minister responds to him.
      The list of documents in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry is slightly wider than those listed in amendment No. 13, for reasons that the Committee may understand. However, the amendment would have an impact on homeless people. Furthermore, it would place on such people a burden that would not apply to other voters who would not have to satisfy those conditions. In that sense, it would be unfair to homeless people.
      As the hon. Gentleman's set of concerns is more particular to Northern Ireland than it is common in Great Britain, it might be helpful if, in his capacity as a Member of Parliament for a Northern Ireland constituency and in my capacity as a Northern Ireland Office Minister, we were to hold further discussions on the matter. If necessary, I shall make representations to the Home Office subsequently. I hope that he will accept my invitation to hold those discussions.
      However, I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance. Mr. Pat Bradley, who will be known to him and is well respected as the electoral officer for Northern Ireland, was a member of the working party. Mr. Bradley's views were listened to with great attention, and when there were concerns about the situation in Northern Ireland, we listened even more carefully.

      355
      We benefited from his experience, which we took very seriously indeed. I shall, of course, listen to the hon. Gentleman's concerns and make any representations that I consider to be necessary.
      The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in the context of clause 6 and his amendment, I do not enter into a debate on identity cards. Vexed issues arise from that matter, and the Government have taken the view that there are no plans on it at present. I cannot rule that out for ever, but I shall not promote a debate on that vexatious subject this evening. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. His experience in Northern Ireland means that he has special reasons for the position that he takes on the matter.
      The hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) took a reasonable approach— and I do not exclude the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) from that statement. Indeed, during his contribution, I was pondering the fact that if anyone tried to impersonate him at the ballot box, they would quickly be rumbled. That would certainly not be a problem for him.
      However, his hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley and for Beaconsfield suggested that their enthusiasm for the amendment was not such that they would necessarily push it to a vote. I believe that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was looking for an assurance that the issues raised during the debate would be considered further. He is well aware that, on these issues, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary listens very carefully to the views of the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I will ensure that the issues that have been raised in the debate are drawn to his attention, and I am certain that he will give them proper consideration. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would be possible to—
      Mr. Fabricant rose—
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Lichfield seeks to intervene.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am glad that the Minister recognised me. Will he give the assurance, asked for by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and re-emphasised by myself, that the Government will regularly review the effectiveness of the clause to ensure that there is no increase in personation or multiple voting?
      Mr. Howarth: Yes. I believe that I said earlier that the Home Office regularly reviews elections. It receives representations from political parties and elsewhere, and it will, as a matter of course, keep the effect of the clause and other parts of the Bill under review.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Howarth: I give way for the last time.
      Mr. Hughes: I appreciate that the Minister has the Committee's support. Will he add to the list of requests the question—to which there must be an answer—whether there is any spot-check process? If people knew that the
      356
      form, as submitted, might be subject to a check, the form might be submitted more honestly. Spot checks are carried out in the case of almost everything else in life, and would not be inappropriate in this case.
      Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, returning officers have a wide discretion. I am sure that, where there are grounds for suspicion, they will devise whatever checks are necessary. I am sure that any emerging pattern would be checked. However, obviously, the matter needs, and will continue to receive, attention.
      I hope that, on the basis of the assurances that have been given, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel it appropriate to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: The debate has been useful.
      I have said how depressing it is to walk along Victoria street at night and see the rough sleepers, especially given the weather this winter. We talk about the flu epidemic. It must be acutely depressing to sleep in a shop doorway in London in the present conditions—a dreadful existence.
      I heard what the Prime Minister said before Christmas about continuing the excellent work that was started under the Conservative Government with the rough sleepers initiative; I support that wholly and fully. I am not saying that, even if we could double the amount of money spent, no one would sleep rough, but I believe that we must do more to help those who are sleeping rough. If that entails a multi-agency approach—as I believe that it does—that would be welcomed by every Member of the House.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend did not want to make a party political point. I disagree with him. Is he aware that Shelter says not only that 2,000 people are sleeping rough in central London, but that, sadly, that figure is now increasing?
      Mr. Evans: I shall not make a party political point because I want to emphasise what we are trying to do to help rough sleepers. I am not saying that, even if the amount spent were doubled, there would not still be a problem, especially in London.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke to amendment No. 113. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) also spoke.
      The hon. Member for Upminster said that he needed to be convinced that we were not placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of homeless people who wanted to register to vote. I hope that the addition of the two lines below paragraph (f) of amendment No. 13, which allow other documentation to be accepted as sufficient evidence, will give him and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome confidence that we are not seeking to set up obstacles that would obstruct people from registering. That is not what the Bill or the amendment are about. We are trying to prevent personation and fraud.
      We accept that personation goes on at election times even though we do not know the extent to which it occurs. If we give people the opportunity to register more than once, those that personate may try to do so. We want to close a loophole before it comes into being. We want to

      357
      make it easier for people to vote, but we do not want to make it easier for them to register fraudulently so that they can vote more than once.
      Even if this provision allows 1,500 to 2,000 people to register, I do not know what percentage of them would use their ability to make a declaration of locality. It is not sufficient just to have that option available. We must ensure that people are able to use it. That means that social services, the Churches, which do a lot of good work, those who run soup kitchens and others who talk on a nightly basis with the homeless could become involved in the education process to encourage people to register and to tell them where to vote. Shelter and several other charities could also be used. Legislating so that the homeless are able to vote does not necessarily mean that one extra person will turn up at a local authority to register. People must encourage and educate them about what we are doing.
      The charities, the police and the vicars and priests who regularly talk to homeless people would be able to provide the documentary evidence that someone sleeps in a part of London, be that outside McDonald's or round the back of the Army and Navy. For the first time, the Bill will allow people to use such places as an address if it is the only address that they have.
      I hope that the amendment will reassure the Minister that we are not introducing any obstacles into the Bill. He talked about the integrity of the ballot box being important and that is right. The dignity of the homeless in being able to vote is also important. What we are trying to do would enable us to bring both aims together and to enfranchise those people who are currently unable to vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 38, at end insert—
      "provided that, in determining this, no account shall be taken of time which he spends in any place in the course of employment or of the provision of services for pecuniary reward".
      The amendment would ensure that where an elector is registered is based on where that person lives as opposed to where that person works. I do not believe that the Government intend the Bill to allow people to try to register where they work instead of where they live, but that point is not made clear. The amendment would clarify any confusion.
      We tabled the amendment because some people work in different parts of the country at different times of the year. For example, transient and holiday workers regularly go fruit picking or hop picking for a short period of the year, but that could be just before a general election takes place. The Minister must say whether it is the Bill's intention that those who go fruit picking in different parts of the country could use the Bill so that they do not need to provide the address at which they live, but the address at which they stay for two or three months. The amendment would stop that happening.
      There are many seasonal workers in the north-west, which is where my constituency is. Many people work seasonally in the tourist industry in Ribble Valley. Blackpool is not too far away. The Minister will have visited it for the Labour party conference. Speaking as a
      358
      north-west Member of Parliament, I hope that it will not be too long before the Labour party returns to Blackpool. He will know from visiting Blackpool and other resorts that many people work seasonally in what passes for summer in our country, so they work in a resort for only a short period.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he, like me, falls into that trap? No doubt he has a home in his constituency; he may have a home in another part of the country, and he will have a home in London. Which one should he register at and vote from? Does he register for local government purposes in all three places, as one can, and vote occasionally or by postal vote, and choose one place to vote in general elections? That needs to be clarified.
      Mr. Evans: Obviously, Members of Parliament come into that category. Students do too, because their parents may include them on the registration form at home, while the students may register themselves at university. Someone in a hall of residence may register all the students there.
      To give another example, when I was a student I lived in Swansea but I came to London for short periods to work for Manpower, an agency. I could have considered that the constituency in London was more marginal and decided to register there.
      My point is that the Bill will make it easier to register to vote. In the main, Members of Parliament have a home here and in their constituency, but seasonal workers may well live in a hostel or hotel accommodation. I simply lived with my brother in London when I worked here. Surely it is not the Bill's intention that people working in London for a few days a week over a short period should be able to register at home and in London. The Bill will make that easier. Is that what the Minister wants? I want him to clarify the position.
      We have to recognise that we have a changing work force who are far more mobile. People can work all over the country for short periods. They seek work wherever they can find it. I hope that the Minister will consider our amendment carefully. There is nothing malicious in it. We are sincere about it, but we hope that he can assure us that there is no intention that people should be able to pick and choose where they vote and take advantage of the opportunity to register in a marginal constituency rather than where they live most of the time.
      Mr. Bermingham: I shall be brief because my voice is not at its best tonight. I rather liked amendment No. 14, which was tabled by the Opposition, and I am sad that it was not called because it would have tidied up an anomaly in the current voting system.
      I have a flat in London and I can register to vote there, and I have a home in Birmingham and I can register there, but the returning officer in London would not know that I was registered in Birmingham. I can register in my constituency. Where do I vote in an election? Do I vote for myself in my constituency or do I use my postal vote in—
      The Chairman: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him, but for his clarification

      359
      and that of other hon. Members, I point out that amendment No. 14 was selected and debated in a group headed by amendment No. 30 on 15 December.
      Mr. Bermingham: I accept that. I was aware that the amendment had been debated, but I rather liked it. As always I hope that I pick my words with great care and accuracy. If my memory serves me correctly, the amendment was not put to the vote on 15 December.
      Now that I finally have the Minister's ear, I emphasise that were he, in thinking of the overall breadth of the Bill, to think back to 15 December—I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for aiding me in reminding him—he would see the wisdom of amendment No. 14 when coupled with amendment No. 15. Effectively, they would require people to state on their annual return at the beginning of October where else they had registered. Returning officers would then know whether people had more than one eligible address, and at an election it would be simple to check—to return to the previous debate—whether there had been multiple voting.
      It is a simple little matter. Even if amendment No. 15 is not pressed to a vote, I hope that the Minister will take on board its spirit because it tidies up a loophole—provided that it is coupled with amendment No. 14, which was debated on 15 December. I am grateful for your assistance, Sir Alan, which I hope has helped the force of my case. Sometimes one gets an opportunity to tidy up a little, if one marries two things together. It is useful democracy, is it not?
      Mr. Fabricant: I rise briefly to support amendment No.15—not to talk about the role of Members of Parliament and where they may or may not live, but to say that, as the amendment is particularly concerned that there should be no determination of the amount of time that someone might spend
      "in any place in the course of employment or of the provision of services for pecuniary rewards",
      it has a special relevance to the internet age in which we live.
      More and more people find that they can work from several different locations—not only in their offices but from their homes, in hotel rooms or abroad—while maintaining direct contact with their companies by placing and fulfilling orders and completing reports through the internet. The amendment is particularly useful, recognising the changes in work patterns. The Government would be ill advised to ignore it.
      We have already had some debate on whether one ought to be at a place of residence on the evening of 10 October to determine one's entitlement to vote. The amendment would ensure that people not resident at that time, but working elsewhere, wherever that might be, were still able to vote in a particular area.
      The Government should take heed of the amendment; they would be unwise to ignore it. If they did so, they would be the party not of the 21st century but of the 20th century—although, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said much earlier, we are technically still in the 20th century. On that confusing note, I rest my case.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I, too, was confused—but about whether the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome
      360
      (Mr. Heath) was about to introduce his views into the debate. As it appears he is not, and since he has not been listening for the past few minutes, perhaps we may proceed.
      I believe that all hon. Members agree that homeless people have the same basic rights as us to register as electors and to vote. The fact that they are homeless does not mean that they should be excluded from the democratic process. The only point at issue is how we can make it as easy and proper as possible for homeless people to register, bearing in mind their particular circumstances, while, at the same time, doing nothing to make it easier to register fraudulently.
      The solution that we have come up with is the declaration of local connection. The new section 7B of the Representation of the People Act 1983 will allow a homeless person to register in respect of a relevant address. That address will be a place where he commonly spends a substantial part of his time. We think that that is the right approach. A homeless person will be required to indicate where he spends much of his time, which is likely to be the place with which he has the closest connection. It may, for example, be a hostel or even a shop doorway where he sleeps. It may equally be the place where he spends the bulk of his waking hours. That could be a day centre for the homeless, but it could be a place where he is employed or where he routinely has a patch where he sells The Big Issue, for example. If such a place is the place with which the person concerned feels that he has the closest connection, we should not prevent it from being used for registration purposes, which is the purpose behind the amendment.
      We are not talking about a place where a person goes to pick fruit or hops, or for his holidays. He or she needs to spend a substantial amount of time in the place. Seasonal workers are not generally considered to be homeless and they must register at their residence. The amendment applies only to the homeless.
      I remind the Committee of the rules governing qualification for election as a local councillor. To be elected to a local authority, a person must live in or own property in the authority area, or must work there. The principle that one can establish a link with an area through employment is already well established and there is no reason why it should not apply to the homeless.
      Mr. Fabricant: If someone is working for a company but is rarely based at the company—let us say that he is working for the company by using an internet link, which is frequently the case—would that qualify that person to stand for election to the local council in that area or, in the instance of the Bill, would it qualify him to have voting rights in that area?
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks me to interpret as a court or a returning officer the words that appear in the Bill. That interpretation is best left to a returning officer or to the court rather than to a Minister. Let me ensure that I duck the question obviously and definitely.
      Electoral registration has been largely based on residence. In many ways, that is the best principle. It cannot apply in exactly the same form to the homeless, but by allowing them to register in respect of the place with which they have a close connection we are making the minimum necessary modification to the underlying

      361
      principle. If that place happens to be one where the homeless person is employed or provides a service for reward, so be it. We should not force homeless persons to register in respect of some other place with which they have a less well-defined connection, or where they spend less of their time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made some important points about multiple registration. To some extent, his comments have been dealt with in previous debates. However, I listened with great interest to his arguments and I shall continue to bear them in mind as we progress with the Bill.
      I hope that in the light of my response the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will be able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the contributions of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can at least support the thrust of the amendment.
      I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response. I know that we are talking about the homeless, and he may feel that there will be no abuse. We wanted him to say that the Bill was never intended to be used in a way that would lead to abuse. Our purpose was to close any loopholes that might possibly open up.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman can accept that the Bill was never intended to be used in a way that would lead to abuse. In the nature of things, we would not intend that to be the case.
      9 pm
      Mr. Evans: I am sure that that was never the intention, but if we can improve the Bill—which is what Committee stages are all about—we should take every opportunity to do so, and that is what our amendment seeks. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the amendment when he reflects on the debate, particularly the contribution from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. We should make it as easy as possible for the homeless to register to vote while ensuring that the system is not open to abuse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
      "and the declarant's previous address".
      This part of the clause deals with the situation in Northern Ireland, and it is for that reason that I have tabled this short amendment. I tabled another amendment which seems not to have been selected, but perhaps, like the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I have been caught flat-footed; it may have been discussed before the House rose for the Christmas recess.
      This is a probing amendment to find out what efforts the Government are making to prevent fraud. Northern Ireland has a land frontier, and there is the danger of people floating across the frontier for electoral purposes into constituencies and local government areas where a
      362
      dozen, 50 or 100 votes could make an enormous difference, such as changing a council's political complexion or making or breaking a Member of Parliament. Reference was made to that in the debates on the first group of amendments discussed earlier.
      If the declarant has been in Northern Ireland for the previous three months, he probably has an address somewhere. If he has not had an address in the previous three months, he must have had an address just prior to that either in Northern Ireland, elsewhere in the United Kingdom or in the Irish Republic. I am trying to establish some method by which we can identify the individual, where he came from and whether he is genuine or part of a concerted effort deliberately to defraud or undermine the electoral system.
      The Minister has made it perfectly clear that he is determined that electoral fraud shall not happen. I share that aim. My constituents and my colleagues in Northern Ireland have good reasons for sharing it. The present position in Northern Ireland is that a person must have lived in an electoral or council area or in a constituency for three months before 15 September, which is the qualifying date to prove that the individual has a genuine interest in the area, rather than October as in Great Britain.
      We are now changing that and moving to a system of rolling registration. That has considerable implications in the Province which do not prevail elsewhere. I know that the Minister would not want to open the door to the possibility of widespread and carefully conceived electoral fraud, turning electoral takeover of certain areas from an illegal into a legal activity. The changes made in the Bill certainly make electoral fraud easy.
      I have a fundamental problem with the Bill. It opens a barn door to fraud under certain circumstances. It makes it easy for people to allege that they are moving from one constituency to another. The Minister should consider this item carefully. I can see reasons why the words in the amendment should not be added to this subsection—make no mistake about that—but there are also good reasons for doing so. The amendment would provide a method of tracing an individual and determining whether he is engaged in fraud or is genuine and has a right to be on the electoral register. I am trying to close that loophole before it is too wide open. I should like the Minister to tell me why these words should not be added to the Bill and what the Government's objections to them are.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The position in Northern Ireland is, in many respects, similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, but in other respects it is different. The situation in Northern Ireland has been difficult for some decades, and in the past it has been alleged that problems have arisen in its electoral system that have been less evident elsewhere in the UK.
      I do not think that the amendment is necessary. It would make those wishing to register as electors in Northern Ireland sign a declaration of local connection, a requirement that would not apply to those seeking to register in other parts of the United Kingdom. If we are to impose extra requirements, we need substantial evidence that a problem is likely to arise.
      I do not deny that, given the history of Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) may have valid reasons for expressing his concerns, but, as he said, a special requirement already

      363
      applies in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland—but not in other parts of the United Kingdom—a person cannot be registered unless he has resided in the Province for the previous three months. The proposed new section 4(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983—which clause 1(2) of this Bill will insert—replicates that requirement by providing that no one may register in Northern Ireland unless he has been resident there for the entire period of three months before the date of registration on the rolling register. Clause 6(4)(b) makes equivalent provision for homeless persons seeking to register in respect of a declaration of local connection.
      I see no reason to impose any additional requirements at this stage. I certainly do not see why people in Northern Ireland who register by means of declarations of local connection should be required to provide information over and above that provided by other electors. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman, however. The Government do not want the system to be opened up to widespread fraud. They are aware that there may well be concerns in Northern Ireland, and are anxious not to seem unduly complacent. After every election—including general elections—the way in which the election was conducted will be monitored, and the electoral rules will be reviewed to ensure that they are not being abused.
      We will certainly listen to the views of the hon. Gentleman and his party—and others in Northern Ireland—if, once the Bill has been enacted, evidence is submitted that an abuse has occurred. We shall then be prepared to consider ways of dealing with the problem.
      I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have some concerns, given the history of Northern Ireland. We do not think that the arrangements there need to be exactly the same as those in other parts of the United Kingdom, but we do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on those seeking to vote in Northern Ireland. It is a question of getting the balance right. I think that we have got the balance right in the Bill and that we do not need the amendment. However, if evidence were subsequently produced suggesting that problems were starting to occur, we would examine it and consider how to deal with the problems.
      I hope that, following my reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Ross: I am willing to withdraw the amendment, but I still have a sneaking concern. If there is fraud and some people lose their seats at an election, it will not be much comfort to them to say that we will correct the problem before the next election, especially if the complexion of the council has changed. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. We have deep concerns— and there are real reasons for them because we have a land frontier.
      As the Minister knows, I have often, or at least on a number of occasions, taken part in the post mortem in the Home Office after elections. The reality is that it is almost impossible to catch people who practise deceit in electoral matters, or are involved in personation, and prove it.
      Mr. O'Brien: Let me perhaps give the hon. Gentleman a little more reassurance. We need not necessarily wait for an election. If it became clear—remember, the provision is to do with homeless persons—that suddenly a large number of people were claiming to be homeless,
      364
      to have a local connection, and to have been there for three months, and many of those so-called homeless people were not known in the area, the returning officer would undoubtedly become suspicious in an area such as Northern Ireland because homeless people tend to become known. Therefore, the returning officer could at that point alert the authorities of that potential problem before the election took place.
      Mr. Ross: I am grateful for that explanation. One of the ways in which the returning officers, or electoral officers as we call them in Northern Ireland, could increase their knowledge would be by asking the Housing Executive how many homeless people were applying for homes. People will start to look for a house if they are genuinely homeless. If they are not genuine, they will not be looking for such dwellings. Bearing that in mind—I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 14, at end insert—
      "(7A) If a person knowingly makes a declaration of local connection at a time when there is in existence another declaration of local connection which he has made and which has not been cancelled or rendered void, he is guilty of an offence.
      (7B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7A) of this section is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale".
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 56, 57, 62 and 63.
      Mr. Evans: As we can see from some of the Government amendments, the Government have come a long way in recognising some of the problems that we have detected in the Bill. It is only fair to say that we welcome that. We have gone a little further in making it an offence to register local connection in more than one place.
      We are of the view that as many homeless people as possible should be encouraged to take the opportunity to register to vote. For some of them, it may be the first time that they have ever registered to vote. Just because they do not have the dignity of a roof over their heads does not mean that they should not be allowed to put a vote to their voice. Therefore, we welcome the thrust of the measure.
      We have heard about some close constituency results and overseas electors. Some seats were decided by a small group of people; the majority was small. The 1992 Vale of Glamorgan election has been mentioned—I think that the majority was 19, a small number. As we know, some elections have been decided by even less, such as the Winchester election, which was decided by two votes. There have been other elections where the majority was in single figures.
      Therefore, personation in relation to local connection could be a real problem. It could decide elections. We have to accept that that is true. We are trying—I hope that the Government accept that it is exactly what we are trying to do—to encourage homeless people to register

      365
      to vote, but, at the same time, ensure that we do not activate people who are not homeless, but who might use the flexibility in the Bill to start to register and to make more than one local connection. That is the last thing that we want to happen.
      9.15 pm
      We know that constituencies differ—my constituency, for example, is large. As we heard from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), in some areas it is enormously difficult for some people to register and vote. Accordingly, provisions in the Bill will make it easier for people to vote by post. I have enormous reservations, however, about the potential for fraud that we shall be building into the system, and believe that an offence of local declaration might prove to be useful.
      The potential for fraud will be bad enough in general elections, but it might also be a problem in by-elections— with which I shall deal specifically when I speak to a subsequent clause. In general elections, there could be an enormous impact if local connections are declared in more than one area. Although I concede entirely that the number of homeless people who would try to abuse the system that we are establishing is small, those who might be considered as part of the Swampy factor—those who usually protest in other ways—might abuse both the system and the flexibility for homeless people that we are including in the Bill.
      I believe that, in some constituencies, the ability to make a local declaration will cause problems with those who are not homeless, but who may register under the novel provisions of clause 6. Moreover, as things stand, it would not be an offence for them to make such a declaration. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that we plug the legislative loophole to ensure that those who make local declarations are allowed to do so only once and that we do not open the floodgates to a protest movement of those who will suddenly be able to make local declarations.
      Currently, electoral registers across the country are not correlated. In 10 years, the situation may change and local registration officers may be able to check with one another. Today, I spoke to my electoral registration officer and asked her what would happen if I not only remained registered at the house that I left last year, but also registered in my new village. She said that their computer software would show my name appearing twice, and that they would investigate the double registration and remove one of the entries.
      The duplication of my name would have occurred in a single constituency. I think that it is very unlikely that anyone would make more than one local declaration in the same constituency, as electoral officers would get wise to such attempts and identify possible problems. If such attempts—or even concerted campaigns—were made over a much wider area, however, I am not sure that they would be detected. We should therefore include in the Bill a provision to ensure that if such declarations are made and detected—detection is a separate issue—they will constitute an offence, possibly a criminal offence, for which people are liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
      366
      We should like the Minister carefully to consider amendment No. 16. We realise that the Government's amendments in this group go some way in tightening the legislation, but we ask him to go one stage further.
      Mr. Linton: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a couple of minutes, but I cannot let this moment pass without pointing out the official Opposition's inconsistency. Before Christmas, Opposition Front Benchers very strenuously opposed amendments to stop dual registration that were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and me. The hon. Gentleman is now opposing dual registration for homeless people, after defending dual registration for rich people who are registered both at a country house and a town house. He raises the principle of dual registration in a way that applies not only to the homeless, but to everybody. The other categories who enjoy it are people with second homes, Members of Parliament and students. That gives many Members personal experience of—if not interest in—the subject.
      The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and myself were almost exactly the same as those being moved now by the hon. Gentleman, if one substituted the word "declaration" of local interest for "registration".
      Mr. Evans: We have asked for some form of identification to be made for local declarations, but that has not been accepted fully. It will be easier to register than ever before. When a campaign starts, it will be so much harder to detect where this is happening and close it down. It will still be an offence to vote in a general election in more than one constituency but, in respect of registration and a campaign by a group—I am not picking on the homeless, who I do not think will do this—people may abuse the system.
      Mr. Linton: The point is that we want a registration system that is unlikely to be abused. The hon. Gentleman referred to moving within his constituency, but problems arise because there is no correlation between moving from one place and moving to another. We have advocated a system where there was no dual registration, and that would not stop Members of Parliament or students having a choice about where they voted. They could say that they were resident in one constituency or the other. However, it would stop them being registered in both places at the same time. That has the enormous benefit that when one moves one's registration for parliamentary purposes—this would not apply to local election registration—one moves away from one constituency to another. One transfers the registration, rather than simply starting a new one while probably forgetting to cancel the old one.
      That is the enormous advantage of an end to dual registration. It would not be against the interests of those who reside in two places, who would always have a choice. It would ensure that the electoral registration process is one of registering in one place and transferring to another. That means that many of the 4 million people who are on the register but should not be, and the 7 million who should be but are not, would be eliminated by a basic reform to the system to prevent dual registration for parliamentary elections—not only for the homeless, but for everybody.
      Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are serious about stopping dual registration,

      367
      every elector in the country should have a unique number attached to his name, whether it is his national insurance number or, even better, his medical card number, which the computers could then throw up if someone registered in more than one place?
      Mr. Linton: I hope to come to that point in the debate on the next amendment.
      Mr. David Heath: Clearly, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is expressing a point of interest to the Committee. I have some sympathy with his point, as I have with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), with whom I agree about single rather than dual registration. As far as possible, I believe that the same rules should apply to every class of elector, rather than having distinctive arrangements.
      I do not believe that the amendment would cover what is needed, nor do I think that the Government have yet got it right. The criticism in both cases may be to do with the mechanism. The current proposition is that there should be a duty on the person registering to cancel any previous registration. We do not know exactly what cancellation means, and the duty could be very light or very onerous; we must discover that from the Minister.
      The Minister clearly recognises that the wording was not right before, by virtue of the Government amendments, and especially No. 57, which would ensure that the same requirement applied to a declaration of local connection as to a normal registration.
      Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be difficult enough to get homeless people to register in the first place, let alone getting them to de-register when they move? That is why we must make absolutely certain that when they re-register they are asked specifically to declare whether they have registered anywhere else, so that their name can be removed from the other location.
      Mr. Heath: That underlines my concerns about the arrangements proposed in the amendment. It seems to be an onerous duty that will be difficult for people to fulfil. One of the problems is the synchronicity: if the amendment were made, cancellation of the previous registration would have to occur before the declaration of local connection was made. That double process cannot be what the hon. Gentleman intended and I hope that it would not be implemented in that way.
      Surely a cancellation is not what we need. The Government amendments make it clear that a previous registration by declaration of local connection falls when the person is re-registered in any way. We need a system that places a duty on the person not to cancel with the previous registration officer but simply to make the new registration officer aware that he or she was previously registered. The officer would then have the responsibility of ensuring that the other officer is made aware of the change. If we have that mechanism, we do not need to get too excited about the problem.
      The hon. Gentleman has detected the fact that there is no clear duty or sanction to ensure that the applicant makes a previous registration known when re-registering, but the amendment does not quite answer the case.
      Mr. Evans: The Minister referred to the problem in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of 16 December. He said:
      "In addition, the form for registering in this way will also need to include details of any current registrations so that, again, the registration officer can ensure that the person is deleted from the register in respect of a previous address."
      Mr. Heath: That is very helpful. If we have a form designed in that way and there is a penalty for knowingly giving false information, the matter is dealt with. If the Minister can assure me that that is the case, even though it is not in the Bill, there is no longer a problem of dual registration and the amendment is unnecessary.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right. He quoted the letter that I sent and I hope that that provides him with sufficient reassurance. I can confirm that what I said in the letter was right, which it is always a pleasure to do.
      As the Bill is currently drafted it does nothing to prevent a person from registering more than once as an elector using declarations of local connection. Because declarations of local connection are designed for use by those such as the homeless, mental patients and remand prisoners who are unable to establish residence in the normal way, that seems wrong and amendments Nos. 56 and 57 will prevent that.
      I note the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley earlier, but overall, Members of Parliament receive an excellent service from the officers of the House and we have too little opportunity to pay tribute to them. Perhaps I should mention that the loophole that we seek to close was originally spotted by the eagle-eyed Oonagh Gay of the Library when she was preparing her excellent research paper on the Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to her for referring to the matter in her research paper so that we could deal with it.
      Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 will make a similar change in respect of those who register by means of a service declaration. Those who register in the normal way and legitimately have more than one residence—I know that that includes many hon. Members—will not be prevented from registering in respect of each of them. I shall not revisit the debate that we had about dual registration, but I hope that, in the light of that reassurance and the indications I have given about how we intend to deal with the issue, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I invite the Committee to support amendments Nos. 56, 57, 62 and 63.
      I do not go all the way with the hon. Gentleman on what he calls the Swampy factor, although it is something that we will wish to consider. I will discuss it with my officials and consider whether we will be able to deal with it in the other place if that turns out to be necessary. I am not convinced that it is as big a problem as the hon. Gentleman fears, but I will consider his constructive comments.
      Mr. Evans: We have had another useful debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) for his contribution to it. I accept much of what he said about double registration. We have made a start in closing loopholes and, if clear abuses are taking place, we will

      369
      need to reconsider. I understand that students form the bulk of those who register twice—there are only 659 Members of Parliament—but it is an offence to vote more than once in a general election. I also understand that some people wish to vote in local elections that take place at different times in different areas. We may need to revisit the issue in five years' time, given the pace at which new technology is advancing.
      I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The Government's amendments will do much to close the loophole. I am also grateful that he has undertaken to reconsider what I have called the Swampy factor—the fact that a politically motivated group of people may use the legislation to enfranchise people who currently cannot vote. It would be wrong for such people to be able to abuse the system for their own ends. If Home Office Ministers and officials study that matter and detect a problem, I hope that they will act, in another place, to close that loophole.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
      "(10) A declaration of local connection shall be of no effect if that declaration states an address which is an address within a constituency which is not represented by a Member of Parliament at the time when that declaration is received by the registration officer".
      The amendment would offer further protection for the democratic process by ensuring that travelling voters could not target particular seats. I speak as one who bears the battle scars of two by-elections—in Pontypridd, where I came third, and in the safe Conservative seat of Ribble Valley, where I came second. The amendment would prevent groups of politically motivated people—who clearly would not belong to either the Conservative or the Labour parties—from inflicting the Swampy factor on elections.
      Some protesters are prepared to stay underground or at the top of trees to make their point. It is naive to think that people motivated enough to do such things would not be motivated enough to travel around the country and make a local declaration in an area where a by-election was to be held.
      I am rather disappointed that there are no representatives from Plaid Cymru in the Chamber tonight, as one of that party's seats has recently been vacated by the resignation of the hon. Member for Ceredigion. This important Bill tries to address the observed decline in voting by encouraging as many people as possible to vote. However, the Ceredigion by-election has been called for 3 February. It is doubly disappointing that about 3,800 young people—first-time voters, in the main—will not be able to vote on that date because they are registered on the new register that comes into force on 16 February.
      The Ceredigion by-election will not be affected by the Bill, but other by-elections will be. When a seat is vacated because the Member of Parliament dies, several weeks normally pass before a by-election is held. That was what happened after the tragic death of Alan Clark, but, clearly, Plaid Cymru had its own reasons for acting quickly in the case of Ceredigion.
      370
      The gap of several weeks that normally occurs gives ample opportunity for the Swampy factor to come into play. People can move around the country and make local declarations in the constituency involved. That may not be very important in constituencies where one party enjoys a large majority, but we must ensure that the Bill closes down any abuses that might exist, and that it opens no fresh possibilities for abuse. Where a majority runs into only three or four figures, politically motivated people could travel around the country to where by-elections are to be called and could actually decide the results.
      We are trying to be realistic about abuses of the system. Because there will be a rolling register and because we are bending over backwards to enable people to register to vote as quickly as possible—more quickly than ever before—no one can say that we are closing the stable door to prevent genuine and legitimate voters from voting. However, the amendment would ensure that, once a seat was vacated, normally because of the death of a Member of Parliament, people could not turn up, make declarations of their location and try to abuse the system.
      I hope that the Minister can assure all hon. Members that the Government are taking the situation seriously and that, if they are not prepared to accept our amendment, they will introduce one to close that loophole.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: There is a danger that this might become a discussion between by-election groupies or people who have been through the by-election process. All I can say to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that some of us have a better score than he has.
      Mr. Evans: Everybody has.
      Mr. Hughes: I was trying to be gentle, but as the hon. Gentleman has owned up so generously, I thank him very much.
      We are sympathetic to the amendment. It is important not to allow a sudden influx of people into an area once a by-election has been called. The electorate should be fixed on the day that the by-election is called. We share the concern and disappointment expressed about the by-election in Ceredigion. It has an intelligent electorate and there is often a very high turn-out. Because of the politics in the area, contests are close, and the seat has changed parties often since the last war. Yet the next generation of people who want to vote will be deprived of the chance to do so. As someone with family in Ceredigion, who are on the electoral register and will—I assume and hope—be voting, I share that concern. Plaid Cymru has let those people down and let down the case for wider electoral reform.
      I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the proposal. Our electoral systems must not allow elections to be rigged by people suddenly moving in and signing on. The amendment is one way of ensuring that. The wording may not be perfect, but I hope that some comfort will be given to the proposition, and that we can deal with the problem before the Bill ends its passage through Parliament.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The amendment presents some interesting questions and some difficulties. I would be reluctant to create a situation in which homeless people

      371
      were treated differently from those who could use the rolling registration scheme. The rolling register will enable people to register to vote when a vacancy occurs if they are not homeless—if they are registering other than by means of a local connection.
      The amendment would stop those who register by means of a declaration of local connection from doing so where a vacancy has arisen. They would therefore be treated differently from those who could otherwise register under the rolling registration scheme. I am reluctant to do that. However, I listened with care to the points made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The reference to the Swampy factor can be overdone; I would not want to raise a spectre to haunt the whole idea. That would not be realistic. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, getting homeless people to register will be difficult in any event. At the same time, we want to ensure that we provide every encouragement and do not seek to disfranchise people by reason of their homelessness.
      9.45 pm
      We need to ensure that proper systems are in place to deal with those who seek to register for improper reasons. However, we must strike a balance to ensure that there is a level playing field. I have heard what has been said and shall discuss the issue with officials to see whether there may be some way to deal with it. The amendment is not the way to do that. It would create discrimination against people who were homeless and who sought to register by way of a declaration of local connection. I do not like that proposal, but I do not deny that there is an outside possibility that people may seek to register for a by-election. I shall consider the matter with more care and write to the hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and will happily copy the correspondence to any other hon. Member who indicates an interest to me when the debate is over.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for what the Minister has said and for the support of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It is sad, as he said, that people who should vote for the first time in the Ceredigion by-election will be denied their opportunity for up to two years. They will remember well who denied them their vote in 2000.
      I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. The Opposition do not want to set up some demarcation that picks on the homeless and no one else. However, when the Minister reconsiders the point, will he look into the possible problems with by-elections, particularly those that take place several weeks after a vacancy occurs? There is an opportunity for abuse of the system, but it could easily be prevented. Matters are different when people move house. People are not likely to go so far as to spend perhaps £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 to try to abuse the system and get a vote, but a local declaration costs nothing. It would be far easier for people to abuse the system in that way than it would in any other. I am reassured by what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 9, line 38, leave out first "any" and insert "another".
      372
      No. 57, in page 9, line 39, leave out "otherwise than" and insert ", whether or not".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. David Heath: I do not want to detain the Committee for long. As the Minister gave his assurances on amendment No. 17, he said that the form of declaration would include a requirement that a person should declare whether he or she were already registered by virtue of a declaration of local connection elsewhere. Does he intend to table an amendment to clause 6 in order to amend section 7B(3) of the 1983 Act, where the contents of a declaration of local connection are specified? If a further mandatory requirement for information is to be placed on any person seeking to register, it seems extraordinary that it should not appear in legislation, and it would be more convenient if it did.
      Mr. O'Brien: We do not need to include that in the Bill—it would simply be a matter of the returning officer having prescribed forms, which would, no doubt, be dealt with in the normal way under electoral registration procedures. Those forms would simply declare what information was required. We do not need to cover that in the Bill; there are other ways in which to do it. However, it is correct that the form would ask for the provision of that information.
      Mr. William Ross: We have held an interesting and quite lengthy debate on the clause and its several amendments. There is one point in the clause that caught my eye and to which I draw the Minister's attention. Subsection (6) states:
      "No declaration of local connection shall be specially made by a person for the purposes of local government elections".
      How on earth are we to know whether people are making their declaration for that or for some other purpose? If they make a declaration for parliamentary elections, they will be able to vote in local elections anyway.
      Mr. O'Brien: The aim is to ensure that people are making a declaration that they have a local connection. They would then be included on the electoral register and would be able to vote in local or national elections, as appropriate, if they were qualified to do so. I do not think that we need to take the matter any further. However, if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that answer, perhaps the best way to proceed would be for me to consider his point in detail and to write to him.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7

      SERVICE DECLARATIONS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this we will discuss amendment No. 105, in schedule 1, page 22, line 37, leave out "12 months" and insert "service".
      Mr. William Ross: Over the years that I acted as an election agent, looking after the interests of my party in

      373
      relation to electoral registration, I always had difficulty with people serving in the armed forces and with the service declaration. Sometimes, those involved failed to submit the declaration—they failed to claim their place on the electoral register. Sometimes, they told me that they had difficulty in obtaining the necessary form from their officers. In a small way, that has been a bone of contention for many years—although it is, no doubt, an important enough matter to those who are affected by it.
      The amendment would remove the reference to the 12-month period and would replace it with a reference to the end of service in the armed forces. If that were done, it would resolve the difficulties that have been experienced by some soldiers, sailors and airmen over the years. It would then be a simple matter for the military authorities to inform the electoral officer as soon as an individual had left the services. The amendment is an effort to make the matter simpler for all concerned.
      Will the Minister consider my proposal? It may well be that other ancillary amendments would be necessary. I have not considered the matter in enough detail to be certain of that. If the Minister would consider my proposal, it would be a step forward; it would certainly make life easier for those serving in the armed forces who want to remain registered at their homes. Will the Minister give me his views on the matter, and tell me whether he will consider the point?
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) makes a valid point to which the Minister will respond. My question relates to clause 7 rather than to the amendment. For as long as I can remember, there has always been the service declaration for people in the services who live abroad. I have never been aware that other people who are abroad on Government service—such as civil servants, foreign press officials and diplomatic officials—may have a similar method of registration.
      My question to the Minister—I appreciate that it is against the backdrop of overseas voter provision—is whether he will place on the record which categories of Government employees, in addition to members of the armed services, can avail themselves of the declaration possibility, irrespective of the proposed amendment that the Bill will make to current law. It would help if he clarified that.
      Mr. Fabricant: I welcome clause 7. It abolishes a discriminatory element that previously existed in the Representation of the People Act 1983.
      The service declaration was introduced by the Conservative Government to make it easier for people who had worked in the armed services to vote when they were overseas, but obviously, with the provisions for overseas registration, that is no longer necessary. I note that those with a service declaration will still be able to use it. However, perhaps the Minister will confirm that they will be given the additional option of registering in the same way as other voters.
      374
      Interestingly, had amendment No. 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), passed through the House—in the event, the right hon. Gentleman withdrew it—people serving overseas in the armed forces may well have had their right to vote removed. Although the right hon. Gentleman denied that that was the case, many hon. Members felt that the provisions of his amendment would have disfranchised those people serving the country. That would have been completely wrong.
      As the clause removes an element of discrimination, I welcome it.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment No. 105, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), would raise some problems. Let me first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes); that will lead me on to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
      There are effectively two groups of people who can make service declarations—members of the armed forces and members of the diplomatic service, together with British Council employees based overseas. Service declarations made by diplomats last 12 months; the Bill does nothing to change that. However, declarations made by members of the armed forces currently last indefinitely and expire only when the person concerned is no longer eligible—the moment when they leave the forces.
      Although that may sound a desirable state of affairs that ensures that service personnel remain on the electoral register, it has perverse effects. Members of the armed forces generally make a service declaration when they enlist. As that is often at the age of 18, they usually register in respect of their parents' address, but thereafter no one reminds them as a matter of course that they are registered, or that their service declaration may need to be updated. We do not want to place on the armed forces the extra burdens of working out where people are registered and dealing with all those issues.
      Service declarations may be in force for many years after they are made. The service man's parents may long since have died or moved house, but he may still be registered in respect of his former address. Even more absurdly, when he is in this country, he may live, with his spouse and children, in a property that he owns, but because he has forgotten that long ago he made a service declaration, he is still registered in respect of the address that he left when he was 18.
      We do not believe that that is right. Nor is it satisfactory that, uniquely among electors, members of the armed forces are not given an annual reminder to renew their registration and ensure that it properly reflects their circumstances. Accordingly, the Bill will bring service personnel's service declarations into line with other service declarations by causing them to last for a year. Registration officers will, of course, remind those registered in this way that their declarations—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

      375
      Committee report progress.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Mike Hall]
      Question agreed to.
      Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I was outlining our procedure for service declarations. We want to ensure that those registered are able to vote, but that that should not be an indefinite right bearing in mind that their circumstances may change. Registration officers will remind those registered that their declarations are about to expire and offer them the opportunity to renew them.
      Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister telling us that, from now on, registration officers will write to service personnel at their home addresses where they are registered, so that they will have the opportunity of renewing their place on the electoral register?
      Mr. O'Brien: That is indeed the case. Members will want to be reassured that the change has been made with the agreement of the services, whom we consulted on the matter. The reminder that will go to service personnel that they should continue to renew each year their right to vote is worthwhile in citizenship terms and will provide the assurance that we shall not have completely out-of-date registers. That is a worthwhile change that the Committee should support. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
      I also invite the Committee to agree that clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. One of the Bill's key purposes is to make it easier for people to register as electors. That is true for all electors, but especially for service personnel among whom registration rates have traditionally been low. At present, those with a service qualification— members of the armed forces, diplomats and certain other public servants posted overseas—can register only by means of a service declaration even if they are resident for the time being in this country.
      The working party recommended that this restriction should be removed and the clause will achieve that. It will introduce much greater flexibility into the system. Those with service qualifications will still be entitled to register by means of a service declaration, but the clause will give them the additional option of registering in the same way as other voters if they satisfy the residence criteria, or as overseas voters, bearing in mind the discussions that we have had and may well have about such voters. There is no reason why those with a service qualification should be forced to register in a particularly burdensome way when they do not wish to do so. Again, the services support this change.
      We hope that by removing that requirement, we will increase registration rates among service people. I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 1

    REGISTRATION: AMENDMENTS OF 1983 ACT
    Mr. Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 18, line 24, at end insert—
    "(2A) The requirement at subsection (2)(a) above for the inclusion of the name of the person to be registered shall not apply where, in the opinion of the registration officer, inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person.".
    The amendment would allow electoral registration officers to register certain voters anonymously if it is considered that publication of their addresses would render them liable to danger. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that this is not the junk-mail amendment whereby people can opt to keep their names off the edited version of the register so that they are not inundated with junk mail. This might be better described as the battered wife or Jill Dando amendment. It would allow the names of vulnerable voters to be left off the register so that they could not be traced by a stalker, a violent ex-spouse or a vengeful ex-prisoner, but would retain their entitlement to vote.
    Mr. Fabricant: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks and can see some force behind his argument, but who would determine whether someone is at risk? Would it be the voter concerned, the police, or someone else?
    Mr. Linton: I thought that it was becoming clear that with this amendment, the electoral registration officer could decide to register certain voters anonymously. It is quite different from the amendment to clause 9 under which the voter could opt to be excluded from an edited version of the register. I do not want to anticipate the debate on clause 9, but that amendment concerns the balance of convenience between avoiding the junk mail that people receive if they are on the register and the credit that they may not be able to get if they are not on it.
    This amendment is about much more than a balance of convenience; it may be a matter of life or death. It embodies one of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report in September 1998. I urge the Minister and the Committee to give it serious consideration.
    Mr. Grieve: I do not know how much detail the hon. Gentleman can go into about how the system would work. If the system would leave blanks on the register so that it would be noticeable that certain properties were not registered, would not that in itself alert people who consult the register to the fact that there is an anomaly? How would the system work in respect of the person concerned voting on polling day?
    Mr. Linton: During our evidence sessions, the Home Affairs Committee heard that there are several categories of people whose safety can be put at risk if their name appears on the electoral register. That certainly includes battered wives, but also people in occupations that make them vulnerable to attack. Prison warders and police officers are two examples. Not everybody in those categories would need anonymity, but there may be individual cases in which it is required. Another example

    377
    is people who have been victims of stalking or other forms of obsessional behaviour, particularly where there has been police surveillance or protection.
    We do not recommend that the voter should be able to opt to go ex-register in the same way that one can go ex-directory in the telephone system because we want this provision to be used only in exceptional circumstances. We do not want it to be used for the wrong reasons, such as to avoid tax or jury service.
    At the moment, a few vulnerable people keep their name off the electoral register. That is technically an offence and can attract a £1,000 fine, but as we heard earlier, nobody is ever prosecuted. We heard evidence from the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives that some electoral registration officers use devices to give anonymity to people who have good reason to avoid being identified.
    One device that we know is used is allowing married women to use their maiden names to make it more difficult for people to trace them. Another is to allow them to use false names so that their husbands or ex-husbands cannot find them. Registration officers acknowledge that they may be at risk of challenge in using such devices; in other words, they do not know whether they are legal.
    The Local Government Association suggested in its evidence to the Committee that people could be registered with names but no addresses under the "other voters" listed in every ward. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
    Another suggestion came from the Association of Electoral Administrators. It argued that to put the names in the list of other voters that appears at the end of every ward register might in some circumstances give too much of a clue about where someone lives. A determined ex-husband might, especially in small wards, be able to trace a person once they know roughly where that person lives. Electoral administrators therefore argued that there should be a constituency-wide list of anonymous electors, which would make it much more difficult to track people down.
    All organisations that represent registration officers ask for an explicit ability to register voters anonymously. They point out that that right existed under the community charge register. It was used by very few people, but it existed so that registers could not be used as a way of tracing people who might be in danger.
    I suggest that registration officers should have the power both to list vulnerable voters in a list of anonymous voters at the end of the register if their addresses need protection, and to list them under a permanent polling number if their names need protection. Clearly, something must appear on the register, but the mere existence of a polling number rather than a name would not give anyone a clue to an address.
    Such an argument of course implies that there should be yet another version of the electoral register. If clause 9 is agreed, there will be two versions: a full version of the register, which will be available for public inspection and to political parties, and an edited version, which will be sold commercially. The amendment implies a third version, which would be available only in the polling station to polling station officers for use in the election.
    378
    The version that would be available for public inspection and to political parties would omit the names of vulnerable people or list them as anonymous names to protect their identity.
    The provision of a full unpublished register would allow the inclusion of two further pieces of information that are sometimes necessary to prevent fraud. Some fathers give their sons their own names, down even to their middle names, and the only way in which to distinguish them is by date of birth. An unpublished register would enable the inclusion of dates of birth, making—one hopes—each person's electoral registration unique. Unusual first names also make it difficult to distinguish the gender of the voter. Gender could also be included on such a register. That is an incidental advantage that the amendment might bring.
    I am not arguing for more information on the public register, but for less. Irrespective of what happens to clause 9, I hope that the Minister and the Committee will agree to give electoral registration officers the right for which they have asked to protect the identity of vulnerable voters.
    Considering a Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House often provides a better platform but creates a more formal atmosphere in which sometimes it is more difficult to persuade Ministers to take on board the force of an argument. However, I hope that Ministers will seriously consider the amendment, which is supported by the entire Home Affairs Committee and all organisations that are intimately involved in electoral registration.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Greenway: As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) knows from Second Reading, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Home Affairs Committee recommendation. I am not entirely clear whether his amendment provides a complete solution. In particular, the fact that other members of a person's family may be on the register creates a difficulty.
    Even if clause 9 is agreed to in its present form—we hope that it will not be for many reasons—that will not be a solution. The full register will still be available in libraries. Stalkers, or former boy friends or husbands of women who have suffered serious domestic violence, can if they wish, and if they are as deranged as I have described, use whatever means are necessary to check where those women may be living.
    I am not entirely clear how many people would qualify to come into the category that we are discussing. I suspect that there would be only a few. Those facing a problem would clearly be on an electoral register in terms of their right to vote but would not appear on it either by name or address.
    We are all used to campaigning and canvassing on electoral registers that show gaps. About a quarter of the people on a register move from one address to another during a complete year. The absence of an address, let alone a name, from a register would not of itself spark any prospect of people thinking, "Somebody important must live there." Many addresses are missing from registers.
    Mr. Barnes: The Bill will introduce a rolling register and a monthly update will take place.
    Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He may be right in some respects. However,

    379
    I understand that the requirement to publish a register for public scrutiny is only an annual event and not something that would be done routinely each time there are changes in the register. The opportunity for someone to get hold of the register would be limited in using it to check which properties are not accompanied by a name and address.
    I wish to send a message to the Minister that we support the concept of action being taken. The Select Committee's report pointed out that the issue had not yet been considered by the working party. Was the working party unable to consider the matter in any detail? If that is the position, perhaps we should ask the Minister to consider the matter and produce a proposal that we could all support. That would allow people who feel that they are vulnerable to physical assault as a result of others finding out where they are to make their position clear. As I said on Second Reading, there is still a general suspicion that the murderer of Jill Dando may have been a stalker. Her address may have been discovered through an entry in a register that was available for public scrutiny. That cannot be dismissed lightly as something of no significance. Indeed, it is extremely important.
    An opt-out box was considered because of the potential threat of violence. However, there was no great body of evidence that that was a big issue for most people. It might have been for a few.
    The fact that electoral registration officers are looking to the House and to the Government to find a solution should be the final encouragement to the Minister to do so. Given the likely date of Report, it may not be possible for the House to find a solution in the Bill. However, even with the short timetable that the Minister has in mind to get the Bill on the statute book so that the pilot schemes can go ahead, I urge him to try to find a mechanism that could be approved by the other place and that the House could then approve in a very short time.
    Mr. Grieve: I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that I broadly support what he is trying to achieve. The purpose of the questions that I posed in my intervention was not to destroy his basic premise, but to raise a number of issues. My understanding is—it is clearly his view, too—that as matters stand there is some discretion. Various ideas have been worked out by electoral registration officers to deal with this problem informally, in the absence of anything specific on the statute. The worrying thing about the amendment is that, by clarifying what is allowed and what is not, it may fetter the discretion of electoral registration officers, so we must get it right.
    I am concerned that if we had a system that put the names of known people at the bottom of an electoral register covering what in cities can be quite small wards, nothing would be better calculated to alert people to the fact that those people live in a small, circumscribed area. If a person were sufficiently unpleasant to want to unearth someone's address, such a system might provide the very pointers that the hon. Gentleman is trying to remove.
    That is why I am concerned about the amendment, although I suspect that it has been tabled so that this matter can be aired. If it were passed and included in the Bill, it might be counterproductive. I favour the system under which people can use pseudonyms, which ensures that addresses are filled in. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made,
    380
    that blanks on the electoral register have never been a source of great consternation to those looking at it, but I see no reason why pseudonyms cannot be used in exceptional circumstances. They provide the anonymity that people are seeking, while ensuring that the register shows both the number of people and who is living in the area that it covers. I suggest to the Minister that that may be a better way forward, but I await with interest to hear what he has to say on this topic.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Like other hon. Members, I understand the position that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has adopted. The Select Committee on Home Affairs and the electoral registration officers have asked us to look into this matter, so we must properly consider it. We need to go down this road very carefully. I want to flag up several problems that could arise if people are allowed to go off the electoral register.
    First, if we are to have such a system, it must apply common standards, be carefully adjudicated and monitored and not allow too much discretion. In our constituencies—we all know our own best—many people may want to avail themselves of this provision. I regularly get people in my surgery who justifiably complain that they are being harassed for racial or other reasons. They may want to come off the electoral register. Some people may make a similar application for family reasons, because of past or present domestic violence. People summoned to serve in a jury trial may be vulnerable from the moment they are identified as a juror in a serious armed robbery, murder or drugs case.
    Witnesses in criminal cases, or those believed to be witnesses, might want to be taken off the register. The same might apply to those who, without any real evidence, believed themselves to be the subject of revenge attacks: the families of people convicted of offences might well be thought to have it in for those who were party to the process. Those of us who live in or represent inner cities are accustomed to revenge attacks. This morning, I talked to a constituent whose husband is missing. She and the family believe that he may be dead as a result of a violent attack; no one quite knows. Such events lead to similar circumstances in a number of cases.
    Judges, magistrates, policemen and doctors might want to be removed from the register. The list is very long, and I fear that, once the door was opened, it would be opened to, potentially, a great many people, and the concept of the register as the place where citizenship is recorded for the purpose of participation in the electoral process would become a very different concept.
    My second point is technical. All politicians know that, especially in these days of computers and database-held electoral registers, it is not difficult to track people down. If I could not find Martin Linton of Battersea on this year's register, it would not be difficult for me to consult last year's register, or the register for the year before. The fact that Martin Linton is not on this year's register will not stop me from tracking him down if I am determined to do so. If someone leaves a message in my constituency office and I have no address for that person, we can track him down pretty quickly, and it is not difficult to do that in a wider context.

    381
    Thirdly, the test proposed by the amendment is whether an individual would be prejudiced. It suggests that a person's name should not be included on the register if
    "inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person".
    That should be considered in the contexts of terrorism and of freedom of information. What is prejudice—substantial prejudice, or some prejudice? A range of issues are involved.
    Mr. Linton: Most of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are answered by the simple fact that the electoral registration officer, rather than the individual, would make the decision. The amendment is primarily intended for, and would be of use mainly to, battered wives who moved and wanted to ensure that their husbands could not trace them. Someone who has lived in the same house for 30 years can be traced through earlier registers. I can be traced through the telephone directory. Most of the jurors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would also be easily traceable, because they would not have known in the past that a threat would be posed to them, and therefore would not have taken precautions. I am thinking of people who try to move away from danger and find that the inclusion of their names on the electoral register gives their pursuers a chance to track them down.
    Mr. Hughes: I entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman says. My point is that in the case of a potentially large category, the issue is for how long a person might want to claim that his or her safety was at risk, looking both backward and ahead.
    A huge number of my constituents, if asked whether they felt vulnerable and harassed, might well say that they did. I understand the hon. Gentleman's proposition: they would need to consult the electoral registration officer, who would make the decision. However, the perception of what constitutes a risk to safety in my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman might be very different from the perception in other constituencies, where there might be few applicants in comparison with the number in multiracial, multicultural communities where attitudes are much less tolerant and there has been a tradition of attacks.
    10.30 pm
    I come to my final point. I do not want to make a great deal of it; I want simply to state the facts. There about 20 Members, of whom I am one, who have special protection because of such threats. I hope that we will never allow anyone who wants to stand for election to avail themselves of the opportunity not to be included on the register. To be allowed not to reveal where one lives cannot be consistent with seeking office as a councillor, Greater London Authority member or Member of Parliament.
    I say all that in the light of the fact that colleagues from Northern Ireland have far more experience than the rest of us of such circumstances. They have kept a public presence in the face of huge risks. Some colleagues have suffered personally from those risks. We need to be careful that, in seeking to deal with a specific and proper concern when people move to a hostel or other address,
    382
    we do not suddenly open the floodgates—with the electoral register no longer substantially comprising those who are eligible to vote, and with many people not on that register but, perhaps, without protection from discovery by those who are keen to track down where they are.
    Mr. William Ross: I find myself in general agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), to some extent for the reasons that he mentioned in relation to Northern Ireland Members. I have at one time or another received all sorts of weird and wonderful information on how to protect myself and to conceal where I live. Everyone knows where I live. For heaven's sake, I could not hide it because I live in a fairly republican area. The IRA already knows where I live. One has only to ask someone in the village, town or county. The idea that we can hide ourselves away in a little corner in this country for ever and no one will find us is sheer nonsense. It just cannot be done.
    I appreciate what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is trying to do and what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said about crime and its dangers, but the only way to protect citizens from such behaviour is by having an efficient police force, so that those who indulge in attacks on people for vengeance, or for whatever reason, are nearly 100 per cent. certain of getting caught and suffering severely for it. That is the way to stop the criminal elements imposing their will on people.
    In Northern Ireland generally, many thousands of men and women served part-time in the security forces, and in situations incomparably more dangerous than anything on this side of the Irish sea. The idea that those people could hide either their identity or place of residence was nonsense; it was known. We cannot allow our society to get into a situation where everyone wants to hide from the violent and the criminal—that way lies nothing but domination by the violent and the criminal.
    We should keep that in mind. We should be prepared to allow our names to go on to the electoral register. We should expect society to protect us from evil doers whenever we give evidence against them. There is no running away from a citizen's responsibility, and we should not do anything that would encourage people even to try that.
    Mr. Fabricant: The whole Committee supports the principle of the amendment, but there is considerable doubt about its practicalities. I will come to my main criticism of the amendment shortly: the burden that it puts on electoral registration officers, who are already overburdened and under-resourced.
    The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) gave several detailed examples. He talked about the use by battered wives of their maiden names. I do not think that that would prevent a husband from finding his wife. He said that exclusions would happen only in exceptional cases. That might mean exceptional blanks on the electoral register, but in practice someone could be found very easily. If the provision were used more generally, it would be more difficult to locate those who use it. However, I am not so sure that, in the democratic process, the provision should be used in cases that are less than exceptional.

    383
    The amendment states that
    "inclusion of the name of the person to be registered shall not apply where, in the opinion of the registration officer, inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person."
    I do not believe that a registration officer on his own would be qualified to make that type of decision.
    If the Minister supports the general principle in the amendment, he must say whether he wants registration officers alone to make decisions on anonymity, based on a very tight code of conduct, or whether another agency—such as the police or local social services—should provide an input before he makes the decision.
    Mr. Linton: Had the hon. Gentleman been a member of the Home Affairs Committee at the time—he has joined since—he would know that the Association of Electoral Authorities suggested that applications to electoral registration officers should come from either police officers or social workers, so that there would be input from professionals with first-hand knowledge of risk assessment. Nevertheless, the decision would still lie with the registration officer.
    Mr. Fabricant: It is reassuring to know that, although I am a new member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have independently reached the same conclusion on the matter that it did. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
    I do not agree with one of the arguments against the amendment made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), namely, that people who are planning to persecute or attack someone would examine previous registration documents. If that were a valid argument, we should never make such a change to the system. The point is that if there is to be change, it will have to be made at some point. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Battersea said in reply to the point, the change would at least stop someone pursuing the individual as he or she moves from place to place.
    The Home Office should consider the issue seriously. Although I do not think that amendment No. 85 is practicable, I should like to know whether the Government plan to include in the Bill a provision to ensure that battered wives, witnesses and all the other people who are under threat and have been mentioned in the debate will be able to sleep safely and soundly in their beds.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: This has been a useful debate, as it has raised a very serious issue. The Home Affairs Committee took the view that there should be some form of anonymous registration—for those whom some people may describe as secret voters, as they would not be known to the political parties.
    The working party on electoral procedures also examined the issue. It agreed that there was a problem, and was sympathetic to the need to resolve it. However, it felt that, even with its expertise—there was substantial expertise in the working party—it was not in a position to determine precisely how a secret voting system could be established and administered.
    Therefore—although we all have much sympathy for those involved in such situations, and think that there is a problem that has to be dealt with—I think that the view of the Committee is that the subject requires more study
    384
    than we have so far been able to give it, and I cannot provide any reassurance that I shall be able to support an amendment to the Bill to address the issue in the manner that we have been discussing today.
    Clause 9, however, has some relevance to the issue. If we were to include in the Bill clause 9 as drafted, it would provide some protection, as there would be two registers, one of which—a full register, including all the relevant names—would be available to the political parties, and another of which would be available only to some organisations.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am anxious to proceed, as the Committee wishes to get on. I shall make my points and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene later, I will happily give way.
    I accept that there is a genuine problem, but we now have interactive search software which makes it easier to trace people. Electoral registers can be on CD-Roms, which can be given away free with computer magazines. Therefore, searching for first names and surnames is remarkably easy. Clause 9 might provide some assistance in this area, and it remains to be seen what view the House takes. The Government have listened carefully to representations on the matter.
    We need to see how we proceed with clause 9, but I accept that there is an issue here. There are some problems with the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has made for the best of reasons. First, the parties will not know who is on the electoral register if some people are, in effect, secret voters. Those people will not be able to participate fully. They will not be able to receive the election address of the various candidates because the candidates will not know where these people are. It is possible to solve that problem, but we would have to work out a procedure to do so.
    What would we do about the members of the family of the secret voter? Would they remain secret and off the register, known only to the electoral registration officer? That needs to be addressed.
    I associate myself with the concerns of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about battered spouses and the victims of stalkers. We can accept that, but what about police officers, prison officers, some Members of Parliament or Child Support Agency officials? We could go on and list those who, for all sorts of reasons, feel that they and their families may not wish to prejudice their safety.
    The proposals would put the electoral registration officer in a difficult position in deciding who to exclude. The amendment states that it would be
    "in the opinion of the electoral registration officer"
    that registration would be prejudicial to safety. That is not a clear test and, in many ways, is very subjective. The registration officer would be very much open to legal challenge, and we would probably have to set up an appeals system to deal with the issues. It would become very difficult for the registration officer to refuse secret registration in such situations.
    I find myself in substantial agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, in that we must approach this matter with a great deal more care.

    385
    There are serious issues here, but I suggest that we take the approach of the working party on electoral procedures and study this matter more before we legislate in haste and repent at leisure.
    Mr. Fabricant: Have any representations been made to the Home Office either by the police, who have long-term witnesses, or by people such as Salman Rushdie, who have been in hiding for a period of longer than a year—seeking to vote but unable to do so?
    Mr. O'Brien: I have had some personal representations from people who feel that they would prefer not to have their names on the register. I am not aware that letters have been received at the Home Office, although there is a real issue here which deserves further study. I cannot guarantee that that study will be completed so that we can introduce something in the Bill.
    Mr. Linton: I urge my hon. Friend to make a clear distinction between clause 9 and the amendment. People who want to avoid junk mail will not be in the least bit worried by the fact that people can look at the full register at their local library—no one is going to go through the whole register by hand, without being able to copy it, simply to send someone else junk mail—but a battered wife cannot live with the knowledge that a violent or vengeful husband can track her down simply by going to the local reference library. It is an entirely different issue.
    However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 19, line 20, leave out "October" and insert "September".
    The import of the amendment is clear. In Northern Ireland, the date has been 15 September for as long as I can remember and probably longer; I do not know why, other than to give people more time to explore the possibilities of fraud in the Northern Ireland registers. There may be other reasons.
    We have the opportunity to apply the same date throughout the United Kingdom for what will become the basic register on which the rolling procedure will operate. There are several advantages to 15 September. It would create uniformity throughout the United Kingdom and simplify the position of university students.
    A member of my family is at a Scottish university, so I know that the year tends to start early there, in September, but lots of universities start somewhat later than that, and one of the bones of contention that I have found on this side of the Irish sea is that those who leave home before the October date on which they are to be registered are away from home at the qualifying date and could legitimately register either at their place of study or at home.
    If we move the date to 15 September, most university students in the United Kingdom will be registered at their home address and it will be much easier to keep track of them when they change thereafter. There is a definite advantage in that.
    386
    As the schedule says that the register must be published by 1 December, the 15 September date would give registration officers an extra month and people would have more time to check whether they were on the register. Elections rarely take place in December or January. I remember two, neither of which was very successful for some folk. One of them brought me here and the other, known as the snowman's election, was rather earlier in Northern Ireland.
    There are advantages in having a uniform date throughout the United Kingdom. The Bill says that revised registers can be published if many changes are made. I suspect that that will not happen and that, despite all the high hopes that some have expressed, we will wind up producing one register for an electoral area and it will remain largely unchanged throughout the year. I suspect that people will not take as much advantage or notice of the rolling registration as the Bill's progenitors hope.
    The amendment represents a straightforward change that would have certain advantages for the whole country and for the way in which the register is compiled. I invite the Minister to tell us why it should not be made.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not in a position to reflect the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, but the amendment raises two issues. The first, which is on all fours with a point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, is that it would seem to be a great advantage to have a national date on which registration for voting occurs, as well as having the rolling register in the background. I have made the point before in relation to the build-up to the census that people do not feel that registering is important. A form comes through the letter box, and if one does not fill it in, one gets another letter. One does not have the sense that the form has to be completed by a certain date.
    The second point is that the date cycle works on the basis that the forms are delivered in August and collected for a date in October for a register that comes into effect in February—normally for an electoral cycle in May. That means that people fill in the form in August or September and by the time the register comes into force, it is four months out of date. By the time the election arrives, it is eight months out of date. We need a cycle that minimises the time between the form being filled in, the registration becoming valid and people feeling part of the process.
    The rolling register will alter the situation slightly, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we will need to encourage people annually to register. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the working group reflected on that point. Even if we do not make a decision today, we should consider the cycle carefully to maximise the chance of people getting on the electoral register.
    The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has always made the point that we lose millions of people from the register, and everything we do must be geared to getting the maximum number of people on to the register. The Bill will try to do that, but I am not sure that the cycle of registration has yet achieved it.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I recognise that under current arrangements the qualifying date for registration in Northern Ireland is just under a month earlier than that for the rest of Britain—15 September compared with 10 October. In future there will not be a single annual qualifying date as people will be able to register at any point of the year. That is the effect of the rolling registration programme, but there will still be a requirement for electoral registration officers to carry out an annual canvass.
    I see the benefits of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but it would lengthen by a month the period between the date by reference to which the annual registration canvass is to be held and the date on which the register based on that canvass is published. It would also require the canvass to be held over what is for many parts of the United Kingdom—including whole towns in some areas—a major holiday period.
    I understand that the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has been consulted and is happy about the proposed changes. He does not anticipate any particular difficulty about moving to an October date for his canvass. I am therefore reluctant to accept the amendment.
    The hon. Gentleman explained his concern about an October date and the fact that university students will be away from home on the date in question. Under the present law, students may register in respect of their home address even if they are not physically present there on the qualifying date. They may also register in respect of their university or college address. That will not be changed by the new provisions governing registration, so young people from Northern Ireland who are studying at institutions outside the Province will continue to be able to register in respect of their home addresses—as well as, if they wish, in respect of their university or college address. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment on that basis.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the working party. I do not know whether it considered the issue, but I shall write to him on that point.
    Mr. William Ross: I have listened to what I consider to be the weak case made by the Minister. He said that the date will be put back a month, but the publication date could be brought forward a month, if that is all that is worrying the Government. I still take the view that the canvass date is simply replacing the present qualifying date. In my view, there is no good reason why 15 September should not be chosen. The evenings are long at that time of year, so when the part-time workers go round collecting the household forms they do so in the light. The long winter nights that set in during October make the job more difficult and render people—especially those in rural areas—less willing to open the door to strangers.
    The last major holiday in Northern Ireland is at the end of August. The household forms go out in the same month, and I assume that that is true too of Great Britain. I see no difficulty in what I propose, but there seems to be a prejudice on this side of the Irish sea against following the example of what is done in Northern Ireland. Electoral registration is, and always has been, much better there than on the mainland.
    388
    I hope that the Minister will not ignore what I have said, and that he will consider the proposal further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 20, line 43, after "publish", insert
    "in print and in electronic format".
    This amendment is as straightforward as amendment No. 111. It proposes that the register should be made available on computer disk as well as on paper. At present, the register is available in that format, but it has to be sent away for transcription. I want people to be able to put the disk into their computers much more easily than is the case at present.
    I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. It proposes no more than what is already common practice, and should be put on the face of the Bill.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I cannot accept the amendment, as it is simply unnecessary. Registration officers are already required to make the electoral register available in paper form and, where it is produced electronically, in an electronic format. As all electoral registration officers now produce their registers on computer, the register can be obtained, on payment of the appropriate fee, in either format. Copies can even be reserved in advance.
    We will shortly discuss the possibility that the full electoral register will be available in an electronic format. Although that is a separate matter, people entitled to the full electoral register will be able to get it on paper or in the electronic format. The edited register will also be for sale in both formats.
    One problem in the past has been that the format used for the register was not always compatible with all computers, with the result that it had to be transcribed to another, more suitable, format. Requiring the electoral registration officer to undertake such a transcription for all personal computers would be onerous and unnecessary. In my experience, such problems in the United Kingdom have been overcome by the major political parties.
    11 pm
    Mr. Barnes: The Minister's point is that the electronic format was purchased; but should not political parties, in addition to being issued with the published version, be able to have access to the disk as well without being involved in massive expenditure? I hope that that will be considered.
    Mr. O'Brien: I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is a valid point in many ways, but if extra expenditure will be occasioned for the taxpayer by reason of this proposal, it must be considered with care. It is not an invalid point because, as my hon. Friend would no doubt tell me were he not in a sedentary position, this is all about paying for democracy. The issue will have to be weighed in the balance, and I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said. The electronically formatted register is already available, and although I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), the amendment is unnecessary.
    Mr. Ross: The point that was well made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was the

    389
    very point that I was trying to bring to the attention of the Committee. The register is on tape, and transcribing it costs quite a lot of money. I believe that since the present systems were set up, technology has moved forward so fast and so far that there are now bound to be much cheaper methods of doing this. Compact disks can carry a huge amount of information, and I do not believe that it would cost all that much for electoral officers throughout the United Kingdom to have a system in which their tapes could be transcribed on to disks and made available at a much lower cost than at present.
    Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I can be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. The best approach might be to consult the electoral registration officers and see what difficulties, or otherwise, might be occasioned by the proposal. I could then write to the hon. Gentleman and, if such an approach is feasible, we may be able to do something in another place. I cannot guarantee that, or undertake to do it, but we can certainly consult with the electoral registration officers.
    Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As we are spending some money, perhaps a bit more can be found if need be. In the light of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 21, line 39, after "above;", insert—
    "(ca) is notified of any decision on an appeal by virtue of section 56 below which requires any such alteration in the register as is mentioned in subsection (4) of that section;".
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 61, 64 and 65.
    Mr. O'Brien: These are minor drafting amendments. They deal with the point at which alterations to the register have been the subject of an appeal. I shall not outline them to the House at this stage of the proceedings unless any hon. Member particularly requests it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 21, line 41, at end insert—
    "(1A) The registration officer shall determine an application for an alteration of the register within a period of three working days from receipt of the application.".
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 45, in page 21, line 45, leave out from "him" to "and" in line 50 and insert
    "not later than the day following the day on which he determines or, as the case may be, becomes satisfied that the alteration should be made".
    Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
    390
    No. 46, in page 22, line 22, at end insert—
    "except where a person can demonstrate that he was, before that day, entitled to be registered and where the registration officer makes his determination at least three working days before the election.".
    Mr. Barnes: We have an increasingly mobile and rootless society, which has a tremendously adverse effect on electoral registration in the United Kingdom. The Government seek to tackle that problem, but the Bill is unduly restrictive. My amendments, and others to which I shall speak on later occasions, are intended to improve on the Government's proposals.
    The problem I seek to tackle is that, while electoral registers do not come into force in Britain until 16 February each year, the person is registered at the address at which he or she was resident on 10 October in the preceding year. The Bill proposes to remove the 10 October qualifying date so that someone who moves to a new area may transfer his or her electoral registration without having to wait up to 16 months. When people move or die, their registration will be deleted from the original register.
    That is fine as far as it goes, but the Bill has shortcomings in that the transferred registration will become effective only when it is published on a supplementary monthly list. Registration submitted within a fortnight before publication of those lists will be held over until the following month's publication. No monthly supplementary list will be published when an election is approaching once the last day for nominations has been reached. When those provisions are combined, in some cases, people seeking to transfer registration five and a half weeks from the close of nominations will not be able to vote in an election in the area of their new residence. We can do better than that.
    A transferred registration could become operative as soon as it is accepted and logged into a computer by the electoral returning officer—as happened with the anti-social poll tax. To avoid an area's being subject to a rush of temporary registrations that would distort the result of a by-election, the register could cease to roll on the closing date for nominations, recommencing on the day after polling. However, if someone has moved to an area before the close of nominations but has not registered immediately, his or her registration could still be accepted up to, say, three days before the election.
    To make my proposals fit the current Bill, amendment No. 44 proposes that registration should be determined three days after its receipt by the electoral returning officer. In amendment No. 45, I propose that registrations should be published the day after determination, and publication could be on the computer. Amendment No. 46 argues that someone who is late to register, but who qualifies to have registered, can still be put on the appropriate register three working days before an election. I am trying to make the register roll in keeping with modern needs. In later amendments, I shall try to help that process further. The current amendments are only part of my modernisation proposals.
    I want to stress the seriousness of this problem. We need stronger provisions to allow the register to roll more genuinely than it would under the Bill. Radical reforms are needed. I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the seriousness of the shortfall in electoral registration. In 1993, the Office for Population, Censuses

    391
    and Surveys published a survey by Stephen Smith entitled "Electoral registration in 1991" In the summary of his main findings, Mr. Smith wrote that
    "the best estimate of non-registration in private households is therefore between 7.4 per cent, and 9 per cent, for England and Wales."
    On the same page, Mr. Smith published a table in which the most serious aspects of non-registration of those eligible were set out. The figures were: 38.2 per cent, of those in private and rented furnished accommodation; 36.6 per cent, of new Commonwealth citizens; 27.6 per cent, of those who have moved over the past year; 24 per cent, of black people; 21.9 per cent, of those under 17—the teenagers soon to have their names on a register; 20.6 per cent, of the 21 to 24 age group; and 20.4 per cent, in inner London. Those serious distortions have considerable effects on electoral registration. The Bill does something to deal with basic problems so that people who move can transfer registration, but we must do much more. I shall introduce amendments on the role of the electoral returning officer in those matters, as part of the whole scheme of things that I am proposing. At present, I am limited to the amendments before the Committee.
    My evidence to the Select Committee continued:
    "These calculations seem to me to be confirmed by two factors. First, the arguments about the inadequacy of the static registration system"—
    I mentioned those earlier. I went on to say that the second was that
    "between 1983–96 the shortfall between those registered and the eligible population fell steadily in Britain from 2.2 per cent to 4.9 per cent. This seems to me to fit in with a period in which we have seen a breakdown in certain aspects of the social fabric: which will disproportionately affect groups highlighted in Stephen Smith's survey. A boost was given to non-registration by the impact of the Poll Tax from 1988 where there was an interlink between the Poll Tax and electoral registers."
    Probably, about 1 million people were missing from that registration.
    My evidence continued:
    "It seems to me that Stephen Smith's study of a registration shortfall of between 7.4 per cent and 9 per cent is entirely plausible.
    As the shortfall isn't random across society, it will also distort the drawing of electoral boundaries."
    If the situation is as serious as the one that I described in my evidence to the Select Committee, we need to take several measures that are stronger than those in the Bill. My amendments are intended to do that—they will set us on a path that will enable us to put the missing millions back on to electoral registers.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for tabling these amendments, because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to him. If there is anybody who can claim to be the father of rolling electoral registration, it is my hon. Friend. He kept the issue alive when it was far from fashionable, and now that it is fashionable, he deserves much credit.
    At last, my hon. Friend's efforts are coming to fruition, and I hope that he regards the system of rolling electoral registration that the Bill provides as an important step forward. I use those words carefully. I would be the first to accept that this is not a perfect scheme—it is certainly not the scheme that he would like ideally—but it does
    392
    represent a significant advance on what exists at present and it will lay the foundations for a more comprehensive rolling registration scheme in years to come.
    The system that the Bill provides for was devised by a sub-group of the working party on electoral procedures whose members comprised electoral administrators and representatives of political parties. That is important, because those are the two groups who have the greatest interest in making rolling electoral registration work as effectively as possible; they are in the front line when it comes to receiving complaints from irate members of the public who are unable to vote in a particular election.
    In its final report, the working party endorsed the sub-group's recommendations and stated:
    "We recommend that the registration scheme should retain the present claims and objections procedure, but that this should be developed to include information necessary to prevent double registrations. Any claim received by the registration officer would only be entered onto the register after a period for public scrutiny and challenge, which would mean that claims received before the 15th day of one month and not requiring to be considered under objections procedure would be entered onto the register from the first day of the following month."
    The scheme in the Bill sticks exactly to that timetable. Quite simply, the electoral administrators did not believe that the more ambitious timetable that my hon. Friend had in mind would be possible at present. That is why I said that we hope to create a system that will deliver a much better and more effective rolling registration system, but I cannot say that we will deliver the ideal system envisaged by my hon. Friend. We may have that ideal system in future, but unfortunately we may have to wait for a short while before it comes to fruition.
    Electoral administrators have many duties and cannot always consider registration applications instantaneously. For example, hon. Members could imagine what might happen if there was a by-election in one ward of a local authority. The registration officer, who might well also be the returning officer in that by-election, would probably be far too busy in the week of the by-election to give instant consideration to registration applications from other wards. Considering and processing applications as they come in, instead of monthly, would require registration officers to issue almost daily alteration lists, which I imagine would not be popular with the political parties or anyone else.
    11.15 pm
    Finally, there is the important point that electoral registration officers around the country are not currently electronically linked to one another, which is an important prerequisite of a fast-moving rolling registration system. Some 30 different, not necessarily compatible, software systems are being used by electoral registration departments. That sounds trivial. In the modern world one might think that the problem is easy to overcome, but most local authority electoral registration departments use computer systems that are offshoots of the main local authority computer system, so it is a much larger problem.
    I hope that I have shown my hon. Friend that the scheme that his amendments seek to introduce, although in many ways very valid and ideal, is at present too ambitious, but I hope that it is something that we can aspire to in the years to come, as our technology improves.

    393
    Let me say a few words about amendment No. 46. Although we always say that we currently have a fixed register that is compiled annually and cannot be changed during the year, that is not quite true. Currently, anyone who can show that they were qualified on the qualifying date can have their name added to the register at any time of the year. The only exception is that no additions may be made to a register to be used at an election after the closing date for nominations at that election. It has always been felt that parties and candidates—to say nothing of the returning officer—need fixed goalposts during an election campaign and need to know exactly which, and how many, electors they are dealing with. We think that the principle must be preserved. However, amendment No. 46 would breach it.
    I hope that on the basis of what I have said, my hon. Friend will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Finally, I shall say a few words about the two Government amendments. Amendment No. 59 is a simple amendment—although it may not look like it—to tidy up the provisions of the Bill relating to rolling electoral registration.
    Under the new system, electoral registration officers will be required to carry out an annual canvass and to publish a revised version of the electoral register on 1 December each year. They will also be required to publish monthly lists of alterations, showing the additions and deletions made in the previous month. However, the working party received very strong advice from electoral administrators that it would not be practical for them to publish monthly alteration lists in October and November, as they would be in the midst of carrying out their annual canvass. The amendment makes that clear.
    Amendment No. 60 is a simple drafting amendment. It simply makes it clear that, for reasons that I have explained in connection with amendment No. 46, changes to the register arising from monthly alterations cannot take effect after the last day for nominations in an election.
    Mr. Barnes: I appreciate the importance of establishing a principle through Parliament. In the Bill we are establishing the principle of the rolling register. Because we have broken the mould and established that area, some of the further measures that I am seeking will have an opportunity to come into play in future.
    The amendments that I have tabled are not quite as difficult as the Minister has suggested. The Association of Electoral Administrators, which has always strongly supported the idea of rolling registers, has taken the lead on this matter, and I am sure that it would be happy to take on board some of my amendments.
    However, it would be very churlish of me not to seek to withdraw the amendment after being called the father of the rolling register, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    394
    Amendments made: No. 59, in page 22, line 2, leave out from "in" to end of line 17 and insert
    "a case where (apart from this subsection) that subsection would require the notice to be issued—

    (a) at the beginning of the month containing the date on which a revised version of the register is next due to be published in accordance with section 13(1) or (3) above, or

    (b) at the beginning of either of the two months preceding that containing the date on which a revised version of the register is next due to be published in accordance with section 13(1) above,

    and in such a case the alteration in question shall be made in that revised version of the register.".
    No. 60, in page 22, line 19, after "effect", insert "under subsection (2) above".
    No. 61, in page 22, line 25, leave out from "section" to end of line 26.
    No. 62, in page 22, line 40, leave out first "any" and insert "another".
    No. 63, in page 22, line 41, leave out "otherwise than" and insert ", whether or not".
    No. 64, in page 24, line 13, after "appeal)", insert—
    "(a) after 'the registration officer shall' insert ', in accordance with section 13A above,'; and
    (b)".
    No. 65, in page 24, line 13, at end insert—
    "(4) In subsection (4A) (effect of alterations in register), for 'is made under subsection (4) above' substitute 'made in pursuance of subsection (4) above takes effect under section 13(5) or 13A(2) above.".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
    Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 26, line 20, leave out "authorising" and insert "requiring".
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in page 26, line 25, at end insert—
    "(4A) Provisions authorising a registration officer to inspect, for the purpose of his registration duties, records kept (in whatever form) by categories of persons or bodies, to be specified by the Secretary of State, having information about any person's actual or proposed place of residence or change of place of residence, and to make copies of information contained in such records.".
    Mr. Barnes: These amendments deal with the powers and duties of electoral returning officers in seeking to encourage people to register. I believe that electoral returning officers should play a much more proactive role than the Bill provides for.
    In amendment No. 55, I would require, rather than just authorise, electoral returning officers to undertake a search for various records. Such duties should clearly be placed on electoral returning officers, although I agree that they should have the facilities and the resources to be able to carry them out.
    In amendment No. 27, I would extend the records for which electoral returning officers could search beyond those that are held by local and public authorities. It would allow the Secretary of State to specify categories of people who have information about a person's actual or proposed place of residence or their change of residence. Estate agents, conveyancing solicitors, the former public utilities, such as gas, water, electricity and British Telecom, all have access to details of people's

    395
    changed addresses. Consideration should be given to providing electoral returning officers with access to such information so that they can carry out their duties. Privatisation and public-private partnerships are the order of the day, so we are in danger of seeing continuously decreasing boundaries of local and public authorities. My amendment would ensure that there would be no cuts in the areas that electoral returning officers could turn to.
    If my suggestions worry people because they perceive that they have big-brother implications for the work of electoral returning officers, we should be able to consider the future introduction of confidentiality clauses that would insist that such information would be collected by and would be for the use of electoral returning officers only when they decide whether to transfer, delete, alter or add registration arrangements.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the amendments because they allow me to pay tribute to one of the senior electoral officers who was on the working party on electoral procedures. Mr. David Monks, who is now the returning officer in Huntingdon, was formerly the returning officer in North Warwickshire, so he was able to declare that I was the elected Member for that constituency. I can guarantee that he is a very competent and careful electoral registration officer and that he has great experience of such matters.
    The working party on electoral procedures of which David Monks was a member was very conscious of the difficulties that electoral registration officers have in compiling an accurate register. The great experience that he brought to bear enabled them to express the frustration that they feel in the knowledge that their councils often hold the requisite information, but electoral registration departments cannot get access to it. This issue becomes even more acute under a system of rolling registration when people can amend their electoral registration as soon as they move.
    Accordingly the working party made the following recommendation:
    "We recognise that there are a range of local authority and other data sources which it would be helpful to the registration officer to be able to consult in carrying out his duties under a rolling registration scheme … we recommend that registration officers should be entitled to request and receive information from local authority and other appropriate public data sources in order to allow them properly to carry out their duty of maintaining an accurate and up to date register."
    That is an important recommendation and paragraph 23 of schedule 1 is our way of giving effect to it. That paragraph will allow for regulations to be made that will authorise electoral registration officers to consult records held by the local authority and by those who provide services to the authority. That might include the housing department's records or the council tax register.
    Amendment No. 55 would require registration officers to consult such records rather than simply allowing them to do so. I have to tell my hon. Friend and the Committee that I think that such a change would not be welcome to electoral registration officers. They have said that they will need no extra encouragement to use a facility that will make their jobs easier.
    I do not think that we need to teach electoral registration officers to suck eggs. They have every incentive to ensure that their registers are as accurate and up to date as possible, not least because they are on the
    396
    receiving end of complaints from those who are left off the register. Experience and the sharing of good practice means that they are best equipped to know how to compile their registers and we should avoid being unduly prescriptive and making their job more difficult.
    I have every confidence that once registration officers are given access to local authority records, they will develop techniques for making the most of that access, and we should leave them to get on with it rather than telling them what to do.
    My hon. Friend's second amendment would go further. It would allow for regulations to be made enabling the registration officer to consult the records of any person or body who held information about a person's residence. It is hard to know who falls into that category. The obvious answer is the utility companies, and it is true that people will generally notify the electricity and gas boards and the phone company when they move. Equally importantly, they will notify the local authority council tax office to ensure that they do not end up paying council tax on two properties.
    Utility companies invariably want a single name for each property to whom they can send bills. I am not sure therefore that utility companies and other organisations necessarily offer useful information above and beyond that held by council tax registers, which is already provided for in the Bill.
    Other bodies that have information on people's residence are lawyers, estate agents and other private organisations such as banks. We would be getting into very dangerous privacy and data protection waters if we were to give electoral registration officers access to the records held by such bodies, as the amendment might inadvertently suggest. Indeed the working party warned:
    "Registration officers … should not be entitled to such access where this would otherwise result in a breach of data protection or other privacy regulations."
    I have every sympathy with the motives behind the amendments, but I hope from what I have said that my hon. Friend will realise that the Bill will make a major contribution to ensuring that electoral registration officers can compile accurate registers. I hope, therefore, that he will realise that his amendments are unnecessary and withdraw them.
    Mr. Barnes: I have great faith in electoral returning officers, and the best practice is excellent. However, a variety of practices are used, and clearly some registers are much more up to date than others, so best practice needs to be spread. I do not worry about placing duties upon electoral returning officers.
    On amendment No. 27, I have faith that electoral returning officers will make good use of the different techniques available to them to get hold of information and to ensure that it is used only for compiling electoral registers. As I said, I should perhaps have tabled another amendment that included a provision for confidentiality that might have dealt with some of the worries expressed by the Minister. As the future will eventually bring improved electoral registration techniques, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    REGISTRATION: OVERSEAS ELECTORS
    Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I have one question for the Minister, and I will understand if he says that he cannot give me an answer now, but I would be grateful in that case if he would write to me. Schedule 2 amends the Representation of the People Act 1985 in relation to the franchise for the European parliamentary elections. The question that is often asked, when there is an opportunity, is when the Government will bring forward the legislative changes to make sure that the people of Gibraltar can vote in the European parliamentary elections, as they are entitled to do following the European Court ruling that says that they must be able to vote.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule 2 agreed to.
    Schedule 3 agreed to.
    To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Mortgages and Unfair Contract Terms
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I may not look like Barbra Streisand, but since the title of this Adjournment debate was published, I too have known what it is like to be hounded by the paparazzi. It has seemed like every mortgage lender in the country has beaten a path to my door to explain why their products are fair and reasonable, and why others—usually their competitors' products—are not. When I first approached Madam Speaker's Office and proposed a title for this debate, I suggested "Mortgage Rip-Offs". I must compliment the Speaker's assistant secretary for the courtesy and tact that he showed in persuading me that "Mortgages and Unfair Contract Terms" might be more appropriate. So what are these unfair contract terms, and why do so many people feel that they have been treated badly by their mortgage lender?
  I shall first examine extended redemption penalties— or lock-ins as they are often known. Back in the days of the Conservative Government in 1994, with a stagnant housing market and the curse of negative equity, mortgage lenders tried to find a way to kick-start the housing market. They offered deals that were front-loaded to home buyers: discounted rates, fixed-rate schemes and even cash back. Clearly, the only way in which lenders could recoup the cost of such low-rate schemes was by locking borrowers into their standard variable rate for several years after the initial incentive had run out.
  I am a fair-minded person, and if that were all there were to extended redemption penalties, I would say "fair enough". So what is the problem? It is this: if one signs a contract that committed one for five years to pay a supplier of orange juice, one would expect the contract to specify the cost that one could incur for the whole five years. If the price charged by the supplier could vary from year to year depending on the orange crop harvest, one would expect the fluctuating cost to be related to some index—the orange market juice index, perhaps—which would govern the shift in the cost that one would have to pay for one's juice.
  One would not be happy with a contract that allowed the supplier to vary the cost of the orange juice after the first year by any amount that the supplier chose. One would certainly not be happy if the orange market index were falling yet the supplier could charge the same or even a higher cost for the juice or if one faced massive financial penalties for breaking such a contract and refusing to pay that inflated cost.
  Such a contract would be one-sided; its terms would be unfair—or, in the language used outside Madam Speaker's Office, a rip-off. One would not be happy, yet that is exactly what happens when one purchases a mortgage with extended redemption penalties.
  Let us imagine that someone takes out a two-year fixed rate that locks them in for three years beyond that to the lender's so-called standard variable rate. The person may not appreciate that the standard variable rate does not have to track any external index; it can entirely ignore the Bank of England base rate. Borrowers do not know—indeed, cannot know—what they are signing up to when they

  399
  agree to the contract. If subsequently they find that the contract is not acceptable, they face an often more unacceptable premium to bail out.
  Two years ago, Mr. Pearson-Miles took out a two-year fixed rate mortgage with the Alliance and Leicester for £75,000. The mortgage was described as "portable". Now, he is moving to a bigger house, and needs to increase his mortgage, but the terms offered by Alliance and Leicester for the new bigger loan are not as favourable as those that it gives even to its new customers, and they are certainly not competitive.
  Mr. Pearson-Miles has a choice. He can either pay the higher rate to Alliance and Leicester plc, where he is locked in for the next five years, or he can pay a £3,000 premium to take his mortgage business elsewhere. Mr. Pearson-Miles is unhappy.
  Mr. Phillips was even more unhappy. In 1992, the day after the exchange rate mechanism fiasco, he took out a 10-year fixed mortgage with NatWest, at a rate of 9.95 per cent. With interest rates falling to 5.5 per cent., NatWest made a large profit out of Mr. Phillips, who had paid well over the odds for more than five years on his mortgage. Sadly, Mr. Phillips and his wife separated and the house had to be sold after seven years.
  One might have expected NatWest to be sympathetic. After all, it had made a huge profit from Mr. Phillips's fixed rate. More than that, he was taking his subsequent mortgage from NatWest. Not a bit of it. NatWest insisted on levying an early redemption charge of £5,000 because Mr. Phillips had paid off his £100,000 debt before the 10 years were up.
  In a case cited by the Consumers Association, NatWest asked for £41,000 in a redemption penalty to pay off a £60,000 mortgage. That is £101,000 to pay a £60,000 debt. I think that most people would say that that is a rip-off.
  It is sometimes argued by mortgage lenders that lock-ins are not unfair in practice because no lender can afford to have an uncompetitive standard variable rate, so lenders cannot take advantage of borrowers who are locked in by redemption penalties by charging an excessive variable rate. Sadly, that is not true.
  Ten years ago, prospective borrowers would compare the variable rates on offer, but that is no longer the position. Most lenders do not use the standard variable rate to compete for new business. They use the much more eye-catching fixed rates or capped-rate deals. Fewer and fewer borrowers every year are on the standard variable rate, without being locked in, because consumers are getting wise to the need to remortgage.
  Even between the major high-street lenders there is a broad range where variable rates differ by as much as 0.6 per cent. This variation makes it impossible to tell up front which fixed rate will prove more competitive over the life of the fixed and penalty period combined. Such a lack of transparency in what is normally the largest financial contract most people enter into is a scandal.
  There is another scam to which I draw the attention of the House. I call it the corporate come-on. The Halifax and Woolwich building societies are masters at it. At the end of the fixed rate period, they write to the borrower and offer him a further fixed rate deal rather than transferring to the penal standard variable rate. That seems extremely helpful to most borrowers, particularly when
  400
  they are told that they will not have to pay the redemption penalty that would have applied if they had switched to a different lender. So there is no £5,000 penalty charge, or at least not up front.
  The lender kindly offers to roll that on top of the mortgage, so there is no shock to the borrower's financial system. It is a marvellous double whammy, for not only does the lender keep the business locked in for another five years but he charges the premium as if the borrower had left him and ensures that the borrower pays interest on it for the remainder of the mortgage term. As if that were not enough, the lender can offer the same come-on in two years' time when the next fixed rate expires. It appears that in the mortgage game, loyalty rarely pays.
  That is what happened to Helen and Andrew Bradshaw. After two years at a fixed rate of 5 per cent., Northern Rock offered them another fixed rate deal at 8.5 per cent. That was in November 1998, when most rates were about 7 to 7.5 per cent. The Bradshaws knew that they would be better off remortgaging with another lender, but thought that they could not afford the £800 premium that they would have to pay. Remortgaging would have saved them £70 to £80 a month, but they did not have the capital to pay the £800 in one go. Of course, they could have rolled that sum up with a new mortgage and been better off. They did not realise that Northern Rock would do that anyway by imposing a redemption charge on their existing deal.
  Northern Rock had also insisted that the Bradshaws take out their own Northern Rock home insurance policy. They thought that £600 was expensive for what was after all a modest home, but Northern Rock insisted. What the Bradshaws did not realise was that the following year the policy premium would increase by 20 per cent, to £720, despite their having made no claims. This bundling of other products in with the mortgage is another rip-off. It is a way of concealing the real cost of a mortgage. I am delighted that the Government have announced that they will legislate against such insurance bundling. They cannot do it soon enough.
  The calculation of interest annually rather than daily or monthly is another hidden way for lenders to boost their coffers at the home owner's expense. On a mortgage of £150,000 with a rate of 7.5 per cent, over a 25-year mortgage term, the home owner will be charged an extra £3,870 if interest calculations are reviewed annually rather than monthly. The windfall to the lender is even greater if the same home owner pays off a lump sum of £10,000 at the start of the loan. If the interest is calculated on an annual rather than a daily basis, the home owner will pay an extra £48,700 over the 25-year period. Those costs may be hidden, but they are frighteningly real, and I urge the Government to take clear and effective action to stamp out such abuses.
  Another similar abuse is when lenders cut savings rates two or three weeks before they cut their mortgage rates, or when the Bank of England base rate rises and they raise their mortgage rates a few weeks before they adjust their savings rates. The strange thing is that they manage never to get it the other way round, even though they claim that this is not a scam. In the last quarter of 1998, the clearing banks—Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds TSB and NatWest—are estimated to have netted a cool £40 million by operating that scam. Regulation should ensure that saving and borrowing rates are changed simultaneously.

  401
  I now come to regulation. Many lenders who have contacted me this week have urged that the Government should regulate the mortgage product more thoroughly. Others have urged the Government to regulate more thoroughly the advice given to the home buyer. It is my view that the Government must do both.
  The House is aware that discussions have taken place today with Treasury Ministers about the most appropriate way to regulate the mortgage industry. I urge the Government to place the industry within the remit of the Financial Services Authority. Those of us who sat for long months on the Committee considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill are keenly aware that the rationale that lay behind the FSA was to create a single regulator to act as a one-stop shop for the public on financial services. That rationale will have failed if the largest financial contract that most people undertake in their lives remains outside the FSA's remit.
  The FSA should become the regulator, and it should urgently review not just the contractual terms of mortgage products to ensure that they are fair and transparent, but the structure of selling these products. When I walk into a car showroom, I do not meet an automobile adviser: I meet a car salesman. When I walk into a department store, I do not meet a soft furnishings adviser: I meet a sales assistant. Why, then, when I walk into the Halifax, Abbey National, the Woolwich, Barclays or NatWest am I suddenly confronted not by a mortgage salesperson but by a mortgage adviser?
  That person is not there as my agent, working to secure the best deal available for me. That person is not going to examine my financial position carefully before telling me that, sadly, the company has no suitable product, but, should I care to walk down the road, company Y will no doubt be able to help me. That person is there to maximise his or her company's profit. That person knows that the mortgage that may be better for me may not produce the same commission. How else can we explain the fact that one in three mortgages sold is still sold on an endowment basis?
  All mortgage salespeople should be obliged to state clearly that they are not bound to act in clients' best interests, and that their obligation is to their companies— companies that may not even have the product that is most appropriate to a client's needs. They should be obliged to draw attention to the range of products that they do not stock, but that may be available elsewhere. That might introduce some fairness and transparency to the business of selling such an important and onerous contract. It might also draw customers' attention to the fact that there are genuinely independent financial advisers who can provide unbiased advice to help them through the mortgage maze.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me that regulation of both product and advice will soon be a reality under the Financial Services Authority.
  11.47 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has raised an issue that is vital to many people, and he has done so with great panache and clarity. He has done us all a service because,
  402
  as he said, the decision to take out a mortgage is one of the biggest decisions that an individual consumer makes. It is also a very personal decision: the object is usually to buy one's home or to make improvements to it.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, people taking out mortgages can be in a very vulnerable position. They are often under both time pressures and economic pressures in their keenness to acquire a new home, and they may make hurried decisions without studying all the small print. I do not think that I have ever studied the small print of any loan that I have taken out; it is often difficult to do so in the prevailing circumstances.
  The Government are very concerned about the problems that some consumers have encountered with their mortgages—my hon. Friend listed some of them. As he said, my colleagues in the Treasury are considering whether mortgage advice should be regulated by the Financial Services Authority, and I understand that they will announce the results of their deliberations shortly.
  My Department has responsibility for consumer protection issues, so we are also taking action on this important matter. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met the Council of Mortgage Lenders, major lenders, regulators and consumer groups to discuss mortgage problems. He asked the industry to consider what it could do to address the problems; he also said that he was prepared to use his legislative powers if necessary.
  One of the major issues mentioned by my hon. Friend is unfair contract terms, and the question of what is unfair. All businesses—and mortgage lenders are no exception— should deal fairly and equitably with consumers. They should use contracts written in plain language that the average consumer can readily understand. Contracts should also clearly set out all the terms that apply, so that the consumer is not faced with a nasty surprise if, for example, he wants or needs to redeem a mortgage early. The examples that my hon. Friend gave were vivid and very common. The use of legalistic jargon and incomprehensible terms can deprive consumers of their legitimate rights, or, worse, make many consumers feel, mistakenly, that they have no rights at all.
  The Office of Fair Trading has recently taken action under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 against redemption charges. Such charges are justifiable for some types of mortgage, but the Government have been disturbed to learn of the level of the penalties that some people have been quoted—my hon. Friend mentioned some—to redeem their mortgages. I am also concerned about the complex formulae that some lenders have used to calculate the redemption charge. It is unreasonable to expect ordinary consumers to be able to understand how the formulae will operate if they want to redeem their mortgages, especially as few house buyers will be thinking about the consequences of early redemption when they take out their mortgages.
  One of the more extreme examples of such formulae prompted the OFT to contact the lender, using its powers under the regulations. Following the OFT's intervention, the lender concerned—it was NatWest, which received quite a bit of publicity—agreed to cap its redemption charges for fixed-rate mortgages at no more than 5 per cent, of the sum redeemed where the original loan was for five years or less. For loans of five years or more, the cap is 7 per cent. However, those charges are significantly

  403
  smaller than what would have been charged using the original redemption formula. I am pleased that the OFT action has resulted in a fairer deal. Where the lender intends to impose a redemption charge, it is crucial that consumers are told about that up front and transparently. I am glad that my hon. Friend emphasised the importance of that initial transparency. In the current market, where many mortgages are redeemed early, consumers need that information to be sure that a mortgage will provide a good deal, both when it is taken out and in the future.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised redemption penalties at the mortgage summit that he organised. Lenders have agreed either to quote cash figures for redemption charges in the initial mortgage information or, where that is not possible, to impose a cash cap. That undertaking will ensure that consumers should have a clearer idea of the consequences of early redemption before they choose a mortgage and can take that factor into account when they decide which mortgage is best for them.
  My hon. Friend dealt briefly with another important issue: the annual percentage rate and the way in which it is advertised. It is one of the main hooks that cause people either to take mortgages or loans, or to reject them. I am sure that he will recall that, last November, the Government laid regulations that will make it easier for consumers to compare mortgage deals. From April, all lenders will have to use a standard method for calculating APR. They will no longer be able to advertise a mortgage with a low introductory rate—that is the hook—on the misleading basis that that low rate will last throughout the entire period of the loan.
  The new regulations will require lenders to take into account the fact that, once the low rate period has ended, the interest rate will change to the lender's standard variable rate. Consumers will be able to feel confident that the advertised APR gives a better reflection of the true cost of the loan throughout the lifetime of that loan. That is an important advance.
  My hon. Friend also dealt with the matter of annual versus monthly interest, which is a very important consideration. Many lenders are still using annual interest systems to credit mortgage repayments—so that the outstanding balance on a mortgage is adjusted only once a year, regardless of when repayments are made or their amount. Compared with an equivalent mortgage that charges interest on a daily or monthly basis, a consumer who is charged on an annual interest basis may expect to pay substantial additional interest during the life of the loan. It was another subject that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised at the mortgage summit.
  Our new APR regulations take account of whatever system the lender uses, so that consumers are able to see which deal is cheapest overall. However, many new entrants to the mortgage market make a virtue of the fact that they do not use annual interest rates. We should like established lenders to move away from that practice, both for new and existing customers. Some of the biggest lenders have already said that, this year, they will be updating their systems. However, even when there will be
  404
  some delay before they are able to change their systems, we believe that lenders should be looking to give full and immediate value for overpayments as quickly as possible.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the tying-in of insurance, which is a worrying trend. Some consumers who want to get the best mortgage deal from a particular lender have to buy tied home or other insurance—a practice that I have encountered in dealing with another aspect of my portfolio, the travel industry. Many people who want to obtain good package travel or holiday deal are expected to buy insurance that is often delivered at sky-high prices.
  In the mortgage market, the price of compulsory insurance does not have to be competitive because the borrower cannot shop around for the best deal. Currently, it seems that relatively few lenders require the purchase of tied insurance, but we are concerned that the practice could become more widespread. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced that legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity to make it illegal to force consumers to take out certain insurance policies linked to a mortgage. We intend to publish a consultation paper on the matter in the spring, and legislation will follow.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that there have been regulations protecting consumers against unfair terms since 1994. However, in October 1999 the Government changed the law to enable more organisations to take action against businesses that use unfair terms in their standard contracts with consumers. I was very keen on that initiative.
  Since the beginning of October, the Consumers Association—which is one of the named organisations— the statutory industry regulators and local authority trading standards officers—who are the stalwarts of consumer protection—have had the power to apply for court injunctions to prevent the continued use of unfair contract terms. It is a very important initiative, and the Consumers Association has not only signed up to it, but is very keen to be seen as the sponsoring agency in relation to the mortgage sector.
  I expect formal court action to be very rare. The vast majority of complaints that the OFT has investigated since the regulations came into force have resulted in a negotiated change to the unfair term. I fully expect—and would encourage—the process of resolution to be by informal means, rather than by court action. As my hon. Friend said, much will depend on the action of the FSA.
  The mortgage summit held at the DTI has demonstrated a willingness by the Government, lenders and consumer groups to address those major mortgage problems. Ministers and officials will be holding further meetings in the near future to ensure that they are overcome. I wholeheartedly support the work currently being done to remove unfair terms from mortgage contracts.
  I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue—on which, although we are making progress, much is left to be done. There are very good lenders out there, offering very good products and very good services, and those best examples must be replicated everywhere possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[Mr. Michael J. Martin in the Chair]

Sub-Post Offices
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Drew: This debate on the future of sub-post offices could not be held at a more appropriate time. The level of interest shown here today and the number of colleagues who have expressed an interest in the outcome of the debate demonstrate what a live political issue it is. During what I hope will be a relatively short speech—it had better be even shorter now, given the number of people who will no doubt want to speak—I hope to identify clearly that sub-post offices have a future, to illustrate by my own experience in my constituency how to deal with the problems that we face and to look to the future with interest and hope.
I have tabled this subject for debate because, in recent months, if my local and regional newspapers are anything to go by, the matter has become a live issue. So much has been written and so many column inches covered—or perhaps nowadays I should say column centimetres—that it is no exaggeration to say that the stories on the subject have dwarfed those on the dome, the flu epidemic and even what David Beckham wears under his football shorts.
I was told last night that my regional newspaper, the Western Daily Press, has collected some 150,000 signatures for a "save our post office" campaign. Much of that is laudable, because it displays the heartfelt love and trust that are felt towards local post offices—it is important that people also use their post office. The petition will be presented in due course; today, I want to examine the underlying causes of the current position and advance the debate, so as to secure the future of the post office network and put it in a stronger position.
My interest in sub-post offices is not new. Stroud is fortunate to be one of the first areas in the country to introduce the new Horizon system into its offices. In fact, the first two offices to do so were in Leonard Stanley and Kings Stanley in my constituency. Unfortunately, the former has since had to close for reasons beyond anyone's control, although it was pleasing to witness a community initiative led by the parish council, especially Phil Herbert and Jean Smalley, to try to reopen it.
During my investigations, and especially over the past few months, I have spoken to as many people as possible in an effort to understand the prevailing circumstances and what the future may hold. I have talked to Post Office Counters Ltd., the National Federation of Subpostmasters, the Countryside Agency, Stroud district council and the Department of Social Security Benefits Agency. I visited ICL Pathway in order to examine properly and explore the Horizon system and to talk to those responsible for its integration into every
48WH
post office by the end of 2001. I also read the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report on the inquiry into the Horizon project.
I have also visited, spoken to and corresponded with several sub-postmasters in my constituency, especially Penny Knibbs, the area secretary of the National Federation of Subpostmasters, who runs Kings Stanley post office, and Max and Ayreen Ahmed of Bath road, Stroud, who showed me how Horizon works in their businesses. Subsequently, I visited Tony and Vanessa Walsh at Chalford, who opened my eyes to computerisation in all its glory, and showed me how ways are being conceived to access the new technology. I have also been contacted by John Stone at Upton St. Leonards, Mr. and Mrs. Appleby at Painswick, Tony Hinsbey at Brimscombe, Maria and Rick Bailey at Frampton on Severn, and Simon Lewis at my own post office in Stonehouse. Many of my illustrative points depend on their views.
We are fortunate to have such a network. As hon. Members know, there are more than 18,000 post offices, spread throughout Britain. Although most of my speech will concentrate on the rural part of the network, many of my points relate just as much to market town or even suburban offices. I am sure that other hon. Members will speak from their own experiences and their own contexts. The sub-post office network is crucial if we are to stop rural decline. Although my interest is not exclusively in rural issues—I spoke in the debate on the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 (Revocation) Order 1999 on 8 December—many of my examples will show how important the network is to the rural domain.
My main anxiety relates to benefits, and I start my analysis by examining the current hoo-hah about the payment of benefits. Hon. Members will know how important the payment of benefits is to the Post Office. Various figures relating to the extent of its importance can be cited, but the facility generates up to 35 per cent. of Post Office income. It is easy to cast aspersions on the decisions taken by and the motives of the Benefits Agency, whose decision to encourage recipients to have their benefit paid directly into bank accounts may have a serious impact on the revenue of individual sub-post offices. The possiblity of wholesale closure of post offices has become a major social and political issue, although, as I shall show, opportunities are available that match and outweigh that threat.
The decline of the network did not begin in May 1997, much as the main Opposition like to allege otherwise in certain publications that I have read. Statistics show that we have been losing post offices—mainly sub-post offices—at a rate of approximately 1 per cent. a year for the past 20 years. That decline has a variety of causes, not least because the post offices are independent small businesses that can fail for all sorts of reasons or, indeed, be closed for all sorts of reasons other than failure.
Automated credit transfer is part of a wider programme to computerise the post office network, the Horizon project, which was initiated by the previous Government and is being developed by this Government and ICL Pathway personnel. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness might want to make some comments about that, because allegations have been made about the decisions that have been made, why they were taken and their impact.

49WH
Like the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, we should consider the implications of the adoption of ACT and whether it precludes smart card application. Many of us hope that it does not and that a middle way will be found that combines the best elements of the two. It has been suggested to me that we are dealing with a killer application. If we can implement the smart card, it will prove how beneficial that software and, indeed, the hardware that supports it can be, because it presents all sorts of opportunities. Likewise, it would be good to hear that, even with the introduction of ACT, the timetable of 2003 to 2005 is flexible and that we can monitor and evaluate the impact on the different parts of the Post Office.
Our bywords should be choice, responsibility and reasonableness—choice in that no benefit recipient should be denied the right to choose where they want their benefit to be paid; responsibility in that we should make it as easy as possible to provide payment to those most in need; and reasonableness in that the place where payment is drawn should be made as accessible as is practicable. In so doing, we highlight the advantages of the post office network. The opportunities presented to sub-post offices by the introduction of new technology throughout the network has been given far too little attention. If the postal network is to modernise and not be left behind by technological innovation, it needs to be positively encouraged and supported in developing new services that local communities will value and use.
Today's debate serves to highlight the vital role that sub-post offices play in their local area. The post office, often combined with the village shop, is the focal point for most communities, especially rural communities, which have already lost too much. The loss of such post offices, where they still exist, would be a serious blow to the vitality and sustainability of those communities, so it was pleasing to hear the Government's announcement over Christmas about strengthening the mechanism whereby local communities can appeal against the closure of their local post office. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us how that will affect the role of the Post Office Users National Council and local advisory committees.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes many sensible points. However, does he accept that one of the main reasons for closure is that, when a post office becomes available for re-let because the person running it retires, the Post Office tries to reduce its opening hours, so creating the cause of the closure? An appeals system on whether a closure should take place will be no good unless an assurance can be given that the hours offered to the previous incumbent of a sub-post office will be offered to the new one.
Mr. Drew: That is a fair point. Clearly, every case is different and we must take each one on its merits. Businesses must be viable, and the more viable they are, the more secure their future is likely to be. We cannot exclude the planning system from such considerations, because people often have to get planning permission to open such a facility; more particularly, permission for change of use is involved when it closes. The decisions are intricate and difficult. We all await the performance
50WH
and innovation unit report, which was initiated directly on the orders of the Prime Minister and is due out at the end of February. I do not wish to put the Minister in an invidious position, but I hope that we can debate the parameters of the report and examine what progress it makes and what impact it has on the Post Office Bill, which I hope will appear soon.
Sub-post offices provide a social as well as commercial service, especially to the elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes, who face isolation and social exclusion.
Mr. Anthony Steen: If the sub-post office in a village in a far-flung rural constituency, such as mine and that of many other hon. Members, closes, how are elderly people to get cash? If they go by bus to the local town, which may be 15 or 20 miles away, it might cost around £5 or £6 and take a day of their time. If local post offices close, how does the hon. Gentleman envisage elderly people getting their weekly cash?
Mr. Drew: Constituents, especially those who run sub-post offices, have made that point to me. The simple answer is that we need to turn post offices into banks, or branches of a bank. If we can join that circle, we will get the best of both worlds. I hope that the ways in which we can secure the future of the sub-post office network will be highlighted in both the rural and urban White Papers, which are to come out after the PIU report—although I hope that, in the interests of joined-up government, they all come together.
What are the issues facing the Government? The Government want to modernise the service and have negotiated with the Post Office to make that happen. We are talking about a £1 billion investment in 18,000 outlets by the end of next year—a not inconsiderable achievement on which my hon. Friend the Minister might want to comment. We are talking about tackling benefit fraud and thus gathering a not inconsiderable saving, about addressing social and financial exclusion and about promoting sustainable communities.
The Horizon project, of which I am sure all hon. Members know something, is the method and mechanism by which that can be achieved. There is no alternative but to computerise the network. The vital questions are how that is to be done, at what speed, and whether we can get the best application from the project software and hardware, rather than allow it to become a missed opportunity. As I said, I have visited the ICL Pathway project and seen it in operation in the post offices in my constituency.
We will concentrate on the threat that that poses to the benefits system, without looking at the three benefits that it can bring, which I mentioned in the debate on 8 December. First, enhanced postal and communication services will make it advantageous for the Post Office to take back business from couriers, which exist close to almost every community. We have seen how that can be taken forward in various projects. Secondly, although entering the banking network is a somewhat fraught question, it is pleasing that a number of banks have already signed deals with the Post Office, such as the Co-operative bank—as a Co-operative-sponsored Member of Parliament, I declare an interest—Girobank and Barclays. Other banks have also entered or will enter into such arrangements. That needs to be encouraged:

51WH
although the Minister may say that it is not directly his responsibility, ways in which the Government can encourage the Post Office should be considered. Thirdly, there is electronic government—or, as the network refers to it, the gateway.
Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman may be right to say that technology offers potential in the long term. However, does he agree that the problem is short-term loss in income to those businesses and short-term lack of transferability of business? That is the real threat to the network. Once the network has gone, it will be very difficult to rebuild it.
Mr. Drew: The network has been depleted, but, rather than be defensive about that, I say that it should be opened up again. People do not talk about the other side of the coin—that it could lead to communities taking back their services. However, I agree that, unless we get hold of the issue, there will be a decline in service.
How can we advance in this respect? I am pleased that an electronic government group in Gloucestershire is examining co-ordinating services and considering what can be provided through the local government network. My challenge to the Minister is how to take that forward in national Government. With smart card technology, it should be possible for people to renew their driving licence or passport and engage in all the front-line services on which the Government annually spend around £8 billion. If we can tap into the major investment that is being made, as well as save the benefits business—people want to draw their benefit money from post offices—there will be real opportunities which will save the Government money and make the service much better and more accessible. All those benefits can give the Post Office and the various parts of the network a real competitive edge. It is about giving people the choice of where to draw their money from.
I have used the words choice, responsibility and reasonableness. I hope that everyone can agree with those objectives and see ways in which they can be taken forward in their own area. Community sustainability and social exclusion are important considerations: people often choose not to have a bank account or to use one because they prefer, for all sorts of reasons, to use their post office. That has something to do with social exclusion, but more to do with the trust that people feel for the institution. Why should they not have trust in it and want it to flourish? I have talked to people from a variety of backgrounds and to the Countryside Agency, which has tracked the future of the rural network in particular. It is pleasing to hear of the many ideas from Norfolk and Cumbria about improving the service.
What is on offer? Twenty-eight million people a week visit their post office, which must make it far and away the most popular service in the country. There are 18,000 outlets. People trust and believe in their post offices and see them fulfilling the community functions for which they were designed. We must overcome the benefits payment issue and be reasonable in giving enough time to allow a natural changeover. The problem is not insuperable and additional benefits may be derived from the solution to it.
52WH
In conclusion, I would like—with apologies—to compare the situation to a cake. We have baked the cake and now have a choice: we can cut it into slices, which means that the cake will ultimately crumble away, or we can put icing on it, to show people that it belongs to them and has a future. Only then can we receive all the benefits of using the service.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should like to say that, because many hon. Members want to speak, brief contributions would be appreciated.
9.50 am
Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate and on the thoughtful way in which he introduced it. It follows on from a debate on 15 July, introduced by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We have had two debates in a relatively short time on the subject of sub-post offices and the post office network because every Member of Parliament knows that post offices perform a vital function in our constituencies, be they rural or urban. The sub-post office is invariably a shop as well. It serves families, the elderly and the disabled. It becomes a focus for the whole community and helps to sustain it, especially in country areas.
My interest in the subject deepened when I became Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—or, as I subsequently realised I was, President of the Board of Trade. I realised that I had responsibility for the network and was instrumental in ensuring that we made a 1992 manifesto pledge to sustain a nationwide network of post offices.
When I moved to the Department of Social Security, my interest deepened further, as I saw how essential the network was to the effective delivery of benefits to many of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I helped to ensure that that delivery mechanism and the network would continue by agreeing to the Horizon project, about which the Government are now trying to rewrite history; I shall set the record straight. The contract was originally awarded to ICL Pathway because it had experience of setting up a similar system in Ireland, which, for historic reasons, has a similar network of sub-post offices. ICL Pathway had practical experience and we knew that it could do the job. We also knew that computerisation and mechanisation of the sub-post office system would be paid for by the potential savings from eliminating the fraud that was possible under the old order book system.
Contracts have to be not only signed, but managed. It is important that those who manage—Ministers—make sure that they know what goes on. I have always made it a practice, in business and in government, to ensure that I know the bad news, which travels slowly up large organisations. If the person at the top is no good, he will not know what has gone wrong. I asked always to be told what went wrong, as well as what went right. If there were problems, we addressed them immediately and announced the changes.
It is not clear that the current Government have been aware of what is going on—I do not want to go into the history at length, as I set it out on 15 July. We are still

53WH
waiting for answers from the Government. Why did Ministers assure the House—they did so on four or five occasions over two years—that the contract was proceeding and was likely to be completed on target by the end of 2000, but then suddenly perform a volte face? Were the Ministers who gave those assurances simply ill informed or did they mislead the House? The Select Committee on Trade and Industry concluded that there were suggestions that
"Ministers have been less than candid in their responses to the House and to this Committee"
about the problems facing the Horizon project. Unfortunately, the report was slipped out during the recess, so that grave indictment of Ministers did not receive the publicity it needed.
The only explanation is that the Treasury won. It has always been determined to close down the network of sub-post offices, if possible, to move to ACT and to make what it regards as a short-term saving in public expenditure. I doubt whether that saving will ever arise, and I doubted it when I was a Minister at the Treasury, at the Department of Trade and Industry and at the Department of Social Security. It was only when two former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury occupied the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Social Security that the announcement was suddenly made that the project would be scrapped and people would be compelled to have their payments made into bank accounts.
What really matters is not the history but the future and the consequences of that decision for some of our most vulnerable people. Fifteen per cent. of those on benefits do not have bank accounts, so how will they receive their benefits if they live in areas where sub-post offices have to close down because of the changes the Government are making? The Government admit that 1 million of that 15 per cent. of people could not reasonably be expected to operate a PIN number system because they are elderly or frail. Such people would be vulnerable if they gave PIN numbers to neighbours or others to receive their benefits. We need answers today as to how the Government will tackle the problems of people without bank accounts, and of people too elderly and confused to handle PIN numbers for themselves.
We want to know whether banks will be compelled to give accounts to those whose income derives solely from benefits, such as those who are dependent on income support and jobseeker's allowance. If they are to be compelled to take such people as customers, how will that be enforced? Which banks will be forced to take which customers? Will people have to pay a pound or two in bank charges from their benefits, which no one here pretends are excessively generous?
What will be the impact on families? Many wives use child benefit separately to pay for some of the needs of their children, as was specifically foreseen when it was introduced instead of a tax allowance. If that money must be paid into an account, and if a wife has only a joint account with her husband, how is she to keep the money separate for her children's needs? Must she open
54WH
a separate account? Will she then have bank charges deducted from the child benefit paid into it? We need answers to those questions.
Mr. James Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware of an allied problem? When there is an overdraft, possibly for perfectly good reasons, the benefits money will go straight to pay off the overdraft, rather than to people in need.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why the existing arrangements have been satisfactory. They were largely introduced by the Labour party in 1978, so it is odd that it is now threatening and undermining them.
We need to know what the impact will be on the revenues of sub-post offices. How much revenue to the post office network will be lost because of the changes? If there is a saving to the Treasury, there must be a loss to the sub-post offices, but how much? What will be the subsequent loss to post offices through the loss of footfall—people coming into the shops, dispensing money and creating revenue? That creates no gain to the Treasury, but it is a loss to the system and so undermines its viability. Sub-post offices are very unusual in that people usually leave with more money than they had when they entered. They dispense some of that money in the process, but that will not be possible if their money is paid out through ACT.
How many sub-post offices will be closed throughout the country? If the Government are seriously determined to maintain a network of sub-post offices, will they not have to renegotiate the contract with Post Office Counters Ltd. as they do every two or three years? That contract is made up of two elements, one of which is about keeping the network open, while the other relates to actual usage of post office services. We will have to jack up the lump sum that Post Office Counters Ltd. is paid to keep the network open, offsetting any savings that it is making on the individual transactions; therefore, the saving that the Treasury is hoping to make may well prove to be illusory.
We must recognise that the Government's decision to scrap the Horizon project will damage the quality of life for disabled people, elderly people and families throughout the country. It will undermine communities, especially in rural areas. It is another threat to the countryside and, ultimately, it will be a threat and a cost to the taxpayer. Questions have been asked in previous debates, but they have not yet been answered by Ministers. I hope that we shall receive some answers today.
10 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for enabling today's debate to take place. We all want to participate in it because we believe in the future of sub-post offices in rural and urban areas. However, if we are not careful, the debate will end up rewriting history and defending 18 years of neglect of our post offices. We have at heart the best interests of sub-post offices in our constituencies. I hope that this debate will ensure that they have a future and that their plight is taken seriously. That did not happen during the 18 years of

55WH
Conservative government—in fact, the majority of closures took place during that time. It is no use Conservative Members trying to defend themselves. The previous Government were guilty of turning a blind eye to the closures that took place throughout the country.
What can we do to save the future of the post office? I have received letters from those who manage sub-post offices. Mrs. Friend from Brindle in my constituency told me of her worries about the future for local people, and about what will happen to the post office and the business she runs. I agree with her that we must do something. There is a lot of uncertainty at the moment and the newspapers rightly publicise that worry. There are no two ways about it; we must explain what we want to happen and make sure that those who run post offices have a long-term future. Local communities will then become more settled, too.
We hear questions about whether all post offices should be able to sell tax discs, but tax discs alone will not make a future for sub-post offices. By all means, let them be able to sell tax discs and national lottery tickets and operate a new rural banking system for people who have so far been excluded from holding bank accounts. At present, high street banks want only a certain clientele; they operate an exclusion procedure for people who can hold bank accounts. We must ensure that high street banks face competition by opening a chain of rural banking facilities. That will put banking back into the rural community and allow all people in society to open a bank account. There do not necessarily have to be bank charges: free banking can be given to the people.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Rural post offices should always be able to dispense electricity tokens, which does not happen in all areas. Such a service will also help to sustain post offices.
Mr. Hoyle: I agree. Whether electricity tokens or stamps for gas and water, sub-post offices should be able to provide all the services that are offered by main post offices. We must ensure that sub-post offices have a future. We must remember that they are part of the community—they are probably the last piece of communal rural society. Many public houses have been converted into domestic houses and rest homes; they have been removed from community. Traditional butcher shops have gone. We are left with the post offices, which have become the newsagent and local shop. They are the last piece of the jigsaw.
We must add more pieces to the jigsaw to ensure the future of the sub-post office. Without doubt, we can achieve that and, hopefully, end social exclusion in rural areas. People on low incomes do not have a chance to hold a bank account. Furthermore, pensioners may not want a high street bank account—and rightly so because of their difficulty in accessing it. Bringing banking services to the rural community should be the Government's goal. We want to engage rural society; we want to ensure that there is no exclusion in rural areas and that there is a future for all sub-post offices. We must end the 18 years of closures.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that technology should be used not to
56WH
close post offices, but to expand the facilities available, especially in important areas such as Powys and Ceredigion?
Mr. Hoyle: I am sure that that will happen, especially when such places receive electricity—indeed, the two services might run in tandem in Powys. We should not take a luddite approach to new technology. We must embrace it and ensure that we all benefit from it, and that rural areas do not suffer exclusion.
10.6 am
Ms Rachel Squire: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on enabling this debate to take place. I agree entirely that rural and sub-post offices have been promoting social inclusion for several years, well before the current Government began to implement their policies.
I also agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of choice. That is of great concern to many of my constituents. For example, at my surgery last month I received a deputation of 15 people from the community of Blairhall: they handed me a petition signed by nearly everyone in the community expressing concern about the future of the local sub-post office. People were especially worried about the possibility of benefit payments in cash being ended. Many similar representations have been made to me. By my calculations, villages in west Fife have 13 sub-post offices and Dunfermline has at least six sub-post offices. This is certainly a matter of concern to the many, not the few.
I accept that the current system of benefits paid in cash is costly, bureaucratic and open to fraud, but I welcome the Government's assurances that many people will be able to pick up their pension or benefit from the post office, if they wish to do so. I wish to pass on to the Minister questions that my constituents have asked me. Will the payment of a pension or benefit from a post office be in cash if that is what an individual wants? Will existing claimants be able to maintain their cash payments and will future recipients be able to opt for cash payments from their local post office?
Why is the claiming of cash payments from post offices so important? First, about a third of the income of sub-post offices is linked to the payment of cash benefits over the counter. It helps to make them viable businesses, especially because, as has already been said, many of them are also shops.
Secondly, the Government should accept that some form of saving is derived from the fact that many people—especially pensioners on low incomes—pay out a large part of their cash as soon as they pick it up. They pay their gas and electricity bills, or buy power cards and power tokens. That used to be the case in Scotland until the Post Office and Scottish Power ended their contract, which is a matter that I hope the Government will pursue. Pensioners pay for their television licence, telephone, rent, council tax and so on, thereby ensuring prompt payment of bills to large commercial companies and to central and local government. Those savings should be recognised.
Thirdly, many of my constituents have always relied on cash in hand to manage a very low income—whether a weekly wage or a pension. They take their money and

57WH
immediately pay their bills so that they know exactly what they have left to live on. That has helped to keep people away from making demands on central and local government services—an additional saving.
Fourthly, picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), I have met women for whom the only guaranteed cash that they have for their children for that week or fortnight is their child benefit. The problem exists in every constituency in the country. Women in relationships with unreliable husbands and partners cannot depend on money being put in their bank account, or on money that they have handed over being used to provide for the family. All too often, it is spent in the local pub, betting shop or elsewhere. That, too, should be recognised.
A fifth reason why cash payments are so important has already been mentioned: many people do not have a bank account. I reckon that about one fifth of the pensioners in my constituency do not have a bank account and do not want one. Having cash is how they have managed their money all their lives. The banks are not interested in them. In the west Fife villages, where there are 13 sub-post offices, there is only one small bank branch. To those who have spent their lives following the rule, "neither a borrower nor a lender be", the idea of paying bank charges or living on credit is totally alien.
Although I accept that payments in cash and the use of order books can be open to fraud, the Government must recognise the value of staff at sub-post offices being easily able to detect a stranger who comes through the door, or someone who tries to claim cash using an order book that the staff know does not belong to that individual.
I support my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and for Stroud and many others who have urged the Government to look at ways of combining the tradition of sub-post offices with innovation. They should consider introducing cashpoint systems and using other means to attract even more business. Sub-post offices in my constituency have an arrangement whereby repeat prescriptions can be either collected by pensioners, or delivered to them, thus saving a costly bus trip. Why cannot other systems of shopping be developed, so that sub-post offices can become even more of a focal point for the community?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government will recognise how crucial sub-post offices are in maintaining strong community links. It is possible to combine the tradition and innovation—to look at new ways of working, while ensuring that policies of social inclusion continue to be delivered effectively and well by the sub-post offices in our communities.
10.14 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), on securing the debate and on his characteristically thoughtful and well- informed contribution. The hon. Gentleman and I tabled an early-day motion on the subject some weeks ago, which attracted support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The turnout today is indicative of the support that there is for sub-post offices.
58WH
The drafting of our early-day motion revealed the Government's lack of honesty about their intentions. The original draft was suggested by the National Federation of Subpostmasters. The federation used the C-word—not choice, but compulsion. I asked one or two hon. Members whether they would be willing to state that they were unhappy about the compulsion to have money paid into a bank account; they said, "No, it will not be compulsory," but this is the Government's intention. I hope that the Minister will be honest and use the C-word—compulsion, rather than choice.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to the Federation of Subpostmasters in a letter that was meant for publication that he envisaged that all benefits would be paid into bank accounts by 2005. Answers from the Department of Social Security have said that payment into bank accounts will be the norm, with limited exceptions. I asked what "limited execeptions" meant, and the only example that I was given was those who are bankrupt—not poor people who did not have bank accounts. In other words, people will not have a choice. If we are about anything in the House, we should be about choice.
There is evidence that people do not want to be forced to have bank accounts. Child benefit and the retirement pension are the two benefits that are most likely to be paid direct into bank accounts. Barely half the new claimants of those two benefits opt for payment into a bank account, despite the loaded question that they are asked. For income support, which presumably applies to the most vulnerable in our communities, the figure is just 10 per cent. Nine out of 10 income support recipients do not choose to have their money paid into a bank account. How will they be provided for?
Although we have talked about 2003 and 2005, I warn my hon. Friends and others that things are already starting to go wrong because of the working families tax credit. I tabled a question recently, which revealed that the working families tax credit, which currently can still be paid through sub-post offices, had 300,000 new awards in the 10-week period before Christmas paid by giros in post offices. Three hundred thousand people went to post offices to pick up their working families tax credit, as it is now called. From April this year, virtually none of those 300,000 claimants will go to post offices. Lone parents will be forced to receive the credit in their pay packet, as will most others. The damage is being done now, so today's debate is timely.
The cost of an ACT payment is 1p, so the Government will save a great deal of money by switching to ACT, but how much of that saving will post offices retain? It is not good enough for the Government to say that people can still use a post office if there is no post office there through which the money can be delivered. If we go over to ACT, what will post offices get for handing over the cash that has gone through a bank account, for acting as an agent? Unless it is comparable to the sums that they currently receive, the measure will tip many post offices that are already on the borderline over the edge.
It is not sufficiently reassuring to tell my constituents that they can still go to a post office, unless they are sure that one will be there. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that, for the foreseeable future, the sum that post offices receive for handling transactions and

59WH
for acting as agents for banks will be comparable to that which they now receive. If they lose such a vital stream of revenue, many will simply cease to exist.
10.18 am
Mr Alan Hurst: I am pleased to contribute to the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I hope that he will forgive me if I have not recorded every elector in his constituency—we had a fair spread. Like everyone else, my speaking time is limited, so I shall not dwell too long on the benefits of the proposals.
In the age in which we live, like it or not, computerisation is with us. If post offices are to compete in the financial world, they need to be udpated with such machinery. It would be foolish to stand against that trend, so the scheme must proceed. I also understand the benefits that will come from reducing fraud in the collection of benefits, if there is a move towards direct payment.
Like other hon. Members, I am concerned, first, about the consequences for the poor and elderly in our communities if real choice disappears and, secondly, about the financial effect that such a lack of choice will have on small post offices. I have a letter from the Department that says that people will still have a choice, but the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) doubts that. I look forward to the Minister's conclusive answer on that point.
There is a difference between choice and choice: between the choice that leaves people free to choose and the choice that people were given in plebiscites in middle Europe during the 1930s—woe betide those who did not vote for the winning side. At the moment, it seems that direct computerised payment into bank accounts is winning. A constituent from Essex kindly sent me a copy of a child benefit form. It claims to be a letter, but it is a standard form, the main purpose of which is to encourage people to receive their child benefit every four weeks in arrears instead of weekly. There are exceptions, but that is a subject for another debate.
That form mentions choices of the method of payment, but not much emphasis is put on payment by cash: the choice is mainly between direct payments, either through the bank or building society, or through Giro or the Post Office National Savings bank. One can choose to receive cash, but that is not made abundantly clear; indeed, when the letter was sent to me I was told, "There is no choice." We must make it abundantly clear that people do have a choice; equally, those who campaign for rural and suburban post offices must say, loudly and clearly, that people have a choice. Those of us who fear the loss of post offices may be agents in engineering their end if we do not encourage people to exercise their choice in favour of cash.
Choice is not sufficient in itself. Every person who moves to direct payment will be one person fewer going to the post office, which means one small item of cash revenue less for the post office. That will result in fewer people buying Mars bars or boxes of tissues—or whatever else people buy when they go to the post office. That will be equally true if they go to the post office only once every four weeks rather than once every week; the number of visits to the post office will be diminished and the number of purchases that can be made will be
60WH
reduced. Small village post offices operate on narrow profit margins. A few people electing not to use them may make the difference between profit and loss, staying open or closing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, post offices have been closing for many years. In the village where I lived 25 years ago, the post office was to be found in a man's house. When he retired, the post office disappeared because no one wanted to take it on. I went back to that village recently, and there is still no post office; there is no longer a chapel, any form of shop or a school. The village post office, the school and the village shop are all part of the chain of community that has rapidly disappeared. I realise that other factors are involved: for example, as villages become home to commuters or weekenders, less purchasing power is available to be used in the post office.
Banks seem almost to rule the world these days—I hope that it is not terribly unfashionable to say so—and they work on computer systems. If post offices are to operate on equal terms with the banks, they, too, will need to use a computerised system. As mentioned earlier, they will also need to be able to act as the village, small town or suburban bank. Not only are banks unable to fulfil that function, but they seem almost purposely to have gone out of their way not to fulfil it. Within a two-mile radius of my law office, there used to be five branches of Barclays bank; now, there is only one.
I regularly go to the bank in Earls Colne, one of the villages in my constituency—except that it is no longer a bank, but the office of the National Farmers Union. We can go to lots of banks that are no longer banks but restaurants, printing works and so on. The choice is no longer available. All of us know of villages that have lost their banks or that have only one branch hanging on by a thread. The post office could be the answer to that problem, but we must ensure that it still exists, that customers still use it and that it still forms part of the community.
The newest phrase is "social exclusion". We use some funny phrases nowadays; I wonder whether people in the countryside understand what we are talking about. One of the biggest factors that makes people feel socially excluded is new technology that they cannot use or that they are not minded to use. For instance, if I were to start talking about Switch cards and PIN numbers to an 80-year-old who has lived all her life in the countryside and has never been further than 50 miles from her place of birth, she would not have a clue what I was saying, and I can understand why. We are creating the mechanisms that prevent such people from taking advantage of the benefits that are being created. However, it is worse than that: we are also taking away from them things that they have known all their lives. Because of the decisions that we and the world have made, some of their local—and social—facilities no longer exist.
Although I welcome progress, hand in hand with it must go the public assurance that traditional methods of receiving pensions and benefits will remain intact and on an equal footing with computerised banking. That must go at the same pace as the Government's initiatives to ensure that post offices enjoy full clearing bank facilities and to turn them into local bank branches.

61WH
10.26 am
Mrs. Diana Organ: I, too, congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), on securing this debate. Many hon. Members are worried about the future of post offices, and those who represent rural seats are deeply concerned about the future of rural post offices, which are often the only service centre within their communities. Rural post offices are vulnerable. It is interesting that my hon. Friend did not say that the future of the sub-post office was rosy, but many of us think that it would have been better if he had said that it was bleak. The policies of local authorities and of Government are not improving matters. It is crucial that rural post offices are not only service centres but that they become financial centres. As other hon. Members have said, they should become rural banking centres.
I am concerned about the performance and innovation unit's December 1999 report. It was about rural economies, but contained not one mention of post offices or the financial services that they provide. It spoke at length about the need to build up IT centres, business link centres and financial centres, but no mention was made of the role that the post office already plays. I hope that the rural White Paper takes closer note of the post office network and ways to enhance it, so that we can have the financial centres that we need in rural areas.
In the Forest of Dean, that change is beginning to happen in a big way. Ruardean Woodside post office is small but necessary. It is running the first of eight pilot schemes in Gloucestershire with a grant from Gloucestershire rural community council. It has set up an information site, and it has access to Glosnet. One can e-mail from there, use the worldwide web, use the system as a word processor, print from it and do all the things that can usually be done in a telecottage. Because of the grant from the rural community council, it is being provided free to the local community, and people pay only for the telephone charges. It has been most successful, and it has brought more people into the post office, especially kids doing their homework. Such a project can help to prevent information poverty in rural areas.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of social exclusion for the information poor? Will she go further and join me in urging the Minister to consider introducing a citizen's entitlement to time on the internet, for which post offices could serve as the access point?
Mrs. Organ: That is a very good suggestion, which might be the way forward for local post offices.
I have two issues for the Minister arising from my meeting with rural postmasters in my constituency. They expressed concern about the future, 2003 and the changes to the payment of benefits. First, I hope that we shall retain choice. Many people cannot have a bank account—indeed, many people would not be able to use one, have never had one and do not know how to start. I want people to have a real choice, so that they can get their cash over the counter. I also want to know what my hon. Friend the Minister means by cash. Does he mean a cheque that has to be cashed or the current system?
62WH
Secondly, the Government and the Post Office could set up an advertising campaign, or the Government could put money into advertising services already provided by the post office network. Post offices currently provide 162 services, but we are not even aware of some of them. People can obtain health insurance, foreign currency and a range of other services at post offices; if they knew that, they would use post offices more. The Post Office does not have the money to do all the advertising, but I hope that the Government and the Post Office will invest some money together, so that the Post Office can extend its services and make people more aware of them.
It is crucial that post offices remain in our local community. The local post office should be the financial centre and the social centre of rural communities. Many rural post office staff are very aware of the people they serve and notice when, for example, a pensioner does not come in to pick up his or her pension. Those staff fulfil a social function as well as a financial one, and they must have a rosy future.
10.31 am
Mr. Brian Cotter: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for initiating the debate. He may be building up a record on the number of times an hon. Member has been congratulated in a single debate. I also congratulate my local paper, the Western Daily Press, on its campaign against the Government's plans to pay benefits directly into the bank. I believe that it has so far collected about 150,000 signatures for its petition.
Much has been said about the importance of post offices in the community. They give people in their area a chance to meet, interact and, most importantly, to access vital services that they need in their everyday lives, which might in future include the internet. The post office is at the centre of community life, especially in rural areas but also in towns. The sub-post office is also a small business. About 90 per cent. of the post office network is run by small business people, and a recent report asserted that about 90 per cent. of small businesses with fewer than nine employees used post offices for banking and deposit facilities, for obtaining cash and for access to mail services. That is an important aspect of the service provided by sub-post offices.
Postmasters and mistresses are concerned that they will lose money because of the reduction in Benefits Agency business and that related problems will build up. They are concerned that, if the Government's plans go ahead, by 2005 they will have less business from benefits. They believe that it will be difficult for post offices to be viable, even if they are given extra business.
I agree with comments made by other hon. Members about freedom to choose how our benefits are paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made some key points, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Having visited several post offices during the recess, I was concerned to hear that people read the letters sent to them and assumed that they had to ensure straight away that their benefits were paid through the banks. Perhaps those people did not read their letter well, although some have suggested to me that it was misleading. Several post office staff told me that they would like to display a notice in their post

63WH
offices informing people that they can still get their benefits paid there. What is important is that many people appear to have been misled, whether intentionally or not.
I have referred to the importance of sub-post offices both to and as small businesses. Many people have put their savings into a sub-post office with a view to retirement or selling up. Such people feel dispirited that they may not now have a resource to sell. We are concerned about closures of sub-post offices not only because of their impact on rural communities and communities generally, but because of jobs. A recent survey conducted by the National Federation of Subpostmasters states that as many as 30,000 jobs will be lost if the predicted number of sub-post offices closes because of the Government's action. That is concerning, especially as many sub-post offices are situated in rural areas where jobs are difficult to find.
The Minister has been reported as saying:
"In many ways the Post Office has had an unhealthy over-reliance on benefits work."
It may be fair to say that, but it is not an answer. We want the Minister to answer today. The benefits work given to post offices was felt—especially by sub-postmasters taking on the job of running sub-post offices—to be an integral part of their income. The removal of that income will worry sub-postmasters and be a defining point for them.
The issues to which I have referred are clear and are relevant to all constituency Members of Parliament. Some of those issues might be regarded as small, but the ability of retired people and people on low incomes to go into a post office, to obtain their cash and to decide what to do with the money on that day is very important. Sometimes such people will want to spend a little bit here and a little bit there or buy a Mars bar, as the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said. All such transactions help the local community, perhaps through a nearby shop. It has been pointed out to me that sub-post office staff are aware of local people: they are likely to notice if an old person does not arrive to collect a benefit payment and to try to find out whether that person is ill. Such action can often be the first line of defence for vulnerable people.
I hope that the Minister will have time to deal with all of the points made, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. I hope that he will convince us that things will not be as bad as we believe. I look forward to hearing his comments.
10.37 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: Today is a marvellous opportunity for the Minister. Since the debate on post offices in the Chamber on 15 July, which was initiated by the Conservatives, hon. Members have had the chance during the long summer recess to visit post offices in their constituencies to see how they are coping with the changes facing them. We have heard about some such visits today. We have also had the chance to hear post office staffs predictions on how the Government's policy decision of May to move to ACT payments will affect them. As a Front-Bench Member of Parliament, I have insisted when visiting the constituencies of other hon. Members on being taken to local post offices. The picture is the same throughout the
64WH
country, wherever one goes, whether it be Wales, England or elsewhere. Hon. Members of all parties have expressed grave concern about the impact of Government measures on communities and individuals and about the future of sub-post offices.
At the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) spelled out clearly the track record of the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) had a good go at the party, as he usually does, but the facts are clear. When we left office, we left in place a framework in which the future payment of benefits through post offices would continue, funded from the taxpayer by remuneration made through Post Office Counters to individual post offices. That function represents, on average, 30 per cent. of post offices' annual revenue.
As we have heard, the Labour Government not only accepted that policy, but told the House of Commons in both oral and written answers that the new Horizon project was going ahead, that all would be well and that they were trialling it. They gave the impression that, apart from one or two hiccups with the technology, which were being overcome, we had no reason to believe that any substantial changes would be made.
Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but I have only a short time to speak.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on bringing the matter to our attention again. Unless the Government reconsider in short order, we shall pass the point of no return. I should say that we are already passing that point. I have a huge rural constituency containing more than 50 sub-post offices. Post offices often come up for sale when those running them retire and want to dispose of them. Those considering taking them on look and say, "In two years' time, we will have to run the business"—and they are businesses—"with a 30 per cent. drop in revenue." The Government flagged up during the summer several proposals in the pipeline to boost the revenue and the viability of those businesses. If the measures have common sense and tangibility behind them, I welcome all of them.
The use of computers will help especially the tiniest post offices to offer a range of services. In my constituency, some really tiny post offices do not have room even for a proper shop—they have a few postcards, a bit of stationery and that is that. Being able to sell tickets and to provide other services will be a help, but we should not forget that we are poised on a technology revolution whereby ever more people will be able to access services at home through either their PC or, as we see coming up and as is more likely, through interactive digital television. Post offices will not be able to offer services exclusively, helpful though that might be to pensioners unable to access them otherwise.
Let us not think that the computer in the post office will solve post offices' problems—it will not. I was concerned during the summer when we heard that the Post Office was to join forces with Camelot in the new lottery bid. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry immediately announced that that would be a great help to post offices. I question that view because it

65WH
will not be viable to put a lottery terminal in a rural post office or shop, unless it can process 3,000 transactions a week.
The Government have shown one of their hallmarks. They have taken a Treasury-driven political decision to save £400 million a year for the taxpayer or, rather, for the Treasury, because the taxpayer would be willing to see the money continue to be so used. They have created a huge problem and are now clutching at straws to discover how they can shore up the situation and solve it.
I should say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) that people have been assured that they will be able to collect their benefits in cash. There will be a transaction between the clearing banks and whatever form of terminal is in a village post office, if there still is one. The Government have failed to answer the question, although we have repeatedly asked it, about who will bear the transaction costs. Again, they do not seem to have a clear view of how they will process and advance that.
The Minister recently appeared in national newspapers saying how concerned he was. He knows that I genuinely have great respect for him. He is well placed in the House to know the post office sector and to feel from the heart its need for a future. The answer is in his hands. He is the one person present with the power to do something about the problem with which we are all concerned. He is not tainted by having served in the Treasury. Will he please stand up to the Treasury? We have already heard that it is unlikely to save that much money. There is time—just—to think again, to change the decision and to advance the matter so that we will not have to keep coming to beg the Minister to save our fragile communities.
10.44 am
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): It is a great pleasure to reply to the debate, which is not the first on the Post Office with which I have dealt. There have been three such debates, and an Adjournment debate on this precise issue soon after we returned from the summer recess.
I should like to join the fan club of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and perhaps to become its honorary secretary, and thank him not only for having raised an important and currently vital political issue, but for the way in which he addressed us. His speech was balanced, intelligent, well informed and, most of all, it was about the future of rural post offices rather than the past.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) touched on an important aspect of the debate. If we are not careful—if we surround the debate with gloom and doom, as if it is about a negative future for post offices—we shall create the very climate that we should all be seeking to prevent.
Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Minister reflect on what he has just said? He said "rural post offices". They have dominated the debate, but will he accept, as
66WH
I do, that we are considering a national network and that the situation also affects urban and suburban post offices?
Mr. Johnson: I agree absolutely, and I shall address the matter. It is important that I put the Government's position on the record during the debate.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made clear, it is important that we consider the matter constructively. The beauty of this and of all other debates on the Post Office is that I have an opportunity to reassure hon. Members again of our commitment to a nationwide network of post offices.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) mentioned what happened in the past. We are unable to access some of the records from the benefits payment cards project. The project was well intentioned, and I supported it in a previous capacity. However, when we took office, the contract was running three years late and was vastly overspent.
Mr. Lilley: If the project was running three years late when the Government took office, why, on four occasions over two years, did Ministers assure the House and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that it would be complete on time by the end of 2000?
Mr. Johnson: I shall correct that. It was running three years late when we took the decision to move to the new arrangements. When we took office, the contract had already been renegotiated; and it had been established in May 1996 and renegotiated in February 1997. I was party to those discussions in a previous capacity. The previous Government spent two years trying to privatise the Post Office, two years trying to plunder it and a year establishing a well-intentioned project that the Trade and Industry Committee said was "blighted from the outset".
On assuming office, our choice was between continuing with a failing private finance initiative scheme running well behind schedule and well over budget, and getting a proper grip on the issues through a workable arrangement to computerise the network with a phased approach to the migration of benefit payments to ACT. There is no doubt that the process has accelerated, is accelerating and will accelerate. There has been a concerted and co-ordinated push to attract new business.
Had we not created the need to consider the future, we would not be having the debate. The post office network that everyone is applauding, saying how vital it is to our communities, has been seeping away at the rate of 1 per cent. a year for the past 20 years. There would have been no debate. The choice might have been easy for Government—to leave alone and to walk away, with it becoming someone else's problem in five, six or 10 years' time. There would have been a continual, gradual decline until it became too late to do anything about it. The push to attract new work for the network and the discussion about getting network banking back to rural areas that lost it years ago is a crucial element of the debate. It is also important to take advantage of the computerisation from 2001 and the access criteria that we are introducing, which will be established in law and

67WH
monitored by an independent regulator so that the random effects of the past 20 years' gradual erosion can be tackled.
We recognise that there are concerns about how the matter is being approached and the requirement for what today's jargon calls a cross-cutting response from Government, if what we propose is to be successful. That is why, on 21 October, very quietly and before any local newspaper campaigns or fuss in the press—in fact, we tried to make more of it than we managed to, probably because of my inexperience as a Minister—we announced that the Cabinet Office would set up a performance and innovation unit study, reporting directly to the Prime Minister, to identify post offices' contribution to the vitality of communities; to consider how the post office network could best contribute to the Government's objectives for the future; and, in the process, to formulate objectives for the network itself. The report is important. It takes into account ideas such as internet cafes and bringing back services such as electricity payments in Scotland; I, too, remember that those disappeared years ago.
The transition from paper-based methods of paying social security payments to ACT does not start until 2003—a full three years from now. I know of the fuss about the letter sent by the Benefits Agency and mentioned by several hon. Members. I do not have time to explain that, but I assure hon. Members that child benefit payments have been paid monthly since 1982; there was no change in that respect. Some ambiguity was found in the relevant form, but we are tackling that. It was a one-off exercise that will not be repeated. The implications of the transfer to ACT are being given particular attention in the PIU study. We are taking positive and concrete steps to establish a framework for the network's future.
Of course, we are computerising. By spring 2001, we shall have dealt with the whole vast network—vast even after it has shrunk: if W. H. Smith, Tesco and Boots were added together and multiplied by 10, they would not amount to the Post Office network of 18,500 offices. To computerise it at a rate of 300 offices a week is an immense task which is being undertaken very successfully. We are up to date and the new project will produce a proper computerised network which will be essential to the future of the business.
The access criteria that we are planning to announce in the next few months will be the benchmark against which the Post Office Users National Council— revamped and given more teeth—and the new independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission, will monitor the Post Office proposals for the network and its evolution. For the first time, there will be a requirement in law for close, independent monitoring of the nationwide network of post offices to ensure that proposed closures that would present significant problems of access to Post Office Counters services will be taken up with the Post Office and ways of maintaining access investigated.
The question that was raised about how services might be guaranteed should a sub-postmaster move away misses the point, which is that post offices have closed and that prestigious, main post offices on the high street have been converted—that took place under the previous Government; we put a moratorium on the process from day one in office—and the services they
68WH
offered moved into the back of hardware stores. That had been happening for years: the public's complaint was that they were not consulted properly and that there was no proper system of appeal; the community could not decide together how best to replace the facilities.
The appeals procedure is, in the light of such issues, very important. It is one of a range of pragmatic proposals to ensure the future of not only rural post offices but the post office network as a whole. It is not enough to admire the history of this vital piece of our social fabric, or merely to read "Lark Rise to Candleford" by Flora Thompson, which I advise hon. Members to read if they do not understand how important post offices were in the 19th, never mind the 20th, century. We do not need to make those places into a rustic museum. We need to think about how the network can face the future, given the changes going on.
Our decision to make a substantial contribution to the capital cost of the Horizon counters automation project, which we have radically restructured and put back on track, represents a major investment in the future of the network. The Post Office already provides banking services for Alliance and Leicester, Girobank, Lloyds TSB and the Co-operative bank. Given that 60 per cent. of rural villages have a post office and only 5 per cent. have a bank, that is a tremendous opportunity. Already, as hon. Members may have read last week, the Post Office is installing 3,000 cash machines in post offices as part of the drive to reintroduce banking to rural areas. Currently there are only a couple of hundred.
What is being done—and this is joined-up government—will help to tackle social exclusion. The terminology bores us all sometimes, but that is an important aspect of the programme. Every study demonstrates conclusively that financial exclusion is a cause and an effect of social exclusion. We want to encourage and support people without access to a bank. I shall deal later with the points that were made about the C-word. We want banks to offer people proper facilities, because that is an important part of the attack on social exclusion.
We have set a time scale in which the transfer will not even begin until 2003, and will then continue until 2005. We believe that, with the developments in banking technology and the introduction of new, simple banking products, it will be possible to cater to individual circumstances and provide accounts suitable to individual needs. While the vast majority—80 to 85 per cent.—of benefit recipients already have access to bank accounts, we recognise that some may still be unwilling to use a bank account. We will not compel them to do so. For those people, we are considering what alternative, simple electronic money transmission system using ACT that could also be accessed at post offices might be commercially available. We recognise that benefit recipients want to withdraw every penny of their benefit at one time. That means, first, that the facility must ensure that a person who is entitled to £20.68 gets £20.68—it is the Government's commitment to pay them that benefit—and, secondly, that no charges should be made against that £20.68, otherwise that person would not receive his or her full benefit.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made it clear—I invite hon. Members to read the report of the Select Committee on Trade and

69WH
Industry—that we are not aiming to withdraw, reduce or dilute benefits that people draw. I emphasise again that there will be no change before 2003 to existing methods of benefit payments. All benefit recipients and state pensioners who want to will continue to be able to access their benefits in cash, across the counter at the post office, both before and after the changeover.
There is much more to do—in urban as well as rural areas. My points about those who are socially excluded are important in constituencies like mine. We can achieve much if we set our minds to planning the future of the network, which was unhealthily overdependent on the benefits system. There would have been a gradual move to ACT, and even a benefit payments card was not conceived as a solution that would last for ever.
The Post Office has had some marked success in introducing new work, such as bureaux de change and lottery work, but more can be done. The easy choice would be for us to allow the network to seep away in an uncontrolled fashion, to ignore the increasing shift to ACT, to refuse to tackle the deep-seated problems of financial and social exclusion, and to allow a failing PFI to continue. We could put the problem off until decline becomes crisis and crisis becomes collapse. These are difficult problems, but rural communities can be assured that we intend to resolve them, so that post offices will continue to meet the changing needs of the communities they serve as effectively in this century as they did in the last one.

Petrol Retailing
11 am
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Is the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) present for the next debate?
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not familiar with the procedure in the new Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should make it quite clear to hon. Members that if they are not present when the Adjournment debate is called they lose their debate. On this occasion, as I was able to see the hon. Lady, although she was not in the Chamber, I am prepared to accept her presence.
Mrs. Spelman: I was waiting in the wings.
First, I should like to thank Madam Speaker, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for selecting this subject for an Adjournment debate. It is a particularly good subject for such a debate because many hon. Members of all parties will have a case in their constituency of the type that I am about to outline, so they can all participate. That is the spirit in which Adjournment debates should be conducted when they are at their best. The Minister will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to turn this into a party political debate because the debate should as far as possible rise above narrow party political arguments. He will be relieved to see that I have resisted the temptation to divert into the question of fuel taxes, which would rapidly become a party political debate. I intend to focus exclusively on the plight of the independent retailers in the petrol market and to urge the Government to act.
I shall begin by setting the scene a little. My attention was drawn to these problems by the unfortunate experience of my constituent, Mr. Parekh. He first came to my surgery in 1998 and I have tried all the avenues at my disposal as a Member of Parliament to help him, but without success. It was only as I pursued his case that it became clear that many other people were in the same position and that this would be a good subject for debate. Mr. Parekh's experiences need to be seen in the context of what has happened in the petrol retail market during the past three years. The oil companies responded to the competition from cut-price petrol sold by supermarkets with a price-cutting campaign. Esso's price watch campaign is just one well-known example of how the companies have fought back and, of course, the other oil companies responded in similar ways.
In the Office of Fair Trading report entitled "Competition in the supply of petrol in the UK", published in May 1998, it was estimated that, following supermarket competition, there were 5,000 fewer traditional filling stations. The OFT made a fairly superficial assessment of the causes of decline among independent retailers, blaming bad sites and a lack of competitiveness. But that seems to contrast with the interpretation put on events by the Federation of Small Businesses, quoted in the OFT report, which said:
"Competition between the oil companies and the hypermarkets had directly resulted in closure of independent solus-tie sites."

71WH
I just leave those two contrasting views about what really happened after this pretty vicious cut-price petrol war. I hope that my explanation of my constituent's case will make it clear where I think the truth lies.
I should like to focus the Minister's attention on the fact that, as I see it, the pain of the petrol price war was displaced by the oil suppliers on to the backs of the independent retailers by changes in the terms and conditions of their contracts, and the oil companies' failure to honour the undertakings given to the OFT to protect those who entered into agreements to retail petrol for them. Against that backdrop, world oil prices have stayed fairly stable since 1986, but the price of crude oil is a relatively small part of the pump price. More than 80 per cent. of the price of fuel at the pump is excise duty and VAT.
I do not wish to take a sidetrack to a debate on the consequences of the fuel escalator, because a lot of parliamentary time has been devoted to that, but I am sure that other hon. Members would like to draw attention to it. One aspect that is worth mentioning is the distortion in the retail market caused by Britain's high fuel tax regime. That is causing difficulties with cross-border smuggling, particularly between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak about that.
I wish to highlight those global market conditions and their interaction with our own domestic fuel tax arrangement to warn the Minister that, as crude prices have more than doubled in the last 12 months, oil companies may no longer be able to absorb the impact of fuel duty by cuts to profits. Consumers may feel that high tax regime more directly in future.
My constituent, Mr. Parekh, used to run a petrol station under what is known as a solus-tie agreement with Esso. Such agreements are common in the industry and mean that an independent retailer is exclusively tied to one wholesale supplier for a period. There have been concerns about agreements in the past, and as long ago as 1965 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission undertook a report on the supply of petrol to retailers in the UK which raised the issue of the degree of control exercised by the oil companies over the independent retailers. It concluded:
"Solus agreements seem to us to have some disadvantageous features as operated at present and to be potentially dangerous for the future unless certain safeguards are introduced."
Consequently, in 1966 the oil companies gave the then Board of Trade a set of undertakings, although they were subsequently amended in 1968, 1976 and 1984. Responsibility passed from the Board of Trade to the OFT in 1973.
This is where my constituent's story begins. He borrowed thousands of pounds from relatives and a bank to run an Esso petrol station. He signed a three-year contract that appeared to be regulated by the Department of Trade and Industry and the OFT. Within a short time of issuing the contract, the amount of rent demanded became quite unreasonable in relation to the turnover of the business and he was faced with breaching the agreement or becoming insolvent. He appealed to the OFT to arbitrate the dispute but was rebuffed by a standard reply from Mr. Bridgeman, the
72WH
director general, stating that the OFT could not involve itself in individual disputes, despite the fact that numerous similar complaints had been lodged. Indeed, it was reported to the House that 57 such complaints had been lodged to the OFT in 1998 alone.
Just to backtrack for a second, in 1980 the then competition Minister, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, wrote to one of her colleagues, who was concerned about the lack of legal protection for independent retailers, to say that the oil company was bound by those undertakings, as amended in 1976, and that there would be an arbitration scheme to settle disputes. In 1996 the oil company informed a Select Committee inquiry that an arbitration scheme was in place to resolve disputes with licensees but, faced with a real dispute, Mr. Bridgeman refused to arbitrate because he accepted the oil company's view that there was no dispute.
On 17 July 1996, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recommended
"that a code of practice be drawn up through negotiations between the OFT and the petrol retail industry, covering the contractual relationships between wholesalers and retailers and including provisions for speedy and binding arbitration disputes. We further recommend that the code of practice be the subject of undertakings given by wholesalers and retailers to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry."
It added:
"We recommend that the petrol retailing industry is continuously monitored by the Director General of Fair Trading, using the indicators suggested by the MMC."
There is plenty of parliamentary evidence that the matter has been raised in various Select Committees on many occasions, but the problem remains. A large number of independent retailers cannot get disputes arbitrated adequately. Many feel let down by the Office of Fair Trading, which failed to ensure that undertakings given by the oil companies were honoured. The undertakings enshrined an automatic right to renew licences but, under the new licence agreement, that right was withdrawn from my constituent, Mr. Parekh.
The undertakings envisage that the right of renewal of a licence can be withdrawn only in special circumstances—where a petrol station is to be knocked down and rebuilt, where a site is to close, where a site is to be leased to a third party, or where an oil supplier chooses to run the site itself. Mr. Parekh was given the fourth reason for non-renewal but, in practice, the site is being run by an agent under licence. Where is the difference? The criterion for denying the right to renewal was not met by the oil company. Mr. Parekh is not alone in his experiences. There have been 1,200 forecourt closures each year since 1996, with rural closures creating virtual petrol deserts and high prices for people living in remote areas.
Another specific example was given to me by an hon. Member who cannot speak on the subject because he has a registered interest, but who was directly affected by exactly the same situation. Under a three-year agreement struck with an oil company in 1989, a very reasonable fee of £932 was to be paid by him to the company for his petrol filling station outlet. In 1992, the fee jumped dramatically to £21,150. With other charges thrown in on account of the sale of products on the filling station forecourt, the shop and so on, the charges came to £26,000 a year. On his £3 million turnover in 1992, the profit came down to just £13,000. That is a

73WH
dismal return on anyone's investment: That independent retailer surrendered the lease in 1994 when he was told of a further increase in fees which would take effect from 1995. The filling station is now run by a manager for the oil company. That is one more example of the way in which independent retailers have suffered at the hands of oil companies.
What would I like the Government to do? The OFT reviewed the petrol undertakings, but thus far has failed to make significant changes. Following publication of the OFT's report "Competition in the supply of petrol in the UK" in May 1998, the then Under-Secretary ordered a review of petrol undertakings. In February last year, the present Under-Secretary answered a question on the Floor of the House, stating that he expected to receive advice from the Director General of Fair Trading "within the next month". Almost a year later there is still no announcement that a review has been undertaken. Will the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs tell us why the review is taking so long, when he expects it to be completed, whether it will be published and when? Perhaps the review will shed some light on the injustices suffered by independent retailers.
The OFT has been sadly lacking in its responsibility to monitor the outworking of those undertakings. The stock reply is that the matter is not the responsibility of the OFT; that it is concerned only about competition. Given the experiences of independent retailers, that is woefully inadequate. The OFT ruled that the terms of agreements offered by the major oil companies must be fair and reasonable. However, when the Total oil company advised the OFT that it intended to change the compensation given to retailers who went out of business, and announced that it would cut by nine tenths its payment to licensees whose licences would not be renewed, the OFT failed to respond.
The OFT dedicates only minimal resources to monitoring the forecourt industry and currently has less than one person on the job of acknowledging responsibility. I ask the Government to launch a fresh inquiry into why so many small and medium enterprises among petrol retailers have gone out of business since 1996. I want the inquiry to go beyond the trite assessment that there is a lack of competitiveness on the part of retailers and to examine whether there has been unfair practice by oil companies.
Mr. David Drew: Would the hon. Lady care to look at another issue that affects my constituency— what I would call the area setting of prices? I do not know whether she intends to come to that. The bizarre situation in my area is that my most rural garage, which is run by Mr. Roger Budgen in Bisley, near Cheltenham, has until recently been able to sell the cheapest petrol, which is almost the reverse of what we might expect. I cannot get to the bottom of why that was possible for him, whereas in Stroud, where one would expect to buy cheaper petrol, retailers have to sell their petrol at a higher price. Has the hon. Lady had a similar problem in her area?
Mrs. Spelman: It strikes me more as an isolated case. My own experience from driving around the country
74WH
over the Christmas and new year period was of a predictable pattern. In urban areas, especially those with a supermarket outlet, there is a remarkable conformity in prices. I cannot recall how many times I have driven past petrol stations displaying prices of 75.9p or, if one was lucky, 74.9p, in which case there was a queue. That is remarkable uniformity in pricing. In the more remote—especially upland—areas, such as the Cumbrian hills, small filling stations have to pay a significant premium because of the distribution costs. I am nonplussed by the hon. Gentleman's example. As his filling station is still in business, I suggest that all of us try to get to the bottom of that market success.
I am disquieted by that remarkable uniformity in prices. It certainly leaves me sceptical of the OFT's findings after it looked into competition in petrol sales. Such uniformity in pricing leads me to believe that competition is not as strong as the OFT would have us think.
I invite the Minister to think about a change of direction in policy in the United States of America and Australia, where, faced with similar problems, the Governments of those countries have ruled that oil companies cannot be both retailers and suppliers of petrol, other than having a token presence for the purpose of keeping a finger on the pulse of what is happening in the marketplace. Hon. Members will understand what I mean by a token presence if I say that that is just one filling station per American state, as state Governments have decided to separate the supply and retail of petrol. That really is a token presence. In Australia, the token presence is slightly higher, with six filling stations allowed per state. None the less, that amounts to a sparse representation of oil companies as supplier and retailer, and could be described as merely testing the temperature of the waters.
It is significant and interesting that those two Governments went down that route, perhaps for precisely the reason that I mentioned—that others are disquieted by the remarkable uniformity in prices. At global level, three, possibly four, major players in oil supply are emerging, along with several minor players. With so few major players and increasing market concentration, vertical integration—in which the major suppliers both supply and retail their product—is unhealthy for consumers in the longer term. That applies in other countries as well as in the UK.
This is no time for complacency. The demise of independent retailers is likely to hasten market concentration to the point where it becomes monopolistic. In some rural areas, there is already a virtual monopoly. The issues are complex, and I have resisted the temptation to highlight several smaller injustices in order to focus debate on the major injustices from which independent retailers have suffered.
In the light of the history of the parliamentary proceedings leading up to today, I hope that we do not lose sight of the fact that several individuals have suffered personally as a consequence of the failure to act appropriately to address the problem. I shall finish by citing one more example, which drives the point home.
After a lifetime in the teaching profession, a retired headmistress invested her savings in a local petrol filling station. She was encouraged by the household name of

75WH
the oil company to think that the investment offered a degree of security. Having been shown figures of the sort of business return that she could expect from her investment she was encouraged by the prospect of a decent return. However, the turnover had been inflated and she found that when her rent was taken into account, her business was simply not viable. She had to pull out, losing her investment. Her tenure was followed by that of yet another victim—victim is not the wrong word—who was attracted by inflated prospects, but five months later was no longer trading. I ask the Minister: how many more casualties will there be before the Government act?
11.23 am
Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on raising this important matter in this morning's proceedings. She made many relevant points, but I should like to say a few words about Scotland because the cost of petrol and related issues remain within the purview of Westminster rather than the Scottish Parliament.
Petrol retailing has a significant effect, particularly in the highlands and islands of Scotland and in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. Petrol prices are prohibitively high in remote areas and on the islands. Last year, a petrol retailer on the island of Islay had to charge 85.9p per litre for four-star petrol, 79.9p per litre for unleaded petrol and 80p per litre for diesel. That compares with averages of 74p, 66p and 69p respectively.
The hon. Member for Meriden said that she did not wish to make party political points. I do not either on this occasion. However, it is important to understand the background to the debate on retailing. My constituent keeps going only because his retail business serves a particular part of the island. He and his wife keep going because they believe that they are providing a service—we spoke earlier about the importance of post office outlets, which provide another important service. However, because of a low turnover, my constituent told me that he did not qualify for the rebates that other petrol stations receive for large-volume sales. In addition, he provides approximately 60 per cent. of his petrol on credit because most of his customers are self-employed fishermen and farmers, so at any one time he could be owed as much as £18,000, which makes it difficult to survive.
We must remember that cars are a necessity, not a luxury, in remote rural areas. No matter how good public transport becomes, it will never be a substitute for cars in such areas. I hope, of course, that we will one day have a much better rural transport system in this country, but I cannot imagine buses ever going into little villages to pick up a few people.
The rise in the cost of diesel has increased overall costs, particularly in remote areas such as the highlands and islands of Scotland and Argyll and Bute. Many goods have to be hauled by road. We would like more goods to be transported by sea, but we cannot transfer goods to railways that do not exist: railways do not go to places such as Campbeltown, Dunoon and Lochgilphead. There have been constant hikes in petrol prices, and the escalator, without meaningful compensatory measures in rural areas, has been one of
76WH
the most unpopular and deeply resented measures ever introduced by both Conservative and Labour Governments.
The Petrol Retail Association told me that 1,200 forecourt closures have taken place every year since 1996, and an average of 850 since 1969. At the end of 1997, Scotland had 1,299 petrol stations and by the end of the following year that number had shrunk to 1,200— a loss of nearly 100 primarily remote rural stations in vulnerable areas. It is lunacy for people to drive 40 miles to fill up their cars with petrol, consuming the fuel that they have just bought in getting home again, yet that is exactly what happens when so many retail forecourts close down.
We must know what is going on and why. The OFT has conducted investigations in the highlands and islands area, but its reports have not been enlightening. It claims that nothing is wrong, that companies do not operate cartels, and offers explanations such as higher delivery costs, higher fixed costs per litre, lack of favourable contract arrangements with major oil companies, the effects of VAT and limited competition. As the hon. Member for Meriden said, we need to know why the OFT has not completed its review of petrol undertakings, which it promised to do in June 1998.
Finally, what measures will the Government take to try to stop petrol retail stations closing in rural areas and particularly in the north and west of Scotland?
11.31 am
Mr. John Hume: The crisis is at its worst in Northern Ireland, particularly the border counties. I can fill my car with fuel in my constituency, but, if I drive a mile down the road and cross the border, I can save 22p a litre or £1 a gallon. That is crazy and it will destroy the petrol station industry. The problem will not be solved by talking or by reports that were written months ago and about which nothing has been done. Action is required. The problem is serious for the towns and villages of Northern Ireland's border counties because the industry will be wiped out. The Secretary of State should meet representatives of petrol stations in Northern Ireland to produce an immediate plan to resolve the problem.
11.32 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate because it is important to highlight the problems facing small petrol retailing firms.
I, too, support an inquiry into petrol retailing. Previous Governments and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry have investigated petrol retailing and produced reports, but somewhere along the way the issue has been swept under the carpet and recommendations have not been fulfilled. It should be brought out from under the carpet. There should be an inquiry and it should have teeth because many problems face many constituencies throughout the United Kingdom.
Every year there are 1,200 forecourt closures. The Government should support small and medium enterprises, but those closures have been allowed to happen since 1996. We must do something about the thousands of people who lose their jobs when those

77WH
thousands of businesses close. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye. We must ensure that rural forecourts remain for the future because, like rural post offices, they are at the heart of the rural economy. We must ensure that something is done. Why have we allowed the creation of rural deserts? When a rural petrol station closes, it does not become something else overnight. Far from it. The site begins to wither and becomes overgrown, subject to tipping and, eventually, an eyesore.
The Government must focus on the future of small businesses in petrol retailing. They should get involved in the contract between small businesses and major oil companies. Oil companies were heavily squeezed by the previous Government and the present Government with the fuel escalator and they have not had an easy time, but they should play fairly and not squeeze small businesses. They do not want their profits to fall because they must consider their shareholders, but it is not acceptable to resolve the problem by closing small petrol stations. The petrol companies should embrace small petrol stations for their loyal service over many years.
There was an inquiry 35 years ago into agreements between oil companies and small petrol stations. Those agreements were thought to have a five-year future, but oil companies may give 30 days' notice of termination. Petrol forecourts often have a shop to make a little more money, but the products in the shop must be bought through the oil companies and the prices are decided by the oil companies. That is anti-competitive. Previously, if money was not being made from petrol, it could be made from the shop, but the oil companies recognised another opportunity to squeeze money out of petrol retailers.
Why did the European Commission allow the block exemption to be renewed? It exempts oil company agreements from examination until a single company exceeds 30 per cent. of the national share. But an oil company may have a regional monopoly. The country may have been nicely carved up between the oil companies, but it is even nicer for an oil company if it has a monopoly in one region because it can then dictate terms, prices and conditions throughout that region. That is what is happening. There is no point in having a national agreement if there are regional monopolies.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware of the matter raised by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) who referred to the earlier Select Committee report, which recommended that a code of practice be drawn up with the Office of Fair Trading through negotiation with retailers and wholesalers so that grievances between retailers and wholesalers could be considered. Does he believe that such a mechanism between retailers and suppliers would be advantageous to the retailers?
Mr. Hoyle: Of course. I respect that view, which should be encouraged. My hon. Friend was a member of Select Committee that has investigated fuel retailing. I hope that we shall have a response from the Government on that today.
There are only three national marketers of motor fuel and they have a combined market share of 85 per cent. We begin to see that the real muscle is in those big three
78WH
companies. Petrol retailers in rural areas provide a service, which generation after generation may have provided, but such family connections have had to end because of the muscle power of major oil companies. I am lucky in having good rural petrol stations in my constituency of Chorley. They provide a loyal service, but I wonder how long that can continue. The petrol station in Ulnes Walton is lucky because it became wine retailer of the year. It is successful and provides a great service not only in petrol but in fine, quality wines. But not every petrol retailer has the ability to do that and not every oil company will allow that. That petrol station is a huge success, but it cannot be replicated up and down the country.
My local petrol station, Walkdens in Aglington—I use it regularly and my family has had an account there for 30 years—has had BP, ICI, Fina and now Shell petrol. Each time the oil company changes, the agreement changes. I do not want to lose that local filling station. I want it to continue because it provides a good service, but I am worried that it will be squeezed by the oil companies.
Our friends in Northern Ireland have experienced the squeeze and petrol filling stations have been closing daily. The problem is not only that small businesses are closing in Northern Ireland—a problem that is not being addressed—but that fuel smuggling represents a cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. People in Northern Ireland can make good money out of smuggling petrol. Not only does that cost the Exchequer millions of pounds, but it means a loss of employment and the closure of small businesses. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that petrol smuggling is seen as an alternative. Petrol smuggling is happening in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and now in England as well. It will force even more small retailers out of the market as people look for alternative sources of fuel.
11.41 am
Mr. Ian Bruce: One of my constituents, Mr. Peter Avery, who runs the Lanehouse Rocks road Esso garage and is also a motor retailer, alerted me to the fact that he had written to me at the beginning of 1999 and that I had made representations on his behalf to the Government. The Government told us not to worry because the Office of Fair Trading was looking at petrol retailing. I had to admit that I had lost sight of the fact that the OFT had done nothing about the issue. I ask the Government to explain their original policies.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): It simply is not true that the OFT has done nothing. It has been attempting, as I hope it always will, to carry out an exhaustive investigation of the issue. The OFT has told me that it is due to report to us at the end of February or the beginning of March. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall make that information available to the House.
Mr. Bruce: I am most grateful to the Minister for that comment. I spoke to Mr. Avery on the telephone yesterday. He asked, "Is the debate worth while?" I replied, "Funnily enough, Governments tend to forget that they have made commitments." I predicted that the Minister would jump to his feet and say, "Ah,

79WH
but we are about to get the report and take action." I do not accuse the Minister of making those comments in bad faith, but I am glad that this welcome debate, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), is having an effect.
Normally, when business men go into business and sign leases with landlords, they are covered by the Landlord and Tenant Acts and their rent cannot be jumped up immediately. They normally know that, as a retailer, they can buy from anyone. If they sell baked beans, they can buy many varieties or only one. They take the decisions. However, I understand that the Landlord and Tenant Acts do not apply to petrol retailing contracts.
In the past, the Government said that it would be difficult for petrol retailers to be covered by those Acts because they cannot easily change the petrol in their tanks, or the signs outside their stations. The fact that they were selling on a branded basis would make any change difficult. So the petrol companies agreed that they would give certain undertakings about how they would deal with their retailers. I understand that those undertakings have simply not been kept. Therefore, a mechanism is needed to protect those business people, like all other businesses, from unfair practices.
I served on the Committee that considered the Competition Act 1998, which is quite comprehensive. The Opposition spent time asking Ministers what they would use the Act for, but answer came there none. They would not give a single example of what they intended to do with that Act. It has been on the statute book for some time, so people are entitled to ask the Government, who came to power with many consumer and business-friendly policies, to do something about competition.
On Monday, travelling on the motorway, I passed a car transporter, which, like the Government, seemed in perfect order. The problem was that it was full of burnt-out cars. That is a metaphor for the Labour Government. They still look as though they know where they are going and as though they have wheels on their vehicle, but they are carrying burnt-out policies. If the Government believe that they will make a difference and that things can only get better, surely they should do something for petrol retailers.
11.47 am
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and thank her for bringing this matter before Parliament. She referred to Northern Ireland, as have other hon. Members. I should like to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who suggested that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should take urgent action to meet petrol retailers in the Province to discuss the serious crisis that has affected petrol retailers in that part of the United Kingdom.
I want to give an idea of the impact that fuel smuggling and the differentials in fuel prices between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are having on the petrol retail industry in Northern Ireland. Just before Christmas, petrol prices in the United Kingdom were the highest in the European Union, whereas in the Republic of Ireland they were the fourth lowest. In the
80WH
United Kingdom, petrol cost 73.37p a litre, whereas in the Republic of Ireland it was 51.13p a litre. That is a significant difference. The cost of a litre of diesel in the United Kingdom was 75.27p, but in the Republic of Ireland it was 46.68p.
Those fuel differentials are causing significant problems for petrol retailers in Northern Ireland. First, they are having an impact on their customers. Many people travel across the border to purchase fuel. That means that business for retailers in Northern Ireland has slumped. For example, estimates suggest that petrol retailers in the border area have lost between 25 and 50 per cent. of their trade as a result of the fuel differentials. The Petrol Retailers Association estimates that about 50 petrol stations have closed in the border area. That is a significant number of petrol stations in a small area such as Northern Ireland, but it is even more significant given that the estimate is for the border region only.
The other cause of difficulty for petrol retailers in Northern Ireland is fuel smuggling. The differential in prices has unfortunately meant that smuggling has increased substantially. Fuel smuggling has several impacts. It has an impact on petrol retailers, as I have already mentioned. It also has an impact on the Government, who lose revenue. It has been estimated that in the past 12 months in Northern Ireland the loss of revenue due to smuggling amounts to more than £100 million—a substantial sum in terms of public expenditure in Northern Ireland. We, like other parts of the United Kingdom, are facing a crisis in the availability of hospital beds. How many beds could be provided in Northern Ireland with that £100 million?
What is the Government's response? Last year the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs issued an excellent report on the impact of cross-border road fuel price differentials, which I commend to all hon. Members. During cross-examination on the Government's response to the report, the Economic Secretary said:
"£100 million in the context of £21 billion overall from fuel duties as a whole is really a very … small part of the overall picture."
But in respect of Northern Ireland, it is a big part of the picture, and the Government should not take that attitude towards the loss of even £100 million in revenue. They must act, not only to help petrol retailers in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, but to stop that loss to the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said correctly that the problem of fuel smuggling was no longer unique to Northern Ireland but was spreading to other parts of the United Kingdom. There are reports of illegal fuel being offered for sale in Scotland and Wales. Indeed, even in London there have been reports of tanker loads of illegal fuel arriving and cut-price deals being offered to retailers. The cancer of fuel smuggling is spreading. It is not just a Northern Ireland issue which the Government can sweep under the carpet; it needs to be addressed on a UK-wide basis.
Petrol retailers in Northern Ireland continue to suffer from both fuel differentials and the smuggling of illegal fuel from the Republic of Ireland. I urge the Government to reconsider the recommendations of the

81WH
Northern Ireland Affairs Committee because their response to its report was inadequate. They need to do more, because the issue does not impact only on petrol retailers. In its report, the Committee said:
"There is no doubt that the differential in fuel prices across the land boundary in the island of Ireland is a difficult issue and one that has serious consequences for fuel suppliers and road hauliers. It is also a wider problem in that, besides distorting trading patterns, it appears to have become a means of funding paramilitaries and racketeers. It is therefore damaging the social fabric of Northern Ireland."
As we seek to make progress in Northern Ireland, we need to remove the opportunities for paramilitary organisations to continue with their illegal activities— smuggling illegal fuel is a major such opportunity. That is another reason why Government agencies need to co-ordinate their approach to the issue.
There is also the impact on the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland. Because we are part of an island, we are especially dependent on our road haulage industry, particularly for our export trade. At the moment, the Northern Ireland road haulage industry is suffering severely from the high fuel costs in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that fuel and excise duties account for between 25 and 40 per cent. of the operating costs of haulage operations. That is a huge amount. Their competitiveness is undermined if fuel costs are significantly higher in Northern Ireland than in the neighbouring state of the Republic of Ireland. I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Meriden that the problem in Northern Ireland is acute and spreading to other parts of the UK. It must be addressed by the Government, whose approach to date has been inadequate. More resources need to be made available to Customs and Excise to combat fuel smuggling. Something must also be done to address the issue of fuel price differentials.
I conclude by noting that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee stated:
"We recommend that the Government investigates further the experience of other EU Member States in dealing with the problems of price and duty differentials across national boundaries in relation to road fuels."
The Government could do more. I acknowledge that the scheme that was operating in Holland has run into difficulties with the EU, but that does not mean that a solution to the problems of illegal fuel smuggling and fuel price differentials between member states cannot be found. As we operate in a single market, perhaps the solution could be EU-wide. Petrol retailers, the road haulage industry and the community in Northern Ireland would welcome a much more proactive approach by the Government to these important issues.
11.55 am
Mr. William Thompson: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for initiating this debate, which we welcome, particulary in respect of Northern Ireland.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said. I represent the border constituency of West Tyrone, where six major petrol stations have already closed and others are on the brink of closing because of the differential between petrol
82WH
prices in the Republic of Ireland and those in the United Kingdom. Even miles away from the border, some large petrol stations have seen a reduction of up to 50 per cent. in sales.
Figures for consumption in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland show that, of total petrol sales for the whole of Ireland in 1994, 35.9 per cent. were conducted in Northern Ireland. That figure has now decreased to 24.2 per cent. Likewise, in 1995 Northern Ireland had 27.7 per cent. of total diesel sales, but it now has 16.1 per cent. That illustrates the change in the balance of sales between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As my hon. Friend said, that means that the Exchequer is losing up to £100 million per year.
There is a lot of smuggling. As one travels in Northern Ireland, one can see adverts for diesel at 56p per litre and an arrow pointing to where to go to get it. I rang the police and asked why they could not follow the arrow and do something about the problem, but they said that it was a matter for Customs and Excise. When I asked Customs and Excise to go along and find out how diesel was being sold at that price, it said, "It wouldn't be worth our while investigating such a small issue; we work in a different way in a larger field." When asked why they are not succeeding, they say that they do not have the personnel to do the job. We need more people on the ground to trace the illegal importers and we need co-operation and co-ordination between the police, Customs and Excise and other bodies to try to defeat the smugglers. I appeal to the Government to give this issue serious consideration and to co-ordinate the various agencies that are trying to stop smuggling. We must also examine more seriously the possibility of greater parity between fuel prices in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
12 noon
Mr. Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on introducing the debate and on her choice of subject. She made her case in a firm, measured way, thus helping to set the scene for ensuing speeches.
There has been a high degree of unanimity between speakers from different parties, which I intend to continue. I hope that that will be matched by the Minister's comments at the end of our debate. Clearly, Northern Ireland has a special problem, which hon. Members representing it have expressed more eloquently and in greater detail than I could. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said that sales are bleeding across the border. The Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must give that matter serious consideration.
As a representative of the Liberal Democratics and as a local Member of Parliament contacted by independent retailers in one's constitutency I am worried. Like other hon. Members, in recent years I have witnessed independent petrol stations closing with monotonous regularity. There has been an horrific contraction of the independent sector. According to the Evening Standard, the number of filling stations has fallen from 40,000 to only 13,000 in the past 30 years. That is a drop of almost 70 per cent. Of the surviving stations, 10 per cent. closed last year. If that rate of decline were attributed to an animal, it would be regarded as an endangered species

83WH
facing extinction. Contraction of the independent sector is not in the retailers' or public's interest, as it will lead to a concentration of power in a few oil companies, which will be detrimental to consumers and those employed in the industry.
Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in a slightly different context, the planning process has a part to play? Obviously, the provision of petrol retailing has been key to out-of-town shopping, having a dramatic impact on retailers in the immediate vicinity and sometimes those up to 30 miles away. People drive to such outlets to do their shopping and buy petrol at the same time, which is blatantly unfair to independent retailers.
Mr. Baker: I agree, and I hope that the Minister will take account of the matter and refer it to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The hon. Member for Meriden avoided using the word "cartel", speaking instead about passive collusion, which is an interesting phrase. However, perhaps "cartel" is not too strong, as there is evidence that oil companies are working together—passively, if not actively—to drive independent businesses out of petrol retailing. I am not confident that the Department of Trade and Industry or the Office of Fair Trading understands that. I hope that the Minister will persuade me that they do.
Dr. Howells: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of oil companies acting as cartels, he should give it to the Chamber.
Mr. Baker: I shall give the Minister evidence from Select Committee reports and representations from my constituents.
The Select Committee report already referred to shows that 50 per cent. of four-star petrol sold between April and August 1996 was sold at or below cost. In 1997, petrol price competition was so fierce that British Petroleum is alleged to have lost £130 million selling petrol to the public. That may be compared with predatory pricing arrangements in the newspaper market. The Times, for example, has been sold for some time at an artificially low price which, many believe, will drive The Independent and other newspapers out of the market. Those who are strong in the market can take losses over a period in order to drive those who cannot out of the market.
The price at which petrol is sold involves a curious arrangement. We have been told that it is more costly to deliver petrol to upland parts of Cumbria than other areas. No doubt that is true. In Asda's opinion, the additional cost of delivering petrol to rural areas is a maximum of 1.5p a litre. However, the difference in petrol prices is rather more than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred to the position in Scotland. According to The Scotsman, the BP filling station at the entrance of the Grangemouth refinery charges more for petrol than the BP station in Edinburgh. Arrangements for petrol retailing are not as clean as the oil companies would have us believe.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I shall give some anecdotal evidence. For 13years, I have written regularly to petrol
84WH
companies, asking why petrol prices in South Dorset are 3p a litre more than they are elsewhere. In the past three months, delivery problems have suddenly disappeared, and petrol is now sold at the standard price of 74.9p a litre throughout almost the whole of my constituency. Somehow, as if by magic, petrol companies reached a common position. Naturally, there was no collusion.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman may be able to claim credit for that in party literature at the next election.
Mr. Bruce: I shall.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Meriden spoke about vertical integration, which is another worrying issue. Again, a comparison may be drawn with other parts of industry. The previous Government rightly took action on the retail and supply of beer. They were worried that those who were producing beer were distorting the retail market. Action was taken to prevent beer suppliers from having too many public house outlets. No such action has been taken to deal with the problem of vertical integration in petrol retailing.
Mr. Hoyle: Is the hon. Gentleman not worried that going down that route would lead to umpteen pub closures throughout the country? The worst thing to happen to pub landlords was changing the rules. We should not do the same to petrol retailers.
Mr. Baker: I am not sure that I agree with that. However, we must take action to change the balance of power between the independent sector and major oil companies supplying petrol and operating filling stations. That balance is currently heavily weighted in the oil companies' favour. If separating supply and retail is not the solution—even though that is perfectly sensible—we must find an alternative. We cannot carry on as we are because if we do there will be no independent sector when the House debates the matter in 10 years' time.
Oil companies have been accused of putting pressure on small retailers to tie them into contracts compelling them to buy a large amount of petrol at predetermined prices. An OFT review is, quite properly, taking place. Like other hon. Members, I am worried that the OFT is taking an inordinate period to report. I hope that that means that it is making a detailed examination of petrol retailing, which would help it to reach the conclusion that current arrangements must be changed to give more weight to the independent sector and less to oil companies. However, in the meantime, petrol stations are closing throughout Britain: they cannot all survive for months on end until the report is published.
Of petrol sold in Britain, 90 per cent. is suppled by four companies—Shell, Esso, BP and Texaco. Big petrol retailers—oil companies and supermarkets—account for 85 per cent. of sales. However, independent retailers sometimes act as a brake on prices—their own, although their margins are smaller, and those of oil companies and supermarkets. I am therefore pleased that there are independent retailers close to Lewes and elsewhere in my constituency. Indeed, I have noticed prices creeping up when independent retailers close down. Keeping independent retailers in business is important in offering choice to customers buying fuel.

85WH
Those who have the opportunity to use muscle in a market are not unlikely to do so. That is how capitalism works. Part of Government's role is to implement controls and restraints to ensure that a fair market operates and prevent exploitation. I shall relate one anecdote from my constituency, which demonstrates how supermarkets can operate. It concerns an independent petrol retailer in my constituency, at Denton corner, Newhaven, who was struggling to survive, not least because of an unhelpful road realignment by the county council.
Shortly afterwards, opposite that retailer, a Sainsbury's supermarket opened. It offered artifically cheap fuel and put up a huge banner advertising that fact within the view of those who bought petrol from the independent petrol station. The independent retailer then moved to a 24-hour operation to try to survive, and the supermarket followed suit. The independent petrol retailer closed down, and the supermarket withdrew its 24-hour operation within seven days and hiked up the price of its petrol. Who benefits from that, apart from the supermarket and perhaps the oil company? Such predatory behaviour gives supermarkets a bad name.
What are the remedies? First, the Government should state that they value the role of the independent sector and the diversity that it provides. They should also recognise that diversity in the petrol retailing industry is an issue for consumers. If that is the Government's position—I have no reason to think otherwise—they should understand the present arrangements operating in this country. Independent retailers in my constituency have told me that, under those arrangements, they pay more per litre for their petrol than the supermarkets and the petrol-supplying oil companies. They are being overcharged in comparison with the big boys.
The Minister must recognise that the current situation is unsustainable. The Office of Fair Trading report must be delivered as soon as possible, and the Government must make a commitment to act on that report if, as I assume it will, it finds that the market is not structured fairly.
Secondly, the Government should implement the Select Committee recommendation to which the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred. A code of practice should be drawn up, through negotiation between the Office of Fair Trading and the petrol retail industry, which would cover the contractual relationships between wholesalers and retailers. It would include provisions for speeding and the binding arbitration of disputes. The code of practice would be the subject of undertakings given by the wholesalers and retailers to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That was an absolutely sensible recommendation, which should be given due weight now.
Lastly, I refer the Minister to early-day motion 18 on independent petrol forecourt operators, which was tabled on 17 November by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). It has now been signed by more than 100 Members. This is not a party political matter—all parties have concerns about the issue—and I hope that the Government will act to remedy the damage that is being done to the independent retail sector.
86WH
12.13 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing this debate. It has been a good debate, which the Government needed to hear, and I am glad that I have been present for it. The Whip was surprised when I walked in to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate—a colleague of mine, who is not of the same sex, had been expected to reply. However, I can assure hon. Members that I am very interested in the subject.
I assure the hon. Member for Meriden that the Government appreciate that many small businesses find it difficult to compete in modern markets, especially against larger companies. However, would more and tighter regulation be the best and most appropriate means of action? I ask that question because, whenever I speak on the Floor of the House, Conservative Members usually ask me about deregulating the economy, not increasing regulation. I shall try to explain why I am in favour not of adding to regulation but of trying other means to resolve the situation.
It has been argued that oil companies have too much control over petrol retailers. However, the key question is whether the consumer is benefiting. It is not the Government's role to second-guess markets or to try to determine who should and should not survive. I am a firm believer in competition. It brings the greatest benefits to consumers, who are at the heart of my brief.
The Office of Fair Trading works to ensure that, through strong competition in the petrol market, the consumer gets a good deal in the supply of road fuels. In 1998, the OFT's report on the supply of petrol found that competition was strong and that consumers were benefiting. Competitiveness has increased in recent years, especially since 1994, when price competition between supermarkets and the oil majors started to become more vigorous. That is when these problems began to manifest themselves. In real terms, petrol pump prices, net of VAT and duty, have fallen by a quarter since January 1990. The director general concluded that he did not need to intervene to improve the already vigorous competition in the market.
The report recognises that independent petrol retailers have been badly affected by competition between the oil companies and supermarkets. However, the director general concluded that overall competition was strong and working to the benefit of consumers. The director general must consider competition in the market as a whole; that is his job.
Mr. Baker: Does the director general think that, if the independent sector were removed altogether, competition would still act in the interests of the consumer and prices would still be decreasing? Alternatively, does he think, as I do, that that would provide an opportunity for a smaller number of suppliers to increase prices?
Dr. Howells: I am sure that the Director General of Fair Trading shares my view that the more independent retailers we have as real competitors to the big companies, the better. The barriers to entry must be as low as possible. However, if we have an independent competition regulator—the Director General of Fair

87WH
Trading—we must pay attention to what he tells us. Allowing short-term political considerations to distort markets is ultimately to the detriment of consumers.
More recently, an OFT investigation after the 1999 Budget showed that increases in pump prices were accounted for—as certain hon. Members have said—by tax increases and sharp rises in the price of crude oil. This morning, I looked at the quoted crude oil price. It has increased by a dollar in a week. It is now more than $24 a barrel, whereas a year ago it was $11 a barrel. We must take that into account.
Recent figures show that increases in retail prices do not reflect the full increase in the crude oil price. Margins in the industry have become much tighter in recent years. That indicates weak competition or anti-competitive behaviour, but the opposite. It can be seen as a reaction to the increased competition provided by the entry of major supermarkets into petrol retailing. It is a competitive market with keen prices, which ultimately benefits consumers. That is a fact of life, and oil companies and their retailers have little choice but to deal with it.
This morning, we have been considering vertical agreements. The Government believe that vertical agreements are unlikely to be anti-competitive unless there is horizontal market power. In his thoughtful and extremely interesting contribution, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) alleged that cartels were working, which would imply horizontal collusion between companies. If he has the evidence to prove that—I did not hear it in his contribution—I would be glad to hear it. It is a serious allegation, and a serious criticism of the veracity of the reports by the Director General of Fair Trading.
We should remember that those undertakings have been in place since 1966. Mr. John Bridgeman and his predecessors are neither blind nor stupid. They would not fail to notice if major oil companies were operating a cartel, and I will not accept that they are so doing until I see evidence of it. Nor can I accept the characterisation of vertical controls as anti-competitive. No major European Union economy regards them as anti-competitive. Indeed, there are exemptions for vertical relationships between companies and between sectors throughout the EU.
Retailers have complained repeatedly about contractual abuse on the part of suppliers. A contractual issue is usually a matter for the parties concerned and, in the absence of serious competition concerns, does not constitute a competition issue. That is defined by the way in which this country's competition law works and has worked under previous Administrations since the second world war.
As I have said, competition in the petrol market is strong and is benefiting consumers. Over the years, the OFT has investigated a number of complaints about agreements between petrol retailers and suppliers. So far, it has concluded that such complaints were contractual matters that did not raise competition concerns. I appreciate that complainants may not agree with the OFT's verdict, but if it finds no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour that is detrimental to consumers, the OFT has no grounds for taking action under
88WH
competition legislation. In that respect, this morning's debate has proved useful, because it may have highlighted an area that needs to be examined.
Mrs. Spelman: The Minister is right to emphasise the competition issue. He says that the Government cannot intervene in what is a contractual matter between an independent retailer and an oil supplier, but the truth is that there is limited competition for the supply of the raw material to the retailer. Such disputes involve small units that can hardly afford to go to the courts, and powerful players with huge resources at their disposal.
Dr. Howells: That is true, and I shall try to answer the hon. Lady's point. I appreciate the difficulties that small traders experience in such circumstances.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I pointed out in my speech that I wrote to the Government in the early part of last year about contractual issues that arose between a petrol company and a retailer in my constituency and was told not to worry because the matter had been referred to the OFT. If that is the wrong body to which to refer contractual issues, what will the Minister do about such problems?
Dr. Howells: The OFT is precisely the right place to refer such issues because it is the main competition regulator and the body with which such issues must ultimately be discussed on Parliament's behalf. The hon. Gentleman told us that he was a member of the Competition Bill Committee. If he was not asleep during its proceedings, he will know that the Act will not come into effect until March 2000, because the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and others told us that there must be a period of grace in which preparations can be made for the onslaught of the new legislative regime. To the shame of previous Administrations, when the Competition Act comes into effect in March 2000, it will be the first time that the competition regulator will have the teeth with which to attack market abuses.
The Director General of Fair Trading has tried to foster constructive discussion in the industry on the handling of disputes between wholesalers and retailers. In October 1997, he hosted a meeting between representatives of petrol retailers, supermarkets and petrol wholesalers, to assess the scope for improving relations between retailers and wholesalers. That meeting fulfilled a commitment made to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in December 1996, but it was not a success. As the hon. Member for Lewes properly noted, those retailers and wholesalers who were present seemed unwilling to agree, even in principle, to any acceptable code of practice. Nor were they prepared to take other action that might improve relations between the two sides. That is extremely regrettable. I make an undertaking to the Chamber today that, if the two sides wish to meet again to discuss seriously the possibility of signing up to a code of practice and are prepared to compromise where necessary, my Department will do everything possible to broker such a meeting.
Clearly, tensions between retailers and their suppliers are always likely to arise. Each side will always strive to gain more concessions than the other is prepared to make. That is particularly true of an industry in which

89WH
margins are tight and competition is strong at all levels. It is not always possible quickly to induce a more constructive approach. We must remember that these undertakings have been in place since 1966. Since the mid-1970s, when price watch was introduced and supermarkets began to compete strongly, people have complained about the undertakings. Perhaps that was a coincidence, or perhaps the complaint is that competition has intensified and margins have reduced.
In conclusion, I shall address the extremely important issue of fuel in Northern Ireland, which is of great concern to those hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently on it. Treasury Ministers and Customs and Excise are aware of the illegal importation of fuel for resale into Northern Ireland, and recognise the associated problems. Since the beginning of 1998, Customs and Excise has seized 93 vehicles and 1.27 million litres of fuel, and has secured admissions of the smuggling of a further 30 million litres. Fifty-three people have been arrested, of whom 41 have been charged. Of those cases that have been completed, seven have led to prosecution and four to custodial sentences. I shall point out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that hon. Members who have spoken today have asked that he meet representatives of petrol retailers in Northern Ireland. I undertake that, if he is unable to do so, I will meet those representatives. I shall travel to Northern Ireland soon to discuss carbon monoxide poisoning, and could meet them then.
Many hon. Members have spoken, but insufficient time prevents me from dealing with all the issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) made an important point when he said that there must be a way in which to combat the problem of significant price differentials across frontiers, and I agree that it should be regarded as a European Union-wide issue. Reference was made to a problem at the Dutch-German border, where the Dutch were subsidising petrol stations within 20 km of the border. They were taken to court by the European Commission on the grounds that such subsidies constituted unfair state aid. These are difficult problems, but I hope that we can discuss them with representatives of petrol retailers in Northern Ireland.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Meriden, who put her case in an articulate and, as was noted, measured way. I am sure that we all share her concern for small petrol retailers. The same problem has arisen in my own constituency. However, we must look at the big picture—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Time is up.

PC Gordon Warren
12.30 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate.
The House is no stranger to the case of ex-PC Gordon Warren, which was debated here on 15 April 1994. It was raised by my predecessor, Nigel Forman, and reported in Hansard at column 613. In his speech, Mr. Forman said that it was his longest-running constituency case. For Mr. Warren's sake, I do not intend it to become mine as well. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Nigel Forman for his efforts in trying to secure a satisfactory outcome in for the case.
Ministers are no strangers, either, to the case of ex-PC Gordon Warren. I held meetings with two Ministers when they were at the Home Office: the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). The Metropolitan police are also familiar with the case. I held meetings with Sir Paul Condon as recently as last week, and with John Stevens, and also with Michael Bennett and Glen Smyth of the Police Federation. I am sure that the Minister present today is also familiar with the case.
However, for the benefit of hon. Members, it is worth running through some of the key events of this sad saga. It started in April 1982 when Mr. Warren, a serving police officer, was asked by a senior officer to attend a party at Sutton police station while on duty. He of course refused and it is this event that Mr. Warren believes triggered the whole sorry affair. Another key event took place in January 1985 when a medical certificate was issued by Dr. Bott, a medical officer with the Met, certifying Mr. Warren as medically unfit. He was suffering from paranoia, it would seem. This was overturned by the medical referees to the Home Office, but almost a year later another medical certificate was issued by the same doctor.
In 1988, Mr. Warren won damages for wrongful dismissal, and further damages in the Court of Appeal in 1989. In February 1994, an ex gratia payment of £85,000 was offered by the Met, and in April 1994, as I have already mentioned, there was an Adjournment debate in the House on the subject. In 1995, Gordon Warren received an apology from Sir Paul Condon. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. There appear to be members of the public in the Chamber. Would they please withdraw from the Floor of the Chamber as quickly as possible? They should not have been admitted through the Members' entrance.
Mr. Brake: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In 1995, Sir Paul Condon wrote to Mr. Warren to issue an apology. Thirteen years after this sorry affair started he received a written apology, in which Sir Paul stated that there were absolutely no grounds for Mr. Warren's dismissal, and no question of mental instability or paranoia.
I could also refer to meetings that I have held over the past couple of years with Ministers and with the Met. It is an extensive case history, and I have some of the

91WH
correspondence here today. I know that Mr. Warren has a much more extensive file. Although there is an extensive case history, there are still, regrettably, certain outstanding issues.
I shall start by mentioning something that is no longer required, which is the apology to which I have already referred. That is the one issue on which progress has been made in the six years since this case was last raised in an Adjournment debate. The apology was issued, and in the letter Sir Paul Condon said:
"you are entitled to a full apology, which I unreservedly give and regret the distress caused to you."
Mr. Warren has accepted that apology.
I turn now to the first obstacle in the case, which I do not believe is insurmountable. It concerns the certificate of conduct stating when Mr. Warren left the police force. He has a clutch of certificates of conduct—I believe that there are seven in total—which contain six or seven different dates for when he was supposed to have left the force. The issue can be resolved, and a mutually acceptable leaving date can be found by the Met and Mr. Warren.
The second sticking point is much more challenging. It concerns the reluctance of the Metropolitan police to record the allegation of perjury made by Mr. Warren against Dr. Bott. The relevant section of the police training manual is unequivocal. It states that
"whenever an allegation is made that a crime has been committed, an entry must be made in the crime complaint form, even if the police officer concerned doubts the authenticity of the complainant's story."
One cannot misinterpret the police training manual. Yet, according to the House of Commons Library, the practice differs significantly between police forces, with some requiring corroborating evidence that an offence has been committed before an allegation of a crime of any nature is recorded.
I hope that the Minister can inform me—in writing at a later date, if necessary—whether the police are required, as the police training manual clearly states, to record every allegation of crime, or whether they can exercise a degree of flexibility in this respect, as they have informed me. Can the Minister cite any precedents? Has the issue been tested in court? I would like an answer on that point in the near future, if not now, because the allegation of perjury and its recording are central to the case.
The Metropolitan police will say that the matter has been investigated, but no investigating officer was appointed and Mr. Warren was never asked to produce in evidence his taped conversations with Dr. Bott, against whom he made the allegation of perjury. Mr. Warren is adamant that those tapes would show that Dr. Bott had subsequently knowingly distorted the medical facts, which would constitute perjury. If there has been an investigation by the Met into the allegation, it would appear to have been very one-sided. Is it too much to expect that Mr. Warren's allegation against Dr. Bott should be recorded? He is not even asking for it to be investigated. He simply wants the matter recorded.
The next impasse relates to the compensation figure. In fairness, I should point out that this matter has been before the Court of Appeal, which did not award aggravated or exemplary damages. However, the Court of Appeal might have been more generous to Mr. Warren
92WH
if it had not been misinformed about the pension that he was receiving. Their Lordships believed that it was a higher rate disability pension, rather than the ordinary pension that he was in fact receiving.
Regardless of what has happened in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the Met has offered an ex gratia payment of £85,000. That is the offer on the table. There has also been at least one letter suggesting a higher figure of £95,000, although that offer has subsequently been withdrawn. Mr.Warren and I do not find that acceptable. He has not worked for the past 15 years, or thereabouts, yet he could have expected to work for perhaps a further 13 years in the Met, were it not for the apparent vendetta against him. The offer of £85,000 is insufficient, especially when one takes into account the legal costs that he has incurred, which amount to more than £30,000.
If the Metropolitan police and the Home Office are confident that the compensation on offer is more than adequate, why will they not allow the financial settlement to be determined by an independent arbitrator? Mr. Warren is willing to allow such an independent assessment to take place and to be bound by its outcome. He is also willing to sign a document of full and final settlement promising to take no further action. However, he would of course require a similar commitment to the outcome of that review from the Met and the Home Office. The risk must be shared by all the parties involved.
Can the Minister confirm whether, if the Met authorises such an assessment and agrees to be bound by its recommendations, the Home Office will allow it to proceed? What value would the Home Office place on such recommendations if the arbitrator recommended that Mr. Warren should receive more substantial compensation?
The case smacks of the bad old days of the Met. It features attempts by less principled colleagues to throw a straight policeman out of the force. Dr. Bott, the medical officer working for the Met, produced a medical certificate stating that Mr. Warren was suffering from a personality disorder with paranoid tendencies, which was later found in the courts to be unlawful. It contained offers of unjustified—in Mr. Warren's view—medical pensions designed to get him to leave the force. Perhaps that was because his superiors felt that his face did not fit, or because he was too honest.
Eighteen years down the track, it is time for justice to be done. Mr. Warren has received an apology, but cannot live off an apology. He deserves financial compensation that is commensurate with the injustice that he has suffered, and is entitled to have his allegations against Dr. Bott recorded. Nothing less is required from the Met and the Home Office.
12.42 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate. This is a long-standing issue, as he explained, and I respect his sense of duty as a constituency Member of Parliament in taking up his constituent's case in the way in which his predecessor did. I acknowledge the tribute that he paid to his predecessor's work in that respect.

93WH
The case is unusual in that it has continued for 15 years. It was considered by the High Court in 1988 and by the Court of Appeal in 1989, and was raised in the House in 1994. It has been the subject of much correspondence.
Before going into the details of the matter, I should like to respond to an aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech which was unwarranted. His use of the word "vendetta" was not appropriate. The Metropolitan police has demonstrated at very senior levels its keenness to resolve the matter. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman testified to meetings that he and his colleagues have had with senior police officers. That belies the charge that a vendetta of some kind is preventing agreement from being reached.
Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way. I should put on the record the fact that I have had very positive dealings with senior officers in the Met, who are willing to put some effort into securing a resolution to the case. However, if one looks at the beginning of the case history, it is clear from the behaviour of some of the characters who were initially involved that there was a concerted effort on the part of a small number of officers to get Mr. Warren removed from his position.
Mr. Clarke: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's allegations regarding the time at which the matter first arose. I thought that he was suggesting that a current vendetta was making it more difficult to resolve the situation. I apologise if I misunderstood him, and take it from his remarks that he is not suggesting that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman's correspondence with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, copies of which he has sent to me, makes it clear that the hon. Gentleman is making positive efforts to resolve the matter, and the police are clearly trying to move in the same direction.
Many of the salient facts of the case are not in dispute, but it has still proved to be impossible to resolve. It is primarily a matter for the Commissioner, who has expressed to the hon. Gentleman his view that it is a matter of great sadness that Mr. Warren has been unable to agree a settlement, despite the efforts that have been made over the years by all parties. Everybody involved in this regrettable case is keen to achieve a resolution, and I appreciate that that is the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made his speech.
I shall not repeat the detailed history of the case, because the hon. Gentleman has already fairly and accurately summarised the key points. The courts—I emphasise that it is the courts—have determined that the appropriate procedures for Mr. Warren's compulsory medical retirement from the Metropolitan police service were not followed. It is accepted that Mr. Warren was treated unfairly and unlawfully. It is important to place that acceptance on record, because it acknowledges some of the hon. Gentleman's points.
The courts awarded Mr. Warren a total sum of about £16,800 in respect of pay and allowances due to him, plus interest. However, in the light of the references that have been made to the history of the matter, it is important to reinforce the point that the courts declined
94WH
to order Mr. Warren's reinstatement. Although they acknowledged the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, and made an award in respect of pay and allowances, they did not think it right to order the reinstatement of Mr. Warren after they had taken the full situation into account.
The courts—I emphasise that it was the courts, rather than the Commissioner, the Government or me—expressed the view that
"there has been no intention to injure Mr. Warren on the part of anybody".
I put that quotation on the record in the light of my exchange with the hon. Gentleman about the attitudes of various concerned parties. I understand from my experience of grievances that my constituents have raised with me that people are by no means always satisfied with the verdicts that come down through the legal system and seek redress in a variety of ways. I understand why the court's view may be unpalatable to some people, but it is important that it should be placed on the record.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's four points about seeking redress and resolving the matter. In addition to the sums awarded by the courts, which is a separate consideration, the Metropolitan police have sought to offer redress in a number of other ways. First, Mr. Warren has received a formal apology from the Commissioner, and I place on the record my appreciation of the generous spirit in which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that in his speech. I accept, as he said, that it took some time to reach that point. However, the apology was made—and generously made—and I am glad that he acknowledges that fact.
Secondly, Mr. Warren has been offered a further apology, as well as the reissuing of a certificate of service. That is in line with Mr. Warren's wishes. As the hon. Gentleman said, some outstanding matters remain to be resolved—in relation to precise timings, for example. However, the Metropolitan police believe that it will be possible to arrive at a resolution of those matters following good-hearted discussions by all sides.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of money, specifically the ex gratia payment. As he noted in his speech, the Metropolitan police have offered Mr. Warren an ex gratia payment of £85,000 in respect of the various judgments and decisions that have been referred to. I understand that Mr. Warren is unwilling to accept that proposed settlement. He believes that the quantum of the ex gratia payment is insufficient—for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman explained in his speech—and wishes the allegations that he has made of criminal conduct on the part of the medical officer involved to be pursued. I shall deal with the latter issue in a moment.
If aggreement can be reached about the ex gratia payment, that is fine, but I have a duty to consider the proper use of public money. No Government would sign blank cheques in that way and I would have to look carefully at the matter. The offer from the Metropolitan police is reasonable and I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will say so to his constituent and argue that it could form the basis of an agreement.
I come to the nub of the matter, which was the hon. Gentleman's third point: the issue of the allegations against Dr. Bott. I wish to emphasise several points in

95WH
this connection. The first is on the history of the case. The then assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, John Smith, considered Mr. Warren's allegation of perjury against Dr. Bott in 1988–11 years ago—and took the view that there was no evidence of an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911.
Mr. Brake: I am aware that that was the finding, but can the Minister explain how that conclusion was reached when no investigating officer was appointed to the case and the Metropolitan police did not listen to the tape recordings of discussions with Dr. Bott that Mr. Warren says are in his possession and support his allegations that Dr. Bott committed perjury?
Mr. Clarke: That is not my function. I have not had a quasi-judicial role in looking at the history of the case. However, the courts have and I now come to that.
As I said, the then assistant Commissioner, John Smith, considered Mr. Warren's allegations in 1988 and took the view that there was no evidence of an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911. Mr. Warren's allegation then formed part of his application to the divisional court and the Court of Appeal, which both dismissed his appeal for reinstatement. Following that resolution of Mr. Warren's grievance, the current deputy Commissioner—soon to be Commissioner John Stevens, wrote to Mr. Warren on 11 January 1999, almost a year ago today, stating that the matter had been fully considered. As there was no further evidence, the deputy Commissioner did not consider it appropriate to reopen the case.
I am advised that Mr. Warren has produced no new evidence on the matter. I acknowledge the points about tape recordings and other matters, but unless genuinely new evidence is produced—evidence other than that which was considered by the deputy Commissioner and then by the courts—there are no grounds for reopening the matter. It has been dealt with through our legal system, by the divisional court and the Court of Appeal. That judgment will be unwelcome to Mr. Warren, and possibly to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Warren's Member of Parliament, but a considered judgment of the court can be reopened only if it can be clearly demonstrated that new evidence and new circumstances justify doing so. At this stage, I see no such evidence.
My conclusion is therefore that the deputy Commissioner has made it clear that he feels that he has reached a point where he cannot reasonably do more to meet Mr. Warren's demand. I believe—the hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed this— that Mr. Warren's determination to pursue his allegation against Dr. Bott seems the major obstacle to making progress in the case. Of the four points raised by the hon. Gentleman, the first two are susceptible to resolution, the third, on the amount of money, is a matter about which everyone will have a different opinion, although I am bound by the consideration of the right spending of public money, and the fourth, on the allegations against the medical officer, appears to be an absolute block to reaching an agreement.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is seeking further discussions with the Metropolitan police to try
96WH
to achieve a settlement. I commend him and the Metropolitan police for trying to move the matter forward, but I am certain that reaching any satisfactory agreement is likely to involve compromise between the parties concerned, as in all cases of this type.
Mr. Brake: I raised two specific points that have not been addressed. Maybe the Minister will write to me about them in the next couple of days, but will he tell me now whether the police can avoid recording an allegation of crime and what view, if any, the Home Office has on an independent assessment of the financial compensation package?
Mr. Clarke: I thought that I dealt with the second point in what I said about the money. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was trying to say that, whatever investigation process is achieved, I shall still need to be satisfied that the amount of money proposed as a solution is a good and proper use of public funds. I acknowledge that one consideration in that regard is the desirability of achieving a solution to the situation so that it does not in various ways keep taking up time, resources and energy. An independent investigation may be agreed by all parties as an appropriate way forward, but I am not in a position to sign the Government up to saying that we will automatically fund whatever comes out of that process. We have to look at the amount of money that is recommended and come to a view about what is proper public spending. I did not address the hon. Gentleman's first point on the recording of allegations and will write to him on it, because he was making a general point about the way in which the police codes operate and how they can be addressed.
I conclude by saying that it is essential that any proposed settlement of the case be fair to the interests of all the parties involved, including the Metropolitan police, Mr. Warren and Dr. Bott. A settlement must be defensible in law and represent a proper use of public money and those criteria need to be taken into consideration in trying to reach a successful conclusion. I shall continue to look at the situation with those considerations in mind and hope that all parties involved seek to reach an agreement that respects those principles and moves them forward. As I think all parties would agree—certainly, judging from his opening speech, the hon. Gentleman would—the case has carried on for an unconscionable time. We must find a resolution that meets the honour of everyone concerned.
I studied the background to the case before the debate, as I knew nothing about it beforehand. I also listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I remain of the view that the main obstacle to achieving the kind of resolution that I have described remains how the questions and allegations about Dr. Bott's conduct are dealt with. There is a danger that we will be caught between a rock and a hard place and I urge the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his constituent, to do whatever he can—as I know from past experience he will want to do—to ensure a proper solution.

Serbia and Kosovo
1 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is a stuffy, smelly, airless room that is no substitute for the Chamber.
Since 10 June 1999, when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation entered Kosovo, no fewer than 200,000 non-Serbs have left the province, and that trend continues. The new wave of refugees has added more difficulties to the economy, which was partly destroyed as a result of NATO bombing, with the additional burden of many years of sanctions.
This winter, only 30 per cent. of homes in Serbia are adequately heated. Those that are well heated are the ones with gas heating, and Russia has greatly alleviated the shortage of energy by providing gas. However, 70 per cent. of homes are poorly heated or not heated at all, and all the hospitals are inadequately heated.
We must bear it in mind that one element of Yugoslavia's energy system—oil—is in short supply because of sanctions. Those who have oil heating are trying to switch to electricity, which is costly. The problem affects pensioners in particular, whose pensions are often not more than DM60 a month—roughly £24. They simply cannot afford to pay the electricity bills.
Schools are also inadequately heated. In December and early January, the temperatures in Yugoslavia were as low as minus 13 deg. Yugoslav people, a great many of whom have little or no political persuasion, feel that the American and British Governments are putting an extra strain on their prolonged suffering. As a result of poor heating, the recent flu epidemic, which was serious enough here, hit Serbia even more seriously, and information is now emerging that doctors and pharmacists do not have even the most basic medication.
Owing to NATO intervention and the continuation of sanctions, the most vulnerable people in society are suffering—children, the sick and the old. As the Minister knows, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and several others, I bitterly opposed the bombing before it happened and the hypocritical actions of politicians. The contrasts with Chechnya are becoming all too apparent.
In Kosovo, not a day goes by without Serbs being killed. Many non-Albanians are physically abused and kidnapped, and Serbian houses are being bombed and torched. Most information comes out of the region via refugees in Kosovo and radio amateurs. It is rather difficult to explain why the British Government and the British press are not reporting such news—of which they were full months ago—about what is really happening.
On 7 January, the Orthodox Christmas day, at 8.30 am, in Prizren, two Serb women on their way to church were killed by Albanian extremists. An effort has been made to find out about the incident, but I am told that neither the United Nations nor KFOR would co-operate. However, Susan Manuel, a UN spokeswoman, stated that on Wednesday 5 January, a 39-year-old Serb was shot three times in the head, also in Prizren. With the number of non-Albanians now being killed and the violence not decreasing, the authorities are withholding the names of those who have been killed or abused.
98WH
On 9 January, at 1.30 pm, an Albanian killed a Serb, Rodoljub Gasic, aged 47, who was sawing up logs in front of his house. KFOR members arrived to investigate the incident one hour later, even though it happened in Gnjilane, near the KFOR post. KFOR is overseeing what is little less than the genocide of Serbs in Kosovo. As a further example, in the town of Vitina, of a population of 3,000 Serbs many have been killed and only about 800 remain. Those who remain live in ghettos.
Further relevant facts illustrate the situation in Kosovo. Graveyards in Prizren and Urosevac, as in other parts of Kosovo, have been destroyed and desecrated. Fifty-six churches have been destroyed, and some were even bombed during the Orthodox Christmas. Unexploded cluster bombs that NATO dropped throughout Kosovo are taking their toll. The first question of which I gave notice related to cluster bombs. What is being done about the Human Rights Watch report?
Several hon. Members attended a very moving session with Professor Douglas Rokke, a patriotic American who was head of one of the investigating units. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office knew about his visit, and I said that there was a full report in The Scotsman under the bylines of Tim Llewelyn and Conal Urquhart. Does the Minister have anything to say about that? My third point relates to policy towards enclaves and the idea that, in order to protect such Serbs as remain, enclaves should be formed.
My fourth point is perhaps less weighty, but I ask for comment nevertheless. When my friend Craig Brown, the Scottish football team manager, proposed that the Scottish side might play in Belgrade, a ton of coals descended on his head for making such a suggestion. I may be wrong, but I thought that we had no quarrel with the Serb people. If that is so, what is the Government's attitude towards Craig Brown's proposal?
My fifth point relates to the speeding up of a film about the Grdelica train bombing, in which at least 14 civilians were killed. A videotape shown by NATO to explain the killing of those civilians on a train on a bridge in Serbia last April was shown at triple speed. The alliance has tried to excuse the killing of those civilians by saying that the train was travelling too fast for the missiles' trajectory to be changed in time. As I understand it, NATO war planes fired two missiles at the 50 m long bridge over the Juzna Morava river at Klisura, some 300 km south of Belgrade, on 12 April during the campaign to force Belgrade's troops to leave Kosovo.
NATO's supreme commander in Europe, General Clark, shortly afterwards showed two videotapes of the train apparently travelling fast on the bridge, and said that it had been impossible to alter the missiles' trajectories. The German press said that the two videotapes were shown at three times normal speed. A spokesman for NATO's military command in Mons in Belgium acknowledged in a telephone interview with Agence France-Presse that those images had been altered by "a technical problem".
Yesterday, along with George Alagiah and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), I took part in a long Esther Rantzen programme at Television Centre, in

99WH
which I had an exchange with Jamie Shea on the issue. Mr. Shea's answers were totally unconvincing. I wonder whether the Government have a more convincing answer.
I leave time for the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that he would like the hon. Member for Uxbridge to take part. Has either of them notified the Minister and sought his approval?
Mr. Dalyell: Of course. I sent copies of my letters to Madam Speaker to the Foreign Office.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful, as that is courteous and appropriate.
1.10 pm
Mr. John Randall: I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I feel privileged to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Not only do I agree with everything that he has said so far, even down to his comment about the atmosphere of the Chamber, but he provides an example to me as a new Member of the targets that a Back Bencher can and should achieve.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and I were fortunate to visit Montenegro a few weeks ago as part of a delegation from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We had the opportunity to speak to representatives of all the political parties and many other organisations from that country, and were fortunate also to speak to members of Serbian opposition parties who had travelled to Podgorica to discuss matters with us.
Some of us have believed for a long time, although it is generally disregarded in this and other western countries, that the NATO bombing had only a negative effect on the opposition forces trying to bring real democracy to Serbia. The opposition parties told us repeatedly that their job has been made 10 times worse. One of the main culprits that they blamed for their lack of movement was the American Government, who for a long time sustained the Milosevic regime because they could do business with it. When there might have been an opposition boycott of elections, the American envoy pooh-poohed the idea. Opposition parties regarded that as a major setback to their own progress towards democracy.
The opposition is highly fragmented and demoralised, and there is a plethora of opposition parties. There are more than 180 political parties in Serbia and a current joke, if it can be called a joke, is that, if two Serbs are in a room, the result will be three political parties.
There are one or two encouraging signs. Students have started a movement rather than a political party, which is called Otpor, and I sincerely hope that the British Government will give not only moral support but something more concrete to those who want to bring real change to the country.
There is a great feeling among the people in Serbia that they have been victimised, although we keep saying that our argument is not with them. A readily acceptable
100WH
way to show that would be to have some visits from sports teams, such as the visit from the Scottish football team that the hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned. Something of that nature would establish relations not at a political level, but at a human one. I suggest that Red Star Belgrade, which has now been depoliticised, might be a suitable opposition. There is an hon. Member connected with Coventry City football club—I believe that Coventry is twinned with Belgrade—so something of that sort could be possible. Such an event would help the Serbian people to realise that our argument is not with them, but with the regime.
I cannot stress the need to relax sanctions strongly enough, especially those on air travel, which affect Montenegro as well as Serbia. It was suggested to me that the sanctions against certain members of the regime and the ruling party would be more effective if other people could travel freely while they were denied access. The blanket nature of sanctions means that we are victimising a nation for the actions of a few.
I cannot think of a better way to start the process of bringing Serbia back into the international community than building bridges, which would be symbolic and actual. It would not simply be moral or intended to improve people's lives. There is also a commercial reason. I have heard that many of our European Union partners are busy quietly behind the scenes, working to establish contacts, and I fear that when relations are normalised, the British Government and the British people will be the losers.
1.17 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the debate. He is one of the Members of Parliament whom I most admire, and I know that he has deep concerns about the issue. I recognise his generosity in allowing the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) to contribute to the debate. I know of his interest in the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred to the situation in Kosovo and Serbia. I hope that hon. Members will find it useful if I address the subject of what Britain and our partners in the international community are doing to tackle the challenges, both immediate and longer term, that we face in the Balkans.
The successive crises of former Yugoslavia over the past decade show that the greatest obstacle to progress remains the policies of ethnic hatred and violence pursued by the regime of President Milosevic. He laid the seeds for conflict in Kosovo 10 years ago when he robbed that province of its autonomy.
Throughout the 1990s, despite international pressure, Milosevic refused to address legitimate demands from Kosovo Albanians for a political settlement. When those demands became radicalised, his forces responded with wholly disproportionate violence. Milosevic threw away the chance for a peaceful solution to Kosovo. That was bad enough, but, at the same time as his delegation pretended to negotiate a Kosovo settlement, his forces began an offensive, not only attacking the Kosovo Liberation Army but terrifying innocent men, women and children and driving them from their homes.
Faced with the need to avert an humanitarian disaster, all 19 Governments of NATO were clear that the alliance had to act. NATO's intervention was an

101WH
important setback to the policies of extreme nationalism, which have done such damage in the former Yugoslavia during the past decade. We now have the opportunity to press home our advantage and push for genuine change throughout the region.
Let me start with Kosovo. My hon. Friend kindly contacted my office yesterday to forewarn me of several questions that he was planning to ask today, which he has indeed asked. In the time available, I can give him only brief answers, but if he wishes, I should be happy to write to him after the debate to give him more details.
My hon. Friend referred to the recent press reports about the air strike on 12 April on the railroad bridge at Grdelica, in which a train crossing the bridge was hit accidentally. NATO has acknowledged that, by accident, the video footage of the incident was played back at higher than normal speed. It went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. A handful of accidents occurred out of 8,000 bombing missions. NATO's painstaking approach stands in stark contrast to the brutality of the Milosevic regime's ethnic cleansing policy.
My hon. Friend referred also to the use of cluster bombs in Kosovo. KFOR, including United Kingdom troops, has made a major effort to clear cluster bombs from Kosovo. The United Kingdom sector is now 80 per cent. clear. KFOR has also had the huge task of clearing mines left by Serb forces in Kosovo. Clearance efforts have concentrated on highly populated areas, including schools, of which more than 600 have now been cleared. Several deaths and injuries have occurred as a result of unexploded cluster bombs, which is why the clearance effort is so important.
My hon. Friend also referred to the use of depleted uranium. That was not used by United Kingdom troops. It is not prohibited by any international convention. It is not regarded by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection as a health hazard.
My hon. Friend also wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the press reports that the Scotland football team had been invited to play against the former Yugoslav republic, a point that he repeated today and that was also referred to by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. We do not discourage sporting links with the FRY, but the Scottish Football Association will doubtless wish to take into account the Foreign Office's advice on travel to Serbia and the lack of international flights into Belgrade.
Let me cover briefly the Government's approach to Kosovo. We have an opportunity in Kosovo to build a society based on modern European values: plural democracy, free media, open markets and the rule of law. The rebuilding of Kosovo is a massive task after decades of neglect and destruction wrought by Serbian oppression. The international community is making a massive investment through the UN mission, the NATO-led Kosovo force and bilateral aid via charities and non-governmental organisations. Britain continues rightly to play a leading role.
Since March last year, the Department for International Development has committed £90 million to Kosovo: first, for humanitarian relief and now for
102WH
rebuilding. British expertise, our soldiers and police officers have played an exceptional role. Progress has been made, but serious problems remain.
My hon. Friend raised the situation of minorities in Kosovo. The security situation, particularly for the minorities, remains of real concern to the Government. Many Serbs and other minorities fled Kosovo following the withdrawal of Serb forces in June. Some may have had good reason to flee, fearing indictment for war crimes, but many simply feared that they would be victims of revenge killings. Many left following violence and intimidation.
The European Union has made clear our condemnation of ethnic violence on any side. We have said that our substantial contribution to rebuilding Kosovo—as much as 500 million euros next year—would be affected if ethnic violence and intimidation continued. KFOR and the United Nations mission in Kosovo—UNMIK—are devoting a lot of time and effort to protecting the Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo. British soldiers live with Serb families in Pristina. They escort old people to the shops and younger people to schools and places of work, but that can be only a temporary solution, dealing with the symptoms rather than the disease. The lasting answer lies in building confidence among the communities and fostering hope and reconciliation.
Hon. Members have asked today why we are not helping to rebuild Serbia as we are helping in Kosovo. Our response is quite clear. The responsibility for what has gone wrong in Serbia rests with Milosevic, not with us. The targets that NATO hit in Serbia were chosen because of their high military value to the regime, which was conducting appalling repression in Kosovo. NATO's campaign was legitimate: it was necessitated by the actions of the Belgrade Government and Belgrade must take full responsibility for the results.
We have no quarrel with the people of Serbia. Our problem is with their leadership. We want Serbia to take its rightful place in the mainstream of modern Europe. It should, like its neighbours, including Montenegro, be participating in the stability pact and thus benefit from foreign investment, trade and co-operation, but Serbia cannot take part while it is ruled by men who are indicted for crimes against humanity. The EU and NATO are united on that, which is why we believe economic sanctions targeted on the regime should remain in place until there is real political change.
International policy is neither passive nor negative. We want to act to encourage change in Serbia. The European Union has set out in a public declaration to the people of Serbia the new opportunities of trade, investment and closer relations that will open up once again when they replace their current Government with a body that embraces the values of democracy, pluralism and tolerance. Last year, the British Government set up a special £3 million fund to provide help and support for the independent media and civil society across the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We are working to develop a professional, liberal media. We are running a series of conferences to bring together leading figures in Serbian society and the democratic opposition with their counterparts in Britain. We are

103WH
building co-operation between United Kingdom local authorities and municipalities in Serbia that are run by the democratic opposition.
Mr. Dalyell: What did the Secretary of State for International Development mean when she said that the west was ready to move if there was a health catastrophe in Serbia? Do we have plans to help in the event of such a catastrophe?
Mr. Vaz: We are always watching and monitoring the situation carefully. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was saying that Britain stands ready to help in any way. I have demonstrated in my speech today how much support we have given in Serbia.
The international community is in place on the ground in Serbia providing genuine humanitarian help. That will continue throughout winter and beyond. We must be wary, however, of playing into Milosevic's hands. His regime exercises control, often through corruption and cronies, across much of the Serbian economy, public and private sector alike. He, his family and their political and business allies have grown rich over the years as they have led their country into economic isolation and impoverishment. We must ensure that our aid is targeted carefully and that it goes to the families of those in need, not to the bank accounts of those who seek to exploit them.
I am sorry that I have not had the time this afternoon to answer all the points about Montenegro that my hon. Friend has mentioned. However, my door is open if he wishes to discuss with me the results of his visit to Montenegro and I shall be more than happy to see him. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the region is peaceful and prosperous once again.

Rent Officers (Stockport)
1.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I am grateful for the opportunity to tell hon. Members about the situation facing some 3,300 tenants in Stockport who have tenancy agreements with private landlords and who are in receipt of housing benefit.
Housing benefit is a complex area of benefits legislation. I shall focus on one aspect only, which is the support given by the Rent Service. To prevent abuse of housing benefit, there is a ceiling on the amount that will be paid to landlords for a property, which is based on its size and geographical location. The determination of that ceiling is in the hands of the rent officer service—recently renamed the Rent Service. Today's debate is necessary because of the arbitrary behaviour of the service for Greater Manchester and its determination of rent levels in Stockport. It has set rents at a different and inappropriate level, compared with those of a short time ago.
This time last year, the rent officer said that the standard reference rent—the fair rent—for a three-room property in Stockport was £98 a week. In setting that rent, the rent officer was also providing an opportunity for a prospective tenant to approach him and say, "I am considering taking out a tenancy agreement. What is the ceiling for the property?" That is a pre-tenancy determination. The rent officer issued certificates saying, "We will give your landlord £98 a week in support of your tenancy." Reassured by that offer, many of my constituents went on to make tenancy agreements with landlords; they paid deposits and moved into the property. Many of them may have subsequently sent their children to school, taken up local training courses and settled into a peaceful life in the community where they live.
During the course of last year, the rent officer changed his mind. Instead of offering £98 a week support for tenancies, he said that it would be reduced to £75 a week. That is a reduction of £23 a week for the standard reference rent for three-roomed accommodation. Housing benefit is paid not to the tenant, but direct to the landlord. For many tenants, the first time that they became aware of the problems was when the landlord got in touch with them to say, "Your arrears are running at £23 a week. Your deposit is being eroded, so what are you going to do about it?"
What is going to be done? The Government's official advice, which is contained in their benefits leaflets, is that tenants should try to negotiate a lower rent with their landlords. That is completely unrealistic. The Government rent and lease property in Stockport. The idea that even they can go to their landords asking to renegotiate the rent downwards because they do not have the money is absurd. To expect those at the bottom of the economic pile to be able to do so is not feasible.
What alternatives do tenants have? They can surrender their tenancies or sit it out and face eviction. In either case, they are likely to find that the deposit that they need to go into another property has been eaten up by arrears. Many approach the council to draw on its exceptional hardship fund, which is a statutory requirement that the council has been drawing from in considerable amounts in the past few months. The

105WH
exceptional hardship fund is exactly that: it must be for exceptional hardship. The council has received advice that it cannot make a class decision that all such people so affected can be paid.
Tenants can do what a number of them have done in Stockport and band together to take legal action against the Rent Service. There are plans for judicial review on the grounds of the unreasonableness of decisions, but tenants cannot appeal against a decision. There is no appeals system. Instead, they can go for a reassessment, which is not an appeal but a retrial. There are dire warnings to tenants who set off on this course that it is a retrial, so the sentence could be increased. They will not necessarily benefit from such action.
That official advice is also somewhat misleading. I made some inquiries to discover the position regarding reassessments in the north-west. About a quarter of all reassessments result in the tenant benefitting; about three quarters result in no change on the original rent officer's assessment; and about 3 per cent. result in a worsening of the tenant's position. Understandably, tenants who have already taken a hit of £23 a week, or more in some cases—we have recorded cases of more than £35 a week drop in support—are reluctant to opt for reassessment, with the possibility of their position being made worse.
I wonder whether I can tempt you to take a short journey along the A6, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a road that we both know well—from Manchester, somewhere around the area of Longsight, through to Poynton in your constituency. In October 1998, if I had wanted to take out a tenancy of four rooms in Manchester, let us say in Longsight, the rent officer believed that the support that I should get was £75.55 a week. By the time we have reached the middle of Stockport, for the same accommodation, the rent officer thought that the amount should be £90 a week. If we go a little further, to High Lane, the amount is £107.50 a week. In Disley and Poynton the rent support is £121.59 a week.
I know that you cannot participate in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you may be able to nod and encourage the Minister to make a helpful reply. That gradient of increasing property values fairly reflects the position along that stretch of road. There is a £15 increase from Longsight to Stockport, another £17 to High Lane and a further £14 to Disley and Poynton. I can still get my £76 a week in Longsight, but in Stockport and Hazel Grove, I am restricted to £84. If I am in Disley or Poynton, I can continue to receive £121.
The differential between the centre of Manchester and High Lane is 10 per cent. and the differential between High Lane and Poynton and Disley is 44 per cent. That is a manifest and gigantic step which is out of kilter with reality.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman ought to make at least some comparison between the private sector and the semi-public sector. Will he say what housing association rents are along that same gradient for probably rather better property? Does he accept that rents for housing association properties are about a third lower and that council rents along that same gradient are probably half
106WH
that level? Is it not a problem that private landlords in Stockport, in particular, have been ripping off the public purse with the levels of rent that they have been charging?
Mr. Stunell: No, it is not, I cite my own experience. About nine years ago, I rented property in my constituency. I was looking for the most economical accommodation and I was paying £390 a month. That is similar to the sum that was permitted until a year ago. The private rented sector in Stockport is no different from elsewhere. It reflects the pressure of demand. I remind the hon. Gentleman that about 6,000 people in Stockport are awaiting accommodation. The council cannot house them and only private rented accommodation is available. The overall result is that it is not now possible to rent private accommodation in my constituency and receive 100 per cent. payment of housing benefit. As a result, people are having to leave home and withdraw their children from school. We are facing economic cleansing. Poor people who need rented accommodation are no longer able to live in Hazel Grove.
Why is there such a discrepancy? Perhaps the answer is connected to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. When I approached the rent officer, the first reason that he gave me was that Stockport has two separate locations, which makes no sense, and that there should be only one. His argument appeared to be that one area has one ceiling, that the other area has a different ceiling and that both areas should clearly have the same ceiling. Fair enough, it is a thought; but surely the solution is not to reduce the lower ceiling by £6 and the higher one by even more.
The rent officer's second reason was that rents in Stockport are too high. My personal experience is that market forces appear to be operating exactly as one would expect. However, his third argument was the one that I found most difficult to accept. He suggested that the people affected should buy, not rent. He said that mortgage rates are now so low that it would be cheaper to buy a property than to rent it. He ignored the fact that those people are on benefit. They are on the poverty level, in many cases with no source of employment. For them, the option of buying does not exist.
Next, there is the "nod, nod, wink, wink" reason, which seems to be used in private whenever rent officers from other areas visit Stockport to make their reassessments; but the visitors, too, are puzzled. They do not understand why it happens, but they know that it helps to reduce expenditure. Will the Minister tell us whether the rent officer is conforming to a genuine Government directive, or what he believes to be a Government directive to reduce public expenditure—or has he simply decided to leave a time bomb for the newly reorganised service to face?
What I want to hear from the Minister is exactly the same as Stockport council wanted to hear when it wrote to the Department of Social Security on 12 November 1999—a letter to which, as of yesterday, no answer has yet been received. First, I want him to call off the rent officer. He should make a clear statement today that the Government do not want the housing benefit system to be used to cause the wholesale disruption of local communities. Tenants should not be used as a battering

107WH
ram to knock down Government expenditure. I want the Minister to tell the rent officer to reconsider the idea of restoring—
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has sought the permission of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) to intervene. It is a grey area. I shall permit interventions, provided that they are brief, but this is a private debate between the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and the Minister.
Mr. Stunell: On time grounds, I do not think that I can give way now. The hon. Gentleman had not approached me previously.
I want the Minister to ask the rent officer to consider restoring the two localities and to consider whether rent levels from Manchester, through central Stockport, to the suburbs and commuter villages beyond were not more realistic in October 1998 than in October 1999.
Next, I want pre-tenancy determinations to be valid for longer than the existing six months, which will create a cushion. When tenants take out annual tenancies, which is common in Stockport, they sign them in good faith. Those tenancies should not be put in peril by a rent officer's decision that they can neither avoid nor appeal against. When tenants initiate a redetermination following the rent officer's assessment, and it results in a further worsening of the tenant's position, I want a guarantee that it will in turn be frozen, because it is the only appeals system available. It is entirely unjust that a tenant should be prevented or restrained from resorting to the system simply because he might make his situation worse.
Lastly, I want to hear the Minister say that those problems will be carefully considered in the long-promised White Paper on housing policy, and that the Government intend to safeguard tenants from such abrupt and arbitrary changes and reductions in benefit—and to give them effective remedies when it happens.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this matter. I look forward to the Minister's response.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has raised an important matter. He asked about the role of the rent officer. It is to assess whether housing benefit claimants are being asked to pay more than the going rate in the open market. Rent offices do that by identifying what a person not on housing benefit would be prepared to pay for the dwelling concerned. The process involves a number of determinations, including the local reference rent, which effectively places a cap on the amount of housing benefit that a tenant can obtain, and it is linked to the general level of rents for similar properties in the area. It is therefore vital to ensure that rent officers perform their valuations accurately and consistently.
I should make it clear that rent officers are independent and that their advice should be impartial. Neither I nor my ministerial colleagues have any
108WH
authority to intervene in or overturn their decisions. However, my Department has responsibility for overseeing the work of rent officers, and I clearly have a duty to ensure that they are organised in a professional manner and are accountable for their decisions.
Our drive to modernise and improve Government was the main reason why we decided, in October 1998, to establish an agency for rent officers. Previously, the service consisted of 77 separate and largely unaccountable rent registration areas. Of course, there is no question of the independent status of rent officers diminishing under the agency. However, the establishment of the agency means that, for the first time, rent officers will operate within a central management framework that is committed to greater openness, more accountability and greater consistency.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the difficulties that some of his constituents face because of the recent determinations made by rent officers, and I am sympathetic to those difficulties. I recognise the serious consequences that flow when a tenant who has lived in a property for several years is faced with the stark choice of having to move because he can no longer afford to pay the rent.
The overriding objective of the housing benefit system is to enable those with no income of their own and those on low incomes to provide for their reasonable housing costs. The housing benefit system should cover reasonable rents that reflect the general level for similar properties in the area. However, housing benefit should not subsidise someone to live in a property that is unreasonably expensive. If it did, tenants would understandably have no incentive to look for more reasonably priced accommodation and landlords would have no incentive to seek more reasonable rents.
A fundamental principle of the regulations that the rent officers are required to follow is that their determinations must be based on rent levels that are being achieved in the open market. In that way, the possibility of housing benefit leading the market is negated. Of course, a rent officer does not endear himself to landlords or tenants by bearing down on rent levels. However, if all the evidence points to determining the rent lower than the expectations of the landlord and tenant, that is usually the right thing to do.
To understand the problems that have arisen in Stockport, it is important to bear in mind the local rental market conditions to which rent officers must have regard and which the hon. Gentleman described. Evidence collected by rent officers suggests that there is an oversupply of accommodation to let and that rent levels in the open market have been falling as a result. I accept that that is not likely to be the case in all parts of Stockport or for all types of accommodation, but the fact is that rent officers have taken the view that there is generally no scarcity of accommodation stoking up rent levels in the area.
Rent officers must regularly test the accuracy of market evidence and keep their market evidence database constantly under review. I understand that a comprehensive review of the rental market throughout Greater Manchester was undertaken in November 1998 and that it was repeated in June and December last year. I also understand that senior management in the Rent Service has considered circumstances in Stockport

109WH
closely and it concluded that rent officers have been following good and professional valuation practices. I have no reason to doubt that. However, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has rightly dwelt on the consequences of some of the decisions, however reasonable, and it is right that we should attempt to address them.
Ms Ann Coffey rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Please be very brief.
Ms Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way. The circumstances are very complicated, and he will be aware that more than £21 million of Government subsidy came into the private market in Stockport last year. At the same time, there are empty council properties, although I accept the remarks of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) about his constituency. As a way forward, will my hon. Friend agree to meet all Stockport Members of Parliament to discuss the matter in greater depth? The hon. Member fror Hazel Grove has made a valid point about the consequences in individual cases.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to resume her seat. I do not believe that she has done the hon. Member whose debate this is the courtesy of asking him whether she can intervene.
Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the conventions of Westminster Hall were to be the same as those in the main Chamber, where an hon. Member can seek to intervene without notice and the hon. Member making a speech may give way if he or she wishes. If we wish to take part in the debate, and want time to do so, we should ask the hon. Member in question. Surely we are entitled to the same conventions as those of the Chamber, which allow us to intervene if the speaker is prepared to give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is right to say that the procedures in this place are the same as those in the main Chamber. During an Adjournment debate, it is important for hon. Members who wish to intervene to seek not only the permission of the hon. Member who
110WH
has initiated the debate, but that of the Minister. Two interventions are allowed, and I have allowed them. We are taking time from the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.
Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) made a reasonable suggestion, which I am minded to accept and to which I shall return in a moment.
I should put some figures on record. Stockport council's welfare rights units reports various difficulties relating to recent rent officer determinations in the area. Of 2,110 tenants covered by the relevant housing benefit regulations, 400 have so far received a decrease in their benefit. Shortfalls are between £5 and £30 a week, although I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to one of £35. As he said, such tenants have to negotiate a lower rent, find the difference from another source or move. The council has so far awarded 140 exceptional hardship payments, at a cost of £51,000. As far as I am aware, no evictions have yet been made.
I am in a difficult position. I have had very short notice of the points that the hon. Gentleman wants me to consider, although I make no complaint about that. My powers are limited, and I cannot direct a rent officer. I am sure that he agrees that it is desirable that landlords should not be able to milk the housing benefit system, especially when a great deal of public housing that might be better used is lying idle. I acknowledge the difficulties faced by some of his constituents, which he outlined graphically.
I cannot promise to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but it would be helpful to consider the matter in more detail than has been possible in the short time available to me. I propose that all three Members of Parliament representing Stockport constituencies—
Mr. Stunell: There are four.
Mr. Mullin: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. There are four. I propose that those four hon. Members, representatives of Stockport council and the rent officer should come to see me so that we can discuss the matter rationally and calmly, first, to understand the consequences and, secondly, to find out whether there is a way of mitigating them.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Athletics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made of the suitability of the proposed ramped area for the use of athletes coming from the external road to the Olympic Track of the English National Stadium Project; and if he will make a statement. [104311]

  Kate Hoey
  Following his statement to the House on 1 December 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a further announcement about the future of Wembley on 22 December 1999 which confirmed that, subject to further discussions between Wembley National Stadium Ltd., the Football Association and Sport England, athletics will be removed from the new national stadium at Wembley and an alternative venue sought elsewhere in London. Copies of that announcement have been placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Water Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the amount of capital expenditure by the water industry for improving the environment over the past five years; and what his estimate is of the anticipated expenditure on such schemes, by the industry, over the next five years. [103101]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]: The Director General of Water Services has published the capital expenditure of the water industry on quality enhancement for the five years from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1999 in "1998–1999 Report on financial performance and expenditure of the water companies in England and Wales". Gross capital investment by the water industry on quality enhancement in this period was £6,691 million (in May 1999 prices).

  On 25 November 1999 the Director published "Final determinations: Future water and sewerage charges 2000–2005". This document sets out the provisions within price limits for expenditure to improve the environment in the five years beginning 1 April 2000. This includes provision for capital enhancement expenditure and capital maintenance expenditure of £8.5 billion to improve drinking water quality and reach higher environmental standards. £7.45 billion of this is capital enhancement
  160W
  expenditure. £1.03 billion is capital maintenance expenditure which will allow the companies to meet water quality and environmental obligations. The Director is writing to the hon. Member with fuller information on the figures he requests.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the leakage rates for each water company in England; and what steps are being taken to reduce these levels. [104291]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Director General of Water Services published the leakage rates for the water undertakers in England in 1998–99 in the "1998–99 Report on leakage and water efficiency" in December. These rates, in megalitres per day and as a percentage of distribution input, were as follows:

  Megalitres per day

  Percentage

  Anglian

  201

  18.1

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  25.7

  16.7

  Bristol

  56.4

  18.7

  Cambridge

  13.1

  18.5

  Essex and Suffolk

  76.4

  15.9

  Folkestone and Dover

  8.7

  17.8

  Hartlepool

  4.7

  13.9

  Mid Kent

  30.1

  19.0

  North Surrey

  22.3

  17.3

  North West

  510

  25.8

  Northumbrian

  171

  22.0

  Portsmouth

  30.5

  17.6

  Severn Trent

  344

  18.4

  South East

  198.9

  123.7

  South Staffordshire

  77.1

  22.3

  South West

  92

  21.1

  Southern

  95

  16.1

  Sutton and East Surrey

  24.9

  16.4

  Tendring Hundred

  5.5

  18.5

  Thames

  770

  31.1

  Three Valleys

  135.0

  19.8

  Wessex

  100

  25.9

  York

  9.0

  19.5

  Yorkshire

  333

  26.9

  1Following inquiries by Ofwat, South East Water was asked to resubmit its water balance for 1997–98 and 1998–99. However, the company failed to supply a robust data set in time for inclusion in the report. The figure given here is for 1996–97 and is taken from the 1996–97 report on leakage and water efficiency.

  The Director General of Water Services sets annual mandatory leakage targets for each water undertaker. The latest targets for 2000–01 were also published in the report. These targets represent a 31 per cent. reduction in leakage in England since April 1997. Over the next year, my Department, Ofwat and the Environment Agency will conduct a joint study into the scope for future leakage reduction.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much contaminated land has been reclaimed in each of the last five years in each local authority area in the north-west of England. [104289]
  161W
  Mr. Meacher
  Information on the amount of contaminated land reclaimed is not held centrally However, figures are available for the reclamation of

  DLG/LRP spend

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Cumbria CC

  3.19

  1.49

  2.60

  2.17

  1.34

  —

  Allerdale

  0.79

  0.00

  0.11

  0.18

  0.00

  —

  Barrow

  1.18

  0.04

  0.00

  0.06

  0.15

  —

  Carlisle

  0.07

  0.06

  0.15

  0.00

  0.01

  —

  Copeland

  0.19

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  Eden

  0.06

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  South Lakeland

  0.00

  0.05

  0.29

  0.06

  0.01

  —

  Cumbria Total

  5.48

  1.64

  3.15

  2.47

  1.51

  14.25

  Lancashire CC

  0.09

  0.05

  0.13

  0.21

  0.24

  —

  Blackburn

  0.07

  1.51

  0.17

  0.03

  0.13

  —

  Blackpool

  0.00

  0.02

  0.00

  0.01

  0.02

  —

  Burnley

  0.01

  0.05

  0.07

  0.02

  0.11

  —

  Chorley

  1.03

  0.11

  0.02

  0.08

  0.01

  —

  Fylde

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  Hyndburn

  0.93

  0.05

  0.00

  0.27

  0.20

  —

  Lancaster

  0.33

  0.00

  0.10

  0.02

  0.11

  —

  Pendle

  0.12

  0.00

  0.00

  0.25

  0.03

  —

  Preston

  0.23

  0.05

  1.04

  0.28

  0.00

  —

  Ribble V

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.04

  —

  Rossendale

  0.03

  0.02

  0.22

  0.19

  0.71

  —

  South Ribble

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  West Lancashire

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  Wyre

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  Lancashire Total

  2.84

  1.86

  1.75

  1.36

  1.60

  9.41

  Knowsley

  0.56

  0.40

  0.02

  0.10

  0.83

  —

  Liverpool

  0.00

  0.35

  0.24

  0.35

  0.18

  —

  Sefton

  0.63

  1.06

  0.77

  0.20

  1.33

  —

  St. Helens

  1.62

  0.45

  0.31

  0.56

  1.02

  —

  Wirral

  0.43

  0.33

  0.14

  0.37

  1.53

  —

  Merseyside Total

  3.24

  2.59

  1.48

  1.58

  4.89

  13.78

  Bolton

  0.14

  0.04

  0.05

  0.07

  0.02

  —

  Bury

  1.75

  0.12

  0.48

  0.80

  1.07

  —

  Manchester

  0.97

  0.91

  1.12

  0.78

  0.70

  —

  Oldham

  1.30

  0.37

  0.21

  1.80

  0.22

  —

  Rochdale

  0.45

  0.26

  0.05

  0.06

  0.10

  —

  Salford

  0.40

  0.83

  0.39

  0.66

  0.81

  —

  Stockport

  3.17

  0.00

  0.00

  0.20

  0.47

  —

  Tameside

  2.99

  0.83

  0.18

  0.28

  0.97

  —

  Trafford

  0.00

  0.00

  0.13

  0.53

  0.01

  —

  Wigan

  1.20

  0.85

  0.87

  1.12

  0.47

  —

  Greater Manchester Total

  12.37

  4.21

  3.48

  6.30

  4.84

  31.20

  Cheshire CC

  1.68

  0.09

  0.86

  -0.19

  0.69

  —

  Chester

  0.00

  0.00

  0.06

  0.00

  0.01

  —

  Congleton

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  Crewe and N

  0.08

  0.00

  0.00

  0.01

  0.00

  —

  E Port and N

  1.78

  0.18

  0.02

  0.08

  -0.06

  —

  Halton

  0.90

  0.29

  0.21

  0.05

  0.11

  —

  Macclesfield

  0.09

  0.18

  0.01

  0.01

  0.00

  —

  Vale Royal

  0.30

  0.08

  0.15

  0.12

  0.01

  —

  Warrington

  0.31

  0.03

  0.02

  0.00

  0.02

  —

  Cheshire Total

  5.14

  0.85

  1.33

  0.08

  0.78

  8.18

  Region Total

  29.07

  11.15

  11.19

  11.79

  13.62

  76.82

  162W
  derelict land. The table shows the spend by each local authority area, in the north-west region, for each of the last five years, under the Land Reclamation Programme.
  163W
  Figures are also available for the amount of derelict land estimated to have been reclaimed from approvals under this programme, in the last five years, in the north-west region. These are as follows:

  Year

  Hectares

  1994–95

  231

  1995–96

  221

  1996–97

  70

  1997–98

  167

  1998–99

  210

  These figures apply to derelict land in general, therefore it should be recognised that not all derelict land is contaminated, and much of the contaminated land which has been remediated is not derelict.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been put on local authority housing waiting lists in London boroughs in each of the last six months. [104363]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information is not held centrally on the numbers of people joining and leaving local authorities' housing registers/waiting lists.

  Beacon Councils
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many beacon councils have reached the Government's target of 25 per cent. recycling; and if he will list(a) the level achieved by each Beacon Council for waste management and (b) the councils not awarded beacon status which have achieved a higher level. [104290]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no recycling target which each individual local authority is expected to meet. There is a national goal to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005 or earlier.

  From the data supplied for the 1997–98 Municipal Waste Survey, three authorities chosen as Beacon Councils in the "Sustainable Development: Dealing with Waste" category have recycling rates of 25 per cent. or over:

  Gosport Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  New Forest District Council.

  Other non beacon authorities which are achieving 25 per cent. or more, are:

  Adur District Council

  Chichester District Council

  Chiltern District Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  East Dorset District Council

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  North Dorset District Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  South Bucks District Council

  Tandridge District Council

  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

  164W
  The remaining Beacon Councils are achieving the following recycling rates:

  Percentage

  Councils

  Between 20 and 25

  Rushmoor District Council

  St. Edmondsbury Borough Council

  Test Valley District Council

  Between 15 and 20

  East Hampshire District Council

  Fareham District Council

  Winchester City Council

  Between 10 and 15

  Basingstoke District Council

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  Hart District Council

  London Borough of Bexley

  Portsmouth City Council

  Less than 10

  London Borough of Hounslow

  Southampton City Council

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  Notes:

  1. Recycling rates are calculated as the quantity of household waste collected for recycling, expressed as a percentage of total household waste. These calculations exclude recycling of building rubble, and make no allowance for home composting.

  2. In non-unitary areas, the figures cover amounts collected within the area by both the Waste Collection Authority and the Waste Disposal Authority. In most cases, figures for total household waste (apart from amounts collected for recycling) are taken from returns from Waste Disposal Authorities.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in (i) his predecessor departments and English local authorities in 1979 and (ii) his Department and English local authorities in 1999. [104026]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (i) Available records indicate that on 1 January 1979, 26,438 staff were employed in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport. Age and gender analysis is not available for that time.

  In June 1979, the English Local Authorities employed some 1,813,000 staff. Again, analysis by age and gender is not available.

  (ii) On 1 April 1999, 15,520 staff were employed in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, of which 7,794 were men and 7,726 were women. The following is a breakdown into standard age groups for each gender:

  Age

  Men

  Women

  16–17

  1

  7

  18–19

  67

  101

  20–24

  366

  474

  25–29

  609

  693

  30–34

  793

  1,047

  35–39

  935

  1,332

  40–44

  1,091

  1,240

  45–49

  1,187

  1,064

  50 and over

  2,745

  1,768

  Totals

  7,794

  7,726

  165W
  This information is not available for employees of Local Authorities. On 12 June 1998, the latest date for which figures are available, some 1,360,000 staff were employed within the English Local Authorities. Age and gender analysis of this total is not available.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were registered homeless in London boroughs in each of the last six months. [104362]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information is published on households accommodated under statutory homelessness provisions in a quarterly Information Bulletin, "Statistics of local authority activities under the homelessness legislation: England". Information on a monthly basis is not collected centrally. Table 2 of the Bulletin presents a quarterly summary by region, including Greater London, of those households accepted as homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts.

  Copies of the Bulletin are in the Library, and the latest edition, published on 10 December 1999, presents statistics up to the third quarter of 1999.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights by United Kingdom and allied aircraft have taken place over Iraq during the last month; and what quantities of missiles were discharged into Iraq during that period. [103640]

  Mr. Hoon
  RAF aircraft undertook some 200 operational sorties during the period 18 November to 15 December in pursuit of their mission to prevent Saddam's air forces from persecuting the Kurds and Shia Muslims of northern and southern Iraq. Over this period, the RAF dropped six laser-guided bombs over Iraq in response to Iraqi threats.

  Insensitive Munitions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the exploratory talks on insensitive munitions. [104108]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  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. Mike Hancock, dated 12 January 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about representations received on the exploratory talks on insensitive munitions. This matter falls to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  It is not clear from the question which exploratory talks you have in mind, but if there are any further details you can let me have I will of course be happy to give a full reply. However, I can assure you that it is Ministry of Defence policy to ensure that munitions comply with NATO safety standards. One of these standards is that munitions shall be as insensitive as is practicable but still operate as intended.

  NATO Defence Capability Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the British members of the High Level Steering Group of the NATO Defence Capability Initiative and (b) the number of meetings so far which they have attended; and when the Defence Capability Initiative is expected to produce conclusions. [104270]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK's representative at the High Level Steering Group is the Director General for International Security Policy (DGISP), who is supported by the Defence Counsellor at the UK Delegation to NATO. DGISP has attended, or been represented at, all four of the Group's meetings to date. It will be some years before the DCI is complete but work is well under way.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 260W, if he will list the types of vessels which have undergone the programme to eliminate asbestos from on board; when he expects the programme to be completed; what is the estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [104349]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The comprehensive programme to eliminate asbestos is in its early stages and is expected to continue over the next 10 years, being undertaken during planned maintenance periods and refits. There are likely to be cases where it may be safer to leave the asbestos in place, undisturbed and sealed for the service life of the vessel. The use of asbestos in Royal Naval vessels is governed by the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, as amended. Safe alternatives have been fitted wherever practicable since the inception of the Regulations.

  It is estimated that the total cost of the programme to eliminate asbestos, wherever practicable, will be about £7.5 million. This includes the cost of replacement stocks.

  Imphal Barracks (Civilian Staff)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to answer the question tabled on 19 November for answer on 23 November by the hon. Member of Vale for York concerning the number of civilian staff employed at Imphal Barracks. [103760]

  Mr. Spellar
  I replied to the hon. Member on 21 December 1999.

PRIME MINISTER

  Barnsley
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Barnsley. [103458]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 353W, concerning the public disclosure

  167W
  of discussions at the JCCC, if he will investigate the source of the press reports of the JCCC meeting on 13 December. [104138]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the Sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [104643]

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce that Lord Neill has today published the Committee's Sixth Report. The report reviews the implementation of the recommendations from its First Report.

  The Government welcome the report. We will need to consider carefully the recommendations and will give a detailed response to the report in due course.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Animal Research
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the funding of researchers through MRC or ARC grants to travel abroad to conduct research on animals. [104282]

  Ms Hewitt
  The MRC and BBSRC (formerly known as ARC) do not provide funds for any animal research unless the work proposed is of high quality, the need to use animals has been properly justified, and any suffering is minimised.

  Collaborations between UK scientists and their counterparts in the USA, Europe, or other countries play an important role in ensuring the quality and efficiency of UK scientific research, and avoiding duplication. Researchers supported through MRC and BBSRC grants will often pursue joint projects with researchers in other countries, and a small proportion of these may involve animals.

  Unit of delivery

  Starts to FTET option between January 1998 and July 1999

  Of which, number who had left New Deal by the end of September 1999

  Number recorded as completing FTET option before leaving New Deal

  As a percentage of those for whom completed/left early is known

  Number recorded as leaving FTET option early before leaving New Deal

  As a percentage of those for whom completed/left early is known

  Number who had left for an unknown destination by the end of September 1999

  As a percentage of those who had left New Deal by the end of September 1999

  Tayside

  474

  323

  61

  36

  109

  64

  47

  15

  Ayrshire

  371

  242

  37

  25

  113

  75

  29

  12

  Borders

  64

  34

  1

  7

  14

  93

  8

  24

  Dumfries and Galloway

  181

  101

  23

  40

  35

  60

  19

  19

  Dunbarton

  211

  103

  15

  28

  38

  72

  21

  20

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  317

  200

  24

  29

  58

  71

  40

  20

  Fife

  479

  295

  48

  30

  113

  70

  60

  20

  Forth Valley1

  294

  145

  18

  24

  58

  76

  31

  21

  Glasgow

  1,112

  570

  74

  24

  240

  76

  133

  23

  Grampian

  134

  80

  11

  28

  29

  73

  15

  19

  Moray, Strathspay and Badenoch

  35

  23

  7

  70

  3

  30

  7

  30

  Lanarkshire

  651

  348

  23

  12

  176

  88

  65

  19

  Renfrewshire

  272

  153

  22

  23

  73

  77

  36

  24

  West Lothian

  98

  60

  7

  21

  26

  79

  12

  20

  Argyll and The Islands

  20

  9

  0

  0

  3

  100

  1

  11

  Caithness and Sutherland

  30

  15

  1

  14

  6

  86

  2

  13

  Inverness and Nairn

  44

  22

  8

  53

  7

  47

  5

  23

  Lochaber

  6

  2

  0

  0

  1

  100

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  30

  17

  7

  88

  1

  13

  4

  24

  Orkney

  6

  2

  1

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  168W
  The MRC and BBSRC expects UK researchers collaborating overseas to ensure standards at least meet those set out in the individual Research Council's own ethical guidelines. The Research Councils will not provide grant funds for animal research if it appears that it is being done overseas in order to reduce costs or to bypass the high standards set in the UK.

  Very occasionally, MRC has provided funds for work on health problems in developing countries where the medical problem being studied—for example, transmission of parasites from animals to people—has meant the research had to be done in the developing country.

  BBSRC funds the travel and subsistence costs of researchers to enable them to visit overseas research laboratories for short periods. Research on animals may be involved, but the annual number of such travel and subsistence is small, and those involving animal research is a small fraction of this.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people joined the Full Time Education and Training Option of the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds between January 1998 and the end of July 1999, by unit of delivery; how many and what percentage of these(a) completed their courses before leaving the New Deal, (b) left their courses before completing them and (c) left at any stage for unknown destinations. [100807]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The information available currently is shown in the following table. The Full-Time Education and Training (FTET) Option is designed to give people the skills that they need to get jobs; of the 7,891 young people shown as having left the Option early, 3,200 or 40 per cent. had found jobs. A recent survey has shown that 57 per cent. of young people leaving New Deal for unknown destinations had found a job.
  169W

  Unit of delivery

  Starts to FTET option between January 1998 and July 1999

  Of which, number who had left New Deal by the end of the September 1999

  Number recorded as completing FTET option before leaving New Deal

  As a percentage of those for whom completed/left early is known

  Number recorded as leaving FTET option early before leaving New Deal

  As a percentage of those for whom completed/left early is known

  Number who had left for an unknown destination by the end of September 1999

  As a percentage of those who had left New Deal by the end of September 1999

  Ross and Cromarty

  43

  28

  9

  64

  5

  36

  4

  14

  Shetland

  6

  4

  0

  0

  1

  100

  4

  100

  Skye and Lochalsh

  5

  1

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Newcastle, Gateshead and South Tyneside

  1,665

  891

  161

  36

  281

  64

  198

  22

  Northumberland

  406

  185

  43

  38

  69

  62

  28

  15

  Tyneside North1

  415

  167

  36

  40

  54

  60

  31

  19

  Durham North and Durham South

  1,038

  526

  91

  29

  225

  71

  129

  25

  City of Sunderland formerly Wearside

  767

  363

  79

  42

  110

  58

  74

  20

  Tees North and Tees South

  1,480

  597

  84

  28

  216

  72

  157

  26

  Cumbria

  478

  235

  36

  30

  83

  70

  41

  17

  Wirral

  524

  318

  53

  32

  113

  68

  58

  18

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre

  127

  78

  7

  20

  28

  80

  20

  26

  Bolton

  116

  58

  8

  47

  9

  53

  11

  19

  Bury

  115

  56

  12

  55

  10

  45

  19

  34

  Central Lancashire

  128

  72

  5

  13

  33

  87

  16

  22

  Cheshire

  222

  94

  5

  11

  42

  89

  22

  23

  City Pride Manchester

  874

  394

  58

  36

  102

  64

  100

  25

  East Lancashire

  283

  148

  22

  24

  69

  76

  37

  25

  Halton and Warrington

  335

  151

  9

  18

  42

  82

  27

  18

  Knowsley

  552

  273

  18

  13

  125

  87

  77

  28

  Liverpool

  1,438

  633

  79

  26

  220

  74

  146

  23

  North Lancashire

  137

  79

  16

  32

  34

  68

  22

  28

  Oldham

  141

  63

  2

  10

  18

  90

  18

  29

  Rochdale

  259

  160

  13

  20

  51

  80

  48

  30

  Sefton

  395

  209

  31

  36

  55

  64

  43

  21

  St. Helens

  244

  97

  11

  21

  41

  79

  20

  21

  Stockport

  120

  60

  8

  26

  23

  74

  23

  38

  West Lancashire1

  104

  35

  7

  70

  3

  30

  4

  11

  Wigan

  177

  83

  5

  12

  37

  88

  26

  31

  Sheffield

  1,044

  558

  93

  35

  174

  65

  149

  27

  Rotherham

  664

  357

  57

  28

  145

  72

  95

  27

  South Humber1

  242

  92

  4

  8

  44

  92

  26

  28

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  652

  295

  40

  25

  118

  75

  98

  33

  Barnsley and The Dearne

  646

  303

  19

  14

  115

  86

  83

  27

  Bradford

  780

  442

  71

  30

  166

  70

  132

  30

  Hull and East Coast formerly Hull

  883

  433

  42

  27

  86

  79

  89

  33

  Leeds

  511

  269

  23

  21

  86

  79

  89

  33

  North Yorkshire

  322

  184

  33

  35

  62

  65

  52

  28

  Wakefield and Doncaster

  791

  453

  43

  16

  219

  84

  124

  27

  West Wales

  365

  180

  26

  29

  65

  71

  51

  28

  Swansea

  488

  307

  42

  26

  118

  74

  81

  26

  North West Wales

  214

  96

  15

  37

  26

  63

  15

  16

  Powys

  60

  30

  6

  38

  10

  63

  6

  20

  Ceredigion

  59

  28

  6

  46

  7

  54

  7

  25

  North East Wales formerly Flintshire and Wrexham

  133

  55

  4

  29

  10

  71

  9

  16

  North Wales Coast

  146

  66

  12

  40

  18

  60

  17

  26

  Cardiff and Vale

  358

  206

  31

  37

  53

  63

  49

  24

  Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys1

  289

  114

  13

  27

  35

  73

  26

  23

  Heads of the Valley and Caerphilly

  389

  179

  17

  18

  76

  82

  26

  15

  Newport, Torfaen and Monmouth

  217

  125

  17

  23

  56

  77

  32

  26

  Black Country

  1,515

  727

  74

  24

  239

  76

  190

  26

  Birmingham

  1,538

  556

  62

  36

  112

  64

  157

  28

  Solihull1

  198

  82

  3

  8

  35

  92

  22

  27

  Staffordshire

  526

  223

  15

  14

  91

  86

  59

  26

  Hereford and Worcester

  177

  101

  17

  35

  32

  65

  26

  26

  Coventry

  318

  161

  16

  30

  37

  70

  48

  30

  Warwickshire

  155

  78

  12

  34

  23

  66

  28

  36

  Shropshire

  158

  74

  5

  17

  24

  83

  22

  30

  Southern Derbyshire

  419

  240

  24

  25

  72

  75

  57

  24

  Cambridge TTWA

  141

  71

  12

  43

  16

  57

  17

  24

  North Derbyshire

  313

  164

  26

  33

  54

  68

  33

  20

  Leicestershire1

  442

  173

  13

  21

  50

  79

  64

  37

  Lincolnshire

  350

  184

  30

  30

  70

  70

  58

  32

  Norfolk

  506

  252

  40

  31

  91

  69

  37

  15

  West Norfolk

  79

  42

  3

  10

  26

  90

  11

  26

  Northamptonshire

  147

  93

  9

  20

  35

  80

  27

  29

  Greater Nottingham

  590

  260

  34

  27

  94

  73

  78

  30

  North Nottinghamshire

  391

  157

  24

  27

  64

  73

  41

  26

  Peterborough

  147

  85

  10

  21

  38

  79

  26

  31

  Suffolk

  369

  173

  30

  32

  64

  68

  30

  17

  Waveney

  171

  55

  14

  44

  18

  56

  7

  13

  Cornwall

  433

  286

  64

  47

  73

  53

  60

  21

  Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset

  86

  49

  5

  26

  14

  74

  10

  20

  170W

  171W

  Unit of delivery

  Starts to FTET option between January 1998 and July 1999

  Of which, number who had left New Deal by the end of September 1999

  Number recorded as completing FTET option before leaving New Deal

  As a percentage of those for whom completed/ left early is known

  Number recorded as leaving FTET option early before leaving New Deal

  As a percentage of those for whom completed/ left early is known

  Number who had left for an unknown destination by the end of September 1999

  As a percentage of those who had left New Deal by the end of September 1999

  Bristol and South Gloucestershire formerly Central Bristol

  317

  151

  15

  18

  67

  82

  52

  34

  Dorset

  260

  159

  26

  31

  57

  69

  43

  27

  Exeter and East Devon1

  144

  57

  6

  21

  23

  79

  10

  18

  Torbay and South Devon formerly South Devon

  199

  112

  13

  19

  57

  81

  21

  19

  North Devon

  64

  38

  10

  59

  7

  41

  10

  26

  Gloucestershire

  149

  91

  9

  22

  32

  78

  19

  21

  Plymouth

  501

  279

  39

  26

  111

  74

  63

  23

  Somerset

  242

  136

  19

  28

  48

  72

  36

  26

  Wiltshire and Swindon formerly Wiltshire

  154

  90

  10

  19

  42

  81

  22

  24

  Eastbourne and Hastings formerly Eastbourne

  261

  162

  20

  27

  55

  73

  57

  35

  Lambeth

  367

  183

  33

  52

  30

  48

  63

  34

  Harlow

  51

  32

  3

  20

  12

  80

  15

  47

  Hackney and City1

  580

  150

  20

  36

  35

  64

  42

  28

  Hertfordshire

  320

  181

  13

  19

  55

  81

  59

  33

  Brighton

  154

  65

  8

  31

  18

  69

  17

  26

  Canterbury

  242

  120

  15

  31

  34

  69

  36

  30

  Channel

  156

  78

  10

  31

  22

  69

  19

  24

  Chatham

  300

  148

  20

  25

  59

  75

  43

  29

  Crawley

  35

  19

  3

  33

  6

  67

  8

  42

  Croydon and Bromley

  240

  111

  10

  23

  33

  77

  32

  29

  Guildford

  79

  55

  10

  36

  18

  64

  15

  27

  Lewisham

  305

  86

  11

  41

  16

  59

  27

  31

  Maidstone, Dartford and West Kent

  97

  54

  6

  25

  18

  75

  10

  19

  Southwark

  467

  179

  14

  30

  32

  70

  55

  31

  Greenwich

  402

  139

  17

  37

  29

  63

  33

  24

  Bexley

  114

  44

  7

  30

  16

  70

  9

  20

  Sutton, Merton Esher, Kingston, Epsom

  164

  76

  8

  38

  13

  62

  19

  25

  Wandsworth

  223

  95

  16

  43

  21

  57

  39

  41

  West Sussex Coastal Plain

  56

  28

  2

  18

  9

  82

  14

  50

  South Essex

  353

  192

  31

  49

  32

  51

  42

  22

  North Essex1 formerly North and Mid Essex

  275

  151

  24

  32

  52

  68

  35

  23

  Edgware and Leaside

  801

  320

  39

  40

  58

  60

  107

  33

  North East London

  398

  176

  35

  40

  52

  60

  68

  39

  Havering, Barking and Dagenham

  257

  133

  18

  37

  31

  63

  34

  26

  Newham

  609

  157

  23

  43

  31

  57

  49

  31

  Tower Hamlets

  299

  109

  20

  83

  4

  17

  39

  36

  Camden and North Islington

  338

  %

  20

  65

  11

  35

  30

  31

  Ealing and Hillingdon formerly Ealing

  260

  105

  11

  37

  19

  63

  38

  36

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  339

  213

  19

  22

  68

  78

  40

  19

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  92

  51

  6

  21

  22

  79

  16

  31

  Mid Hants

  38

  18

  3

  38

  5

  63

  6

  33

  Oxfordshire

  177

  82

  6

  21

  23

  79

  19

  23

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  393

  229

  26

  29

  65

  71

  75

  33

  Isle of Wight

  126

  52

  6

  32

  13

  68

  17

  33

  Reading

  36

  24

  1

  13

  7

  88

  5

  21

  Slough

  137

  70

  13

  35

  24

  65

  19

  27

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  67

  99

  16

  39

  25

  61

  36

  36

  Wembley

  482

  208

  29

  45

  35

  55

  58

  28

  Westminster

  115

  30

  1

  13

  7

  88

  7

  23

  Hounslow and Richmond

  181

  94

  17

  40

  25

  60

  30

  32

  Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea

  270

  87

  4

  20

  16

  80

  23

  26

  Great Britain2

  48,631

  23,674

  3,213

  29

  7,891

  71

  5,998

  25

  1 A private Sector led Unit of Delivery

  2 Great Britain excludes those for whom no Unit of Delivery is recorded on the New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people(a) have found sustained unsubsidised employment of 13 weeks or more, (b) are on follow-through and (c) have left for destinations other than sustained unsubsidised employment of 13 weeks or more from the New Deal scheme. [102108]
  172W
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The New Deals have made an excellent start in helping unemployed people into work. Latest figures to the end of October 1999 show that, through the New Deal for Young People, 107,280 people have found sustained unsubsidised employment, 22,980 young people were on Follow-Through and 144,290 young people were recorded

  173W
  as having left New Deal for destinations other than sustained unsubsidised employment.

  Of the 144,290 recorded as destinations other than sustained employment, 30,060 transferred to another benefit, 44,750 went to another known destination and 69,480 went to an unknown destination. A recently published study reporting on clients who left the Gateway stage of New Deal for an unknown destination and whose JSA claim which qualified them for New Deal had been closed found that 57 per cent. of them left New Deal to go into paid employment. Over 100,000 young people have gained training and work experience in the non-employment options.

  Through the New Deal for long-term unemployed people aged 25 and over, equivalent figures were 19,730 into sustained unsubsidised employment, 990 older clients on the Follow-Through stage and 94,100 to destinations other than sustained unsubsidised employment.

  A further 24,430 unemployed people under these two New Deals have found sustained subsidised employment.

  A sustained job is one where the client does not return to JSA or New Deal within 13 weeks.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people in West Sussex have been through the New Deal scheme; and how many have subsequently found unsubsidised employment. [104273]

  Ms Jowell
  The latest statistics to the end of October 1999 show that of the 676 young people who started New Deal in the West Sussex Coastal Plain Unit of Delivery, 447 had left. It is encouraging that in West Sussex, 347 young people have found unsubsidised employment when they were benefiting from the New Deal. Others will have found work without informing the Employment Service.

  Unemployment (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of unemployment among members of ethnic minority groups; and if he will make a statement. [103248]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: Figures from the Labour Force Survey are as follows:

  Employment

  Level (thousand)

  Rate (percentage)

  Change in rate over last year percentage points

  All

  —

  —

  —

  White

  26,200

  75.6

  +0.8

  All ethnic minority groups

  1,350

  58.3

  +2.0

  Black

  400

  62.8

  +1.7

  Indian

  420

  68.0

  +2.9

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  220

  40.8

  +0.9

  Chinese

  60

  55.6

  +5.6

  Other origins

  255

  60.2

  +1.6

  174W

  ILO unemployment

  Level (thousand)

  Rate (percentage)

  Change in rate over last year percentage points

  All

  —

  —

  —

  White

  1,600

  5.7

  -0.4

  All ethnic minority groups

  200

  13.3

  -0.8

  Black

  75

  15.5

  -0.2

  Indian

  40

  8.7

  +0.2

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  55

  19.5

  -4.6

  Chinese

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Other origins

  35

  12.6

  -1.6

  1 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Note:

  Figures are for summer 1999, not seasonally adjusted

  The unemployment rate among ethnic minority groups is unacceptably high but is improving. The Government are committed to ensuring that this improvement continues and are working with key partners on a range of measures to bring about equality of opportunity in the labour market for all groups in society.

  The Department's Race Relations Employment Advisory Service (RREAS) provides a free advice and consultancy service to employers to help develop and implement equal opportunity policies and practices for racial equality among the work force. The Department also publishes a range of guidance to promote racial equality in employment including "Equal Opportunities—Ten Point Plan for Employers".

  The Department is working with others, including the Commission for Racial Equality, to promote the message to employers that racial diversity in the workplace is essential for good business practice. The Department has also recently established a new strategic race advisory body called the Race Education and Employment Forum. Its remit is to consider and advise Ministers on matters relating to the progress of ethnic minorities in education, employment and training.

  The Department has recently led the work of the Policy Action Team on Jobs, whose members included officials from a number of Government Departments, as well as external organisations. It was asked to develop an action plan to reduce the difference between levels of worklessness in poor neighbourhoods and the national average, and within that to reduce the disproportionate unemployment rates for people from ethnic minorities. The PAT's report was published last month and its recommendations will be considered as part of the Social Exclusion Unit's work developing a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal.

  The Department has also commissioned research into a wide range of aspects of the labour market experience of ethnic minority groups, including the transition from education to work, adult learning among ethnic minorities and the education and labour market position of young black men.

  Remploy
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has received a copy of the Bourton report on Remploy; and what plans he has to make the Bourton report available to(a) hon. Members, (b) employee representatives and (c) the general public. [104095]

  Ms Hodge
  As the Minister responsible for Remploy, I can confirm that I have received a copy of the interim report from the Bourton Group on Remploy. This report is a commercially sensitive document about the strategic development and management of a competitive company. For that reason I do not intend to make copies of the report more widely available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the consultation exercise on the future of Remploy factories. [104096]

  Ms Hodge
  Consultation about the current Remploy Corporate Plan (1999–2002) has been extensive. Remploy employees, trade union officials, relevant Local Authorities and local MPs/Members of the Welsh Assembly have all been given full opportunity to give input and discuss the Plan with Directors of Remploy.

  In addition, since 15 September 1999 there have been five meetings between representatives of the Remploy Trades Union Consortium and the Board of Directors of Remploy to discuss the Corporate Plan for 2000–03. These meetings have been constructive. This consultation is due to finish later this month. No final decisions will be made on any modernisation proposals until this consultation is concluded.

  All those with an interest in Remploy are also being invited to contribute to the Quinquennial Review of Remploy. The prior option stage of the review, which was announced in the House on 18 November, is due to be completed by the end of March 2000.

  Finally, my officials have been undertaking a consultation exercise about how the Supported Employment Programme as a whole could be developed to open up more opportunities for disabled people to work and progress into open employment. A wide range of organisations and individuals have responded, including trade unions, voluntary and statutory organisations and any others with an interest in the employment of people with disabilities. The responses are currently being collated and analysed.

  Age bands

  16–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50+

  Total

  Non Prison Service Home Office as at 1 April 1999

  (a) Men1

  9

  159

  541

  810

  748

  665

  760

  1,471

  5,163

  (b) Women

  32

  286

  882

  1,145

  920

  629

  643

  1,028

  5,565

  Grand total

  41

  445

  1,423

  1,955

  1,668

  1,294

  1,403

  2,499

  10,728

  Prison Service as at 21 December 1999

  (a) Men

  39

  515

  1,886

  4,692

  5,552

  4,770

  4,396

  10,128

  31,978

  (b) Women

  69

  822

  1,615

  2,057

  2,054

  1,599

  1,323

  2,010

  11,549

  Grand total

  109

  1,337

  3,501

  6,749

  7,606

  6,369

  5,719

  12,138

  43,528

  1 Figures are for permanent non-industrial staff

  Standards Fund
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to reduce the bureaucracy brought about by varied bidding criteria for the Standards Fund. [104395]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For the Standards Fund for 2000–01 we have reduced the number of grants allocated via competitive bidding. Seven of the 38 grants for 2000–01 required competitive bidding, compared to 10 in 1999–2000 and 14 in 1998–99.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Night Shelters
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the law in respect of(a) the provision of day and night shelter places to people who may be drug users and (b) the vulnerability of managers, staff and trustees of day and night shelters to charges of not preventing the use or the supply of banned drugs. [R] [103912]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No. Day and night shelters are subject to the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and must operate in accordance with the law. Decisions on whether to offer day and night shelter places to people who may be drug users are for the managers of individual establishments. Managers, staff and trustees of day and night shelters should ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent the supply or use of controlled drugs on the premises in accordance with the law. However, we do recognise the concerns of some agencies following the recent conviction of Ruth Wyner and John Brock and we will therefore consider, with the relevant agencies, whether further guidance is needed in this area.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department and in police forces and fire departments in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104027]

  Mr. Straw
  The numbers of men and women employed in the standard age groups for 1999 are set out in the tables. The available published staffing figures for 1979 may be found in Civil Service Statistics 1979, a copy of which is in the Library. Where possible, information has been given at or near the 1 April 1999. It has not, however, been possible to provide Prison Service figures on this basis: this information is as at 21 December 1999. Age breakdowns for the Fire and Police Services are not available in the form requested except at disproportionate cost.
  177W
  For the Police Service, the following figures were published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 14/99 on 26 August 1999 and are available in the Library.

  Police Service staffing figures at March 1999

  Number

  Male

  105,379

  Female

  20,038

  For the Fire Service, the following figures were published in the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services for England and Wales 1998–99 in December 1999 and are available in the Library.

  Fire Service staffing figures at 31 March 1999

  Male

  Female

  Wholetime uniformed staff1

  33,398

  258

  Control room staff

  312

  1,164

  Retained staff2

  14,421

  244

  Total

  48,131

  1,666

  1 Wholetime is full-time operational workforce

  2 Retained staff refers to part-time firefighters employed on a retaining fee

  Umbrellas
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many umbrellas his Department purchased for use by persons queuing outside passport offices during the summer of 1999; how much was spent on them; what plans he has to dispose of them; and what estimate he has made of their resale value. [103959]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of umbrellas purchased for each passport office during the summer was 200, totalling 1,200 in all. These cost £10.50 plus VAT for each item for supply and delivery, £14,805 in total. There are currently no plans to dispose of the umbrellas and, therefore, no estimate has been made of their resale value.

  Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions have been made against illicit(a) advertisers, (b) suppliers and (c) manufacturers of gamma hydroxy butyrate in each of the last five years. [103374]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  All cases prosecuted by the Medicines Control Agency to date have been successful. The statistics in respect of prosecutions to date are as follows:

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Advertising

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Supply

  2

  0

  0

  1

  6

  9

  Manufacture

  2

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  Total

  9

  2

  0

  2

  8

  21

  Further investigations of gamma hydroxy butyrate are currently ongoing and referrals in respect of GHB are always investigated.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department plans to introduce measures to bring licensed production agreements within the strategic export control legislation. [104155]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 458W.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104028]

  Mr. Hain
  It is not possible to provide a breakdown for the standard age groups employed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for 1979 as detailed information prior to 1990 is not available. The breakdown for the standard age groups for 1 April 1999 is as follows:

  Men

  Women

  16–19

  9

  10

  20–24

  63

  68

  25–29

  381

  356

  30–34

  598

  509

  35–39

  460

  333

  40–44

  443

  197

  45–49

  468

  161

  50+

  1,063

  365

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the number of punishment beatings in the last six months. [103418]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period 1 July to 22 December 1999, there were a total of 76 paramilitary style attacks. There were 24 shootings and 33 assaults attributed to Loyalist groups and five shootings and 14 assaults attributed to Republican groups.

  North/South Ministerial Council
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation he has held with the North/South Ministerial Council concerning economic development in the last 12 months. [103420]

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation he has had with the north/south Ministerial Council. [103431]
  179W
  Mr. George Howarth
  None. Since devolution on 2 December, economic development in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. The North/South Ministerial Council and the Trade and Business Development Board have a role to play where this involves co-operation between the Assembly and the Dail. Both the Council and the Body are accountable to the Assembly and the Dail.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [103422]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Belfast agreement. [103436]

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Belfast agreement. [103439]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have set up the new devolved institutions for Northern Ireland and transferred powers to them. We have implemented new treaties with the Irish Government to set up new institutions for North/South co-operation and the new British-Irish Council. We have set up a new Human Rights Commission. An independent report on policing has been published and an independent report on criminal justice will be published shortly. Authorised representatives of the main paramilitary organisations are meeting with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, and the Commission will report later this month.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on international support for the peace process in Northern Ireland. [103427]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There has been enormous international interest and support for the peace process over many years, both from foreign governments and non-governmental organisations, as well as from individuals. This support has come from many parts of the world, including North America, Europe, Australia, the Far East and South Africa, and has played an important part in enhancing the prospects for peace in Northern Ireland. Support has taken many forms including the direct personal interest shown by various Heads of Government, including President Clinton; the appointment of international figures to assist in the political negotiations and with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning; and the important financial support that has been given by the European Union, through the Peace and Reconciliation Package; the Ireland Funds and by the International Fund for Ireland.

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing east/west bodies under the Good Friday agreement. [103430]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference were formally established on 2 December 1999 at the same time as the British-Irish Agreement came into force and met for the first time on 17 December 1999. These institutions represent significant developments in the relationship between the UK and Ireland and offer an 180W
  opportunity for real and meaningful co-operation between the two Governments and, in the case of the British-Irish Council, the devolved administrations also.

  Security
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards establishing a more normal security situation in Northern Ireland. [103423]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the Good Friday Agreement, routine military patrolling has been reduced by two thirds. Three battalions have returned to Great Britain. There are now under 15,000 service personnel on operational duties in Northern Ireland, fewer than at any time since 1970. Eleven military bases have been demolished and a further seven installations have been closed.

  Further steps the Government intend to take towards normalising security are set out in the recently published security strategy paper. Copies have been placed in the Library of this House.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made with decommissioning. [103424]

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out a timetable for the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [103433]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards decommissioning under the Good Friday agreement; and if he will make a statement. [103434]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), and the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).

  Equality Commission
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's liaison with the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland. [103425]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government consultation with the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland. [103426]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland was formally established on 1 October 1999. It has taken over the functions of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland, the Fair Employment Commission and the Disability Council for Northern Ireland.

  The existence and membership of the Equality Commission are reserved matters, as is the obligation on equality of opportunity and good relations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The funding and

  181W
  administrative oversight of the Equality Commission is a devolved matter and responsibility for this falls to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a number of powers and duties in relation to the section 75 obligation including:
  Making an order for the designation of additional public authorities to be covered by the equality obligation;
  Approving the statutory guide lines prepared by the Equality Commission on equality schemes.

  The Northern Ireland Act clearly defines the vast majority of public bodies to which the section 75 obligation will apply. However, the Secretary of State may designate additional bodies, including UK departments carrying out functions relating to Northern Ireland, to which the obligation should apply. I met the Equality Commission on 20 December to discuss the contents of the proposed designation order. We hope that the order will be approved by Parliament early this year.

  The Government have also submitted comments to the Equality Commission on the contents of the proposed statutory guidelines, which we hope will be finalised early this year.

  Patten Report
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the Patten report on policing; and when he plans to introduce legislation to give effect to its proposals. [103428]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 9 September 1999, when the Patten Commission issued its report, the Government immediately announced that it accepted the findings in principle. At the same time, we launched a consultation process on the report, as we were required to do under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Consultation formally ended on 30 November.

  Restorative Justice
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the development of restorative justice schemes. [103432]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford).

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the international role of the RUC. [103435]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, the Royal Ulster Constabulary have seven officers serving with the United Nations International Police Task Force in Bosnia where they are monitoring the performance of the Bosnian police service. Sixty RUC officers are also with the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, where they are undertaking an executive policing role pending a new Kosovan police service being trained and ready to take over law enforcement there.
  182W
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the RUC are involved in peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [103438]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 159.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new initiatives are being implemented to support the victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland. [103437]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have announced significant new funding initiatives to support victims of the Troubles, including £3 million core funding for groups which help and support victims and an extra £1 million for the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund. A Newsletter outlining progress has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Terrorist Weapons
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many weapons held by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland have been surrendered since 1 December. [103440]

  Mr. Mandelson
  No weapons held by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland have been surrendered during the period in question. The International Independent Commission on Decommissioning continues to hold discussions with authorised representatives of paramilitary organisations on the modalities of decommissioning and has indicated its intention to publish by the end of this month.

  Violent Crime
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making on tackling violent crime in Northern Ireland. [103442]

  Mr. Ingram
  Provisional figures on violent crime for the period April to October 1999 and the final comparable figures for the same period in 1998 show some positive trends. Although the number of offences recorded has increased by 8.7 per cent., the clearance rate is disproportionately higher with a 28.4 per cent. improvement. As a result, clearance rates for violent crime compare favourably (58.6 per cent.) with the previous year (49.7 per cent.). It should be noted that these figures are not comparable with the figures in the last report of the Chief Constable which were produced under the old Home Office counting rules.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104023]
  183W
  Mr. Mandelson
  The figures for 1999 are as follows:

  Age

  Female

  Male

  Total

  16–20

  14

  3

  17

  21–25

  77

  58

  135

  26–30

  185

  156

  341

  31–35

  266

  337

  603

  36–40

  207

  509

  716

  41–45

  172

  580

  752

  46–50

  94

  629

  723

  51–55

  114

  479

  593

  56–60

  53

  168

  221

  60–65

  25

  13

  38

  Total

  1,207

  2,932

  4,139

  Note:

  Figures include Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Prison Service staff.

  Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide comparable figures for 1979. For the smaller Home Civil Service Group of the NIO, the annual Civil Service Statistics publication provides a departmental breakdown of staff by gender for both years and Service-wide information by age.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Human Rights
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with Commonwealth countries as to their human rights record in the last three years; and if she will list the countries and the dates such discussions took place. [104050]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 34W.

  Landmines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries where her Department is helping in the clearance of landmines. [104047]

  Clare Short
  My Department is currently funding mine clearance projects in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Jordan, Iraq, Laos, Mozambique, Nicaragua and Kosovo.

  Conservation Projects
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of conservation projects, which have been(a) funded and (b) part funded by her Department, upon the indigenous peoples of Africa. [104184]

  Clare Short
  My Department provides a Project Completion Report for all our major projects. The reports provide an indication of project success, early impacts, the expected longer term impact, including impact on local people.

  We have also recently completed a substantial global evaluation of British bilateral and joint-funded project support for environmental improvement and protection. Overall, nearly two thirds of these projects achieved
  184W
  their objectives successfully. A key finding was that the protection and better management of the environment is critical to the achievement of the International Development Targets. We are currently preparing a policy paper which addresses the contribution of environmental protection to the overall aim of poverty elimination.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidelines her Department has issued to(a) assess the needs and (b) protect the rights of indigenous peoples who (i) are likely to be and (ii) have been affected by conservation projects (1) funded and (2) part funded by her Department. [104185]

  Clare Short
  Along with other member states, we are party to a resolution of the Development Council of the European Union on "Indigenous peoples within the framework of the development co-operation of the Community and Member States". This was passed by the Development Council in November 1998, having been helped through the negotiation process under our own Presidency of the EU in the first half of that year. The resolution recognises the important role played by indigenous people in the management of natural resources and the maintenance of biodiversity. It recognises their rights to choose their own development paths and to have a direct voice in development programmes which affect their way of life. We actively uphold these principles in our all-bilateral work, and in the work we do in collaboration with others.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Spending Revisions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) of 13 December 1999,Official Report, column 40W, on spending revisions, if he will estimate the number of recipients of each of the allowances and benefits listed in the table (a) in Wales and (b) in Merthyr Tydfil (i) currently and (ii) in 2000–01 and 2001–02. [103372]

  Mr. Darling
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The numbers of recipients of the relevant benefits in Merthyr Tydfil and Wales for the current year derived from administrative data held

  Thousand

  Wales

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Incapacity Benefit

  145.3

  6.0

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  25.2

  0.5

  Attendance Allowance

  94.8

  2.2

  Disability Living Allowance

  172.4

  5.9

  Note:

  Forecasts of numbers of claimants for each social security benefit by country and/or local authority area is not available.

  Sources:

  1. The figures for Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance are taken from a 5 per cent. scan of the benefit computer system in Great Britain at 31 May 1999 and are subject to a rating factor to account for missing postcodes.

  2. The figures for Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance are taken from 100 per cent. data at 31 May 1999.

  Income Support (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged under 18 years in Scotland have received Income Support with a care premium in each year since 1991. [103758]

  Mr. Bayley
  Insufficient data are available in each of the years since 1991 reliably to estimate the number of people aged under 18 years who received the carer premium with their Income Support.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases are being dealt with by the Child Support Agency in England and Wales. [103727]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 11 January 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  The most current statistical information available shows:
  The number of live and assessed cases being dealt with by the Agency where the Parent with Care lives in Wales was 65,700.
  The number of live and assessed cases being dealt with by the Agency where the Parent with Care lives in England was 818,420.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Mortgage Payments
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise the standard interest rate applicable to benefits in relation to mortgage payments. [104070]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Standard Interest Rate is based on the weighted average of basic rates charged by the main building societies. It currently stands at 6.66 per cent. and will change only if there is an increase or decrease in this figure of 0.25 per cent. or more. The average figure is calculated by The Building Societies Commission and notified to the Department of Social Security by the Office for National Statistics.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104022]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of men and women employed by the Department in 1979 and 1999

  DHSS staff by age and gender 1979

  DSS staff by age and gender 1999

  Age

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  16–19

  2,437

  8,325

  10,762

  824

  1,650

  2,474

  20–24

  5,909

  15,599

  21,508

  2,639

  5,003

  7,642

  25–29

  5,012

  8,369

  13,381

  4,354

  8,675

  13,029

  30–34

  4,154

  5,238

  9,392

  5,173

  12,475

  17,612

  35–39

  2,505

  3,848

  6,353

  4,695

  12,312

  17,007

  186W

  Number of men and women employed by the Department in 1979 and 1999

  DHSS staff by age and gender 1979

  DSS staff by age and gender 1999

  Age

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  40–44

  2,046

  3,597

  5,643

  4,300

  9,929

  14,229

  45–49

  2,138

  4,577

  6,715

  3,570

  7,312

  10,882

  50–75

  11,700

  12,969

  21,669

  4,146

  8,297

  12,443

  Other

  2

  3

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  35,903

  62,525

  98,482

  29,701

  65,653

  95,354

  Notes:

  1. The 1979 figures relate to the Department of Health and Social Security at April 1979.

  2. The 1999 figures relate to the Department of Social Security at April 1999 and exclude the Contributions Agency which transferred to the Inland Revenue in April 1999.

  Sources:

  Cabinet Office Mandate data

  DSS FAMIS Payroll

HEALTH

  Medicines (Licences)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many licence applications there were for medicines in each year since 1990; [100816]

  (2) what was the total number of licence applications for medicines intended solely for the treatment of children in each year since 1995; [100818]

  (3) what action the Medicines Control Agency is taking to (a) monitor and (b) implement the EU guidance on the licensing of medicines used in the treatment of children; [100817]

  (4) how many pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom comply with EU guidance on the licensing of medicines used in the treatment of children; [100815]

  (5) what was the total number of licence applications for medicines used in the treatment of children and adults in each year since 1995. [100819]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on how many pharmaceutical companies are complying with European Union guidance on the licensing of medicines used in the treatment of children is not held centrally.

  The Medicines Control Agency assesses all applications for Marketing Authorisation (licences) in accordance with current EU legislation and guidance. This includes the guidance on the licensing of medicines used in the treatment of children. This guidance is not legally binding on companies. Applicants are asked to provide details of paediatric development plans if these are relevant and have been omitted from the application. Where appropriate, the MCA will indicate to the applicant that they should consider developing formulations which are suitable for children.

  The total number of marketing authorisation applications for medicines in each year since 1990,

  187W
  excluding applications from homoeopathic products and applications to import licensed medicinal products from other member states of the EU were:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  939

  1991

  762

  1992

  1,055

  1993

  1,316

  1994

  1,277

  1995

  1,345

  1996

  1,349

  1997

  1,847

  1999

  1,290

  The total number of licence applications for medicines intended solely for the treatment of children in each year since 1995 were:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  40

  1996

  28

  1997

  54

  1998

  28

  The total number of marketing authorisation applications for medicines used in the treatment of children and adults in each year since 1995 were:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  555

  1996

  513

  1997

  681

  1998

  504

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the constitutional and civil liberties implications of compulsory fluoridation of the water supply. [101131]

  Yvette Cooper
  We regularly receive representations about the ethical aspects of fluoridation. We recognise the sincerity of people's concern and this is one of the reasons why we are proposing that decisions on fluoridation be taken locally. No new fluoridation scheme would be implemented unless there had been wide-ranging consultations, in which both opponents and supporters of fluoridation had had the opportunity to publicise their views and it had been demonstrated, through an objective assessment of public opinion, that a significant majority of people were in favour.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the conclusions of research into the possible harmful effects of transmissions from mobile telephone masts. [100897]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS FRSE, is currently considering the possible Health 188W
  effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters and is conducting a comprehensive assessment of existing research. The group is expected to report in spring 2000.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated cost of accidents caused by fireworks to the National Health Service in each of the last five years. [100922]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures for the cost to the National Health Service resulting from accidents caused by fireworks are not available. The number of attendances at accident and emergency departments due to firework injuries is collected annually, over a four week period covering Bonfire Night, by the Department of Trade and Industry through accident and emergency departments across England, Scotland and Wales. Figures for England in respect of the latest five years available are as follows:

  Number of people requiring treatment for firework injuries at hospital accident and emergency departments in England1

  Number

  1998

  725

  1997

  803

  1996

  1,091

  1995

  1,359

  1994

  1,408

  1 Firework Injuries Data, Consumer Affairs Directorate, Department of Trade and Industry

  School Diets
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national school fruit and vegetable scheme; and if he will make a statement. [100920]

  Yvette Cooper
  The White Paper "Saving Lives—Our Healthier Nation" recognised the importance of increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and we are currently considering a range of options on how to achieve this. It is one of the aims of the draft Regulations on National Nutritional Standards for School Lunches. A consultation document on these Regulations and accompanying guidance was published by the Department for Education and Employment last month, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Stroke Units
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the contribution which(a) specialist stroke units and (b) conventional wards are making to the treatment of stroke sufferers. [100869]

  Yvette Cooper
  In October, the Royal College of Physicians published a report arising from the National Sentinel Audit of Stroke 1998, "Regional variations in stroke care". The Department, as part of the clinical effectiveness programme, funded this programme.

  The New National Health Service and a First Class Service introduced a range of measures to raise quality and decrease unacceptable variations in service including the National Service Frameworks (NSFs). The NSF for

  189W
  older people was announced last year. A number of task groups are supporting the External Reference Group for this NSF and one of these is looking at strokes. The NSF will be evidence based, and where this is not possible it will be based on the consensus of best clinical practice. Findings from the National Sentinel Audit have been made available to the External Reference Group on strokes.

  MRSA
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to monitor(a) outbreaks of MRSA in NHS acute Trusts and (b) how NHS Trusts prevent and control the MRSA infection. [102243]

  Yvette Cooper
  Chief executives of National Health Service Trusts are responsible for ensuring that there is an effective infection control programme within their Trusts. Individual Trusts manage arrangements for controlling hospital infection, including MRSA, in the light of local circumstances. This includes having an infection control team which has primary responsibility for all aspects of surveillance, prevention and control of hospital infection. The new risk management and organisational control standards for the NHS, which were launched on 22 November by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health, include standards for hospital infection control. These standards reinforce chief executives and Trust board members' responsibilities. The Public Health Laboratory Service maintains a record of outbreaks of MRSA that are reported to it and publishes aggregated data at regular intervals.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is being spent on research into the causes and elimination of MRSA in the current financial year. [102857]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department is currently spending £91,000 on a systematic review of isolation policies and screening practices in MRSA management, which started in April 1999. In addition, the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives most of its income via grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base. The MRC spent a total of £433,383 on research related to MRSA in 1998–99 and has also agreed funding for two new projects in this area for 2000–01, totalling approximately £91,260. The Staphylococcal Reference Unit at the PHLS Central Public Health Laboratory is also engaged in research, estimated to cost £40,000, on why some strains of MRSA are epidemic.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated annual cost to the NHS of MRSA(a) in each of the last three financial years and (b) estimated for the current financial year; and how many NHS Trusts in Kent are in financial difficulties as a result of MRSA. [102856]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not held centrally. In any individual patient, it is usually very difficult to assess the contribution of any infection acquired in hospital on the outcome, since many patients are already seriously ill from other conditions.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS(a) beds and (b) wards are currently out of service due to MRSA; [102854]
  190W
  (2) how many patients are currently in intensive care due to MRSA. [102855]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died in 1997 and 1998 as a result of MRSA. [102858]

  Yvette Cooper
  Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection can take the form of many different diseases from trivial skin infections to pneumonia or septicaemia. Often the causative microorganism is not specified on the death certificate. MRSA does not have a distinct code within the International Classification of Diseases used for encoding death registration data at the Office for National Statistics. Consequently there are no centrally held statistics on deaths from this cause.

  HIV Positive Babies
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies were born HIV positive in each year from 1989 to 1999 in(a) Shropshire and (b) England; and if he will make a statement. [102390]

  Yvette Cooper
  Between 1989 and 1999 there have been no reports of children with maternally acquired HIV infection born in Shropshire recorded in national surveillance data. The number of children with maternally acquired HIV infection reported in England as a whole is shown in the table. Also shown is the number of children for whom the reported infection status is indeterminate who were born to HIV infected mothers. This is high for recent years as it often cannot be established whether such a child is infected until it is eighteen months old.

  There will be further HIV infected children born in England between 1989 and 1999 whose infection will be discovered only when they become ill.

  Children born in England to HIV infected mothers by child's year of birth

  Year of birth1

  Infection status

  Infected

  Indeterminate or lost to annual follow up

  1989

  —

  12

  3

  1990

  —

  38

  7

  1991

  —

  31

  13

  1992

  —

  46

  11

  1993

  —

  39

  17

  1994

  —

  37

  15

  1995

  —

  39

  13

  1996

  —

  34

  20

  1997

  —

  39

  24

  1998

  —

  22

  43

  19992

  —

  6

  98

  1Numbers, particularly for recent years will rise as delayed reports are received.

  2Reported by 31 October 1999.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) NHS and (b) Social Service budget for alcohol rehabilitation programmes in the current year. [102552]
  191W
  Yvette Cooper
  There are no specific allocations to either the National Health Service or social services for alcohol rehabilitation. Health authorities purchase substance misuse services from general Hospital and Community Health Service allocations. Local authorities purchase the majority of alcohol services from the generality of community care funding. Information on what the authorities spend on alcohol services from these allocations is not collected centrally. In addition, the Drug and Alcohol Specific Grant provides £1.78 million in 1999–2000 to develop local voluntary sector services for drugs and alcohol.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost to the NHS of alcohol-related illness and accidents for each of the last five years. [102559]

  Yvette Cooper
  Estimates of the cost to the National Health Service of alcohol-related illnesses and injuries vary widely; the most recent academic estimate of which we are aware is for the costs of alcohol misuse in the NHS in England and Wales in 1992 and is reproduced in the table.

  £ million

  Inpatient costs—direct alcohol diagnosis

  40.8

  Inpatient costs—other alcohol related diagnosis

  120.2

  General practice costs

  3.1

  Total

  164.0

  Source:

  Health Education Authority: Health Update: Alcohol (1997)—after Godfrey, C and Hardman, G. (1994))

  Drug Addiction Centres
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the centres which are currently open for in-patient treatment for drug addiction within the NHS and (b) those that have closed in the last five years, with dates of closure. [102698]

  Mr. Hutton
  The 185 NHS Trusts in England that provided in-patient treatment for patients with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of opioids—dependence syndrome (ICD10 F11.2), in 1997–98, are shown in the following list. Information is not available centrally on those that have closed in the last five years.

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Airedale NHS Trust

  Avalon Somerset NHS Trust

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services

  Barnsley District General Hospital

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Services

  Bath Mental Health Care NHS Trust

  Bedford and Shires Health and Care

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Bournewood Community and Mental Health Services

  192W

  Bradford Community Health

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Camden and Islington Community Health Service

  Central Manchester Healthcare

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  City and Hackney Community Services

  City Hospital NHS Trust

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS

  Community Healthcare: North Durham

  Cornwall Healthcare NHS Trust

  Countess Of Chester Hospital

  Derbyshire Royal Infirmary

  Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital

  Dorset Community NHS Trust

  Dorset Healthcare NHS Trust

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS

  Dudley Priority Health NHS Trust

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  East Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  East Surrey Hospital and Community Healthcare

  East Wiltshire Health Care

  Eastbourne and County Healthcare

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  Exeter and District Community Health Services

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Guys and St. Thomas's NHS Trust

  Haringey Health Care NHS Trust

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  Hartlepool and East Durham NHS Trust

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  Heathlands Mental Health

  Herefordshire Community Health

  Hinchingbrooke Healthcare

  Hounslow and Spelthorne Community & Mental Health

  Isle Of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust

  James Paget Hospital NHS Trust

  Kent and Canterbury Hospitals

  Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  Lambeth Health Care NHS Trust

  Lancaster Priority Services

  Leeds Community and Mental Health

  Leicestershire Mental Health Service

  Lincoln and Louth NHS Trust

  Lincoln District Healthcare

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS

  193W

  Mental Health Services of Salford

  Mid Anglia Community Health

  Mid Essex Community and Mental Health

  Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust

  Milton Keynes Community Health

  Milton Keynes General Hospital

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care

  North Durham Acute Hospitals

  North East Essex Mental Health

  North East Lincolnshire NHS Trust

  North Hampshire Loddon Community

  North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  North Kent Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Lakeland Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Manchester Healthcare

  North Mersey Community NHS Trust

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare

  North Staffordshire Hospital

  North Tees Health NHS Trust

  North West Anglia Healthcare

  North West London Mental Health

  Northallerton Health Services

  Northampton Community Healthcare

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS

  Northern General Hospital NHS

  Northumberland Mental Health

  Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust

  Nottingham University Hospital

  Oldham NHS Trust

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  Pathfinder NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals

  Plymouth Community Services

  Portsmouth Healthcare NHS Trust

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Priority Healthcare Wearside

  Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

  Riverside Mental Health NHS Trust

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Rockingham Forest NHS Trust

  Rotherham Priority Health

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Hospitals

  Royal United Hospitals, Bath NHS

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Salisbury Health Care NHS Trust

  Scarborough and NE Yorkshire

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals

  Scunthorpe Community Health Care

  Severn NHS Trust

  Sheffield Community Health Service

  Shropshire's Mental Health NHS

  Solihull Healthcare NHS Trust

  South Bedfordshire Community Healthcare

  194W

  South Birmingham Mental Health

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  South Cumbria Community and Mental Health

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  South Downs Health NHS Trust

  South Durham NHS Trust

  South Kent Community Healthcare

  South Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Lincolnshire Community and Mental Health

  South Manchester University Hospitals

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS

  South Warwickshire Mental Health Services

  Southend Community Care Service

  Southend Health Care NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire Mental Health

  Southmead Health Services NHS

  Southport and Formby Hospitals

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital

  St. James's and Seacroft University Hospital

  St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust

  Stockport Healthcare NHS Trust

  Surrey Heartlands NHS Trust

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services

  Tameside and Glossop Community & Priority Services

  The Bethlem and Maudsley NHS Trust

  The Foundation NHS Trust

  The Mid Cheshire Hospital NHS

  The Princess Royal Hospital

  The Royal Free Hampstead

  The Royal Victoria Infirmary and Assoc Hospitals

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospital

  The United Bristol Healthcare

  Tower Hamlets Healthcare NHS Trust

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community

  Walsall Community Health NHS Trust

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Berkshire Priority Care Services

  West Cumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  West Hefts Community NHS Trust

  West Lancashire NHS Trust

  West London Healthcare NHS Trust

  Weston Area Health NHS Trust

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services

  Wirral and West Cheshire Community

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  Worcestershire Community Healthcare

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the governing committee of the National Radiological Protection Board and their registered interests; and if he will make a statement. [102601]
  195W
  Yvette Cooper
  The membership of the National Radiological Protection Board currently comprises:

  Chairman
  Sir Walter Bodmer FRS

  Members

  Professor A. D. Baddeley FRS

  Professor Kay E. Davies CBE MA

  Professor W. Gelletely

  Professor J. M. Harrington CBE

  Professor R. W. Lees

  Professor Rona M. MacKie

  Professor J. McEwen

  Mr J. C. White.

  All public bodies are required to maintain, and publish, registers of members' interests. The register of interests for members of the National Radiological Protection Board is available from the Board Secretary at the National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 ORQ. The register of interests will be available on NRPB's website [nrpb@nrpb.org.uk] in early 2000.

  Cervix Removals
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations in which women have had a non-cancerous cervix removed there were in each of the past 10 years. [102593]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows the number of episodes where women have had an operation to remove a non-cancerous cervix, in National Health Service hospitals in England for the financial years 1989–90 to 1997–98.

  Removal of non-cancerous cervix—NHS hospitals, England

  Number

  1989–90

  100

  1990–91

  97

  1991–92

  46

  1992–93

  59

  1993–94

  51

  1994–95

  37

  1995–96

  45

  1996–97

  47

  1997–981

  45

  1 Figures for 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data, (i.e. the data is ungrossed).

  Notes:

  Ordinary admissions and day cases combined: completed episodes by primary operation (OPCS-4 code: Q01.1) and sex (females only)

  1. 1989–90 to 1994–95 exclude FCEs with any of the following ICD-9 codes:

  180-Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri

  219.0-Other benign neoplasm of uterus, cervix uteri

  233.1-Carcinoma in situ of breast and genitourinary system, cervix uteri

  236.0-Neoplasm of uncertain behaviour of genitourinary organs, uterus

  239.5-Neoplasm of unspecified nature, other genitourinary organs

  2. 1995–96 to 1997–98 exclude FCEs with any of the following ICD-10 codes:

  C53-Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri

  C79.8-Secondary malignant neoplasm of other specified sites

  D06-Carcinoma in situ of cervix uteri

  D26.0-Other benign neoplasms of uterus, cervix uteri

  D39.0-Neoplasm of uncertain or unknown behaviour of female genital organs, uterus

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Peat
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [103012]

  Yvette Cooper
  There is no history of this Department having purchased or used peat for its own operations and activities, nor is there any expectation of the Department doing so in the future.

  However, should the need ever arise, the Department proposes to substitute the use of all slow renewables, such as peat, with organic wastes (such as coir, manure, leaf mould and bark chippings) for improving the soil.

  External Electrical Fields
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the studies carried out at Warwick University concerning the vulnerability of human beings to external electrical fields. [102862]

  Yvette Cooper
  Published research studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields in general are regularly reviewed by the National Radiological Protection Board and its Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation.

  The independent expert group on mobile phones, set up at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), the former Minister for Public Health, is currently undertaking a rigorous assessment of biological and health research related to mobile phone systems. The group is expected to report in spring 2000.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the microwave pulses used in mobile phone masts on the parts of the brains of children which are not stable until they reach the age of 12 years. [102860]

  Yvette Cooper
  The independent expert group on mobile phones, set up at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), the former Minister for Public Health, is currently undertaking a rigorous assessment of biological and health research associated with mobile phone systems. The group is expected to report in spring 2000.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that all contracts for the purchase of meat by NHS providers contain clauses specifying that the animals must have been reared under animal welfare conditions to a standard as high as those enforced in the UK. [103350]

  Yvette Cooper
  National Health Service Supplies contracts stipulate that the origin of meat purchased for consumption within the NHS must be disclosed. They do not contain clauses of the type to which the hon. Member refers. Nevertheless, meat supplied through NHS Supplies contracts is, wherever possible, sourced from the United Kingdom and does, therefore, comply with the new welfare regulations.
  197W
  However, NHS trusts and health authorities have the freedom to buy goods and services from wherever provides the best value. Although most products are available from the UK, price considerations may lead health authorities and NHS trusts to buy from elsewhere in the European Union.

  Transplant Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to respond to the Royal College of Surgeons report on transplant services; and if he will make a statement; [103386]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of introducing a national transplant service; and if he will make a statement. [103387]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government intend to respond to the Royal College of Surgeons report on transplant services early in the New Year. We shall take account of the costs of options such as a National Transplant Service, along with other factors in formulating a response.

  Aricept
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities(a) have authorised the prescription of the drug Aricept to ameliorate the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease in each of the Government standard regions, (b) have refused to authorise its use and (c) have not yet reached a decision. [103634]

  Ms Stuart
  Information about local policies on the treatment of Alzheimer's disease is not available centrally, but I understand that there is some prescribing of Aricept in all health authorities.

  Aricept and other pharmaceutical treatment for Alzheimer's disease will be reviewed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as part of its first work programme. This work is expected to be completed by December 2000.

  Antipsychotics
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to investigate the extent to which people with mental health problems are able to obtain atypical antipsychotics; and what steps the Government will take to ensure that people with mental illness have access to the drugs most likely to improve their quality of life. [103920]

  Mr. Hutton
  The prescribing of treatment for mental illness is a matter for clinicians. However, to assist clinicians in their decision making, an effective health care bulletin on drug treatments for schizophrenia has just been issued, copies of which are available in the Library. The Department has also commissioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Psychological Society to develop a guideline on this. The project is now being managed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE will take responsibility for considering any representations about the proposed recommendations and for ensuring that the final guidance to the NHS fairly reflects the needs of patients as well as the weight of evidence.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government plans to include in the proposed mental health Bill the principle of non-discrimination recommended by the Richardson Committee and the Disability Rights Taskforce. [103921]

  Mr. Hutton
  The recently published consultation paper on the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, copies of which are available in the Library, makes clear that the Government recognise the importance of the principle of non-discrimination and agrees that specific guidance should be included in the Code of Practice accompanying new legislation. This approach is consistent with that taken by the Richardson Committee. Detailed issues to be covered in any future legislation will be considered following the end of the consultation period.

  Paediatric Intensive Care
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric intensive care beds are available in each NHS region; and if he will list the hospitals at which they are provided, indicating the numbers in each case. [104031]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: The table shows hospitals within each National Health Service region providing paediatric intensive care in January 2000.

  Hospitals providing paediatric intensive care beds

  NHS Region

  Number of beds provided

  Trent region

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  8

  Glenfield Hospital

  5

  Queens Medical Centre Nottingham

  6

  Sheffield Children's Hospital

  7

  London Region

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children

  30

  St. Mary's Hospital

  8

  Royal Brompton/Harefield NHS Trust

  7

  Guy's Hospital

  16

  Kings College Hospital

  6

  St. George's Hospital

  5

  Lewisham Hospital

  3

  South West Region

  United Bristol Healthcare Trust

  16

  Eastern Region

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust (Cambridge)

  8

  North West Region

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (Alder Hey)

  21

  Manchester Children's Hospital

  24

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  3

  South East Region

  Southampton University Hospitals Trust

  7

  John Radcliffe Hospital (Oxford)

  5

  Royal Alexandra Hospital (Brighton)

  1

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham Children's Hospital

  18

  North Staffordshire NHS Trust

  8

  199W

  Hospitals providing paediatric intensive care beds

  NHS Region

  Number of beds provided

  Northern and Yorkshire Region

  Leeds General Infirmary

  13

  St. James' Hospital (Leeds)

  2

  Newcastle Hospitals NHS Trust

  19

  Hull Royal Infirmary

  2

  South Tees Hospital NHS Trust

  5

  Vulnerable Adults (Protection)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the benefits of providing vulnerable adults with the same protection as is given to vulnerable children. [104366]

  Mr. Hutton
  While the majority of adults are well looked after by their families and paid carers, research has shown that abuse of vulnerable adults is nevertheless widespread. The protection of vulnerable adults who are at risk of abuse is therefore vital, and is a major concern of the Government.

  In recent years the Department has funded a national helpline, run by Action on Elder Abuse, which enables people to seek advice on how to deal with incidents of abuse. The Department also has funded the production of training materials aimed at helping managers and care staff in residential care settings for older people better to understand the types and causes of abuse of their residents, how to expose abuse, and how to prevent it happening in the first place.

  Currently, the Department is leading the work on producing guidance for developing multi-agency codes of practice for dealing with abuse of vulnerable adults. The consultation period of the draft guidance has now ended, and the final document titled "No Secrets" will be published shortly.

  To offer further protection to vulnerable adults at risk of abuse, the Care Standards Bill, now in another place, contains provisions for a statutory work force ban mechanism to parallel that in the Protection of Children Act 1999.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Food Standards Agency appointed to date; and what criteria were used for their appointment. [100788]

  Mr. Milburn
  The selection process for the Board members of the Food Standards Agency has not yet been completed. However, I am pleased to be able to announce today that I have appointed Professor Sir John Krebs as the Chairman of the Agency. Sir John is a Royal Society Research Professor in the Department of Zoology, Oxford University and was formerly Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Sir John's Deputy will be Ms Suzi Leather, currently chair of Exeter and District Community NHS Trust. Ms Leather has twenty years of experience in consumer representation. The Chief Executive of the Agency will be Mr. Geoffrey Podger, who is currently Head of
  200W
  the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (of the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), forerunner to the Agency.

  The names of the Agency's Scottish Board member and Welsh Board member are the subject of further announcements today by my colleagues in Scotland and Wales. We hope to be able to announce the names of other Board members of the Agency in the near future.

  The approach adopted—as we said in the White Paper "A Force for Change"—has been that people should be appointed who have a proven record in relevant fields and who together provide a balance of relevant skills and experience. A majority of those appointed will come from a wider public interest background without any specific affiliation.

CABINET OFFICE

  British-Irish Council
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council. [103441]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The inaugural summit meeting of the British-Irish Council, established under the Good Friday Agreement, was held at Lancaster House, London on Friday 17 December 1999.

  The role of the Council is to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands. It will exchange information, discuss and use best endeavours to reach agreement on co-operation on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the relevant Administrations.

  At its inaugural meeting the Council agreed a Memorandum on its working procedures. It adopted an initial list of issues for early discussion in the BIC and also decided which administrations would take the lead in each sectoral area:

  Topic

  Lead Administration

  Drugs

  Irish Government

  Social Inclusion

  Scottish Executive and Cabinet of National Assembly for Wales

  Environment

  British Government

  Transport

  Northern Ireland Executive Committee

  Knowledge Economy

  Jersey

  In addition, the Council agreed an indicative list of other issues suitable for the Council's work, including areas which members are already taking forward bilaterally:

  agricultural issues such as plant quarantine; rural development and rural depopulation; the development of renewable raw materials and energy crops; salmon fisheries; sea fisheries and aquaculture;

  health issues;

  regional issues: including links between cities, towns and local districts;

  consideration of interparliamentary links (noting paragraph 11 of the Memorandum on Procedural Guidance);

  201W

  energy issues;

  cultural issues;

  tourism;

  sporting activity;

  education issues;

  approaches to EU issues;

  minority and lesser-used languages;

  prison and probation issues.

  The next summit meeting of the Council will take place in Dublin in June 2000 and will focus on the issue of drugs.

TREASURY

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) at what rate 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for over six months left the unemployment count in March 1998; [102110]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the average monthly rate at which 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for over six months left the unemployment count for each year from 1990 to 1999; [102112]

  (3) what has been the average monthly rate at which 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for over six months have left the unemployment count since April 1998. [102111]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 9 December 1999]: 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. John Bercow, dated 12 January 2000:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions on the average monthly rate at which 18–24 year olds left the unemployment count.

  The ONS publishes a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.

  An average of 22.4 per cent. of people aged 18–24 years who were claiming unemployment-related benefits for six months or more (computerised claims only) left the claimant count each month in the United Kingdom between April 1998 and October 1999.

  The corresponding percentage between 12 March 1998 and 9 April 1998, was 14.0 per cent.

  The available information for 1990 to 1999 is given in the following table.

  18–24 year old claimants unemployed 6 months or more who left the count as a percentage of all 18–24 year olds claiming for six months or more, United Kingdom; yearly averages from 1990 to 1999

  Year

  Age 18–24

  1990

  13.1

  1991

  9.8

  1992

  9.3

  1993

  9.9

  1994

  10.9

  202W

  18–24 year old claimants unemployed 6 months or more who left the count as a percentage of all 18–24 year olds claiming for six months or more, United Kingdom; yearly averages from 1990 to 1999

  Year

  Age 18–24

  1995

  11.3

  1996

  12.2

  1997

  15.0

  1998

  17.8

  19991

  27.1

  1Average of the 10 months January to October 1999

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the criteria which will be used to determine which countries, and which categories of debt, will be eligible for 100 per cent. relief. [103176]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's commitment to lifting 100 per cent. of the burden of debt owed to the Export Credit Guarantee Department covers all categories of debt owed by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, a group of 41 developing countries. All are Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility or International Development Association-only and face unsustainable debt burden even after traditional debt-relief mechanisms have been applied fully.

  Outsourced Operations
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what mechanisms are used to assess how much extra contract work outsourced operations will need to take on; and how the viability of plans to generate this extra work is assessed; [103625]

  (2) what measures of added value are currently used when assessing outsourcing plans in terms of (a) technology and (b) procedure; [103629]

  (3) what measures of added value when assessing the benefits of outsourcing were used between 1994–97; and what additional measures have been included in the assessment of outsourcing plans since 1997. [103630]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the Better Quality Services programme, Departments and other central Government bodies have plans to review their activities against five systems: abolition; privatisation; marketing testing; strategic contracting out; and internal restructuring.

  Reviews follow procedures Set out in the Better Quality Services handbook, published in 1998, which emphasis the need for consultation with stakeholders. Individual reviews should result in added value through improvements in service cost and quality.

  Where a decision to outsource is taken, Government procurement policy requires that to be based on value for money, which is the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality to meet the user's requirement. Under the procurement process, bidders are selected on their financial or economic standing and technical capacity and capability, and contracts are awarded on the basis of value for money. This includes consideration of the added value offered by a particular bid or through award of a particular contract.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the appointment of members of the Food Standards Agency; [100200]

  (2) if he will list the members of the Food Standards Agency and the areas of expertise from which they have been drawn; [100201]

  (3) which members of the Food Standards Agency who have been appointed on the basis of their membership of organisations representing (a) victims and (b) families of victims of E. coli 0157 poisoning. [100202]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The selection process for the Board members of the Food Standards Agency has not yet been completed. However, I am pleased to be able to announce today that I have appointed Professor Sir John Krebs as the Chairman of the Agency. Sir John is a Royal Society Research Professor in the Department of Zoology, Oxford University and was formerly Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Sir John's Deputy will be Ms Suzi Leather, currently chair of Exeter and District Community NHS Trust. Ms Leather has twenty years of experience in consumer representation. The Chief Executive of the Agency will be Mr. Geoffrey Podger, who is currently Head of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (of the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), forerunner to the Agency.

  The names of the Agency's Scottish Board member and Welsh Board member are the subject of further announcements today by my colleagues in Scotland and Wales. We hope to be able to announce the names of other Board members of the Agency in the near future.

  The approach adopted—as we said in the White Paper "A Force for Change"—has been that people should be appointed who have a proven record in relevant fields and who together provide a balance of relevant skills and experience. A majority of those appointed will come from a wider public interest background without any specific affiliation.

  Beef Slaughter Premium Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the new beef slaughter premium scheme will be implemented; and from what date payments will be available. [103903]

  Ms Quin
  The new slaughter premium will be payable on cattle slaughtered on or after 1 January 2000. A 60 per cent. advance of the payments due, in respect of animals slaughtered in the year 2000, will be made as soon as possible after 16 October 2000, with the balance paid as soon as possible after 1 April 2001. This is identical to the payment timetable for the existing Beef Special Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Schemes.

  Organophosphates
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to discuss the report of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment on organophosphates with the(a) Ministry of Defence, (b) Department of Health and (c) Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. [103232]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]: The Committee's report on organophosphates (OPs) has been discussed by the Official Group on OPs, which brings together representatives from all the key departments and agencies with an interest in this area (including the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions).

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research on organophosphates his Department plans to carry out with relevance to Gulf War syndrome. [103089]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]: The Ministry of Defence has responsibility for research in respect of Gulf veterans' illnesses. They continue to monitor research on OPs, including that funded by MAFF, in view of the suggested link between Gulf veterans' illnesses and OP pesticides.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the effects of sheep-dips on farmers' health. [103090]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 20 December 1999, Official Report, column 446W, to his question on the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment report on organophosphates.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104029]

  Mr. Morley
  The figures requested for 1999 are set out in the table. These are expressed as Full Time Equivalents. A comparable split by age group is not available for 1979.

  Female

  Male

  Age

  Full Time

  Equivalents

  Total Full Time Equivalents

  Core MAFF

  16–19

  108.64

  54.55

  163.19

  20–24

  349.47

  284.91

  634.38

  25–29

  476.50

  432.64

  909.14

  30–34

  462.72

  459.19

  921.91

  35–39

  452.50

  446.19

  898.69

  40–44

  369.26

  444.55

  813.81

  45–49

  344.77

  456.29

  801.07

  50–54

  362.12

  495.93

  858.05

  55–59

  237.07

  323.57

  560.64

  60–75

  83.95

  95.19

  179.14

  Total Full Time Equivalents

  3,246.98

  3,493.02

  6,740.00

  205W

  Female

  Male

  Age

  Full Time

  Equivalents

  Total Full Time Equivalents

  MAFF Agencies

  16–19

  28.00

  12.65

  40.65

  20–24

  162.62

  144.42

  307.04

  25–29

  303.96

  350.15

  654.11

  30–34

  317.82

  456.36

  774.18

  35–39

  236.17

  433.77

  669.94

  40–44

  190.27

  404.82

  595.09

  45–49

  180.21

  334.30

  514.50

  50–54

  173.97

  377.58

  551.55

  55–59

  118.94

  231.83

  350.77

  60–75

  37.27

  35.43

  72.70

  Total Full Time Equivalents

  1,749.22

  2,781.31

  4,530.53

  In 1979 there were 7,498 men and 5,639.5 women working in MAFF.

  European Regional Funds
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what level of match public funds from his Department is available to EU Objective 1 regions for each of the next seven calendar years; [104304]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the requirements for match public funds from his Department for the EU Objective 1 regions of (a) Cornwall and Scilly, (b) Merseyside and (c) South Yorkshire for each of the seven years of the programme. [104300]
  206W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: It is the responsibility of grant applicants in the Objective 1 regions to calculate how much match public funding they will need and from where they should obtain this. The Government have provided and will continue to provide significant financial support through a variety of programmes sponsored by different departments. MAFF is currently considering its contribution to this support. Local partnerships can prioritise the use of these resources to fund projects jointly with the Structural Funds.

  Regional partners can also seek to match their European funds with contributions from the voluntary and private sectors, as well as through loans from organisations such as the European Investment Bank.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which GM crops are currently being tested. [104288]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The crops being tested in the field scale trials are fodder maize and oilseed rape which have been genetically modified to be herbicide tolerant. One variety of fodder maize and one variety each of spring-sown and autumn-sown oilseed rape are being tested to provide a thorough evaluation of their environmental impact. All results of the tests will be made publicly available.

  In addition, there are a number of crops being grown for smaller-scale research purposes. The crops currently being tested are spring and winter oilseed rape, sugar and fodder beet, wheat, potato, maize, poplar and chicory.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Developing Countries: Book Supplies
Lord Walton of Detchantasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the concern being expressed by educational authorities in developing countries about the demise of the former Educational Low-priced Book Scheme, they will consider offering financial support to the Educational Low-priced Sponsored Texts (ELST) charitable trust.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is no possibility of the Department for International Development providing a blanket subsidy to ELST for the provision of books to developing countries. The Educational Low-priced Book Scheme was such a subsidy and was terminated because it failed to benefit those most in need—poor students in the poorest countries.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat discouraging reply. I am a trustee of ELST. Is the Minister aware that this charitable trust was created specifically at the behest of British publishers and, in particular, at the behest of educational bodies in many developing countries which lamented the demise of the old ELBS scheme? Furthermore, is she aware that the scheme the DfID has attempted to put in its place for producing a bibliography based upon a Glasgow bookseller has not succeeded in replacing the ELBS, whereas the ELST has now been able to produce seven books and has many more in the pipeline which could be made available to developing countries if funds were forthcoming?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am aware of the role he plays with ELST, and the role that other noble Lords have also played with the organisation. However, it is important that the House should recognise that DfID supports the book sector through a number of different mechanisms. One mechanism is our bilateral country programme. The department also supports Book Aid International and the association for the development of education in Africa. According to the information I have to hand, the bibliography of low-priced English texts has been an extremely successful element of the mechanisms we have put in place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people, as well as many charities, collect books and are keen to send them on to developing countries? I was told to contact Book Aid.
620
However, is the Minister aware that Book Aid only sends books to a limited range of countries—not nearly as many as the Ranfurly Library supplied? Furthermore, when books are made available, those wishing to send them find that they cannot afford the cost of transport. Is there anything the Government can do to help, perhaps in terms of mail ships which might be travelling to these countries and could carry the books? Can the noble Baroness also look into the matter of whether books will be received duty free, as people in poor countries cannot afford to pay duty on such items? I have had duty charged even on paper dress patterns which I sent to be helpful to someone. Can the Minister look into those problems?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, Book Aid International is the main mechanism by which books are sent to developing countries. I agree with the noble Baroness that it does not cover the entire range of countries to which individuals and organisations may wish to send books. I believe that the Government can only play a limited role. However, individuals and organisations may wish to contact individual embassies and high commissions—something I have done myself when I have secured surplus books. Sometimes those embassies and high commissions can arrange for books to be transported.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I feel that I should admit to the House that it was I, as Minister, who decided that, because we could not get books to the poorest students in the poorest countries, the original scheme should be changed. Therefore, prior to May 1997, the responsibility lay with me. Can the Minister find any way of extending the range of countries to which Book Aid International, which is the most efficient organisation, dispatches books? Perhaps those connected with international airlines can take note that a few kilos of books going into an airport, plus agreement at the other end, achieved, one hopes, by a British high commission or embassy, would make a very major change.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for indicating that it was her decision and not this Government's decision that resulted in a change to the policy. However, it is a policy we entirely endorse because, of course, the core of our development activity is focused on the elimination of poverty. Secondly, I take on board the points raised by the noble Baroness. We shall discuss with Book Aid International the possibility of extending the range of countries. I am sure that we can encourage our individual high commissioners and ambassadors in countries across the world to have discussions with international airlines flying to those countries.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the ELST charitable trust. I confirm the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. At the time I sat on the Opposition Front Bench and it was my duty to attack the noble Baroness for her decision.

621
I shall not resile from the need to attack my noble friend for doing nothing better than did the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. Rather oddly for a Conservative, the argument of the noble Baroness was that her main concern lay with the poorest of the poor. I believe that we were promised a scheme that would reach that sector. As I understand it, the Government, of which I am the most fervent supporter, have made no progress whatever in that regard. There is no evidence that the scheme put in place has helped the poorest of the poor. The group that has helped the poorest of the poor is ELST. The only problem is that that group has no money. Will my noble friend at least look at this matter? Can she also assure me that from now on all other overseas aid will be stopped unless it helps the poorest of the poor?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are quite happy to consider any application from ELST that meets our objectives. As I said, a number of different mechanisms have been put in place to meet the educational needs of developing countries. That includes, for example, consideration of the book sector through our bilateral country programmes. Only at the end of last year when I visited Jamaica I looked at a scheme funded as part of our bilateral programmes. I assure my noble friend that we shall ensure that development resources are effectively targeted on our core activity, which is the elimination of world poverty.

Millennium Dome: Bids Criteria
2.45 p.m.
Lord Lukeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they will use to assess bids for the Millennium Dome and ancillary areas to be sold after the end of the Millennium Experience on 31st December 2000.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the winning scheme should be commercially and financially successful and not impose on the public purse; demonstrate high standards of environmental sustainability; provide regeneration through economic, social and physical benefits; be imaginative and distinctive; enhance the cultural significance of the Dome; and maximise use of public transport. We intend to announce a shortlist of potential winners in the next few weeks.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he assure me that the Government will not just sell to the highest bidder? Does he agree that the most appropriate use of the Greenwich peninsula as a whole is as a world-class, world-size business convention and conference centre with all that that means to the business tourist industry in Britain? Can the Minister say approximately how much money the Government expect to receive for the whole site?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the Government have always made clear, money will not be the only consideration. We want a first-class use for the site which reflects all the criteria I indicated in my Answer. We are in the process of reducing a shortlist of 10 to a smaller number. It would be wrong for me to indicate the kind of figure that the Government have in mind because that would have an effect on the negotiations.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise that the inheritors of the site will have a building of striking distinctiveness and quality? Is it not time that we recognise the quality of many of our modern architects and the significance of the Dome? Does my noble and learned friend agree that, despite the rather unfortunate experiences of some of the London intelligentsia on the eve of the millennium—I refer to newspaper editors and the media—their judgment that the Dome will not prove to be a success is contradicted by those of us who visit the site with the ordinary folk of this country? On Monday I accompanied some people from Oldham on a special visit to the Dome. Their judgment is vastly different from the rather critical comments that come from some sections of the London elite.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have been there on a number of occasions since 1st January 2000. My experience is that the vast majority of people who go there have a truly fabulous day out. But noble Lords need not take just my word for it. Let us consider the polls conducted by a number of media publications and organisations; for example, the Sunday Times, the Daily Mirror, ITN and the Independent. Some of those organisations have not been altogether favourable to the Dome since 1st January. However, the polls carried out by all of those organisations show satisfaction percentages in the high 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, indicating a high level of satisfaction on the part of those who have been there.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that in assessing these bids no distinction will be made between VIPs and ordinary people?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, all bids will be treated equally.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that all those on the shortlist of potential winners will fully meet the Government's ambitious, wide-ranging and all-embracing criteria?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, at the moment we have a shortlist of 10. We have made clear the criteria to be met in order to move on to the shorter shortlist. All of those who move on to the shorter shortlist must satisfy the Government's criteria.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the fact that money will not be the only criterion means that the site may eventually be sold at a loss? If I am right in believing that the sole shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company is the Government, how will that loss be met?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am proud to say that I am the sole shareholder in the company. As I made clear in answer to an earlier intervention, money is not the only consideration. We have also made it clear that n o taxpayers' money of any kind will be used in relation to this. Obviously, that is an important factor in considering the bid.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord personally afford the result of that undertaking?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am perfectly content to say "yes" to that.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the Dome is not a development to be bought and sold as a piece of property but an exhibition, and that in most commercial organisations the cost of an exhibition is written off against the cost of attracting people and doing all the other things that an exhibition is meant to do? Does my noble and learned friend agree that that is the way it should be considered?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree in substance with what my noble friend says. As regards the successful bidder, consideration will be given not only to the property transaction but also to many other factors.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as Wembley cannot accommodate track events, why could not the Dome be turned into a super-sports stadium at which track events, boxing, tennis, and any sport one likes to mention, could take place?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one of the 10 bidders on the shortlist proposes something called the "sports dome" which includes a wide range of sports. I fear that it could not be a large enough open-air stadium for an Olympic bid. However, if there were an Olympic stadium somewhere else, it could complement it for other sports.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a considerable sum of public money has been spent on the Dome? It is included under the Government's own totals of public expenditure in the Pre-Budget Report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, £399 million worth of the Millennium Commission's money—that is, money which comes from the lottery—has been spent on it. No person in this country is compelled to buy a lottery ticket.

National Lottery
2.50 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are planning to introduce substantial changes in the National Lottery, and in the way in which the proceeds are distributed, when the lottery licence is next renewed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the next licence to operate the National Lottery will be awarded by the National Lottery Commission and will, other things being equal, go to the bidder likely to raise most money for the good causes. The Invitation to Apply published by the commission includes changes to remove obstacles to competition including possible additional contributions to the good ca uses from profits and the extent to which bidders have transparent remuneration arrangements and the highest standards of corporate governance.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can the noble Lord confirm that the licence was awarded to Camelot for the sole reason that it offered to give a higher proportion of the funds to good causes than any of the other bidders, including the consortium which included Richard Branson?
The second half of my question relates to distribution of National Lottery funds. It comes somewhat appropriately after the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that £399 million of lottery money went into the Millennium Dome. Is there not an increasing danger that Ministers see the lottery as a new pot of money for them? If they cannot get their project past the Chief Secretary will they not try to dip their fingers into the lottery pool? Does that not go totally against the principle which we as a Conservative government established that the allocation of the lottery money for good causes should go directly to independent expert bodies like the Charities Board and National Heritage? The decision as to where it was then spent would be up to those bodies. Does not that principle have to be revived and maintained if the lottery is to continue to be the success that it has been?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's first question, for reasons he will understand, the thinking behind the previous government's conclusion in favour of Camelot has not been made available to Ministers of this Government, although I understand that they claim that Camelot produced the best result for the good causes.
In response to the noble Lord's second question, there is a danger of confusion. I think that he is really saying that somehow expenditure on heritage, arts, sport and charities is inherently independent of government sticky fingers (as he puts. it) whereas the New Opportunities Fund is not. I can assure him that the arm's length principles which apply to the original

625
good causes apply equally to the New Opportunities Fund, given the provision in the National Lottery Act 1998 that the Government shall prescribe in broad terms the direction into which moneys from the National Lottery shall be used.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, none the less, will the Minister assure the House that the present 4.7 per cent going to the good causes bodies will not be diminished?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have given assurances about the percentages up to and including the end of the present Camelot concession. Decisions about future allocation of lottery funds will be made public in due course and of course will be subject to public consultation.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, having said in a debate in this House in which he also took part that the lottery is basically a tax on the working classes, I was bombarded with literature by Camelot? However, the one thing it would not tell me was how much was contributed by each of the registrar general's socio- economic groups.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware of the literature with which my noble friend was bombarded by Camelot. It did not have the courtesy to tell me about it. However, I sympathise with him in his frustration at not getting the information he requires. Perhaps if he receives it he will inform the House of what he has learnt.

Millennium Dome: Operation
2.55 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements at the Millennium Dome on New Year's Eve and with its operation so far.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the delays experienced by some guests in getting to the Dome via Stratford Underground Station on 31st December were unacceptable. I have apologised and the New Millennium Experience Company's chief executive is writing to all who arrived via Stratford on new year's eve offering them a free visit to the Dome. Overall, however, the celebrations at the Dome were a huge success.
As I mentioned, polls conducted so far by the Sunday Times, the Mirror, ITN and the Independent all show that the vast majority of those visiting the Dome enjoy the experience very much.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, bearing in mind that the Government have put up the
626
most expensive temporary building in history, will he tell us something more about its operations? First, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the daily weekday average number visiting is around 10,000, only reaching 20,000 to 25,000 at the weekend? Are those figures correct?
Secondly, can the Minister tell us why it was necessary to reserve part of the Jubilee Line for the Prime Ministerial party on new year's eve?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the building is not temporary. It is a permanent building. We have always said that there is one other building like it whose roof has been up for 30 years and so far has not required maintenance. Even if the roof of the Millennium Dome were to require maintenance after 30 years that would be similar to most people's houses.
Secondly, as regards the operational level, we said on 22nd September 1999 that we would publish visitor figures at the end of each month rather than on a day to day basis which would lead to adverse criticism when the figure was low and favourable views when it was high. The operational level of numbers coming in is entirely satisfactory for January which must be one of the worst months for visitor attractions. Despite that, we are getting more visitors to the Millennium Dome this month than any other visitor attraction in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, it is normal for a station such as Westminster to be closed on new year's eve for the purposes of security. If crowds had gathered around Westminster and the station was open, that could have led to difficulties. For security reasons, it was a sensible way to get the people who had been at a party in the Palace of Westminster—it included a large number of millennium award winners—from the Palace of Westminster to the Dome on that evening. The line as a whole was not closed.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Carrington set down for today shall be limited to six hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Discipline Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 10,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 11 to 13,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 14 to 25,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 26 and 27,

Schedule 4,

Clause 28.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The International Situation
2.58 p.m.
Lord Carringtonrose to call attention to the international situation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether, like the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, whose presence in this House we greatly welcome, I am making a maiden speech. I must therefore crave your Lordships' indulgence. I have not had the opportunity of asking the right reverend Prelate opposite whether reincarnation involves anything so ghastly! However, I have no intention of making a very controversial speech. After all, foreign affairs should be bipartisan and more often than not is—that is, apart from the European Union, about which it would be extravagant to claim that there is any agreement between political parties or, indeed, within political parties. But that is a debate on its own and I do not propose to discuss it this afternoon.
On many occasions in your Lordships' House, I have listened to noble Lords who have come up from another place say that they are making their maiden speech in this House from exactly the same Bench as that from which they made their maiden speech to the Commons when it sat in this Chamber. But I did not make my original maiden speech in this House; I made it in the King's Robing Room. When thinking about what to say today, I was struck by how different the circumstances were then from what they are now.
At that time, after six years of war, we were, alas, beginning to realise that the so-called agreeable Uncle Joe was not quite the character that the British people had assumed him to be. The dangers that we faced as the Soviet Union subjugated eastern Europe were manifest, not least because of the robust speeches and policy of that great man, Ernest Bevin. We were, although we did not know it at the time, at the beginning of 40 years of Cold War; of threat of a nuclear world war; of vast expense on armaments; and of the deployment of manpower for defence purposes which could much better have been used for other purposes. There were difficult times during those 40 years, but NATO and the resolution of the West prevented a war. And 10 years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed.
628
As a result, today we face totally different problems—not so dangerous, but equally challenging. Your Lordships will remember that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was much talk of a new world order and the expectation that the United Nations would be able to solve any future problems.
It did not happen, partly because two new elements frustrated our hopes and complicated international relations. Whatever the disadvantages and penalties of the Cold War, it imposed on all nations, not just East and West, an imperative to avoid taking any action which would cause either of the super-powers to clash and involve the world in a catastrophic war. A discipline was imposed on everyone. It is, for example, inconceivable to imagine the break-up of Yugoslavia in the days of Mr Brezhnev. It would have been far too dangerous for the Yugoslav people. In those circumstances it would have been most unlikely also that Saddam Hussein would have invaded Kuwait.
Now countries are much more concerned with their own national interest and prepared to pursue policies which, in previous days, would have been considered too dangerous. Furthermore, the United Nations is only the sum of its members and cannot be expected to solve problems on its own without the support, encouragement and sacrifices which that entails. The Secretary-General, for whom I have great admiration, has done his best, but when you look at the problems which face the United Nations, particularly those in Africa—the Congo, the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, Angola and Rwanda, you name it!—it is clear that it has been hamstrung by the lack of support and interest of those not directly involved.
In the days of the Cold War, both East and West would have been so nervous that the other would become influential and dominant in any part of the world that aid, both military and economic, would have poured in. We have only to recall, for example, Soviet aid to Ethiopia and Angola. There are no easy solutions to the lack of political will. I notice that in the Queen's Speech the Government stated that they intend to help to reform the United Nations. I should be interested to learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, exactly what they have in mind.
It seems to me that there are two things which we might do which, in a small way, might help. We should, I believe, encourage and strengthen regional organisations, particularly in Africa, which could act as agents of the United Nations Security Council, in much the same way that NATO did in Bosnia. Regional organisations are much more likely to be aware of the problems which could arise and are much more concerned about the consequences of conflict in their area. Secondly, the Secretary-General should be provided with sufficient staff, either at his headquarters or in the regional organisations, to provide early warning, intelligence and military advice. He is woefully short of all three.
The lack of political will, to which I have referred, has affected the capacity of the United Nations to deal with the various problems which have arisen in the past 10 years. There have, of course, been occasions

629
when the United Nations has become involved and has been successful, or, at any rate, partially successful, as in the Gulf War, but the reason for that success was the wholehearted involvement of the United States, which feared the consequences in both oil supplies and the stability of the region. But as countries have become more preoccupied with their own affairs, and as the dangers of war have receded, so, generally speaking, national self-interest has advanced. If the dangers do not affect the vital interests of most countries, they are prepared to pass resolutions in the United Nations but do very little else about it. The United Nations' involvement in Yugoslavia falls into a rather different category and I shall say a little more about that later.
The second new element in this post-Cold War era has been instantaneous information which is available in every home, every fireside, on the evening news or in the press or on the media. Night after night, viewers can see harrowing pictures of starving children in Africa or the plight of refugees in all parts of the world; the misery and the suffering. Understandably, this has had an enormous effect on public opinion and on media comment.
It is said that "Something must be done", and there is great pressure on governments to do something. However, in some cases, what they are supposed to do is far from clear and, in many cases, those who are asking for action do not see themselves involved in any military or financial consequences. It is very difficult for governments to resist such pressure. The obvious example of the "something must be done" syndrome was the United States' involvement in Somalia, where no United States' interests were involved and which resulted in American casualties and a strong negative reaction in the United States which has had its consequences.
No doubt the noble Baroness will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to speak of an ethical foreign policy. Perhaps I may say that she dealt admirably with that question before Christmas. She said, and I hope I do not misrepresent her, that each situation had to be dealt with on its merits and that we had to choose the best way to do this—as indeed, in my experience, all previous governments have done.
I would, however, make one criticism. I do not think it was wise of the Foreign Secretary to condemn the military coup in Pakistan in the way that he did. Those of us who have been in Pakistan fairly recently know that both political parties in that country were corrupt, incompetent, unpopular and highly damaging to the welfare of the people of Pakistan. Of course, it is undesirable and deplorable that a government regime should be overthrown in a military coup, but provided the intention is to restore a democratic government, condemnation should at least be postponed.
It is, however, in our involvement in Yugoslavia that there are lessons to be learned. There can be no doubt that the European Union, NATO and the United Nations became involved in that country for the very best possible motives. There is equally no doubt that both in Bosnia and Kosovo grave mistakes were made. The initial mistake was the
630
premature recognition of Slovenia and Croatia, a recognition which inevitably triggered the Bosnian war. It is as well to know, if one considers intervention in a civil war, on whose side one stands. In this case, the European Union and the United Nations decided that their role was to keep the peace and not take sides. The result was that the United Nations troops were forbidden to fire their weapons except in self-defence, while at the same time designating safe areas which they were unable to defend unless they themselves were attacked. The result was that all three sides—Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian—felt that the United Nations forces were neither friendly nor helpful.
The fact is that nearly 10 years on the outcome of all this—after much ethnic cleansing and tens of thousands of casualties—is much the same as if we had never intervened at all. There is no real prospect of a federal Bosnia, and the United Nations will be committed for an indefinite period.
Some of your Lordships will remember that when the Government announced their action against the Serbs, as a result of Serbian refusal to accept troops in their country, I felt obliged to say that I thought this was a grave mistake. What was it supposed to achieve? It did not prevent the expulsion of Kosovans, rather it caused it. It did not succeed in getting rid of President Milosevic. He is still there. It did succeed in destroying a great deal of Serbian infrastructure. It did succeed—though, unintentionally, of course—in ethnically cleansing most of the Serbs in Kosovo; not perhaps as effectively as President Tudjman ethnically cleansed the Serbs in the Krajina. The result in Kosovo is alarming. No Serb is safe. In many areas, some of the Kosova Liberation Army, whose reputation is appalling, are in charge. By all accounts—although we hear little about—it the United Nations and the European Union are failing in their attempts to normalise the situation.
In addition, in the long term, we, the international community, are faced either with giving independence to a Kosovo run entirely by Kosovo Albanians—with the gravest possible consequences to the surrounding countries if such a decision were taken—or seeking a solution in which Kosovo remains a part of Serbia, a solution wholly impracticable in the foreseeable future. The one thing that is certain is that United Nations troops will be there for a very long time indeed.
Before such an action is taken in the future, it would I think be well to look far enough ahead and weigh the consequences of what one is about to do. The 19 countries of NATO certainly did not do that on that occasion.
The events of 1989 also had one other very significant consequence and one which I am not entirely sure has been sufficiently recognised. The United States has become absolutely dominant, not just militarily—although it is certainly true in military terms that, with

631
the exception of China and the nuclear capacity of Russia, there is no other country with the capacity to intervene worldwide in a military sense—but in terms of economic and industrial superiority. Unless the United States gives a lead on global issues, nothing much is likely to happen.
From the United States' point of view, the area of the world which it must now consider to be the most important is the Far East; its relationship with China; the problems of Korea and of Taiwan, and its relationship with Japan. These must loom much larger in US eyes than its relationship with Europe which is now no longer a priority. It seems to me that the Atlantic relationship, from our point of view, is as important as ever it was. NATO is the only organisation in which the United States is involved in European affairs. Consequently, it has as much a political importance as a defensive one. We must be very careful not to do anything which damages that relationship. Indeed, the reverse must be true. We must do everything to nurture it and strengthen it.
There has been much discussion recently over the proposals for a European security and defence identity. It is of course as a result of a rather belated realisation by the European countries that their military capacity in Kosovo was woefully inadequate as compared with that of the United States. That is, indeed, true. The amount of money which European countries individually spend on defence is not translated into any collective European capacity to act without the involvement of the United States. It is quite right that the Europeans should address these deficiencies. It is, after all, an extension of the old burden-sharing argument.
I, therefore, have no quarrel with what is intended, although I must tell your Lordships that, in my judgment, the likelihood of this resulting in any significant improvement in European capacity is rather remote. That can be achieved only if European countries are prepared to spend more money on defence. Even the most starry-eyed optimist would feel some misgivings on that matter. We in this country, although we have on the whole been more robust in this than our European neighbours, are in danger of under-equipping and over-committing our much reduced Armed Forces. Nor do I think that the involvement of the European Union or Commission in defence matters is likely to be beneficial. As the membership of the European Union grows and includes more countries traditionally neutral, the likelihood of any agreement to use a European military force will diminish. I hope that I am wrong about this. In any event, it is absolutely essential that the Americans should not feel that the European security and defence identity is either a weakening of our allegiance to NATO or a challenge to it. I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness who is to reply would give an undertaking that American doubts—and there have been American doubts—have been firmly and once and for all put at rest.
It would be wrong to end on too pessimistic a note. How much better off we are in the foreign and defence field than we were 10 years ago. Central Europe is, once again, part of the democratic West. We have had
632
removed the threat of a nuclear world war which hung over us for so long. But there are difficult problems ahead. We in the West must remain capable of playing our part and acting wisely in an increasingly confused world. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for initiating the debate. It is a rare reincarnation and all the more welcome for that. I am glad that the powers that be saw to it that the noble Lord was retained in the House to give us the benefit of his wisdom, as he has done today.
It is also a humbling experience to follow the noble Lord when at least four former Foreign Secretaries and four former Cabinet Ministers are yet to speak. Someone probably does not like me very much, which is why I have been put in this number two slot!
I want to concentrate on two issues, both of which will overlap somewhat with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. The first is the reform of the United Nations. It is an important question and has very much to do with what has happened since 1990. When the United Nations was set up there was a presumption that the five big powers would form a condominium to take care of the world. As it happened, they did that, but not in a friendly way because they were antagonistic towards each other. As the noble Lord said, the balance of the cold war kept a regime if not of terror then of some fear. The balance was maintained so that little minnows were not allowed to misbehave themselves, as they have since 1990.
The UN survived the cold war in a peculiar frozen form, but it has not found a better way of operation since the break-up of the Soviet Union and since the break-down of the assumption of condominium in the absence of the cold war. What the United Nations needs first is greater democratisation. By that I mean that the five Security Council permanent powers must he made more subject to the rule of law than they have tended to be. I should like to have the Security Council expanded, keeping the five permanent powers but also adding perhaps seven or 10 more. Much more than that, we cannot have permanent powers defying human rights, indulging in armaments sales or carrying on in international relations as if they were above international law. What the world needs now—there is a great deal of talk about globalization—is a framework of global governance. By that I mean a set of rules to which every country, large or small, will be subject. We should also have some way of enforcing those rules. It is not an easy issue.
The United States is the single most powerful country in the world. I do not have very much against that because, by and large, the US has behaved responsibly in international relations for the past 50 years, has kept the peace and in many instances, as in Somalia, has behaved beyond where its self-interest was involved and has tried to help the world. My worry is that, increasingly, the US may not want to play that role. The behaviour of the US Congress, more than the US executive, is alarming. The failure to ratify the CTBT is

633
worrying. Its behaviour in regard to paying UN dues is worrying. I hope that the next presidential election will produce a recommitment of the US executive to keeping the US's active role, not just as a policeman but as a general worrier and problem solver for the international system. If the US were once again to become isolationist, the anarchy in international relations would be much worse than it is right now. We all have a duty to tell our friends across the Atlantic, as many as we can, that they cannot renege on their responsibilities.
I agree that Europe should do more by way of defence. I agree also that it is unlikely that Europe will do more for defence. There is a great deal of irresponsible talk about the European Community, powered by the euro, being an independent regional economic power. That is tosh. I do not think it will become an independent economic power unless it is willing to pay the price—and Europe is not willing to pay the price of being an independent economic power. Europe may well decide to co-operate constructively and helpfully with the United States and cajole and help the United States to fulfil the role which it has fulfilled so far and which I hope it will continue to fulfil.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some very helpful remarks about NATO. There is no doubt that NATO is an effective military arm, but what Bosnia and Kosovo proved is that it lacks a policy-thinking dimension, a point made by the noble Lord. In a sense there is a gap in NATO. There needs to be a political forward-thinking arrangement in NATO so that a view can be taken of the future evolution of the international system. Right now, that task is not being performed in any single place. Every time there is a crisis, there is a temporary getting together of sherpas and their superiors. That will not do.
Perhaps I may give, as an example, the recognition of Croatia, which was a great mistake. I have heard my noble friend Lord Healey, who unfortunately is not in his place, say in this House—I quote him from memory—that the recognition of Croatia was part of a deal to allow the UK to opt-out from the euro system. That may be the case. Deals are always made in politics. But someone should have checked across the Atlantic with the Americans whether that was a good thing to do. What happened? Immediately, Europe receded to its position after the first world war, where the French and Germans could not agree on how to behave in the Balkans and a great many bad things happened thereafter. Therefore, I believe that NATO needs a political long-range thinking arm for itself.
What is puzzling is that, while in the economic sphere we now recognise that there is no such thing as national sovereignty, that no country can write its own ticket as far as concerns its fiscal or monetary policy and that, like it or not, with the discipline of the market, one cannot run untrammelled deficits, there is still a great deal of attachment to political sovereignty and we are still allowing countries to do things within their borders which no bond market would allow in the economic sphere. It is that strong attachment to national sovereignty, especially among newly independent
634
countries, that is causing a great deal of trouble and strife in the international sphere—whether in Azerbaijan, Kosovo or countries in Africa. They are behaving as if having sovereignty means the right to make trouble, not just against other countries but against their own people. The twin problem of interstate wars and states waging war on their own peoples is very serious. Part of a global governance framework will have to be enforcement of a consistent regime of human rights. The UN or some other body will have to take a position that certain kinds of violations of human rights are not allowed, regardless of whether those take place within the boundaries of a country. That will not be easy, but globalisation or a global role—whatever you call it—entails certain kinds of political consequences. If we are to have a world in which capital mobility and labour mobility may be carried on across boundaries, that means also that people's human rights must be safe across boundaries. No matter where people go, they have the right to be treated in a civil fashion and not just to be treated at the whim of the country in which they are.
Finally, I have just been to Sri Lanka, where I spent a week as an election observer and two nice weeks on holiday. South Asia is in an extremely worrisome state. I do not have time to say any more on that subject, but be it India and Pakistan, the Tamil-Sinhala war or the strike on the eastern and western periphery of India and Pakistan respectively, there will be problems. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are aware that there will be expectations of them when the crisis comes. I hope that they are doing quite a lot to prevent a real outbreak of conflict in the region.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I must congratulate my noble friend on setting the scene so brilliantly for today's important debate by clearly identifying the crucial issues and widening the current debate further than the European Union. I greatly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes.
With respect to all the expertise in your Lordships' House on this vast subject, I shall confine my few remarks to the Balkans: the part of the globe which we were all taught at school is the "powder keg of Europe". No event has defined perceptions of that peninsula so profoundly as the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914.
"It is an intolerable affront to human and political nature that these wretched and unhappy little countries in the Balkan peninsula can, and do … cause world wars".
That was written by John Gunther in his Inside Europe in 1940, which was part of an immensely popular "Inside" series. Luckily, last year did not produce a world-scale war. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the communist system was the most important political milestone during my time in politics.
I should like to focus on one of the new democracies which then emerged. The Kosovo war had an enormous effect on Bulgaria. It was, after all, in its back yard. Fifty thousand Bulgarians live in Serbia. It was inevitable that Milosevic would put pressure on Bulgaria via

635
them. As a result, many of their exports were, and still are, unable to reach their markets. Tourism was badly hit. Many foreign investors feared to put money in Bulgaria. They rightly now look to us for help.
Early estimates from the Vienna Institute for Economics suggest that as much as 100 billion dollars will be needed to create stability in the Balkans as a whole. The Stability Pact for south-eastern Europe is full of fine intentions, but, alas, promises little or no money. Kruschev said that,
"politicians are the sane all over, they promise to build a bridge even when there is no river".
The Bulgarian Government and Parliament took many courageous decisions in siding with NATO, providing corridors for our aircraft and by supporting the EU oil embargo. Those were not easy decisions.
Bulgaria's adopted ethnic model is one from which other countries in the region could learn a great deal. The Turkish minority is now well represented in both the national parliament and local government. That inclusive approach is a far cry from the forced assimilation used by the former communist regime in the 1980s, and one which has led to a strong relationship between Bulgaria and Turkey. The programme in progress now, of improving conditions for the Roma, will help to create an inclusive society in which they too will have a contribution to make.
Perhaps Bulgaria's greatest success over the past two years has been its progress in promoting regional cooperation and good relations with its neighbours. The signature last year of a joint declaration between Bulgaria and Macedonia is particularly significant. It has effectively put an end to the language dispute and brought about a historical transformation in Bulgaria's relations with Macedonia. All of that progress shows what can be achieved by looking into the future instead of living in the past.
That is the progress that the European Union and NATO want to see in their future member states. The rewards are long-term prosperity and stability. The Bulgarian Government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Kostov, celebrate over two years in office. The efforts they have made to reform their economy and to peg the lev to the euro in that short time is remarkable. It took western Europe decades to build thriving market economies. I know that the process is difficult; that it inevitably involves pain. No doubt the answer is to try to combine the benefits of the market with social justice, not to abandon reform.
I realise that for many Bulgarians, progress towards EU membership must seem frustratingly slow. We in the West must do more to demonstrate clearly that it is an attainable goal, even though many feel that it is increasingly a bottomless source of inaccessible funds. It is vital that the gains they have made should not be lost as a result of Kosovo. We must use the Kosovo conflict as an opportunity to accelerate and entrench the reforms already under way, not as an excuse to delay them.
At the Luxembourg Summit in 1997, Bulgaria was no longer locked into the second-wave countries waiting for entry. At Helsinki in December, the European
636
Council invited Bulgaria to start formal accession negotiations to accede to the European Union. Those moves are unmistakable signals that the European Union is serious about welcoming Bulgaria into its ranks.
Economic integration is one side of the coin; security is the other. In that connection, we should commend Bulgaria on its drive to create a multinational peace-keeping and peace-making brigade with units from Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Romania and Italy. The fact that the headquarters of that brigade is now in Plovdiv, commanded by a Turkish general with a Romanian and Bulgarian deputy and a Greek director of political affairs, is a remarkable feat.
We can see the enormous progress that Bulgaria has made, but those advances are not always evident to people for whom daily life is often a struggle. Many people in the former communist world, including Bulgaria—public opinion polls confirm this—are upset nowadays, disappointed, or even disgusted by social conditions. Many people believe that once again, democracy or not, there are people in power who cannot be trusted, who are concerned more and more with their own advantage than they are with the general interest. Many are convinced that honest business people operate at a disadvantage, while dishonest profiteers receive the green light.
After nine years of trying to build a market economy, many people wonder why the economy is not doing better. They wonder why prices, including rents and utilities, are rising faster than pensions and social benefits. They yearn for the good old days when the state nannied everyone. The answer to such criticism is that the time has come, 10 years after the departure of Todor Zhivkov, that Bulgaria must not look to the dark past. A French philosopher said,
"That all men would be brothers is the dream of people who have no brothers".
How easy it is to forget the tragic legacy of 45 years of Soviet socialism: a politically and financially bankrupt state; a devastated economy; and 11 million dollars of foreign debt—much of it untraceable in foreign bank accounts.
Despite this pessimistic note, Bulgaria has managed to remain an island of peace and stability. There are huge social and economic difficulties in transforming its economy and society. A full commitment to reform is the only way.
Finally, I make a brief request to the Minister to urge her colleagues not to react to, but rather to anticipate, future crises. With concentration on Bosnia and Kosovo, there is a risk that we may underestimate the growing pressure for independence in neighbouring Montenegro, the only surviving sister republic in the Yugoslav federation. This could turn the small coastal republic into another Balkan trouble spot, capable of threatening the stability of the whole region.
These are critical times for the rebuilding of eastern Europe. We have profound cause to he grateful for the wisdom and generosity of other nations in the late

637
1940s when western Europe's economies were devastated. We need the same vision, far-sightedness and even sacrifice now in the interests of eastern Europe; otherwise a great historic opportunity may be lost.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Fellowes: My Lords, I am grateful for the honour of addressing this House for the first time, and conscious that I do so at a momentous time in its history. I beg your Lordships' indulgence as one whose previous experience in the world of speeches has been in the field of construction rather than delivery. I am grateful also for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in a foreign affairs debate, since it gives me the chance to speak about a subject which is dear to my heart at least, and which still holds a place, albeit a tenuous one, in the affections of most British hearts—the Commonwealth. It is my subject, not for reasons of sentiment but rather for reasons of common sense and looking to the furtherance of British interests.
Britain's affection for the Commonwealth, to which I referred, has, it is no use denying, cooled in recent years. That has been brought about by a mixture of indifference, of misplaced embarrassment about our colonial history, of disdain for the weaker or less democratic, in our terms, members of the "club", and of irritation with the more moralistic positions sometimes adopted in the past by some Commonwealth leaders. It is not too late, in my view, to reverse the cooling process.
A major factor in bringing about such a change for the better should be a realisation of what the Commonwealth has to offer Britain. It has three unique qualities for us. First, the Queen is its respected head, giving us unique influence in its deliberations. Secondly, its membership links us to every level of international organisation and trade association, containing as it does the Queen's largest realms—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, some of the most robust of emerging market countries like South Africa, trading specialists such as Malaysia and Singapore, and tiny countries, some poor, some not, but many of whom speak for the third world. Thirdly, the Commonwealth's language, like that of the Internet, is English. In terms of global communication, therefore, this must give the Commonwealth a very real advantage.
At a time when our relationships with Europe and with the United States are under constant scrutiny and when the World Trade Organisation has failed to reach agreement on an agenda for its next round, surely Britain should be devoting more time and resources to developing and nurturing its Commonwealth ties.
The Commonwealth is not perfect. It is not alone in that, but under the lead of its Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, sadly soon to retire, it has acquired in recent years a new-found realism and sense of purpose, and we would, I believe, do well to make the most of them.
638
In that context, I was delighted to hear that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has reached agreement on a deal to secure the future of the Commonwealth Institute in Kensington. As a future trustee of the institute, I hope that this is a straw in the wind to show that the Commonwealth still matters to us. Indeed, I hope that it signals a renewed enthusiasm in British Government for an institution which is, in its strange, unpredictable, sometimes exasperating but always generous-hearted way, closer to this country and to its people than most of those other international organisations to which we devote more time and money and which, to say the least, from time to time disappoint us.
On a practical note, I should like to make two points to take us from the general to the particular. First, could not Britain take a lead in giving the Commonwealth a role in solving the World Trade Organisation impasse? As I have said, the membership is unique in its origins and diversity and has an interest in a successful outcome at every level, from the G8 to the third world. The need for a solution is acute and would provide a focus for the Commonwealth which it has sometimes lacked in the past when proposing other initiatives. Furthermore, the Commonwealth is already providing technical assistance to developing countries, giving it a foundation of influence in those countries on which to build. The Commonwealth could ensure that the voice of those most in need of a WTO solution—the poorest countries—is heard at the highest levels.
Secondly, and to finish, would it not be a splendid thing for the Commonwealth to be able to welcome back Ireland as a member? I pray that it may come about, and sooner rather than later.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, on his first speech in this House. As he himself said early on, his recent experiences have been more or less in the drafting than in the delivering of speeches. But in his performance this afternoon I believe he showed that he can do both with an equal understated elegance and effectiveness.
The noble Lord was for almost a decade the Principal Private Secretary to the Sovereign and before that he had been Assistant Private Secretary to the Palace for, I believe, 13 years. Inevitably in those circumstances, a certain patina of the courtier is bound to have been acquired. But in my experience of the noble Lord, which is quite considerable, it conceals an acute probing and even a radical mind. I have long thought that it is no accident that the three Prime Ministers who in modern British politics have presided over the most reforming changes—Gladstone, Asquith and Attlee—were all men who, outside their central purpose, were of a conservative (with a small "c") habit of mind. Perhaps the noble Lord reminds me a little of that. I hope we shall hear him often again, and we shall not mind if he lets some of the radicalism come to the surface.

639
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for initiating this debate and for the way in which he did so. When the noble Lord last addressed the House—I believe in March of last year—he said:
"As this is probably the last speech I shall make after 54 years in this House I craw. your Lordships' indulgence".—[Official Report, 29/3/99; col. 27.]
Well, I am very glad to say that that was a false prophecy and that today he is an inspiring example of life after death.
The noble Lord was an early advocate of reform of your Lordships' House. I regret that the scheme which he worked out with the then Labour government in 1967–68 did not go through. But I always thought that any scheme for reform of the House of Lords which excluded the noble, Lord, Lord Carrington, would be a mistake. I am delighted to say that that has not been the case.
My particular recollection of him goes back—more relevant to today's debate—to when he became Foreign Secretary in 1979. I was then president of the European Commission. I saw him in action in Council after Council—one might almost say endless Council after Council. He was something of a breath of fresh air. He was eager to create a new atmosphere of British co-operativeness—to put Britain a t the heart of Europe, if you like—and to show a Conservative government, difficult though it is to believe today, putting an end to Labour foot-dragging in relation to Europe.
He did that very skilfully indeed. But that particular phase was brought to an end by a few swings of his mistress's handbag. I need hardly say that I use the word "mistress" purely in a power-relationship sense. She caused quite unnecessary offence in handling the issue of Britain's budgetary rebate. She was right about the money but she could have achieved just as much without causing that unnecessary offence.
That interplay between two conflicting British attitudes to Europe, with the more hostile and suspicious attitude nearly always coming out on top, has been symptomatic of Britain's not very successful attitude to Europe over 50 years now. The amount of damage that equivocation on the issue has inflicted—I leave the country aside for the moment, although that is more important—upon successive Prime Ministers has been immense: Harold Macmillan, in turning it down, marked the end of his successful phase; Harold Wilson, although more in opposition than in government, suffered damage to both his authority and his confidence by his equivocation; the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and Mr Major both suffered. Some were literally brought down by their inability to handle the European issue. They tried to deal with it with too much equivocation and I pray that the same will not be said in the future of the Blair Government.
In the meantime, I note with amusement the extraordinary chassé croisé which has been taking place between the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr Brown used to be the great European and Mr Cook the sceptic. Now it
640
seems to be the other way round. That may be regarded as a singular example of the power over Ministers of those two great departments of state—the Foreign Office and the Treasury. The Foreign Office, at least since the 1960s, has been pro-Europe and the official Treasury, as it likes to call itself, with all its great talents, has been too reticent. But I do not quite believe that that is the explanation. I do not think that Mr Brown takes quite enough notice of the official Treasury, apart from anything else. But in any event, I congratulate Mr Cook on his recent forthrightness, which I greatly hope will continue.
That leads me to the question of a moral foreign policy, about which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, while saying he would not, indulged in a little, perfectly legitimate, tease. What can be said is that, on the whole, a moral foreign policy is better than an immoral foreign policy. It is perhaps also better to let others pin the tail on the donkey rather than announcing it before you have pursued it too vigorously in advance.
In any event, that is not something which can be pursued by any government without regard to consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was a courageous critic of the Kosovo war. I was more of an agnostic and he was, therefore, more courageous than I was. But it is very difficult now to see what good we have done for the Kosovars.
I end with a more sombre thought. It is not clear to me on what basis of morality we bombed Belgrade over Kosovo but do not bomb Moscow over Chechnya. I am very glad that we do not bomb Moscow. I do not believe that there is a single member of Her Majesty's Government—perhaps not even a single Member of your Lordships' House—who would wish us to do so or who would recommend making high-level raids on Moscow. It is really the old Maxim gun jingle, "For they have got the hydrogen bomb and the Serbs did not". Therefore, there are certain hard facts which must be taken into account in any foreign policy dealings. We must temper high ethical foreign policy with reality.
As the noble Lord said, I must not end on too pessimistic and sombre a note. We are probably better off and more secure than we have been at most decade points over the past 50, if not most of the past 100, years. That should be a recipe not for complacency but for dealing as effectively as we can with the real problems which still confront us.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is my privilege to follow the noble Lord in expressing our pleasure at the appearance in the House this afternoon of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes. From these Benches, I congratulate him on the quality of his speech. We know of his career of discreet but distinguished service to our head of state, the head of the Commonwealth, as he reminded us. The speech which he made drew powerfully on that experience.
Perhaps I may make a very immodest comparison. I found that one of the better qualifications for my appearance, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the

641
meetings of the International Monetary Fund was the fact that I had always previously been, a few days before, at meetings of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers. That gave one an opportunity of seeing the broad sweep of experience in that organisation of which he reminded us this afternoon. We look forward to hearing from him again in the future on many occasions.
My thanks also go to my noble friend Lord Carrington for initiating this debate and for the way in which he exploited his immense experience to set those topics in the broad sweep of history. Perhaps I may draw on two rather microcosmic episodes which enable me to do something of the same kind. In the past few weeks, two events which are, in a sense, a hangover from my six years in the Foreign Office have occurred.
This week we had present in London the Foreign Minister of Iran, Mr Kamal Kharrazi, and a few weeks ago there was the arrival in Tripoli of our own ambassador, Mr Richard Dalton.
The House will remember that the breach with Libya goes back to the brutal shooting of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in 1984. At that time, we had no other option but to break off relations with that country. The breach with Iran came before my time but the provocation was equally serious. Some people have said that it is the first time for 21 years that we have had here an Iranian Foreign Minister. In fact, there was a brief episode in 1989, during my time at the Foreign Office, when I had my second meeting with Mr Ali Akbar Velayati, who was then the Foreign Minister. We met in London and agreed to reopen diplomatic relations with that country. Just one week later, ironically on St Valentine's Day, came the fatwa against Mr Salman Rushdie, and we were back to square one.
I believe that the decision to restore normal relations with both countries, although, as always, a difficult balance to strike, is undoubtedly right after the long interval in each case. It shows that if a week in politics is a long time, a decade in diplomacy is a very short time. One must look at those relationships in the context of the need for continuity. I have no doubt that, on that basis, engagement with countries and regimes even of the kind with which we are now dealing, not for the sake of comfort or cosiness but for the sake of promoting British interests, is absolutely right.
If continuity is characteristic, as I think it is, of foreign policy relationships, it is often necessary, as others have already pointed out, to approach those matters, tempering views of principle with pragmatism. I believe that it was Bismarck who said that any man who sought to pursue a foreign policy founded solely on ethics is like a man seeking to walk through a forest of saplings with a horizontal piece of wood clamped between his teeth. That is not a very happy prescription.
However, it underlines the "unwisdom" of the proclamation made by the Foreign Secretary at the start of his reign. Since then I believe that he has learnt
642
some useful lessons in humility. He now understands better than he did then the need for a Foreign Secretary to have the support, advice and guidance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and of the Diplomatic Service of which we may be justly proud. I am sure that my colleague predecessor, my noble friend Lord Carrington, and my successor, my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, in that office will recollect many of our opposite numbers in other countries saying of our Diplomatic Service that, second of course to their own, ours was the best in the world. Certainly I believe that is true.
That prompts me to ask a question that we should always ask: are those organisations adequately resourced now? The overseas budget, which includes the British Council and the BBC, takes less than one-third of 1 per cent of public expenditure, but the workload has increased enormously. When Ernest Bevin first went to the United Nations, there were 46 member states; when my noble friend Lord Carrington went there, there were almost three times as many; when I went there, there were almost four times as many; and now the figure is about 190.
In that time there have been huge increases in the workload. Since 1950, the world's population has doubled; in the past 20 years the number of Britons travelling abroad has increased five-fold; and our own population has been transformed. In 1951, the ethnic minorities in this country totalled 35,000. That number has now multiplied by 100, and includes many so-called "dissidents" and "refugees" from disintegrating empires besides our own which breed problems on an ever-increasing scale. Over the past two decades, the Diplomatic Service has been reduced in number by 25 per cent so that its total strength is now less than half that of France and significantly lower than that of Germany. It is a question that we must continue to pose in the House as we seek to impose ever larger responsibilities on that service.
If we are to make the most of the talents of that service and of our influence, in a phrase that my noble friend Lord Hurd is always anxious to disclaim, which I am happy to reclaim from him, we have "to punch above our weight" and then to work, so far as possible, by developing closer partnerships with a range of organisations and people—but not in everything. Trade promotion, for example, is essentially national.
Partnership is important in many other areas. In defence, as my noble friend Lord Carrington has pointed out, the NATO relationship is fundamental; it is the bedrock of our defence security, above all because it continues to lock in the commitment of the United States to the security of this continent. Alongside that, and as part of it, our relationship with the European Union is the most important of all our international partnerships because it is the closest, most continuing, intimate and pervasive. Some years ago, even my noble friend Lady Thatcher said:
"Britain does not dream of some cosy. isolated existence on the fringes of the EC. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of that Community".
I believe that that is still true today.

643
For us, transatlantic relations, as Harold Macmillan and Ambassador Raymond Seitz pointed out more recently, are essentially intercontinental. The idea of some stronger, bilateral United States/United Kingdom relationship in preference to, or at the expense of, our relationship with the European Union is negative and damaging. There are many illustrations of why we cannot rest all our eggs in that basket, however important it is. I emphasise the importance of the relationship with the United States.
The role of the United Kingdom is at its most influential, not in an exclusive relationship with the United States, but as part of the European Union/United States relationship. That is enormously important, not least in the context of the European security and defence initiative (ESDI). That first stirred in its present form when Prime Minister Chirac, as he was in 1985, brought the Western European Union back to some kind of life. It was sustained by the government of my good friend John Major and by the then Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo.
In response to the long-felt want on the other side of the Atlantic, Strobe Talbott said:
"The United States is for ESDI. It's in our interest for Europe to be able to deal effectively with challenges to European Security well before they reach the threshold of triggering US combat involvement".
My noble friend Lord Carrington made that clear. The conditions that he outlined are important, but the principle—the need to establish a stronger, more competent European defence performance—is also vital.
Finally, on the United Nations, my noble friend in the work that he produced as chairman of the committee Words to Deeds underlined as he did again in his speech this afternoon, a need for stronger and more reliable enforcement machinery, not for its more frequent over-active use. The goal is to do it better, not necessarily more often. I worry about the contrast between that restrained ambition and the entirely worthy ambition mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in his speech and the article of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in the Financial Times in the past day or two in which he said:
"The principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights—wherever they may take place—must not be allowed to stand".
That is a noble sentiment, but in the days when I used to be involved in drafting election manifestos if I saw the word "must", I would say, "Hang on, what is going on?" If I saw the word twice or three times, I thought it was going just a shade too far. Of course, international law like common law is growing. Of course, the power of the United Nations can grow in that kind of way, but we must take care to avoid the real risk of discrediting the United Nations organisation and, indeed, the credibility of international law itself if we over-reach ourselves.
We need to keep our ambition in check otherwise we shall continuously be presented with an infinity of opportunities for the law to be mobilised and for the United Nations to be mobilised in its support. Theoretically, the law can cover most options. The real
644
question—this is the lesson of the Kosovo experience—is: can it do so in practice? The most important matter for me is that we should take great care while we seek to extend the rule of law not to test that rule to destruction. We must harness and cherish that legal resource, rather than risk destroying it altogether.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for giving us the opportunity for this debate. Whatever our political position within the House, many of us have constantly admired his statesmanship and humanity.
From these Benches I want to say how good it has been to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes. He brings to our deliberations a unique experience and perspective. We have heard it well deployed today and we shall look forward to hearing it often in debates of this kind in the future.
Whatever the provocation, Russian punishment of Chechnya has been sickening in its brutality and scale. Nobody with any compassion or humanity could stand idly by and fail to register deep concern and to seek ways of ending the fighting and building peace. However, we must ask ourselves difficult questions. How far, for example, are we responsible for what has happened? Have we perhaps failed to use the past 10 years as imaginatively as we might have done to produce a different situation? Surely the biggest single challenge for foreign policy and diplomacy since the collapse of the Soviet Union was to embrace Russia and draw its leaders into the responsible management of global affairs.
Of course, that was never going to be an easy task. Wounded pride, economic incompetence, opportunism and the Mafia have all been forbidding obstacles. As we sought to expand NATO, to enlarge the European Union and to strengthen still further our ties with Washington, did we put sufficient consistent energy and commitment into our political relations with Moscow? Did our support for Russia show the same imagination as that of the United States for Europe in the aftermath of World War II? Perhaps, in effect, we have humiliated the still massive bear.
The cynical—sinister even—use of a "popular" war by the new Russian leadership to win its election may yet be judged by history to have been a nightmare at least partly of our making. As with Germany after post-First World War Versailles, the possible cost in terms of nationalistic macho may now be becoming clear; and there remains a sobering nuclear dimension.
We all know that what is perceived as "reality", or what is manipulatively presented by those who themselves know better as "reality", can become a political reality however unsoundly based. A widespread perception in Russia, and not only Russia, is that whatever the West's protestations of humanitarianism, the intervention in Kosovo had much to do with power politics and access to Balkan energy supplies. The recourse to NATO for the political as well as military direction of the action is

645
seen as having been a deliberate means of sidelining Russia. We may deplore that—I do—but we have to understand that this perception is there if there is to be any hope of preventing a slide back into international relations reminiscent of the Cold War.
While we may explain them as incidental, we also have to recognise that references at Rambouillet to market economy and access by NATO to all parts of Yugoslavia are frequently used as evidence of a wider agenda than peace-making alone. They are portrayed as evidence of a need to present Belgrade with an unacceptable package because of a prior commitment to military action.
When I was in Albania and Macedonia for the Council of Europe last April, I saw for myself the mud, squalor and acute suffering of the ethnic Albanian refugees. The war had not prevented the miserable flood of people and the destruction of their country. In August, in Kosovo, Montenegro and Yugoslavia—again for the Council of Europe—I saw the Serb refugees and the particularly pitiful plight of the Roma. The war had clearly not stopped ethnic oppression and atrocities. I also saw the long-term cost for the people of Yugoslavia of the large-scale destruction of economic infrastructure. It was sobering to hear an opposition mayor, standing in the midst of industrial devastation, wryly observing that it was difficult to rally pro-Western support against such a background. He also observed that the bombing had given the government in Belgrade an excuse which they could use for all economic misfortune when in fact the economy had been in dire straits before the war.
As we move into the new millennium, what can be done? First, while of course being firm and using all possible statesmanship to bring peace in Chechnya, the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary should set the tone by working tirelessly and transparently for positive relations with Russia. The Secretary of State for International Development should, for her part, look closely at our aid and economic co-operation to be certain that they are geared as effectively as they should be to build upon Russian experience, rather than indirectly promoting dependency and resentment by a patronising culture or an undue bias towards the benefits of British firms and consultants. There has to be a convincing political context with all the authority of No. 10.
As one of only five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, similar commitment and authority must be put into demonstrating our determination to work through the United Nations. The significance of explicit—not implicit—UN Security Council authority for action is that it is there for all to see as action for the application of universally applicable principles and cannot easily be portrayed as partial. If vetoes are exercised, so be it. The world will see who is responsible for them. There then remains recourse to the General Assembly with the hope of securing a "Uniting for Peace" resolution in that wider body. I suggest that only if that fails has the time arrived to contemplate ad hoc action.
646
The Balkans remain as complex as ever. Over simplification would be naive However, lasting stability will depend upon regional solutions. There is no shortage of people in the region yearning for economic co-operation in south-east Europe. But that will depend upon a change of government and policy in Belgrade. For that to be achieved we must, frankly, show more imagination than we have in Iraq. There must be carrots as well as sticks; available benefits to be focused upon by alternative leaders. At all costs, we must avoid shutting down any political dynamic instead of seeking ways to encourage it.
In Kosovo the challenge is to move from de facto international colonialism to genuine self-government. There has to be political accountability. That must mean elections, but not rushed elections which might simply legitimise existing highly questionable power structures. Preparation for the elections will be as important as the elections themselves, not least the development of the media. The rights of refugees will also be critical. In the meantime, the urgency and importance of bringing the number of civil police up to the necessary level and strengthening the administration of justice cannot be over-stressed.
As the common, foreign and security policy of the European Union begins to take shape, it seems to me that the repeated lesson at the end of the last millennium was that conflict resolution and proactive diplomacy must be put at the centre of policy. It would be a grave indictment of us all if we moved into the new age settling for the inevitability of reactive policy with all its humanitarian and economic costs. There were those who saw in good time what could happen in Yugoslavia. They were not heeded. Once more the world only focused when crisis was upon it. It is always easier to concentrate on rapid deployment forces, crisis management and peacekeeping than it is to promote peacemaking as the paramount imperative. It is there that the real challenge to our Government in the new age lies.
Moving about Belgrade and Yugoslavia last summer, I was awed by the technological prowess of precision bombing—the ability to take out exactly that part of a building, industrial complex or power supply which is the target, with genuinely little immediate collateral damage, whatever the long-term cost. That that can be done from a relatively safe height or distance with minimal risk for those delivering the blow has transformed the nature of warfare. There is a danger that powerful nations could move more rapidly into military action than in the past. That must not happen. If we regard war as on occasion part of a necessary political strategy, our generals and the governments they serve must become more, not less, politically accountable.
We live—we constantly speak of it—in an age of globalisation. Internationalism in that age is indispensable. But it is my conviction, after a life in international work, that to be sustained it has to be internationalism rooted in self-confidence and co-operation, not a dogma imposed by autocratic leaders.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I join others in congratulating and thanking my noble friend Lord Carrington for his excellent speech today and for his initiative in creating this debate. Whatever the shape of your Lordships' House in the future, it must be right that from time to time we should be able to look calmly at the present and future of our foreign policy without getting into a lather about party spin or tomorrow's headlines, as we are doing today.
I congratulate also the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, on his admirable maiden speech. It is something we expected and something we thoroughly enjoyed. I entirely agree with what he said: that is, that the Commonwealth is not always capable of resolving the disagreements of the world. But it provides a forum for wide debate and cheerful, good humoured disagreement which is often an important prelude to getting the thing right. That is a characteristic of the Commonwealth which I have not found in any other international organisation.
Anyone who deals with foreign affairs lives under the tyranny of the unexpected. There is a tradition that a new Prime Minister is briefed by the Chiefs of Staff. If any of the three Prime Ministers whom I served had read an atlas after being told by Chiefs of Staff, "We believe Prime Minister, after careful thought, that what is needed in the British interest is to deploy several thousand troops in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor", they would have supposed that those Chiefs of Staff were temporarily demented, because in none of those places is there any conceivable British strategic or commercial interest. Yet, at the end of last year that was the position in which we found ourselves. Why was that? My noble friend Lord Carrington sketched the reason. Things were happening in all three of those places which not just the Government but also Her Majesty's Opposition and the bulk of opinion found to be unacceptable to the extent that they felt that we should play our part with others in stopping those events.
I do not myself doubt—although I notice a certain revisionism creeping into this debate with regard to Kosovo—that those enterprises were justified. However, as has been said, it is a mistake to elevate this into some universal, ethical rule. There will be plenty of wrongdoing and plenty of cruelty in the world in the next century in which we do not and will not be able to intervene simply because it is unreal to suppose that such intervention would be successful. Therefore we should not put ourselves—and the Government should not put themselves—on a pedestal in these respects. If you climb on a pedestal, your fall if things go wrong is that much farther and that much heavier. What we have to show—and are showing—is that it is the instinct of the people and of Parliament and of government to help where we realistically can.
I wish to develop this by mentioning three more specific points. First, as has been said, it is much easier to get into these situations than to get out. NATO now has in effect, with UN backing and with EU participation and money, two protectorates in the
648
Balkans: in Kosovo and in Bosnia. The Government recently announced a reduction in the British troop presence in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Will the Minister say when she replies to the debate—or in writing—whether she expects the present levels of British troops in the Balkans to be maintained, whether she envisages further reductions or whether the levels will remain stable for the time being? Can she say anything—she probably cannot—about how long the Government now think that they are likely to remain?
I follow that by saying that in my view—it is shared clearly by others in this House—there is more likely than not to be further trouble in the Balkans before too long. We may well see violence breaking out inside Serbia—that is clearly a possibility—inside Albania or inside Macedonia as these are all fragile states. As my noble friend Lady Rawlings has already pointed out, there is a clear danger of conflict arising from arguments between Montenegro and Serbia.
In 1996 when there was a civil war in Albania we stood back and took no part in trying to sort it out. That luxury is no longer available to us. We are involved now, not as a result of any future decisions but as a result of the decisions which have been taken and the presence of our troops and their lines of communications in the Balkans. We are involved. It is important that those of us who on the whole support this Balkan commitment should encourage the Government, and indeed insist that the Government recognise that it is a deep, long and difficult commitment for a good purpose and that it cannot be brushed aside as something temporary and extraordinary. One consequence of the commitment and of the dangers which may continue in the Balkans is that it lessens our ability to intervene in other places, perhaps the Caucasus, the Caspian or Africa, where similar horrors may occur.
Secondly, I ask about authority. The preceding speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, touched on this. The Security Council of the United Nations has a unique legal and political authority. That is to say the Charter states that the Security Council needs to authorise the use of force in international affairs except in self-defence. In the Gulf, in Bosnia and in East Timor that consent was obtained. In Kosovo it was not obtained. Why was that? It was because the Russian and Chinese vetoes sat like a roadblock on the UN road to action. Therefore we went round the roadblock. We are back now with UN authority in Kosovo and the UN resolution, but we circumvented the roadblock. We acted without the authority of the Security Council. That is a weakness in terms of international law and in terms of universal acceptance. What the noble Lord said about Russia illustrates that point. I do not think that it is enough for Ministers to say, as they have, that international law has moved on and that we now all have a duty to intervene where there are humanitarian horrors. If that is so, who is to be the judge? If the Security Council is pushed on one side, there is clearly a danger that everyone will be judge in their own cause and we may not always like the consequences of that.

649
Finally, I wish to say a few words about the European response to these issues. I believe that the Government are right, with the French, to try to encourage our fellow Europeans to act together in humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks. I do not see that enterprise as a challenge or a rival to NATO. If I did, I would oppose it. However, I do not think that that is the case. We are talking about enterprises where NATO may not want to take a hand but to which NATO clearly would not object. I simply make two points. This message must be addressed not just to our continental allies but also to Her Majesty's Treasury, because what is involved is also a commitment on our part to maintain our armed services, their radios and their light weapons—to take account of the revelations of last week—and to make sure that we not only recruit men but can retain them.
I believe that it is a mistake to exaggerate the size of operations which could realistically be undertaken solely by European forces not just because the European forces of the right kind are not there, but because of the nature of the United States as a super-power. It is involved in policy. It is too big to stand aside. One of the difficulties which we faced in Bosnia was that the United States was deeply involved emotionally and politically at almost every stage but was not sharing the risks on the ground. That mismatch produced creaks and tensions inside the western alliance which required difficult remedial action. Therefore we should not let ourselves get into positions supposing that we are able simply as Europeans to act on the ground without the Americans in a major matter.
This leads to my conclusion almost regardless of which part of the world one looks at. We need European/US partnership. Anglo/American partnership is fine and has been a great success on many occasions through the century. However, if one looks at the Balkans, or at the Caucasus where there is likely to be substantial trouble, or at the Middle East, one sees that what is needed is not just Anglo/American but European/American partnership. Where that is lacking at the moment, as it is in our dealings with Iraq, we get ourselves into substantial difficulty and become as a whole ineffective. Therefore I believe that with all the different pressures and difficulties and our world-wide interests and concerns, the main duty of the Foreign Office and of British Foreign Secretaries now and for the foreseeable future is to create and sustain valid European/US partnerships wherever there is danger and tension so that our diplomacy and our Armed Forces, where necessary, act coherently and together.
4.28 p.m
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am glad to be able to speak in this important debate which is certainly something of a challenge before such a distinguished and experienced gathering. I congratulate my Cross-Bench colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, on
650
his maiden speech and thank him for what he said about the Commonwealth. I greatly agree with those comments.
I wish to discuss one of the consequences of the events of 1989 and the coming of the new world order that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke of in his opening words. I wish to discuss the widening gap between rich and poor which resulted from that. I wish to speak specifically about one of the consequences and go very rapidly, if I may, from the general to the particular. I wish to speak about something that respects no national borders—that is, the re-emergence of infectious diseases—and, in particular, I wish to speak about the epidemic of tuberculosis that is taking hold rapidly in the countries of eastern Europe and central Asia.
Until 1990, countries in the former Soviet Union were reporting rates of tuberculosis very like those in Western Europe. Since 1990 there has been a rapid reversal. In 1990 there were 34 cases per 100,000 people in Russia; by 1997 the rate had increased to 82. In Azerbaijan, over the same period, the increase is from 37 per 100,000 to 60; in Georgia, from 28 to 155 and in Kyrgystan, from 53 to 120 per 100,000.
This epidemic is particularly acute in the prisons of the region. Most of the pre-trial prisons in the countries of the former Soviet Union are places of unimaginable overcrowding and squalor. Those of us who work in this House may think that we know something about overcrowding. We know about having one square metre in which to work—those of us who are lucky enough to have that amount of space—but we do not have to live here and we do not have to sleep here. Prisoners in these pre-trial prisons have so little space that they take it in turns to lie down and sleep. They sleep in three shifts, and the day sleeping shift misses the one hour in the fresh air every day. The food is meagre and nutritionally inadequate. There is very little natural light. It is an ideal environment for the spread of an airborne infection such as tuberculosis.
Medicines are in short supply; there are not enough for a complete course of treatment and they are bartered for other goods. Many prisoners take their medicines sporadically. This leads to drug resistance and they develop a strain of TB that does not respond to the normal drugs but only to a long course of drugs that are very expensive—too expensive, it is said, for a poor country such as Russia.
It is estimated that 10 per cent of the 1 million Russian prisoners have active TB and that between 20 and 40 per cent of those have a drug-resistant variety. In Kazakhstan, about one in five of all the 83,000 prisoners are infected, many of them drug resistant. In Mongolia, Latvia and Georgia the position is the same.
There are many reasons why this situation should cause concern in the international community. It is indeed an abuse of human rights to subject people to a prison term, or to put them into pre-trial detention, when there is such a high likelihood that they will contract a deadly disease there. Prison is an incubator

651
and creates a pool of infection. Hundreds of thousands of prisoners leave prison every year and take their untreated or half- treated infection with them—and people travel to western Europe and to North America.
Action is needed on many fronts. Prison reform is urgently required so that prison conditions are less conducive to the spread of disease. Criminal justice reform is essential so that fewer people are sent to these overcrowded prisons unnecessarily. The work therefore being done by the Foreign Office under its human rights fund to assist with penal reform in Russia and in neighbouring countries is very worthwhile. I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate whether she is satisfied that the amounts of money available are enough for this task, and whether she envisages seeking an increase in the fund for this and other similarly desperate situations when she becomes involved with the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review discussions.
Health reform is also needed. It is a reform that must include the prisons. If community health does not include prison health, much money will be wasted. I should welcome an assurance from the Department for International Development that the large health programme aimed at combating TB in Russia will include a genuine attempt to involve the prisons and the prison administration, where many dedicated doctors are working.
Finally, I should like to ask the Government to consider what can be done about the high price of pharmaceuticals. Why are the second-level drugs needed to cure multi-drug-resistant TB, AIDS and other diseases so costly that poor countries cannot afford them? Are they made from very expensive raw materials, or is there some other reason why the price is so high? Can anything else be done to improve a situation that is leading to so much suffering and so much early death?
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Carrington for introducing the debate. This has been, to say the very least, an eventful year for the House of Lords. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, my pleasure, and that of the whole House, that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is still with us—not only for himself but for the great expertise that he brings to the House.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is something that was well illustrated in his introductory speech. If I may say so, it was a very good example of the House of Lords at its best. It is something which I hope we shall not lose, whatever happens in the future.
I also should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, on his maiden speech. I very much agree with what he said about the Commonwealth. I wish to speak today very largely about one part of the Commonwealth. But before I do so, I should like to
652
support the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe about the Foreign Service and the Diplomatic Service. I was a Foreign Office Minister for only four years but I came greatly to appreciate the calibre of the people who served and looked after me; and greatly to appreciate the calibre and the sense of service of our diplomats abroad—particularly of their wives, who also played a very real part in the service.
I have been disturbed to hear about the cutbacks in the Foreign Service at a time when, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe has clearly explained, the needs and demands of the service have expanded. All of us have benefited—far more than most people ever appreciate—from the very high standards of the Diplomatic Service. It is very important that nothing should be done in any way to damage its important role in the world today. Nothing could illustrate better the importance of maintaining the calibre and standing of our Foreign Service than the speeches that we have heard already today.
I said that I wished to speak on one part of the Commonwealth. As your Lordships will know, I have had for many years an abiding interest in the future of the Caribbean and Britain's relationship with that region. I speak as president of the West India Committee and as the chairman of the Cuba Initiative.
In my view the Caribbean is a region which is blessed with outstanding individuals, creativity and the will to succeed. Yet today it is a region which is vulnerable politically, economically fragile, prone to natural disasters and a target for organised crime because of the very small size of most of its nations.
As globalisation proceeds, Caribbean governments and their peoples must identify how the region can become part of the world economy. These small countries are having to determine—often their economies are based on a single crop—how they are to survive in the new arrangements in the world. Will they be able to adapt their agriculture, manufacturing and service sectors to a world where preferences have gone? The challenge that they face is to restructure small and medium-sized enterprises in limited domestic markets in such a way that their industry remains competitive.
That will not be easy and it will take time: it will need rationalisation and alternative approaches to development involving organisations other than government. It will also require the help of friends such as the United Kingdom. Above all, it will require time in which a stable transition can be achieved if some parts of the region are not to descend into social, economic and even political chaos.
I have often remarked before that small states can cause a quite disproportionate amount of difficulty in the world particularly when the eyes of the great powers are focused on what they believe to be far greater and bigger issues. I have in mind such cases as the Falkland Islands and, more recently, Montserrat. I am therefore pleased to learn that the post-Lomé negotiations for a new trade and aid relationship between the African, Caribbean and Pacific states and the European Union have led to agreement on a way out of the policy of preferences.

653
Although some aspects of this agreement have yet to be completed, a basis has been established whereby over the next eight years new, and most probably region-specific trade agreements, will be negotiated. Some time after 2008 this new round is expected to lead to what in all probability will be something close to a free trade area between the whole of Europe and the Caribbean. That will most probably occur in parallel to the economic integration of the region into the free trade area of the Americas.
No one in Britain or in the Caribbean should underestimate its significance. Within a decade our special relationship with the anglophone part of the region will change forever. It will alter our trade and investment patterns in a region which, despite its smallness, remains a market for over £1 billion of direct exports, investment of about £8 billion and an unquantified but very high level of services. It will change forever the special ties we have through our combined experience of history, common institutions and language, to say nothing of family.
It is in that context that I believe it is vital that we redefine Britain's relationship with the region. I am very glad that this process has begun. The noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate has already indicated that that will be so.
In this context, and leaving aside the political issues and our relationship with Europe, I believe that there are areas on which our relationship with the Caribbean should now concentrate. I believe that the most important is education. If the region is to develop new industries based on tourism, information technology and financial and other services and so reduce its reliance on primary agriculture, the pressing need will be for training and education. I believe that Britain can do much to help. We have much to offer. The public service in the Caribbean, political parties, local authorities, the administration of justice, trades unions and employers organisations in the anglophone Caribbean are almost all based on British models. Educational exchanges, assistance with best practice, and training provided directly by such bodies could, if properly co-ordinated, offer a unique opportunity to renew our relationship.
I believe, too, that our business community in the United Kingdom has an important role to play, together with NGOs and other social partners, in helping to support alternative approaches to development. If we are to increase development funds for more advanced parts of the developing world such as the Caribbean, it is clear that the Government here and in the region need to encourage private sector-led initiatives. These issues will be explored at a seminar to be held in St Lucia in March by the Caribbean Council for Europe together with Oxfam and Georgetown University's Caribbean project. I hope that the Government will carefully consider the outcome of that conference.
That brings me to my principal point. I am concerned sometimes at the Government's attitude to how non-governmental change is to be delivered.
654
Despite having a high profile intellectually, most institutions dealing with non-governmental Caribbean development issues are weak and are finding it almost impossible to compete with the ever-increasing demands placed on them by government and international institutions. For example, all Caribbean private sector institutions and NGOs are under-funded and stretched to the limit. That situation will worsen as bilateral and multilateral agencies seek to deliver programmes which depend on the private sector increasing the pace of development.
There is one particular area of very great concern. In its review of all its area advisory groups, British Trade International is seeking to abolish one of the few centres of Caribbean excellence, the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group. Irrespective of the very special work that CARITAG's committee and secretariat are undertaking to encourage trade and investment throughout the region with Britain and countries such as Cuba, CARITAG may be subsumed into an approach that sees the Americas as a homogenous whole. It is not difficult to see that in such a situation the Caribbean could be the last area to be considered although it could be unquestionably the most vulnerable.
I conclude by recognising the noble Baroness's deep interest and concern for the region's future. The framework for change is being established in Brussels, Geneva and in the Americas. The challenge now is to ensure that we in Britain, together with our friends in the region, find practical solutions that can be delivered quickly if the region is to achieve a successful transition to open markets and a new relationship. In that respect I believe that British and Caribbean institutions have a vital role to play. Above all, I believe that the Caribbean is too important to be sidelined or forgotten.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we are certainly enjoying a feast of oratory. For many years, when people ask me who was the most effective speaker in the House of Lords, I used to say that it was the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. But recently people have asked whether I have heard about the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I heard her make a wonderful speech the other day. Now the noble Lord has a rival. We should be satisfied now speeches are sandwiched between those of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland.
If I had been asked who was the most influential speaker in the House of Lords I would have said until now that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She may have lost some of her supporters. I do not know whether she is still the most impressive. At any rate, I would say that that was the situation until now. I shall be followed by a speaker who has a special attraction. I have no idea what he is going to say, which is a great help. Those are the personal issues, and we are very lucky to have such speakers.
We are at a crossroads in foreign policy. I congratulate the Government guardedly on not making up their minds too quickly on how they intend

655
to move. Eventually they will have to reach certain decisions which will affect the lives of the people of this country and beyond for many years. So what is said today will be significant. It may help the Government to have a few reflections from one of the older Members of this House based on experience of life that goes back nearly 80 years. There was the foundation of the League of Nations in 1919. That was certainly an event of limited historical importance. From then on, British governments have naturally been primarily concerned with British interests. But there has also been a search for world peace, which at times has been more intense than at other times. That was a new element after 1919.
In 1935, just before I joined, there was an official decision by the Labour Party to come out against pacifism, which had always been a very strong element in the Labour Party. I attended a Labour conference in 1935 when George Lansbury, then Leader of the Party, declared in ringing tones:
"As Jesus Christ said in the Garden, those who take the sword will perish by the sword".
However, he was overturned and Ernest Bevin said:
"I am not going to have George Lansbury hawking his conscience all round Europe".
From then on Labour was committed to corrective security, even if it involved military action.
In the immediate post-war years the governments of Britain, France, Russia and America were involved in holding down Germany, so one could not have said that any European policy was developing there from the top level.
Winston Churchill, then Leader of the Opposition, looked further ahead. When I was Minister for Germany in 1947 he lumbered up to me at the Buckingham Palace Garden Party and said:
"I am glad that one English mind was suffering for the miseries of Germany".
I did not like to say that I am Irish, but that did not matter. He had the idea. At the same time, he was the leading figure in the development of the European idea.
Labour came to power in 1964. From 1964 to 1968 the Labour Party and the Labour government moved uncertainly towards Europe. It took the Conservative government under Sir Edward Heath in 1970 to come out wholeheartedly in favour of European policy.
The position since 1970 has been totally reversed: the Labour Party is hovering on the brink of a much stronger commitment to Europe; and the Conservative Party, under its official leadership—I do not know about individuals, however prominent—is hanging back.
I have always counted myself as a pro-European. In 1950, when I was Minister of Civil Aviation, I saw Dr Adenauer and he asked me to try to persuade the Labour government, through Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, to join the Franco-German iron and steel pact. I was laughed to scorn. I was told at that time, in 1950, by the Labour leaders in a statement that was written by a civil servant, that to tie
656
ourselves to Europe would be to tie ourselves to a corpse. That was the official attitude that commended itself to the leaders.
Today, we are hovering on the brink of going into the euro. I have always called myself a pro-European, but I am more cautious now, for reasons that I can set out in a sentence or two. I believe that today, as in the First and Second World Wars and more recently in Kosovo, the peace of the world depends on the United States more than any single power. I would not find it easy to support any policy that would interfere with our complete freedom to act in conjunction with the United States and, if necessary, to give it strong encouragement.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Carrington for the brilliant way in which he introduced the debate; we are all very much indebted to him. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, on his striking, eloquent maiden speech.
I should like to address the question that has been touched on by one or two noble Lords of human rights and the new international order and the new approach that was spelled out by the Prime Minister in an article in Newsweek last April. He called for a "new internationalism" which would not tolerate dictators who,
"visit horrific punishments on their own people to stay in power",
Whenever the West sees a tyrant abusing its own people, apparently it should feel compelled to intervene.
In the Government's brave new world, leaders are to be held to account for their crimes committed against their own people.
"Those responsible for such crimes",
said the Prime Minister,
"will have nowhere to hide".
This is admirable, heady stuff. But will its pursuit increase the sum of human happiness, or does its pursuit possibly carry dangers of its own?
The Government's policy is one that would make Richelieu, Salisbury, Canning or even Bismark turn in their graves. Bismarck, I notice, was dismissed by the Prime Minister with the brief aside, "Bismarck was simply wrong".
The classic doctrine of international relations has always been that aggression is the ultimate crime, no nation can intervene in the internal affairs of another; frontiers are sacrosanct; state immunity is essential for dealings between governments. These doctrines have been called into question not just by the Prime Minister but increasingly by lawyers.

657
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Millett, in his far-reaching judgment in the case on General Pinochet, stated:
"The doctrine of state immunity is the product of the classical theory of international law … It is a cliché of modern international law that the classical theory no longer prevails in its unadulterated form … the way in which a state treats its own citizens within its own borders has now become a legitimate concern to the international community".
The contrary view was stated in the same case, equally trenchantly, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, in his dissenting judgment. He stated:
"Preservation of state immunity is a matter of particular importance to powerful countries whose heads of state perform an executive role and who may therefore be regarded as possible targets by governments of states which, for deeply-felt political reasons, deplore their actions while in office".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, warned of the dangerous precedent that was being set and the danger that it might pose, for example, to Northern Ireland Ministers who might find themselves being extradited. He did not warn, as he might have done, that the same risk, arguably, could be held to apply to President Clinton and the Prime Minister after the bombing of Yugoslavia.
On the argument between the noble and learned Lords, Lord Millett and Lord Goff, I am on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, not for legal reasons, on which I am not competent to judge, but simply on grounds of practicality and politics.
International law, I suggest, has gone too far. Too many questions that should be resolved by politicians are now being decided by lawyers. International law is in danger of becoming the enemy of conflict resolution. International law runs the risk of placing a premium on misplaced doctrines such as that of unconditional surrender, a doctrine that tends to prolong bloodshed and suffering, compared with a willingness to negotiate at an earlier stage.
Whatever politicians may say, amnesties, negotiations with terrorists, wiping the slate clean, forgetting the past, are all part of finding the solutions to both international and domestic problems. We, of all countries, ought to understand this, since in Northern Ireland we have in effect put the law to one side and, whatever Ministers may say, we have a de facto amnesty. However, the Government seem to think that anybody can be put on trial anywhere for crimes against humanity, so long as those crimes are not committed in Belfast. If this doctrine were applied universally there could have been no peace process in the Middle East or in South Africa and no reconciliation in post-Franco Spain.
An ethical foreign policy or a policy based on international law must be applied consistently; otherwise it is neither law nor ethics. NATO intervened in Yugoslavia, but not in Chechnya, for obvious reasons. Ironically, the Russians cite NATO's actions in Yugoslavia as a justification for their actions. In Indonesia, a country with which we have no historical connection at all, we intervened only with
658
the consent of the government who had been massacring people in East Timor for over a quarter of a century.
In London, General Pinochet was arrested against the wishes of the elected government of his country, while Jiang Zemin, whose government killed in Tiananmen Square in a single day more people than the government of Chile were alleged to have done over 15 years, was hosted with first growths in Buckingham Palace, demonstrations were ruthlessly suppressed and replicas of the Dalai Lama were removed from Madame Tussauds. There is something not quite consistent here.
The Prime Minister has urged us to treat NATO's action in Kosovo as an example to be followed elsewhere, so it is legitimate to look back and examine it. The question must be asked: was the war in Kosovo even legal? The Government now claim that there is or ought to be a principle that makes it lawful for force to be used against another state without the authority of the Security Council where it is necessary,
"to avert what would otherwise be a human disaster".
Until now the generally accepted view has been that, under both international law and the United Nations Charter, force may only be used against another state in self-defence or under the authority of the Security Council.
On 29th April last year at the International Court of Justice, Yugoslavia brought proceedings against NATO, including the UK, alleging that the NATO intervention was unlawful. In contesting the case, the UK did not address the arguments but rested on a legal technicality. The UK argued that the court did not have jurisdiction because Yugoslavia had made the complaint less than 12 months after accepting the court's jurisdiction. It is a great pity that the Government ducked the issue and deprived the world of an authoritative ruling on this important matter.
There is a considerable weight of opinion against the NATO position. Particularly relevant is the conclusion of the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua against the United States in 1985 where it stated:
"the protection of human rights, a strictly humanitarian objective, cannot be compatible with the mining of ports or the destruction of oil installations".
The Government have tried to justify their action on grounds of urgent necessity. But it is not clear that even that makes the action legal. Was there really urgent necessity? Negotiations with Serbia had been going on for months. NATO had made its threats months before the bombing started. Furthermore, the Government had even published their attempt to defend themselves in international law before the bombing began. The NATO action did not come anywhere near leaving no alternative means or time for further consideration.
The morality of a policy has to be judged not only by its motives but also by its consequences. The dramatic increase in ethnic cleansing only occurred after the bombing started. In a report of NATO to the UN on 23rd March 1999, it was stated that people had been

659
moved at a rate o f around 33,000 per month. During the bombing, the rate rose to an average of around 250,000 per month and much higher in the first weeks after the start of the bombing. The Economist Intelligence Unit reports that NATO probably killed more Serb civilians than soldiers during its 11-week bombardment, with an estimated 1,500 civilian deaths and 8,000 wounded. In addition, there are the civilian casualties after the end of the bombing. According to a report in The Times, there were around 14,000 unexploded bombs in Kosovo. In the first month after the bombing stopped, bombs killed or maimed people at an average of five people per day.
Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, has questioned,
"the proportionality of NATO's action".
Jimmy Carter has described the bombing as,
"senseless and excessively brutal".
President Mandela has stated that NATO's actions were just as criminal as those of Milosevic. All these people are public figures who over a long time have shown a consistent concern for human rights.
The great 19th century liberal, Richard Cobden, himself an internationalist economically, argued against interfering in the affairs of other countries on the grounds that it increased rather than diminished the sum of human misery. He wrote:
"In all my travels … three reflections constantly occurred to me: how much unnecessary solicitude and alarm England devotes to the affairs of foreign countries; with how little knowledge we enter on the task of regulating the concerns of other people; and how much better we might employ our energies in improving matters at home".
We would do well to heed his wise words.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whose time as Foreign Secretary—a time when I first had the privilege of joining your Lordships' House—I naturally look back upon as a golden age. But, of course, in a sense it was not a golden age except in personal terms. As the noble Lord himself has reminded us in his speech today, it coincided with the beginning of the last 10 years of the Cold War, a conflict which, on several occasions, almost erupted into a hot war, in which nuclear weapons would have been used and so probably would have caused a general breakdown. However disorganised and dangerous the present time may seem, and however attractively disciplined the era of the Cold War may sometimes now appear, it seems to me to be foolish to have any nostalgia for that vanished age which was potentially an appallingly brutal time.
Nevertheless, some of our present difficulties obviously derive from the era of the Cold War; for example, the problem of nuclear weapons and their proliferation. It is worth recalling that the Cold War began its dangerous stage in 1946 when Stalin rejected a far-sighted United States plan for the international ownership of all nuclear material. Under that plan,
660
nothing connected with atomic or nuclear endeavours from the uranium mine to the reactor would be owned by independent sovereign states. That US plan—the Baruch plan as it was called, after the United States Representative who introduced it to the United Nations—had one tactical disadvantage upon which the Russian delegation at the United Nations seized; namely, that in any plan to punish an offending state, the veto in the Security Council would not apply. All the same, that Baruch plan, and the Acheson-Lilienthal plan upon which it was based, might now be looked at again in the light of present dangers and, presumably, opportunities.
I believe that one can be reasonably certain that if ever a major nuclear exchange were to take place in war, the world—or what was left of it afterwards—would probably insist on just such an internationalisation as provided for in the Baruch plan. How much better it would be if we could achieve that beforehand and so remove at least that threat from the list of risks in the new century.
Many noble Lords have already pointed out that in this new century Britain has many advantages as an internationally responsible power. First, thanks largely to the achievements of the noble Baroness in whose Cabinet the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, served, Britain now has a strong economy. The sad era of the 1960s and 1970s when every year seemed to register a new decline in our economic performance is now over. I am sure that in consequence British diplomats are the first to feel relieved. Secondly, the Labour Party has abandoned its socialist fundamentalism with the final disappearance of Clause 4. Thirdly, our Armed Forces win golden opinions whenever they do anything, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was right to point out that those admirable forces are on a rather small scale. Fourthly, our parliamentary arrangements are admired, perhaps too much given the excessive number of Members in another place where there also appear to be far too many Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries. Fifthly, the BBC World Service continues to be generally admired, although it is not very well funded. Sixthly, we have the Commonwealth to which the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, referred in his splendid maiden speech. Seventhly, perhaps the most important advantage is our great name as a defender of freedom. As the acting-President of Russia, Mr Putin, said in a remarkable declaration a week ago,
"Russia will not soon become, if ever, a second edition of the United States or England, where liberal values have deep historical traditions".
Those seven important trump cards play a major part in our international relations.
On the other hand, there are several weaknesses which affect our international capacity. First, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, pointed out, over the past 50 years we have demonstrated continuous indecision in relation to the whole idea of a united Europe. As others have spoken eloquently on that indecision I shall devote no further attention to it. Secondly, I believe that the constitutional

661
arrangements for devolution set on foot since 1997 have not been well contrived within a carefully worked out frame. Those arrangements could, in the long run, affect the effectiveness of foreign policy. Thirdly, we continue to teach languages badly. Fourthly, very often statesmen continue to talk as if there is an endless number of armed forces available for any eventuality. Fifthly, we have a wildly nationalistic popular press whose irrelevance to public policy is not always appreciated abroad where those daily papers, with their appallingly vulgar headlines, are often sold. Sixthly, although I recognise the qualities of the Foreign Service—on many journeys I have greatly benefited from conversations with and hospitality from embassies—we should not forget that the late Lord Franks, in the context of his report on the causes of the Falklands War, remarked that the service was supremely efficient and effective in telling governments what was going on in the world but perhaps a little less effective in suggesting what should be done. Thus, a number of problems remain which could be quite easily resolved by the use of thought and imagination. I believe that Gibraltar is one such problem.
In conclusion, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when in March of last year he questioned the use of NATO to deal with Kosovo. Brutal wrongdoing by a state may at first sight seem a justification for an international reaction, but once it is realised that one cannot react to every such instance the moral premise withers. As any historian of American foreign policy will recall, "brutal wrongdoing" was the wording used by President Theodore Roosevelt in his so-called "corollary" to the Monroe doctrine in 1905 as justification for intervention by the United States in Latin America and the Caribbean. No policy caused so much anguish. President Franklin Roosevelt abandoned the very thought of it with the announcement in 1933 of his welcome Good Neighbour policy. How ironical it would be if historians were to judge that President Clinton's achievement in 1999 was to extend the Monroe doctrine to apply to the very continent which it sought originally to challenge; namely, Europe.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Carrington on initiating this debate on the international situation. I agree with those other noble Lords who have drawn attention to the fact that this is just the kind of debate that does much to underpin the work of the House. I hope that it will continue to be a feature of our debates and deliberations in future. I was also delighted that my noble friend referred to the United Nations. Long before 16 years' uninterrupted membership of successive governments, during which time I never managed to convince either Mrs Thatcher or Mr Major that I should serve in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I cut my political teeth as vice-chairman of the British Youth Council before I
662
ascended to the chairmanship and presidency and worked closely with a certain Mr Peter Mandelson. I shall say more about that on another occasion.
I was a participant in the first UN-model assembly. I was very thrilled by that, particularly when I drew the subject of China, a member of the Security Council. I carefully drafted my speech and stood up in front of the 2,500 people present. To my horror, because of the involvement of Nationalist China at the time, everyone left. All the countries walked out, followed by the observers who thought that it was a coffee break. I delivered my carefully honed speech to no one at all. For that reason I am delighted that some of my former honourable friends and noble friends have stayed to hear me on this occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, made an outstanding maiden speech. The fact that he seized the subject of the Commonwealth and highlighted the two enormous challenges which face it—the World Trade Organisation and the Irish question—demonstrates that we shall hear a good deal from the noble Lord. If he maintains the standard that he has achieved today, he will be listened to with great respect on every future occasion.
My noble friend Lord Carrington referred to the bipartisan nature of foreign policy and the importance of maintaining it. I rather hope to do that this afternoon, following the very distinguished historian the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, and the remarkably good speech of my noble friend Lord Lamont. I say to my noble friend that I want time to reflect on some of those important analogies that he drew.
I should like to deal with the whole question of war crimes. Before I do so, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, that I remember serving with him for several years when I had the honour to be Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I enjoyed that time and had great respect for his judgment. As Treasurer I also doubled as Government Deputy Chief Whip. The only thing I remember about foreign affairs was my concern that when it came to voting, Foreign Office Ministers seemed to follow the advice of their officials that the House of Commons was just another foreign country to be visited from time to time. I, of course, make an exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who was present on every important occasion.
However, the topic throws now into perspective the opportunity to range over a number of subjects. I wish to focus on a case involving a certain gentleman called Konrad Kalejs. This was probably one of the worst cases arising out of the last world war. I was very concerned indeed at the way in which that case was handled. I thank my noble friend Lord Janner of Braunstone, and my honourable friend David Sumberg, Member of the European Parliament, for accompanying me to see the Home Secretary; and my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees for coming with us to see the Foreign Secretary. Our concern was emphasised when we realised that Konrad Kalejs had entered this country through Birmingham Airport on

663
his own passport with a valid visa and was not stopped in any way; nor was his entry noticed. I hope that the Minister will pass these comments to the Home Secretary although the issue covers the work of both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. I was concerned that that name was not on the suspect list. I heard a comment that no World War II criminals were on the suspect list. I want to believe that that cannot be the case. I understand that an inquiry is now taking place. I hope that the inquiry will result in the inclusion on the suspect list of those suspected of serious war crimes who still unfortunately escape justice.
The Special Department in America had investigated Konrad Kalejs over a 10-year period, from 1984–94, and had concluded that his conduct during the last war justified his being deported as a war criminal. The evidence pointed to the fact that he was an officer in probably the most vicious, nastiest and most evil extermination squad of the last world war. Together with Mr Svicoris and Mr Victor Akia, they masterminded the extermination of over 30,000 people. The head of the US Special Bureau said that if the United States had had a War Crimes Act on the statute book it would have prosecuted Mr Kalejs for his war crimes. He was also deported from Canada. He is an Australian citizen. Yet despite that record, he was able to enter this country without anyone noticing until it was brought to people's attention towards the end of last year.
I was concerned to find that there was no new police investigation. There was simply a review of the evidence held on the files of our special unit which was discontinued after the case of Mr Svicoris, two prosecutions and the investigation of 300 people. That rushed review included the evidence that the Americans, Canadians and Australians had—at least, I hope that it did. I am still not persuaded that there was sufficient co-ordination between all the different governments involved. We know that last Thursday Mr Kalejs took the opportunity to move back to Australia. As my noble friend knows, we are putting pressure on the Australian authorities to reopen their investigations to which I hope they will respond positively, and on the Latvian ambassador to do the same within Latvia.
People may well ask, "Why are you so concerned?" Some people have said, "You're not Jewish. Why are you so concerned about the Holocaust?" My reply is this. For most of my political life, in particular the time when I was involved in youth organisations across the world, I have wanted to fight racism, anti-Semitism, and extremism in all its evil manifestations. The atrocities of the last world war were so appalling and so evil that we must never forget them and we must pursue everyone who had any part to play in them.
I come to my recommendation to the Government. I believe that with the special units there should be more effective co-ordination. Why cannot we have a permanent international investigation unit which brings together all those different special departments so that they act with one resolve; namely, to identify and prosecute the individuals concerned?
664
Then we have the concept of a permanent international court which is subscribed to by over 100 countries. In that concept may well lie some solution although I am concerned that the court could be manoeuvred in a political way. That has to be avoided. The fears of the United States have to be put to rest in a considered way. Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend Lord Carrington. We could return to those great hopes and aspirations which followed the last war, in particular that the United Nations would at last give us permanent peace; and that we would never again see the evil atrocities of the last world war. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials gave us, I suppose, a false sense of hope. That was quickly dashed over the decades that followed. But now we have a new opportunity. There must be no hiding place for the criminals of the last world war. I hope that some form of international initiative will bring that aim to a clear reality.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the Chamber has been privileged to hear a most compelling maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes. I am certain that his topic—namely, the future of the Commonwealth—should be entertained again and again in the future.
Perhaps I may express a few words of thanks to my noble friend Lord Carrington. Almost all noble Lords have paid tribute to his political work, his preparation for this debate, and his contribution to it. I want to add even more to his embarrassment. In politics one often gains as much inspiration and entertainment from individuals as from political ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, comes top of the list. At the time of the Falklands and his resignation, I admired so much the dignified and selfless way in which he carried out that act of public service. I have since admired the reticence and loyalty to party leadership which has been the hallmark of his later political belief. That is a great inspiration to Tories operating in not always the happiest of circumstances.
Having discussed that, perhaps I may turn to ethical foreign policy. There is little I can add to what my noble friend Lord Lamont said. It was a most fascinating argument delivered in a compelling fashion without emotion. It is a challenge—I do not say this in a controversial sense—in particular to the Government Front Bench because it sets out what will be the guidelines of British foreign policy in this important field. It cannot be left for fractious debates on the "Today" programme. It has to be resolved in the calmer and more measured circumstances of this Chamber.
I shall return to an ethical foreign policy, but I should like to make one point which concerns a developing major world danger. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, spoke of the Foreign Office being beset by the unexpected. I want to be so arrogant as to say that that is thoroughly expectable. I refer to the dangers inherent in the situation in Indonesia. Already we have in Timor all the evidence of a trip wire of descent and eventually disintegration. We have in Irian Jaya, in Sulawesi, in Maluku and in North Sumatra situations

665
in which there is now open conflict. Some of that, particularly in the spice islands, is of a particularly fierce character. No one can be at all optimistic about the ability of the Indonesian Government to hold the present position.
Furthermore, we in this country have become used to Indonesia being the product of colonial boundaries; just as for years we were used to Africa being the product of colonial boundaries. They provided a degree of security against tribalism and other forces which would dislocate the social and political background. Now all that is disappearing. In Africa, the situation is miserably confused and conflict is proceeding in horrific terms. It would be a brave person who would say that Indonesia would not fall into a situation in which the boundaries secured by Dutch colonialism are replaced by the splitting of the archipelago into a shoal of islands.
Another consequence which flows from that is that the dispute and conflict will be horrific. That is the message from Africa. The break-up of boundaries, the reassertion of old former loyalties, has not been secured by reasonable agreement. It is the consequence of the most fierce and sustained fighting. One might say, as did Neville Chamberlain of Czechoslovakia, that Indonesia is a faraway country of which we know little. That is right, but in today's world we have trading interests in Indonesia and anxieties to see its peaceful evolution.
One has only to reflect on the events of the past few days—how straitened are our forces in the Balkans and how uncertain is the quality of our armaments on any great scale—to realise that there is no possibility of any British involvement as part of a peacekeeping force in Indonesia, even if peacekeeping lay within the keep of the western European countries, which I very much doubt. We may have to learn a disagreeable lesson and witness the dislocation of an area which is vital to world peace and interests because of its strategic identity. None the less, it would be a situation in which there was precious little we could do.
Against that background, I trace the so-called "ethical foreign policy". I do not believe that it is as strong a runner today as it was a few weeks ago. I believe that the Foreign Secretary is a man of great elasticity and will no doubt be able to cope with the situation. Indeed, I can remember when as a lad he was a Eurosceptic and a devotee of green politics. He has moved on from that and I am sure that he can move on from an ethical foreign policy. However, naturally, there is a concern about certain standards which guide our relationships with other countries.
The great danger is that because we are reluctant to be realistic about the situation, we shall become in favour not of an ethical foreign policy but of an ethical foreign noise. In some senses, that is the worst of all. I am sure that we all like to believe that there is a pebble of principle in our foreign policy and in our conduct with our neighbours, but the chances are that if we are not careful that pebble of principle will become encased in the slime of hypocrisy. That is not something which this nation deserves.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I recall that on several occasions in the past few years we have been reminded of the rule that only the Peer following the maiden speaker is allowed to congratulate him or her. But as today the rule has been honoured considerably in the breach rather than in the observance, I want to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, on his admirable maiden speech. He showed admirable judgment in choosing the same subject that I chose for my maiden speech six years ago. Perhaps I may pay him the highest tribute by saying that I am sure his much-loved and much-lamented predecessor, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, would have endorsed every word he said and would have been delighted by it.
It would be impertinent of me to break the rule twice and to congratulate my former boss on his second maiden speech, so I shall not do so. However, I join other speakers in thanking him for giving us this all-too-rare opportunity to debate the broad range of international affairs.
I want to concentrate my remarks on one specific and long-standing issue to which no reference has been made in the debate and in respect of which there is at last hope of a peaceful resolution. I refer to the talks which have been held, and will shortly be resumed, in the United States between Syrian and Israeli delegations. The talks are an attempt to achieve an agreement which will bring to an end a state of war which has persisted between these two Middle Eastern states since the foundation of Israel in 1947, and which will ensure the security and national interests of both parties.
I know that some of your Lordships have taken the view that I have been excessively critical of Israel in previous debates on the Middle East. This is, I think, the first opportunity I have had to speak on Arab-Israeli issues since Ehud Barak became Prime Minister of Israel. It gives me genuine pleasure to be able to give credit to the political courage and understanding which Prime Minister Barak and my personal friend Yossi Beilin have shown in their readiness to deal sensitively and positively with Israel's Palestinian and other Arab neighbours, in marked contrast to what I personally regarded as the negative and counter-productive policies pursued by Mr Barak's predecessor, Mr Benyamin Netanyahu.
Having had the privilege to serve as British Ambassador in Damascus for two years, from 1979 until 1981, when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was Foreign Secretary, I know from personal experience the genuine and long-standing hope of President Assad and his government that a just, peaceful and permanent settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be achieved. It has also been a self-evident truth for many years that no lasting peace in the Middle East can ever be achieved without the involvement of Syria.
President Assad's first priority is bound to be the restoration of those parts of Syrian territory which were overrun by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, and

667
subsequently annexed illegally by the Israeli Government and made available for Israeli settlement. Nevertheless, the Syrian Government must be well aware of the major political and economic advantages which would flow to Syria and to all the states in the region, including of course Israel, if a just and lasting peace settlement could be reached with their Israeli neighbours. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm in her summing up of the debate my impression that both Syria and Israel are now showing a genuine readiness to make the necessary commitments to each other.
I hope that the Minister can also confirm my impression that the United States Government, and President Clinton personally, are now giving high, welcome and necessary priority to helping both Israel and Syria to reach such an agreement. Press reports of the difficulties which both the parties have found in even agreeing an agenda for their talks underlines the vital need for help of this sort from the US administration. Perhaps of all the global issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred in speaking of the crucial role of the US power and influence, the Middle East is among the most significant and urgent.
Given the long, history of often uncritical US support for Israel in the past, it is a remarkable tribute to President Clinton's political courage if he is now genuinely ready to adopt an even-handed approach in this affair. As President Clinton has been quoted as saying, there will be heavy costs from any peace agreement between Syria and Israel. I hope that we and our partners in the European Union will be ready to share in those costs when the time comes. If the reward is a lasting and just settlement of the dispute between Syria and Israel, leading to developing cooperation between them, it will be a cost well worth paying.
We must also be watchful for attempts by extremists on both sides to undermine any agreement, as so tragically brought to an end the previous round of negotiations. I was pleased, incidentally, to hear Mr Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, say at Chatham House yesterday that any agreement between Syria and Israel was for those governments to decide.
I do not know—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us—how much credence should be given to reports which appeared in the Guardian last week that the Israelis are already using the talks with Syria as a pretext for demands from the US Government for cruise missiles as part of a 17 billion dollar security package to "compensate them" for ceding the Golan Heights. I hope that the Middle East specialists, also quoted in the Guardian, are correct in saying that the US administration and even Congress would have serious reservations, if not alarm, at the prospect of giving Israel cruise missiles in view of their capacity to carry nuclear warheads and in violation of the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime. I certainly hope that any such reservations would be strongly endorsed by Her Majesty's Government.
668
As I say, it is encouraging that President Clinton and the United States administration should be concentrating, as they appear to be, on helping Israel and Syria to reach a peace agreement, particularly since it is clear that any agreement is going to require considerable political courage from both parties.
I hope that the Minister may also be prepared to say something about our own role in this affair. I note from a report in The Times of 16th December from Tel Aviv that Her Majesty's Government have been able to use our currently good relations with both governments in Tel Aviv and Damascus to encourage those talks. As the noble and learned Lord. Lord Howe of Aberavon, said, a decade in diplomacy is a short time. But it might just be worth remembering and recalling that 10 years ago we had no relations with Syria either. But in concentrating on current attempts to reach an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement, I hope that the Minister can also confirm that Her Majesty's Government, our European colleagues, as well as the United States administration, will continue to watch developments in the West Bank and Jerusalem and will try to ensure that Israeli efforts to reach an agreement with Syria do not set back the encouraging progress there has been on the control of settlements in the West Bank, on Palestinian access to Jerusalem, and on the Framework Agreement on Permanent Status for the Palestinians.
Perhaps I may formally add a note as a former Permanent Under- Secretary in the Foreign Office and head of the Diplomatic Service in thanking those noble Lords and noble Baronesses for the remarks they have made about the Diplomatic Service. On behalf of my former colleagues, I should like to thank them not only for their tribute to the service but also for their call for adequate resources to help the service to meet the needs that it faces. I have always refrained from speaking in this House on behalf of the Diplomatic Service on the ground that noble Lords might say, as Mandy Rice-Davies said, "He would say that, wouldn't he?". It is, therefore, all the more pleasing for me to hear the tributes that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have paid to the service.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a very special occasion for me to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, on his maiden speech. He focused on the Commonwealth part of our responsibilities in the sense of being a partner in the Commonwealth, to which I believe Parliament in general and the nation pay too little attention. So it was a pleasure and a joy to hear him today.
The encouragement of my noble friend Lord Carrington in launching this debate today is just a continuation of the sort of encouragement he has given to those of us interested in foreign affairs throughout our lives. To be speaking in front of two of the three Foreign Secretaries whom I served in nearly 11 and a half years in the Foreign Office as a Minister of State is a special opportunity. During those years I worked mainly on Europe at the beginning, and then on Africa and on the Commonwealth.

669
The first thing I want to do is to echo what my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, have said about resources in the Foreign Office. I still work—and perhaps I should make a declaration here—very much on Africa and the Commonwealth. I am very much aware—perhaps even more so than my colleagues here—of just how much is being demanded of today's young Diplomatic Service officers and their support teams, those also working for British business across the world. I do not believe that they have the resources to meet the demands we are making of them.
I am an advisory director of Unilever, for which I concentrate not only on Africa but very much on the developing world. I have my own very small advisory company, Africa Matters Ltd, which is seeking to help businesses—especially the small, medium and micro-enterprises—to grow against appalling odds because they cannot get the resources with which to develop even when they have the know-how. We are also seeking to help governments to develop their skills—and to do so in a sustainable manner.
Because I am now concerned so much with business, I look very much at what it is that helps business to grow, what it is that makes business successful in different parts of the world.
While I do not intend to speak on the European situation at any length, it is only fair that I should say that, having taken the Single European Act through the House of Commons as a Minister of State and the Maastricht legislation through your Lordships' House as a Minister of State, although I will fully concede that much is wrong and certainly not all is right in the European Union, I do believe that the single market has made it easier for British business to grow. It has certainly made it easier for us to sell goods in Europe. We should be taking a far more positive stance because it is business that makes the world go around despite the difficulties of the World Trade Organisation that have been touched on. It will certainly be the way in which we play our role in Europe that will influence business from this country for the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, said, "She would say that, wouldn't she?", as my Unilever chairman is Niall FitzGerald who works not only for the company, but also for the Britain in Europe campaign.
I believe that we have to take a medium to long-term view, not a short-term view, of the difficulties of the euro and whether or not we become a member. We have to look also not just to our own attachment to the past, but at what is right for this country through the new century and through those years that lie ahead when we need to work, as a number of your Lordships have said, in regional groupings if we are to have success and, indeed, prosperity in countries across the world.
In all my time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—nearly 11 and a half years—and indeed since then in business, my first concern has been to see peace and stability grow across the world. We do not seem to have been very good at it, however much emphasis we
670
have put in. That is still my concern. My second concern has been to help capacity building among the governments of developing countries. My third concern has been to encourage democracy, sound legal processes and good governance. My fourth concern has been to see sound economic management and a proper public/private sector partnership in development, especially of infrastructure, across the world. Those are all ideas which this country has espoused. They are the sentiments which we have left across the Commonwealth, in our former colonies. Yet we seem to be doing insufficient to help those countries to achieve that to which we have aspired and to which we encouraged them.
Therefore, I make one plea to the Government. I am not critical; I am very bipartisan about foreign affairs and development. If there is anything ethical about the foreign policy of this Government, they should focus far more on assisting the political and economic progress of the developing world, especially of Africa. I am delighted that Peter Hain has just arrived in Nigeria and will be working hard on Africa. That has been long delayed. But it requires us not just to visit and to listen, but also to transfer the skills and knowledge of the developed world. We need to help those countries to do what they now seem so willing to do—to form public and private partnerships, where the best of the private sector can be shared with the public sector in order to help those developing countries to grow.
My noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell said that we should "help where we realistically can". I have long shared that view. It will be through the developing partnership in the third world that European nations, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the whole Commonwealth can do so much to help. Last year, for the second time since I left government, I was privileged to be present as an observer at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The one thing I have learnt, probably more since we came into opposition than I even knew in my time in government, is that the capacity building and management services which the Commonwealth can provide and its form of technical co-operation to fellow members of the Commonwealth are fundamental and are greatly admired, respected and wanted across the developing world. In Durban last year, the Commonwealth Business Forum set a new standard in its meeting with business people from across the Commonwealth. We have also seen the development of the Commonwealth Association for Corporate Governance. These are areas where the Commonwealth is taking a real lead and where Commonwealth nations join together to make development a reality for countries across the world. My noble friend Lord Cairns and Judge Mervyn King from South Africa are doing fine jobs in helping to push these developments further.
Finally, I should like to say something about that great country, Nigeria. It would be easy to talk about the good things that are happening in Africa, but I want to talk about the challenge of Nigeria. Shortly before Christmas I had the privilege to spend four days

671
back in Nigeria, visiting the President, the Vice-President and many of their senior advisers. I also had the chance to go with my own company, Unilever, and with Shell into some of the problem areas. The World Bank is seeking to build up a major technical assistance project on economic management and capacity building, but it cannot just be left to the World Bank. To combat the endemic corruption in Nigeria, that country needs very active help from this nation and from our partners across the European Community. Nigeria also needs our help completely to reform and retrain its police force. Without that, there will not be peace between the rival groups in Lagos and elsewhere. Nigeria needs our support for health development, for education and for agriculture, which can employ so many.
Nigeria needs our help, too, with the Niger Delta Development Commission. Thanks to Shell, I was privileged to see some of the problems of the Niger delta, having had a relationship with Ken Saro-Wiwa, before he was killed by the late General Abacha. Shell and other companies in the area are seeking to help community development. Nigeria now has an Act of Parliament to develop the Niger delta, an area from which the world has so benefited through its oil and gas. But Nigeria needs a great deal of support if it is to create the benefits for those Nigerian people. We can give a reality to this. I had such a great welcome every time I said, "Maybe so-and-so in Britain will be interested".
Perhaps I may say this to the Minister. When her colleague, Peter Hain, returns, I think that he will be as fired as I am with enthusiasm for what we should be doing there. It is a nation of 121 million—more than a quarter of the population of Africa. Along with South Africa, Nigeria will be a giant in Africa. Together they want peace and stability. Britain should be playing a full part to achieve just that.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, had the honour to serve the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I wish to thank him for introducing the debate today.
Pace Jane Austen, it is self-evident that a foreign policy requires a foreign service. Today I want to speak on that point; and not on Russia, my usual subject. The Government's new foreign policy centre, under Mr Mark Leonard, said in its mission statement:
"The old definition of the national interest is too narrow a guide to policy",
and that it would,
"abandon the idea of desk officers monitoring geographical areas and organise its thinking round the cross-cutting issues to come up with joined-up solutions".
It would consult not diplomats but opinion polls, focus groups, fieldwork and the Internet. It had a good word to say for the Commonwealth but, sadly, thinks that Britain is the problem for a Commonwealth trapped in its past, which is a little wide of the true situation. It reminds us that we are all global citizens and it regards such concepts as sovereignty or British identity with considerable reserve.
672
Fortunately, it also believes that Europe, as a federal state, would not be just unpopular but very damaging to our economic interests. It states:
"In the global information age we need national governments that are decentralised, close to the people and in competition with each other, not the lumbering leviathan of a country called Europe".
I say, "hear, hear" to that.
I have quoted the centre because this is a Government who sometimes prefer to listen to focus groups and think tanks rather than to the professionals. The centre has excellent access to the media and will be listened to when ambassadors may not. I hope that I am wrong.
I was cheered, although slightly puzzled, by Mr Leonard's views on defence, expressed in a recent BBC discussion on arms sales. He said:
"We don't need arms or defence. Our influence comes from everyone respecting us".
The logic of that argument is that the FCO is doing an excellent job and that we should not be committing large numbers of our Armed Forces to defence diplomacy and humanitarian operations but rather should be strengthening the FCO. Unfortunately, the new MoD mission statement still repeats that part of its task is to support the Government's foreign policy objectives, particularly in promoting international peace and security. I agree with that: it is just the degree to which it is done that concerns me.
We are certainly fulfilling and over-fulfilling that commitment with a quasi-permanent military presence in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Gulf and in East Timor—all open-ended, unaccompanied and demanding operations. We are committed to provide up to 15,000 troops on demand for as long as they are required for any UN operation in the future. We are committed to a major contribution—unlikely to be less than 15,000 to 20,000 troops, fully equipped—by 2003 to a new European Rapid Reaction Force for peacekeeping and humanitarian crises. That is quite distinct, therefore, from our role in the NATO-based Rapid Reaction Force. Presumably it will be run by the same somewhat awkward committee of 23. All that at a time when, thanks to the Treasury, our grossly overstretched forces receive 2.4 per cent of our GDP; less than Greece, Turkey and France and only just more than Portugal.
The Government want an army on the cheap. They will soon have it, if they have an army at all. Defence diplomacy costs money. Meanwhile, the Government are apparently still reducing the Foreign Service, the Diplomatic Service and our whole presence abroad to such a degree that the power of the Diplomatic Service to do the job is increasingly at risk. Like the NHS at present, it is expected to do the impossible.
How do the Government propose to conduct foreign relations, advance British industry abroad and take a strategic view of the future intentions of potentially hostile powers or identify threats to stability? How do they propose to protect British subjects in a dangerous crisis situation? I wonder whether the House realises, in addition to the

673
important point already most powerfully made by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, that the proportion of the national budget allocated to the FCO, which includes the invaluable World Service and the British Council, is still less than one third of 1 per cent? Do we realise also that, in 1999, 260 established posts were unfilled; that we have fewer posts abroad than either Germany or France; that almost half our overseas posts have fewer than four UK-based staff—23 of them have only one—and that, for instance, while we have two UK-based posts in Tashkent, the French have 17 and the Germans have 26?
The PUS told the Foreign Affairs Committee last year that those small posts did not have critical mass.
"People come",
he said,
"to learn about Britain. British businessmen come wanting help with visas for their staff, and payments for their contracts. If you are not very careful, if the post is too small you are there inside the building all day. In countries like these we really need to be out and about spotting opportunities for future business and establishing contacts with the people who are in government now and the people who are going to be in government tomorrow".
He was not sure that the service could do so at the level of overall staff it had then. There is a real prospect that the service will soon be unable to perform its core tasks as it should.
That monstrous position is of course not new. There were already draconian cuts under the previous government. The then PUS told the committee that there were already a number of posts manned solely by locally engaged staff. They are often excellent people, but foreign governments expect to deal with a UK-based officer and locally engaged staff are necessarily vulnerable to pressure in difficult situations. Posting in someone from somewhere else is no use in a crisis when one needs to know all the key people and does not have the knowledge of the country and the people so essential in getting the British community out of a dangerous situation. I should not have been able to take British subjects in convoys past angry, hostile and often drunken troops in the Congo without knowing exactly how to deal with them. One has to know what triggers them. If time allows, I shall tell your Lordships a story about that at the end of my speech, but there may not be time.
A great deal of nonsense is talked about the need for diplomats to be businessmen. The Government have gone so far as to post businessmen to missions abroad for brief periods and to include them in the all-too-short FCO honours list, thereby leaving even fewer awards for diplomats at every level who have borne the heat of the day, not for a few months but for years in many countries. What businessmen want from our missions is someone to tell them whether there will be a coup, whether it is a good time to invest, who are the key ministers, which rival countries are in the race and what are the local difficulties. Good diplomats do all that as part of the job, but to do so they need to travel within the country and the despised geographical desks in the FCO need to visit the countries they are
674
overseeing. These days there is no money for operational travel, so every one sits with a laptop computer in the office, which must be deeply frustrating. I spent much of my first year in my first African post travelling and identifying the future leaders, so that when independence came I knew half the ministers and most of the opposition. The post in Tashkent should be doing that, but it probably cannot.
How do the despised diplomats do in the business of promoting British exports? The Overseas Trade Services of the FCO, according to the National Audit Office in 1996, helped to generate £345 million-worth of extra business for the UK in south-east Asia alone in 1993–95, at a cost of £4.5 million. That is around £77 profit for each pound spent. In 1998, BOC won a substantial gas contract worth 1 billion US dollars. It said it could not have done so without the help of the embassy in Mexico City. BP acknowledged similar help in Russia. There must be many more examples.
Neither the UN nor the EU can or will protect our citizens when they are in danger in a foreign land. Nor certainly will they advance our commercial interests or our international influence. Our diplomats are best placed through long experience and hard times in hard posts—not soft lying in European capitals—to identify future threats. It will not be much use to have even a splendid NHS if we are vulnerable in a dangerous world. Russia remains unstable, massively increasing its defence spending. It is making and selling new nuclear weapons and a new generation of both submarines and aircraft. It already perceives our NATO capacity and the UK-US relationship as weaker than it was and likely to be weakened further by our unwise commitment to new European ventures where we and the French alone have real soldiers but no US logistical backup.
It is bad enough for our Armed Forces to be used more or less frivolously, but it is nothing short of wicked to have reduced an excellent, highly professional and committed Foreign Service to one-man posts or less in more than half the world in order to save puny sums. We must defend the office and the diplomatic service from the Treasury termites.
Noble Lords: Story!
Baroness Park of Monmouth: All right. The story illustrates why one needs to be there. It happened in the Congo many years ago, but it could easily happen in Sierra Leone and Angola now and probably in many other countries.
A week before independence in the Congo, I was driving through the African city at night. A soldier flagged me down and said that a comrade of his was in trouble. We drove around the unlit, muddy streets, where there were deep storm ditches on either side, until we found a struggling crowd fighting. I got out of the car, flashed my lights and said to them plaintively, "I am a very bad driver. I can't reverse; if I do, I shall fall into the ditch. Please will you all get up and get out of the way so that I can drive forwards?" As I hoped, they all laughed. Men are always happy to laugh at women drivers. In laughing, they released the soldier

675
with whom they had been fighting. I put him smartly in the car and drove him back to his barracks and left him there. That was that.
The morning after the mutiny began, the whole place was in uproar. Troops were driving round the streets, firing off their guns. Most of them were fairly drunk. The local British subjects, mostly small traders living outside Leopoldville—as it then was—came to me as the consul and said, "We want you to drive us in a convoy to the ferry so that we can escape to Brazzaville". So I did. We met whole groups of soldiers. I talked to them and we passed through every time until we reached the ferry. There was a nasty look about the place; there were burning cars and broken heads and a general air of unfriendliness.
I got out of the car and walked up to the extremely large soldier in charge, but before I could open my mouth to say, "I am the British consul, these are British subjects. Please let us pass", he looked at me, gave a roar of laughter and clasped me to his bosom. I emerged and said, "Oh, have we met?"—proper English, I am!—and he said, "Yes, don't you remember? You are the one who can't reverse and I'm the soldier you rescued. You were my friend before independence. Are these all your friends?—because if so they may all pass". I looked at them—I had taken a great dislike to some of them by that time—and said, "Yes, they are all my closest, dearest personal friends". He said, "In that case, they can all get in the ferry, but you can't". I said, "I don't want to—I've got a job to do. I'm staying". S o that was that.
That could not nave happened if I had not known how that particular kind of African reacts. One must be there to know it. It is no use bouncing in from outside. It is no use expecting anyone to do it but a diplomat who has been around.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Baroness Park of Monmouth will have recognised how much the House enjoyed her story, not only on account of its content but because of what we have come to recognise in all her contributions: that she approaches such issues with a great reservoir of sound common sense.
The international situation, although mercifully much improved—as my noble friend Lord Carrington pointed out—by the removal of the fear of global nuclear war, is today characterised by a raft of localised conflicts and humanitarian crises, some of a quite horrendous nature. From some of those, we stand aside. Into others we become embroiled, sometimes more deeply than we had originally at the outset thought to have been the case.
When considering what we should do, I believe that there are a number of fundamental criteria which should help to determine the appropriateness of any British response to some event overseas. Those are, first, the extent to which Britain's direct national interests may be engaged; secondly, the possibility of a solution being found by diplomatic means; thirdly, the likelihood or otherwise of other countries becoming
676
involved with us in some joint effort, whether diplomatic or military; and, fourthly, the degree to which resources deemed adequate for the job may be secured from the outset. We cannot be expected to react to or intervene in every crisis or conflict wherever it may occur. Our reluctance—correct, in my view—to become directly involved in Chechnya is an illustration of that.
Clearly, we have an obligation to respond whenever our close allies and fellow Commonwealth nations are affected. If their interests are put under threat then it would be right for us to accept that that places a responsibility on us. Where no such precondition exists, we should be cautious before making a commitment to action.
As other noble Lords have noted, everyone is becoming increasingly familiar with the globalisation of national economies. Given the rapid development and increasing exploitation of the Internet, e-commerce and satellite communications, the impact of events, both physical and financial, is quickly felt throughout the world. In those circumstances, there is a temptation for senior government Ministers and even heads of state to respond too hastily to calls for action. In nearly every case it will probably be wiser to guard against being too precipitate, no matter how insistent the media clamour. Certainly, contemplating the committing of our forces should be seen always as a last resort.
If circumstances allow, time should be given to reflection, analysis and consultation. Ideally, our response should be considered and measured. Here I make a plea that we do not entirely bypass the tried and tested ways of diplomacy. Ambassadors still have a vital role to play, both in the analysis and in the resolution of problems. They and their colleagues are on the spot. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth made clear, they know the country and they understand the people where they serve. They are best placed to advise on the potential and likely timetable for a diplomatic solution. So long as there is the chance of a dialogue, we should keep open the lines for diplomacy to work.
As each crisis is different, so the means for achieving its settlement may vary. Of course, it is most important that we work closely with other countries and that we form partnerships, for we gain strength in so doing. But we need not necessarily do so with the same countries on every occasion. As situations and locations differ, the alliance which was relevant in one case might need to be composed differently for the next. We should be careful to avoid binding ourselves inextricably to any one predetermined formula.
This is where I have some hesitation about the proposal, shadowy though it may be at this stage, for the formulation of a rapid reaction force. I believe that from the way in which it has been addressed so far, or, at any rate, as the references made in this House so far would indicate, the proposal seems to pose more questions than it provides answers. I am a little apprehensive because of a comment which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham

677
Dean, on the first day of the foreign affairs debate on the Queen's Speech. She seemed to identify the role for British forces as being to help to,
"promote peaceful and stable societies".—[Official Report, 18/11/99; col. 31.]
That worries me because I believe that it is too woolly and too open-ended. I believe that we are in danger of confusing roles between military and humanitarian which could lead to a weakening of the fighting capabilities of our military forces. We cannot play the role of world policeman unless we are prepared substantially to increase the resources available to those whom we call upon to discharge those duties.
My final comment is to urge that we retain our closest possible links with the United States of America. In their eagerness to prove their euro-credentials, Ministers may be in some danger of undermining that one firm bastion for peace. In spite of occasional difficulties and setbacks, the United States of America has proved steadfast in two great wars and in other lesser conflicts since. Our friendship with and dependency upon the United States of America is a vital ingredient in our ability to conduct our foreign policy and our defence activities in other countries. As my noble friend Lord Hurd said, that is true not just of us in this country; it is certainly true of Europe as a whole.
No matter how much we try to tip the scales with whatever extra effort may be made in the European context, it is likely that for a long time to come we shall all rely upon the overwhelming military strength, the logistical back-up, and the intelligence provided by a satellite surveillance system of the United States of America. Therefore, that link is most essential, and I hope that we keep the balance between our respective European and trans-Atlantic interests. Flexibility and balance—the two things seem to be contradictory but, in my view, they go very much together in the context of our coping with problems in the international sphere.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I fear that it is as depressing as it is realistic to recognise that the skies of this new century are already clouded with conflict. It is true that they are not the great black clouds of a threat of a world war, which they were for most of the second half of the last century. Nuclear weapons, which I have seen for some while as being God's gift to prevent world wars, kept world peace during the great struggle between democratic capitalism and totalitarian socialism. That was a conflict which was in the end resolved peacefully by economic forces: first, by the unification of Germany and, later, by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, the clouds are smaller but more numerous and widely scattered. They can still rain death and destruction on those below them.
On whom, then, can we rely to disperse those dangers? There are only three possible answers: the United States, as the only remaining superpower; or the United Nations, which was designed for that purpose; or a combination of both. Frankly, I do not
678
believe that the United States would or should take sole or even perhaps primary responsibility. Let us never forget—and, if we do, the experience of a late entry by America into both the world wars will remind us—that the forces of isolationism lurk in most states of the Union, especially perhaps in middle America. Certainly, the recent reluctance to see body bags coming back to America from other parts of the world underlines that. If we have difficult understanding it, let us reflect how distant and how politically remote the whole of Latin America seems to much of Europe, especially northern Europe.
Therefore, the primary answer can only be the United Nations. On the United Nations has descended the mantle of responsibility which has been carried by mutual fears and suspicions of the eastern and western power blocs. Yet the record of the UN has so far been confused and unimpressive. All too recently, those on the top floors of the United Nations Plaza in New York seemed to believe that military vehicles can, at the same time, be presented in both green and white paint. They cannot, as Bosnia has so tragically demonstrated. I understand that the lessons of the Balkan experiences are to be considered this weekend at a Ditchley conference which my noble friend Lord Hurd is expecting to attend.
The first requirement is for there to be proper separation between the provision of military forces under UN mandate and the payment for them. The two are hopelessly confused. All members of the UN, including those who provide forces, should subscribe in proportion to their GNP to the fund from which the providers of military forces are reimbursed. The refund should be 100 per cent with, of course, proper, independent audit to ensure that there are no spurious claims.
It will usually be necessary for the United States to play a part in operations if only because it alone has the intelligence assets on which effective, modern operations depend.
The second requirement, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, is for the UN to have a proper policy-making capability or, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, said, there must be more pre-emptive thought.
A particular problem, to which my noble friend Lord Carrington referred, is that the pace of diplomacy, and, indeed, the timetables of events are increasingly set by the media.
A third and most urgent need is that there must be proper criteria for intervention. The Prime Minister set out his ideas in a speech in Chicago last April. Again, I believe it is planned fairly soon to have two Ditchley conferences to try to work out something practical on that.
Fourthly, there must be a much better UN administrative capability to follow up once military action has ended. The need for that was demonstrated very clearly by the recent failure to provide the necessary police force to replace KFOR.

679
Where does that leave this country? I accept the Prime Minister's description of the UK as a "pivotal power". We are that for two reasons. First, as a veto member of the Security Council, we could never be involved in any UN military operation of which we disapproved. I should say how relieved I was when the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, told us before Christmas that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of giving up their UN veto seat in any process of reforming the Security Council structure. That puts the Labour Party and my own party on the same side on that issue. I am sorry that there is still some ambivalence on the part of the Liberal Democrats who mutter about EU representation on the Security Council. However, I am fairly confident that French self-interest would see off that idea.
Secondly, we have military forces with standards of professionalism, discipline, diplomacy, integrity and valour which, taken together, are not surpassed by any other country in the world. Since 1989, there have been 35 UN-led blue-helmeted operations in 17 of which there has been British military participation. In addition, there have been five UN-authorised military operations, which are those where proper armed forces in green paint are provided. Britain has provided forces for all of them.
The most recent example of the quality of our military capability has been in East Timor where only a contingent from the Second Battalion of the Royal Gurkha Rifles almost single-handedly provided for the swift return of more than 100,000 refugees.
The world will increasingly need British military forces. Yet at present the overstretch of international commitments combined with the decline in our domestic requirements means that we run the risk of failing to meet the needs of the world for British military peacekeeping.
Finally, I suggest that in place of the sterile and often hypocritical arguments over an ethical foreign policy, we should recognise that world interests are British interests. That is something which makes us a pivotal power.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak on some aspects of our evolving security and defence policies which, of course, are important supporting elements of our overall foreign policy. Therefore, they have a direct bearing on our contribution to the international situation.
As we move into this new century, it is perhaps also worth reflecting briefly on the effectiveness of our security policies over the past 100 years. On the face of it, they failed us catastrophically twice in the first half of the 20th century, whereas over the past 50 years, despite the largest ever military confrontation in history born of the Cold War, those policies and the manner in which we applied them have secured for western Europe and north America the longest period of peace and growing prosperity in modern history.
There are many complex reasons for that remarkable outcome, not least that rampant nationalism in western Europe has largely disappeared
680
after the bitter lessons of two world wars. Growing economic and political co-operation within the European Union has also made a major contribution to our security in a wider context.
But the unique development that has underpinned western security so successfully for over two generations stemmed, I believe, from the formation of NATO in 1949. That not only preserved our vital security interests throughout the Cold War but eventually it played a crucial part in bringing that hazardous military confrontation to a near peaceful conclusion in the nuclear age.
Regrettably, as we have heard several times in this debate, the aftermath of the Cold War and the demise of the former Soviet Union have now led to different security challenges and risks in a still dangerous and uncertain world. Against that changing background, the question today is whether NATO has adapted sufficiently to remain the most effective multinational organisation for underpinning our Euro-Atlantic security interests or whether some other arrangements are now needed.
Having seen the tragic failure of the United Nations' efforts to bring peace to Bosnia for nearly four years of sustained effort, it can only reasonably be concluded that NATO's military involvement in the Dayton peace progress has been a remarkable success. Although serious concerns have been expressed this afternoon about NATO's strategic approach to events in Kosovo and the legal basis on which it rested, there can be little doubt about the alliance's ultimate military success in that campaign as well.
But NATO's involvement in the Balkans has also reminded us that military operations can only be a means to an end. They are not an end in themselves. So before launching them, we should also be clear about their realistic longer-term strategic objectives and the non-military measures through which we shall seek to secure them. That is a complex matter for which today we often seem ill-prepared and ill-equipped, despite the efforts of the United Nations and other international bodies.
The consequence is that our hard-pressed military forces—and they are very hard-pressed today relative to their size—despite their operational success, often find themselves committed on an indefinite basis because no longer-term political, economic and administrative measures have been adequately planned or brought into effect. Both Bosnia and Kosovo eventually demonstrated the importance of the United States playing a constructive role in European security, as she had done, of course, throughout the Cold War.
However, Kosovo also starkly revealed the growing gap between the military capabilities of the United States and those of other NATO nations. Just a few extracts from the current edition of The Military Balance 1999/2000 makes that point emphatically. The United States provided over 70 per cent of the aircraft to the Kosovo campaign, delivering over 80 per cent of the weapons and bearing a similar proportion of its incremental costs.

681
More widely, there is the concern that European defence capabilities are becoming increasingly inferior to those of the United States, which is not surprising when all the European members of NATO combined last year invested about half as much as the United States in military research and development. Overall, although the decline in defence spending in alliance nations since 1991 has today generally levelled out, the European members of NATO together now spend only half as much on defence as the United States. Regrettably, we in Europe achieve significantly less value for money in that process.
Another key determinant of any enhanced defence capability is the professionalism, training and readiness of the armed forces concerned. As the new Secretary General of NATO, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, pointed out recently:
"Europe has over 2 million men and women under arms, but it is hard-pressed to deploy and maintain 40,000 troops in Kosovo".
Setting that in a wider context, he added:
"The time for a peace dividend is over because there is no permanent peace in Europe or elsewhere, and if NATO is to do its job protecting future generations, it can no longer expect to do it on the cheap".
In practice, how will the European Security and Defence Identity help to address those key issues that bear so fundamentally on our future security? Certainly based on the hard realities to which I have referred, it is clear that Europe needs to make a much more effective contribution to our collective defence capabilities, particularly if it is serious about its ability to take substantial military action independent of the United States.
The question now is not just whether the recent decisions of the European Security and Defence Identity will actually achieve a genuine autonomous military capability in Europe, but whether they will also start to close the widening gap between the United States and European defence capabilities. If they do not, it will become progressively more difficult for European forces to operate safely and effectively with the United States on demanding military operations.
I believe that those are some of the hard, practical issues that have to be addressed if we are to sustain, with confidence, the remarkable success of our security and defence policies of the past 50 years. In that respect I welcome the brave words in the recent defence White Paper:
"the fundamental objective of continuous improvement in operational performance and our force structures".
However, I regret that it offers no measurable benchmarks for closing our growing capability gaps relative to the United States. It qualifies its own imperatives for improvement by indicating that that has to be achieved within the budget set.
Of greater concern is the fact that some other European members of NATO have a much less impressive record of committing the resources needed even to maintain their current capabilities, let alone to modernise their forces for the future. So the European Security and Defence Identity on its own will surely
682
not remedy those shortfalls without a significant increase in defence expenditure by the nations concerned, combined with much greater efficiency in the way that expenditure is used.
Unless there is a greater awareness of the risks and realities inherent in the development of the European Security and Defence Identity, to which our Government have now added such impetus, I fear it could have the opposite effect to that intended, with serious implications for our longer-term security arrangements with the United States. That is not just personal speculation on my part. But what I judged to be a serious article in the Wall Street Journal last month clearly pointed out the strategic pitfalls of the European Security and Defence Identity if it fails to meet its highly ambitious objectives which it cannot possibly achieve without a larger overall commitment of resources to defence in European nations.
That article concluded:
"Irreversible decisions are now being made with profound implications for America's relationship with Europe as a whole and Britain in particular. So far few European leaders seem much aware of what it is they are doing—and of how much they are risking. America's Atlanticists, at least, have been assertive in voicing their doubts. It is time for Europe's Atlanticists to do the same".
In the past few minutes I have sought to avoid speaking narrowly from either an Atlanticist or a European standpoint. In reality, if we are to secure dependable arrangements to underpin our security in future, we need to do so, as we have done so successfully for the past 50 years, on a Euro-Atlantic basis. The longer-term consequences of moving away incautiously from that highly effective strategic approach in an ever-more interdependent and interactive world could be far more serious than may be apparent at first sight today.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I want to concentrate my remarks on South Asia and what is known as the SARC region. As many noble Lords will know, I have lived and worked in Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka. Most of my remarks will concern Sri Lanka, which I have known intimately for nearly 40 years.
First, I want to speak about the Maldives, one of the smallest countries in the region, a country that has the great benefit of a consistency of government in that Abdul Gayoom and his foreign minister, Mr Fathullah Jameel, have been in power for a great many years, which has given stability to that part of the region.
In day-to-day terms all seems peaceful there, with tourism, fishing and the merchant marine. However, I remind your Lordships that just a six-foot rise in the tide level would mean that the Maldives would disappear altogether as a nation. My first question to Her Majesty's Government is: what are the Government doing today to ensure that the United Kingdom keeps up pressure on global warming? Unless we remain proactive in that field, nations such as the Maldives will cease to exist.

683
I now turn to Sri Lanka, which is one area of the world where there is significant conflict. It has particularly close ties with this country. I do not know whether I should declare an interest, but I am joint chairman of the British Sri Lankan parliamentary group.
I hope that all noble Lords will give unreserved condemnation to the recent acts of terrorism committed by the LTTE. The recent bomb attacks on 18th December—just before Christmas—injured President Chandrika Kumaratunga, killed 21 people and left 110 severely injured. There was another bomb on 5th January outside the office of the Prime Minister, which resulted in the death of 12 more people and injured another 20. Understandably, such acts of terrorism have, for the moment, stalled negotiations aimed at progressing the peace process.
Despite the bomb attack on the president, in which she lost an eye—I do not need to remind your Lordships that her father and her husband have been assassinated—the presidential election went ahead, which is a true reflection of the strength of democracy in that country. Even after that, in her acceptance speech having wan the presidential election, she was brave enough to say,
"I urge you to use every ounce of influence at your disposal to bring Mr Prabhamaran to the negotiating table without further delay. I urge you to persuade with every conceivable argument anyone who is a member or a supporter of the LTTE to renounce violence and join us in establishing peace".
That was not just a message to those in Sri Lanka; it was a message to the world. There are significant numbers of Sri Lankans in the United States, Canada, Germany and not least in this country. I hope that those in this country, who are known to support the LTTE, will heed those words.
In that speech she put out a hand of friendship to Ranil Wickremasinghe whom I have known, I guess, for some 20 years. He is the leader of the main opposition, the United National Party. She sought from him a bi-partisan approach to finding a peaceful solution to the problem. Despite the understandable political differences which we have across this Chamber sometimes, there are occasions when we work together. Her Majesty's Government could help in trying to ensure that that message is conveyed to the government and opposition in Sri Lanka. This country is held in the greatest respect in Sri Lanka and I am sure that we can assist in that regard.
I turn to the international situation in Sri Lanka and the international community and ask the question: is it not now time for the international community to put pressure on Mr Prabhakaran to hold talks with the government of Sri Lanka? And, on the invitation of that government, I feel that the international community could play a significant role to advance the peace process.
Those in government who listened to the interview of the Secretary General of the Commonwealth on the World Service, to which I listened, will know that he was involved in the mediation attempts in 1997, and more recently Norway has been involved. I hope I do not express too partisan a wish in my belief that the
684
United Kingdom could play a significant role in bringing some pressure on Mr Prabhakaran and all other parties to get together. When I read about and listen to the Secretary General telling us that he only communicated with Mr Prabhakaran, I feel that that is not satisfactory. Whoever is in that role must see the man face to face; it is not enough to have an intermediary.
In recent days Britain signed the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Financing. Indeed, I pay tribute to the Government for signing that on the very day it became available for signature. But I hope it is not just a piece of paper but that action will flow from it. In this country it is known that the LTTE is collecting funds. I do not mean a charity day with a flag; I mean protectionism; money being extorted from Sri Lankans living in this country. Unless they pay up, as your Lordships know only too well, their families will suffer. That is the way terrorism works. Many in this Chamber have as much experience of it as I have.
I speak personally now: I find it repulsive that tonight, in Camden, there is an office of the LTTE. That is not acceptable. Given that we passed the new terrorist Act in the last Session, which gives us powers to prevent parties from carrying out, planning or preparing terrorist activities, I hope that high on the agenda—leaving aside the Sikh problem—will be the LTTE. I realise that it is not the responsibility of the foreign minister, but there is evidence that junior officers of the LTTE are seeking asylum in this country in order to keep the conflict going. The Home Office should pay some attention to that problem.
I want to end on a positive note. Sri Lanka is a highly literate society. The people are pro-British. Nevertheless, it is a developing country, though it is not the poorest country by a long shot. However, there are great challenges to be faced in that part of the world. Its growth runs at around 5 per cent a year. Understandably that growth is stifled by the fact that 5 per cent of GNP goes to cover the cost of war. If the United Kingdom, in the international community, could find a solution, it would allow a further 50 per cent growth. That sort of growth is so significant that it would have an incredible effect on all the people of Sri Lanka, be they Tamil, Sinhalese, Muslim, Burgher. That is a power well worth striving for. I ask Her Majesty's Government to recognise that this is a problem to which we must find a solution. It is a key problem. It has been going on for nearly 20 years and urgently needs resolving. It is time that this Government played an active role in the international community to get that moving.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin as have so many other noble Lords by congratulating my noble friend Lord Carrington on moving this debate, and on having done so in a manner which gives every speaker the possibility of being relevant, while having the opportunity to speak on whatever he or she may want.

685
I should like to make a few remarks about the recent ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle. As your Lordships will know, that meeting broke up in disarray just before Christmas. As a supporter of liberalising world trade, I am sure that the Government will be at one with me in being concerned and anxious about what occurred. My immediate question for the Government is: what happens now? Where do we go from here? After all, bearing in mind the political and economic advantages which further trade liberalisation could produce and the aspiration of China to join—something I support—great prizes are at stake.
Given the political events which surrounded the Seattle meeting, I am especially anxious to know about the Government's attitudes towards the possible factoring into the negotiations of environmental and labour standards issues. I do not suppose there is anyone in this House who is unconcerned about those matters and who wishes environmental degradation and destruction on vast parts of the globe, nor for that matter to promote bad employment practices in third-world countries. But traditionally we have, rightly, kept those matters outside the scope of negotiations of this kind. Is that still the position of the Government? I believe that it is, but I shall be interested to hear from the noble Baroness confirmation of that point.
Having begun by focusing on a number of specific foreign affairs issues, albeit they are also commercial points, I should now like to move on to the relationship between foreign policy and domestic issues. In the old days it was reasonably straightforward. This side of the Channel was "domestic"; beyond it was "abroad". That was the way it was determined. But it is not quite like that any more. I suppose it began in the post-war world with the development of the European Economic Community, which has evolved and now incorporates the Third Pillar introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht. We are seeing issues which traditionally were domestic being dealt with in a way which echoes foreign policy practice.
It is important to recognise that this is not simply some kind of European racket. As I said, a number of issues are determined in general terms in the forum of the World Trade Organisation. To take but three—agriculture, financial services and intellectual property—these are all areas of policy which have an enormous importance in domestic politics in this country.
In the case of agriculture, for example, it is probably difficult to conceive of a policy which superficially could be more domestic in its effect. After all, it directly impacts on the appearance and the use of something like 80 per cent of the surface of this country. In reality, agriculture and agricultural policy determine the appearance of most of Britain; and yet the trade aspects of agriculture are in essence determined in the forum of the World Trade Organisation. Many of the purely agricultural subsidy and price aspects of policy are determined by the European Union's common agricultural policy, while
686
the value of the prices farmers receive for their goods, which are after all benchmarked by Brussels, are either enhanced or eroded by the movements of the pound and the euro on the foreign exchanges—and that is determined by the international financial community. Therefore, in reality most of our domestic agricultural policy is not determined domestically at all.
While I am deeply concerned about the plight of agriculture at present, in which I am personally involved, I for my part do not think that in general the kind of changes I have described are by any means necessarily for the worse. On the contrary, we are living in a world of greater economic integration, ever more closely linked by information technology. This should, and I believe will, improve the lot of not only our citizens here in Britain but also many other people around the world. If this is the nature of the society in which we live, I am quite sure that we should not turn our back on it.
I believe that this trend will be speeded up significantly by developments in electronic commerce and the use of electronic money. Certainly it seems to me that the advent of e-commerce will do for the ordinary citizen what the abolition of exchange control did for banks and financial services institutions. If this is the case, more and more decisions which affect domestic policy, and which traditionally were exclusively taken domestically, will be taken outside our national jurisdiction and beyond this Parliament's procedures. Indeed, the policies will acquire many of the traditional characteristics of foreign policy developments. After all, as I have already mentioned, we are already familiar with this process from our membership of the European Union. The processes of the World Trade Organisation, which I have mentioned, show that we cannot turn our back on this by simply walking away from the EU, even if it was desirable or sensible in any form to do that—I do not believe that that is the case—for to do so would simply be shooting the messenger.
What Britain's experience of European Union membership suggests to me is that the scrutiny, or lack of scrutiny, of what is being done by our Government abroad in our name is at the heart of whether or not the British public feel at ease with the process. A failure in this regard has a significant political downside, as can be seen from the widespread concern about European Union membership. I do not think that it is any accident that much of the evidence adduced by those who are disaffected comes from the area of agricultural policy which, as I have already mentioned, is, for good or ill, substantially determined abroad. If I can put it this way, "abroad" seems to be getting bigger and "home" getting smaller, even if it is not being reduced into smaller pieces by devolution.
Yesterday on looking at the quality newspapers, I was struck that even on a day which was probably a little light for news, the main story in all if not most of them concerned the proposed merger between two American companies, Time Warner and America Online, creating a commercial entity which has roughly the same output as Russia. That commercial organisation is accessible to everyone in this country

687
who possesses a telephone line and a personal computer. That phenomenon has an enormous potential impact on what will occur here.
It is obvious that Parliament has much less power and influence over what I might describe as "abroad" as opposed to the power and influence it exercises at home. Therefore, it seems to me to be terribly important both for government and for Parliament—I believe that there is a strong community of interest in this—to find a process whereby they can achieve a state of affairs such that the public have confidence in Parliament's ability to keep tabs on, and to scrutinise, what the Government do abroad in our name.
I do not think is is enough for the executive simply to return from the negotiating halls of the world and say baldly, "Take it or leave it", especially if "leave it" may be in breach of international law or obligations actual or moral into which the Government have entered. At the same time, clearly Parliament cannot mandate our Government—for all the obvious reasons that you cannot negotiate successfully if the other parties to the negotiations know your bottom line. In any event, as we all know, things change in the process of negotiations. Somehow or other we need to evolve an ongoing; relationship between the executive and Parliament which is based on a constructive combination of trust and creative suspicion. I believe that if we do not do that, we run the risk that our citizens will become alienated from these quasi foreign policy processes which I believe are so necessary to deliver the full potential of contemporary commercial technology in the present-day world.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for initiating this debate. I have always regarded him as an absolute guru of foreign policy genius. Over the years I have had many useful and interesting discussions with him for which I have been deeply grateful. He has given excellent guidance which occasionally I have followed!
I very much appreciated the remarkable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, especially as regards his visions for the Commonwealth. I recently returned from CHOGM, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, in Durban and rejoiced once again at the extraordinary measure of goodwill and understanding and of corridor agreements and discussions which took place there, often between nations which otherwise had little contact. It is a great organisation.
I join in thanking the departing Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, for all that he and his wife, Bunmi, have done over the years for us. I do so partly in my capacity as president of the Commonwealth Jewish Council which he helped so much and on behalf of all of us in this country who appreciate the Commonwealth. It is a great unity and it has recognised that if you want to get understanding to avoid war and to achieve peace you have to talk and understand.
688
I spent a week during the recent Recess in India. There this vision is not quite the same. I was privileged to meet the Prime Minister and five of his other Ministers. Their position is absolutely plain with regard to talking to the Pakistanis about Kashmir; namely, that there is no point in talks unless they are meaningful and that they cannot be meaningful while the incursions across the border into Indian Kashmir continue and that in the circumstances they will be pleased to talk again—as they were pleased to talk before—when those incursions stop.
This is not entirely the view of the opposition. Mrs Sonia Gandhi and her advisers, in particular Natwar Singh, an old friend of many of us here, told me that while they do not like the Pakistan regime and regard it as a dictatorship, if they want peace they will have to deal with it. However, that is not the view of the majority or of the government.
India is an extraordinary democracy. As has been seen by the frequent changes of government there, if they cannot bring the nation with them their governments will fall. My impression of the present government is that they will be there for a long time and that the Pakistan Government will have to deal with it. It will be for the Pakistan Government to decide whether talks take place because that will depend on whether they will prevent their troops or others from crossing the border.
All that said, I repeat what a marvellous, vibrant democracy India is. If you fly west from India, you do not fly over many others. You cross Iraq, certainly on the map if not in the air. You wonder why its leadership is still in place. You cross Iran. The Iranian Foreign Minister is visiting this country. Iran is not exactly a democracy of the highest order. I and other noble Lords, who have been most supportive on this issue, have tried to persuade the Iranians to release the 13 Jewish leaders whom they have seen fit to lock up and who are likely to be tried and will be lucky not to be executed. So far as we can ascertain, they have committed no crime other than being Jewish.
You then come to Israel. Here I pay tribute to my old friend and sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. I was happily astonished that the noble Lord has moved so centrally into the area of discussion and almost of goodwill for Israel and its leadership. Certainly he will recognise that, like India—and, indeed, like Britain, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, indicated when he spoke about bringing the British people with us—in Israel if you do not bring the people with you, you lose.
In today's edition of The Times there is a very important comment from the Jerusalem correspondent headed "More oppose Golan deal". It states:
"Last week 41 per cent of Israelis said they would support plans to leave the Golan Heights, home to 17,000 Israelis and 19,000 Druze. This was 4 per cent fewer than a few weeks earlier. Mr Barak will have only a few days to try to improve his position before returning for more talks in America on January 19.
"The decline in support for Mr Barak's initiative is largely because the Syrians have been perceived as having made no symbolic gestures to help to end 52 years of conflict".

689
You do not make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies. But if your enemies wish to make peace, they have to make concessions too. I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of Israelis would gladly give up the Golan if they knew that as a result they would gain security and peace. I also believe that the vast majority would say no to their government if they gave up the Golan without those assurances. Indeed, this Israel Government—who, I am sure, are very pleased to have been praised by the noble Lord, Lord Wright—may not survive unless that happens. Israel is a democracy like our own and like that in India, and if you want to get results there has to be give, there has to be take, there has to be discussion and there has to be compromise.
There is one area in which none of us wants compromise, and that is in dealing with international murderers and people who commit genocide. I wish to pay my personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and to associate myself with every word that he said. I thank him and especially my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees for the work they have recently done in the sad case of Kalejs. We were all distraught that this man managed to escape from the United Kingdom after his condemnation by the American courts, his deportation from the United States and from Canada and the clear evidence that he was one of the people in charge of the murder squads that massacred thousands of people.
Happily, in this country, in most ways, we have a decent, honourable system of law which accords rights even to those whom we know very well are criminals—as the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, knew when he ordered the deportation of this man if he did not go voluntarily. They are entitled to the kind of justice that the Nazis and their accomplices did not accord to any of their victims. And justice was done when Sowaniuk was tried for war crimes two months ago and convicted.
Many of us were involved in the All Party War Crimes Group, which will be reformed next week. I suspect that our first visit may be to the Australian High Commissioner. My vision of Australia is a very affectionate one because my late wife came from there. But my latest vision is a very unhappy one of its Minister of Justice, a woman, who noble Lords may remember saying, "We are not going to be pressured into a show trial by those individuals or groups", which all Jewish people in Australia and elsewhere took to mean them.
That is not an approach we would have expected from the Australians. We hope that they will indicate just how unwelcome this man was and that they will initiate an investigation. But that is not what they said to us when we went to see the High Commissioner. He told us that his government are keeping the file open and if new evidence is given to us they will look at it. They should go and look for it.
Here I thank the Latvian ambassador for the warm reception that he gave us and for his assurance that the Latvians would proactively be looking to see what
690
they could find about this man and, if it was enough, that they would seek extradition. This was something of a surprise because since Latvia and Lithuania obtained their independence, as far as I know, there has not been a single war criminal in those lands who has been prosecuted—and certainly there have been plenty of them.
But there is hope. There is hope that the past will be dealt with and also hope that that will be done in the light of the present and future. If we do not look at the past, the future and the present are even more grim than they appear. The genocide that continues today will continue unless the people who perpetrate it know that they will not escape justice. They will not know that they will suffer for their crimes unless they see justice against those who have committed such crimes in the past.
I welcome the work that the Government are doing in this area. I welcome the conference on Holocaust education which will take place later this month in Stockholm, hosted by the Prime Minister of Sweden. I welcome the indications from our Government that there will be a Holocaust Remembrance Day—not because the Holocaust was the murder and massacre of millions of Jewish people but much more to prevent people from forgetting what happens when a country is taken over by a racist dictator; from forgetting what happens to human beings when you allow genocide to affect anyone whose race or religion is different from your own; to encourage people to have decent policies on race relations; and to encourage them to mix, work and build together with people who are different from themselves. That is the international hope; that is our hope for the future. Whether it is in India or the Middle East, or whether we are dealing with war crimes here, that is what we are working for—a better future for us all.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I do not think that anyone who follows international relations with attention can fail to be profoundly disheartened by the turn that they have taken in the last year of the last millennium. I shall not speak about Kosovo—my noble friend Lord Lamont has already done so very compellingly—but I have tabled an Unstarred Question on the human rights aspect of the matter which I hope we shall have an early chance of debating.
I wish to concentrate on the deterioration of our relations with Russia and China and some of the consequences of that for the so-called "peace dividend". I dare say that the hopes of a new international order which dawned 10 years ago were always exaggerated. Some of us who taught international relations at the time were very excited—although not entirely convinced—by the famous thesis advanced by Francis Fukuyama concerning the end of history. Briefly, he argued that the whole world was converging on a norm of capitalism and democracy. With nothing to quarrel about, nations would have nothing to fight about and therefore we could all disarm. A particularly enticing hope was that, for the

691
first time, the United Nations could function as it was intended to, as an effective protector of the security of its members.
In 10 years we have moved from the end of the Cold War to the beginning of what former President Yeltsin called the "cold peace". Today, the old division between the capitalist West and the socialist East is replaced by the conflict between the doctrine of the international community based on human rights and the classical doctrine of non-interference in the domestic affairs or sovereign states. Paradoxically, the former revolutionary powers—Russia and China—have become guardians of the status quo, while the old guardians of the established order—the United States and Britain—have become revolutionary.
It would take far longer than I have to retrace the steps by which this extraordinary turnabout took place. At the root of it was the idea that the West had won the Cold War and was therefore free to reshape the world according to its own standards. This directly led to the decision to expand NATO membership to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia—and eventually even further east—against the strong opposition of Russia and contrary to the promises given to Gorbachev in return for allowing German reunification.
The attempt to reinvent NATO after its original purpose had disappeared culminated in the "new strategic concept" proclaimed by NATO Heads of Government on 24th April last year in Washington. It claimed that NATO's mission had shifted from defending its members against aggression to preventing conflict and managing crises throughout the Euro-Atlantic area and even beyond. Defence would be redefined to include threats of
"ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, abuse of human rights and dissolution of states"
as well as
"nuclear proliferation, terrorism, sabotage and organised crime".
That was the new strategic doctrine.
Of course, the Russian response was entirely predictable. Alexander Lukin, the director of Moscow's Institul e for Political and Legal Studies, wrote in the Nezavisimaya Gazetta, on 9th June 1999, that the new strategic doctrine,
"implied virtually unlimited enlargement of NATO's membership"
and its mandate. He called it,
"a deliberate attempt to destroy the post-war international system".
At a summit between President Jiang of China and President Yeltsin of Russia in Beijing on 10th December last year, just over a month ago, the two leaders condemned,
"attempts to provoke inter-ethnic conflict and involve the international community in them".
They restated their support for,
"national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity"
and championed a,
"multi-polar world based on the United Nations Charter and existing principles of international law".
692
At that meeting China affirmed its support for the Russian action in Chechnya.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Kosovo, its undoubted effect, as an article in Foreign Affairs pointed out only last September,
"was to worsen relations with the only two countries in the world that aim nuclear weapons at the United States".
The fruits of this are already apparent in the falling value of the peace dividend. World military spending fell from 1 trillion dollars in 1989 to 700 billion dollars in 1998, a decrease of 34 per cent. Much of that was accounted for by the collapse of the Soviet economy. But US defence spending also fell from 374 billion dollars in 1989 to 258 billion dollars in 1998. Today the military budgets of the United States, Russia, China and even India are all projected to increase substantially, perhaps in the order of 100 billion dollars over the next two to three years. We need to add to that the cost of the Kosovo war and of reconstructing the Balkans. Perhaps that amounts to between another 50 billion dollars to 100 billion dollars. So most of the peace dividend gone.
At the height of the Kosovo war the Prime Minister quoted Bismarck's remark about the Balkans not being worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier. He then said that Bismarck was wrong. I contend that in a world bristling with nuclear weapons and wounded great powers, to be a radical in foreign policy is a very dangerous thing.
I want to end by reasserting the tradition of prudence in international affairs. I believe that it is a profound mistake to believe that we in the West have the right or the power to remake the world in our own image. We must remember that the international community—a phrase which trips so easily off the tongue these days—is not the same thing as the NATO alliance. In terms of population, the NA TO alliance is in fact rather a small fraction of the international community.
The Foreign Secretary speaks of an ethical foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, talked of a contrast between morality and reality. I would put it rather differently. In a world of competing sovereign states prudence is the highest kind of morality.
There are important things that we can do which are prudent. Genocide has been mentioned this evening on a number of occasions. I believe that it would be perfectly possible to make genocide, properly defined, a ground for military intervention under Article 7 of the UN Charter. I emphasise that it should be properly defined, because if it is not it becomes an unlimited ground. I believe that it would be possible to get the whole international community to agree to that. It would improve state behaviour without offending the maxims of prudence.
In advocating prudence I wish to recall our party to what it is to be conservative in international affairs. I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington for giving such elegant voice to that tradition this evening.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in his remarkable opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that one unwanted side-effect of the end of the Cold War was that the restraints imposed by fear of global conflict had been replaced by the assertion of national self-interest. One example he gave us was Angola. He said that the United Nations had been hamstrung by lack of support and interest by those not directly involved. I would not disagree with that general proposition, but I wonder whether Angola does not show, on the contrary, that some internal conflicts are so endemic that the seismic upheavals in the relationships between the great powers have little effect on them. We have heard two other examples in the course of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, mentioned Sri Lanka and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, spoke briefly about Kashmir.
It is worth recalling that during the Cold War the Soviets backed the MPLA in Angola and the United States supported UNITA whereas now at least there is a co-ordinated attempt by the international community to secure peace. Even so, the war started up again in December 1998 after the collapse of the Lusaka accords and proceeds now with increased ferocity causing immense suffering and devastation. United Nations operations in Angola had to be reduced. The outflow of refugees increased: 20,000 have fled into Zambia since last October. That country already hosts 200,000 refugees from elsewhere in the region. Both sides in the conflict regularly violate the laws of war and human rights. Offences by both the MPLA and UNITA are utterly atrocious.
The United Nations has tried to deprive UNITA of its armaments by an embargo and by curbing the elicit sale of diamonds. the money from which was used to finance the purchase of weapons. The head of the UN sanctions committee, Mr Robert Fowler, is in Luanda this week for discussions with the Foreign Minister and other officials. He is due to report to the Security Council next Tuesday.
UNITA's capacity to wage war has been reduced by the efforts of the sanctions committee and with the co-operation of the international community. Ambassador Fowler is to be congratulated on the progress that he has made so far. He has said that he intends to place further recommendations before the Security Council to make it impossible, or at least very difficult, for Mr Savimbi to sell diamonds and to make it even more difficult and expensive for him to acquire weapons. He wants to obtain better information about what equipment is still being encountered in the field, where it is coming from and how best to stop it. I hope that he can rely on the full co-operation of the United Kingdom in these initiatives.
We can also help by clamping down on the activities of arms brokers operating from UK territory who acquire weapons from eastern Europe and transfer them to African countries, including Angola, which are engaged in these conflicts. The United States and Sweden have better mechanisms for controlling arms
694
brokering and shipment than the United Kingdom, and we should strengthen our legislation. I appreciate that in the case of Angola there is a UN mandatory arms embargo so that any company engaged in these activities on behalf of UNITA would be committing a criminal offence under our law; but the fact that we still allow those companies to carry on their activities where there is not a mandatory embargo but where the transfers would not be licensed if they were to take place from the UK encourages those shady businesses to continue in operation.
I should now like to draw attention to another aspect of the Angolan problem which has received less attention but which has now been highlighted by the report of the UK- based NGO, Global Witness: A crude awakening: the role of oil and banking industries in Angola's civil war and the plunder of state resources. Global Witness had previously dealt with illicit diamond sales. It cannot be accused of being anti-Angolan when it focuses on an issue that it is equally important for the Government of Angola and for the international community to address.
At the beginning of the Global Witness report there are two epigraphs, one from Madeleine Albright, who says that the disease of corruption has been a critical impediment to the development of Angola. The other is from Mr Peter Hain, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office:
"There should be full transparency. The oil companies who work in Angola, like BP-Amoco, Elf, Total and Exxon, and the diamond traders like Dc Beers, should be open with the international community and the international financial institutions so that it is clear that these revenues are not siphoned oil, but invested in the country".
Unfortunately, as this report demonstrates, a great deal of money is being siphoned off from Angola's oil revenues, and the arms deals that are financed by those revenues are also generating huge profits for top military personnel and international arms dealers. Global Witness says that Angola's oil wealth is not improving the conditions of life for ordinary people but is leading to further decline.
Responsible companies like BP-Amoco recognise the dilemma, as their submission to the International Development Committee last year demonstrated. The Chairman, Mr Peter Sutherland, wrote to me last June saying that his board had to ask themselves whether their activities in Angola had greater potential for good than harm, but they concluded that disengagement would not be for the benefit of the people as a whole. Taking a long-term view, I think he is right, but only if corrective measures are taken to put a stop to the evils identified by Global Witness. I acknowledge that, although many of its recommendations are addressed to the oil industry, it would need the support of the international community as a whole if it is to prevail upon the Government of Angola to accept its demands.

695
The first of the recommendations is that an independent audit should be conducted of the entire Angolan oil sector, and that this should be made a pre-condition of further investment by the oil industry. Will the Government press for such an audit and seek to line the European Union up behind that proposal?
For several years the IMF has been trying to promote greater transparency in Angola's financial management, but the oil industry and private financial institutions providing oil-backed loans have undermined those efforts. One of the mechanisms cited by Global Witness is the Cabinda Trust, which is run by Lloyds Bank in London. That trust receives revenues from a concession that produces 480,000 barrels a day, which represents quite a lot of money. Will the Government consider what influence they might have on the banks to co-operate in refusing to handle funds diverted from Angola's oil wealth and not subject to independent audit and scrutiny by the Angolan public?
The Global Witness report gives a lot of detail about the corrupt elite. whom it calls "the untouchable oiligarchy", going all the way up to President dos Santos, and the leg man who looks after his interests abroad, Elision Figueiredo, who operates as a diplomat without portfolio, based in Paris.
As can be imagined, these revelations have been greeted with a torrent of abuse and vilification of Global Witness in Luanda, which, if anything, to my mind lends credibility to the allegations: c'est la vérité qui blesse, as the French say.
The Washington-based Africa Policy Information Centre comments that Global Witness's charges against particular individuals are suggestive rather than conclusive, but that few would challenge the general contention that little of Angola's oil wealth—and it is estimated that it will generate 18 billion dollars over the next four years from new investment—goes to arms and not to government services for the benefit of the people.
In Angola, oil wealth has had a corrupting influence, according to the APIC report that has just been produced. APIC states that the idea of peace through a full military victory is an illusion and that a renewed effort to implement the Lusaka peace agreement of 1994 should be an essential element of any medium-term strategy. I agree with that, but I should like to know what the Government are doing to impress this thinking on the leadership in Luanda. If it is said that we cannot pursue the questions of transparency, corruption and arms deals and at the same time hope to be listened to as friendly advisers in Luanda, I would reply that all of these measures have to be done in concert with the international community: we should not do them by ourselves but we should get the European Union to join with us. This is an essential case for that kind of co-operation between the European Union and the United States, to align their approach and to invite as many other friendly nations to join them as possible. If we could bring the Commonwealth into such an initiative, that would be an added bonus.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join every other noble Lord in congratulating my noble friend Lord Carrington on introducing the debate, which allows the discussion of so many important issues of international significance to be discussed by so many noble Lords, with such diversity and wealth of experience.
I offer my own very humble contribution in an attempt to focus on the tragic events in Chechnya because I have been disturbed by many of the media reports which have often been biased and failed to put that war into its wider context. There have been some notable exceptions, for example Anatol Lieven's article in the Independent on December 13th entitled,
"It is hypocrisy to condemn Russia over Chechnya",
and the article by the then Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, in The Times on December 3rd, entitled,
"Why we are fighting in Chechnya".
These articles highlight the key issues: the plight of the Chechen people; the implications of the situation in Chechnya for Russia and for neighbouring countries in the Caucasus and central Asia; and the global implications of Islamic terrorism, which is the primary cause of the war in Chechnya.
No one can have failed to be moved by the scenes of Chechen civilians fleeing in harsh winter conditions to bleak refugee camps, returning to bombed villages or trapped in Grozny under bombardment. I am a trustee of the aid organisation MERLIN, which has worked in Chechnya and still has links there; so I naturally support very strongly any humanitarian aid programmes that alleviate the suffering of innocent civilians; but other deeper problems must be solved if such suffering is not to become chronic or to recur.
I should like to highlight just two of the major problems in Chechnya. The first is internal anarchy and corruption. After the previous war the Chechen people had an opportunity to begin to develop democracy and civil society. Sadly, they proved incapable of so doing. The situation degenerated into near anarchy, with a multitude of kidnappings and killings. The dreadful fate of the three British Telecom engineers who were brutally maltreated before being decapitated is only one example. It is estimated that 1,300 Russians were taken hostage and many were killed.
Then the conflict spread to the armed invasion of Daghestan. The Russian leadership, faced with threats to the security of its own people and threats to its territorial integrity, found no responsible leadership in Chechnya with whom to negotiate. In Vladimir Putin's words:
"The inability of the Chechen government to stop the republic sliding into armed anarchy—surely the greatest threat to the Chechen people—or to curb the export of terrorism finally forced us to act decisively. For that we make no apology".

697
The second major problem in Chechnya is the involvement of Islamist terrorist troops. Anatol Lieven, referring to the terrorist bomb attacks in Moscow which killed over 300 people, claims,
"It is entirely credible that it was the work of the Arab-led international Muslim revolutionaries who have based themselves in Chechnya and helped conduct the attempted invasion of Daghestan in August".
He continues:
"Last year the Islamists, together with the leading Chechen commanders, formed a congress with the explicit aim of driving Russia from the north Caucasus and uniting Chechnya and Daghestan in one Islamist state, a plan utterly rejected by the great majority of Daghestanis".
That analysis leads into my third theme: the global implications of Islamist expansionism. Let me immediately make a fundamental distinction between Islam and Islamism so that nothing I say can be construed as an attack on Islam or as promoting Islamophobia; indeed, rather the reverse. Unless that distinction is made between Islam and Islamism and is highlighted, the growth of Islamism and its associated terrorist activities will lead to an increase in Islamophobia. As more people become frightened by the militant terrorist activities of the Islamists, they may project that fear on to peaceable Muslims, exacerbating racial prejudice and tensions. It is therefore essential to identify Islamist policies and activities, to condemn and to contain them, and to differentiate them from the principles and practices of the great majority of peaceable, law-abiding Muslims.
Islamism is a political ideology rather than a religion. It has been promulgated by the international terrorist, Osama bin Laden, and his accomplices. They have declared a jihad on the West and have been responsible for many of the terrorist attacks killing thousands of innocent civilians. The bitter war in Sudan, responsible for 2 million dead and 5 million displaced in recent years, is caused by the Islamist National Islamic Front regime, which took power by military coup in 1989 and has declared a jihad against all who oppose it: Muslims and Animists as well as Christians; Arabs and Beja peoples as well as Africans. Many Muslims are giving their lives trying to contain a ruthless, brutal, expansionist Islamism, to prevent Sudan from becoming the first Islamist state in Africa and a base for the expansion of Islamism throughout Africa.
It is this Islamist ideology which underlies many other current wars. Islamists extended their militant activities from Sudan to Chechnya, which they chose to be a base for taking over the whole of the Caucasus. Their plan was to take Chechnya, then Daghestan, Georgia, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. Significantly, such an escalation will put the energy resources of the Caspian Sea Basin—which is the Persian Gulf of the future—under the control of bin Laden's allies. The war in Kashmir is another example of Islamist expansionism. That expansionism is also a factor in the current escalation of conflict in Indonesia.
I fear I sound like a woeful Jeremiah. I hope passionately that I will be proved wrong in my fears. But I must be truthful to my perception of the wider
698
implications of the war in Chechnya; that this is a symptom of a rapidly growing Islamist movement which constitutes the gravest threat to global security in the world today. That threat extends to Britain and within Britain. Trevor Royle, writing in the Scottish Sunday Herald on 9th January this year in an article entitled "Jihad all over the World", describes the emergence of an alliance of jihad warriors and how,
"The situation has been exacerbated by the creation in 1998 of a larger umbrella organisation, the World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. Led by bin Laden, the group contains representatives from jihad organisations in Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The opening words of its fatwa were starkly simple: 'The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilian and military, is an individual responsibility for every Muslim, wherever possible"'.
On 12th November in London, a meeting addressed by Sheikh Omar Bakhri Mohammed called for a jihad against Russia and raised money to support fighters in Chechnya. Also last year, a film shown in the "Dispatches" series on Channel 4 showed recruits undergoing ideological and combat training in a camp near Slough here in England. Elsewhere in England, the Afghan war veteran, Abu Hamza, an imam in north London, was shown teaching recruits terror tactics such as methods of bringing down aircraft flying into Heathrow airport. Even more spine chillingly, each recruit was told to devise similar terrorist activities, for this is a war, a jihad, in which blood will be shed here in Britain.
As I conclude, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. My first question echoes the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for a more sympathetic understanding of Russia's predicament. I should like to ask the Minister if the Government will support the Russian Federation in due course, after the conclusion of the war in Chechnya, in helping the people of Chechnya to rebuild their shattered political and physical infrastructure. Secondly, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government are taking the Islamist threat to international and national security sufficiently seriously?
The people of Chechnya did not want the war they are now enduring. The people of Daghestan did not want the war which was inflicted on them last August. The people of Russia did not ask for war. The tragic sequence of events that we have been witnessing in recent months, together with the horrors of other wars such as those in Sudan and Kashmir, are the results of expansionist militant Islamism, which is extending its ideologically justified terrorist activities further and further afield. I hasten to say that I do not in any way implicate the vast majority of peaceable, law-abiding Muslims. However, I suggest that the expansion of Islamism is one of the most important aspects of the international situation in the world today which we ignore or underestimate at our peril.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, greatly helped by the quality of the opening contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Not for the first time the Government have been given a rough ride on the question of talking about a foreign

699
policy with a prefix. I believe that many of us feel that it would be wise quietly to drop the word "ethical". There is no single word that can qualify or enhance such a complex field as foreign policy. In particular, I believe that they would be wise to do so because it is beginning to harm the Government's real priority; that is, to ensure that humanitarianism and human rights are given their proper weight in the balance informing foreign policy.
It was noticeable that the Government also came under criticism for contributing British forces in two fields: East Timor and Kosovo. I should like to make it quite clear that I believe that in both cases they were right to make those commitments. It would be hard to make a serious contribution to the Commonwealth and ignore the fact that Australia was playing such a leading role in East Timor. It needed and wanted some British support. Furthermore, at a time when we are understandably becoming increasingly Euro-focused, it is extremely important that we should also demonstrate that we have a wider perspective. For that reason, it was important that we heard such an interesting speech about the serious problems that are developing in Indonesia.
As regards Kosovo, I believe that we may be forgetting a little what the situation would be like now in that country if there had been no intervention. This winter would have been a horrendous winter and everyone would have demanded action. By then NATO would have looked weak and impotent and lost support. I bow to no one in the strength of my criticism of the Rambouillet Conference. Not much attention was paid to that conference because we went straight into a war. I believe that it was one of the most dangerous and damaging international negotiations to take place for a considerable period.
Just before Christmas, I chaired a conference in Rome on Kosovo. I attended somewhat reluctantly because I had tried to step back from the Balkans. The picture was a sombre one. Most of those involved are now in Kosovo. The unanimous view was that NATO had to do more in the field of policing in Kosovo because of the serious situation relating to law and order and the fact that the human rights of the Serbs were not being protected. I understand the reluctance of the military to become involved in it, but a small police force is needed to try to bring people to justice and to carry out other tasks. I fear that for some time it will be necessary for the military to take a more active role.
I am tempted to go into many other aspects relating to Kosovo. All I say is that we must face the reality that fairly soon a Balkans agreement will be required about Kosovo becoming independent. That agreement cannot be reached without the involvement of the Serbs, for no other reason than that the Russian Federation and China will insist on it in the Security Council. Sometimes one forgets that the fighting was brought to an end as a result of a compromise on the Rambouillet demands and some very good diplomacy by the United States. The United States realised that the military situation was getting out of control and in
700
danger of being criticised for proportionality in what was, rightly, fundamentally a humanitarian intervention.
The biggest issue that faces us in international affairs has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd: European/US relations. He rightly stressed its dimension, which I totally accept. I should like to deal with the European defence and security initiative. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, spoke far better than I can, and with much better information, about the military aspects. I agree with everything that he said. I shall refer to the political aspects. I have been in favour of this initiative from its infancy under the Treaty of Maastricht to its development under the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Prime Minister's commitment at St Malo with President Chirac. But these are very dangerous waters. If we get it wrong, perhaps in terms of the structure of our relationship with the United States, particularly Congress, or the European Union, we shall pay a very heavy price.
It was understood at St Malo that the new defence identity would not come under the European Commission, European Parliament or European Court. I have said before I think it was a mistake that since that last speech the Government have ignored the view of some that there should be a separate defence pillar and have placed the initiative under the second pillar: CFSP. There are arguments in favour of it but also some problems. Common foreign and security policy inevitably involves the Commission. How could it be otherwise? One cannot have a foreign policy that ignores development policy or trade aspects. But we have always drawn a distinction between foreign and defence policy. Although the two mingle together, I believe it is crucial that this defence policy should remain intergovernmental. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right to say that it would involve the Commission, but not in the context of its right of monopoly of initiative and execution under the Treaty of Rome. The Commission would, as it were, be sitting alongside in an intergovernmental process.
Lord Owen: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that, according to Article 21 under Title V concerned with CFSP, the Commission is responsible, with the presidency, for informing Parliament. That is fine in relation to foreign policy. I suggest that many of us would be very anxious if the Commission was also responsible for informing the Parliament on defence matters. Further, under Article 27 the Commission is given more powers. The troika which is increasingly used in foreign policy, rightly, involves the Commission. Would we be equally happy to see the troika involve the Commission, admittedly with the new Secretary-General Javier Solana? I do not believe that it is acceptable that the Commission should be involved in troika operations that have defence and military implications. Under Article 23,

701
decisions with defence or military implications are excluded from qualified majority voting, rightly so. Therefore, we have already made that distinction and we need to build on it.
It may be that this is a matter for the intergovernmental conference and the meeting in December in Paris. But at Helsinki the statement of the presidency charged the Council with the task of formulating interim committees and structures by March. Will we see the Commission represented on military committees or committees in possession of intelligence information? That would have considerable implications for the United States. These are important questions.
The Prime Minister deserves support for going that extra step at St Malo, but I worry that as yet there has not been sufficient attention to detail to clarify the picture. This is a matter of fundamental importance to this House. Whatever our views about other aspects of the euro, I do not believe that there are many people here who want to see defence taken out of intergovernmental co-operation and consensus. The noble Baroness will be able to reply. However, as a lawyer she will look carefully at the words of the treaty. The Minister appreciates that very often in the past we have been told that they have no long-term implications but perhaps five, 10 or 15 years later the Court has been able to make an interpretation with profound implications. All I say is that we should watch this area very carefully over the next couple of months.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, having listened to most of the 29 speeches so far in this debate, to misquote Oliver Cromwell I feel that perhaps I have sat here long enough. We have heard superb speeches. Everyone has thanked my noble friend Lord Carrington, and I heartily join in those thanks to him for getting this debate going this afternoon. The exercise has been a superb one. Everyone has praised the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, even though apparently it is out of order to do so. I was particularly thrilled that he chose the subject of the Commonwealth. Throughout the 1990s some of us campaigned to bring the Commonwealth further up the agenda in British policy and to promote the idea of the Commonwealth as a resource for the future that we would be foolish to put aside rather than an old boy's club or something to join unenthusiastically.
In passing, while many people have made nice remarks about the Commonwealth, the actions of the policymakers in this country have not always been quite as strong as the words. There is a good deal more campaigning to do, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, will join in it.
Listening to these very fine speeches, I wonder whether we are debating foreign policy in an obsolete framework. Have we grasped that huge forces are eroding the power of the nation state, in particular to take a decisive role in shaping its own foreign policy?
702
My noble friend Lord Inglewood made a remarkable speech whose implications are clear. We talk about our foreign policy being this or that but the skills we used in the past to seek to shape world affairs in our interests have to be replaced by completely new skills. I do not refer only to the obvious and significant point that the media stage is central, with the phenomenon of the so-called CNN crises, and that decisions about what is a humanitarian intervention, and responses to the cry referred to by my noble friend Lord Carrington as "Something must be done", all too often are driven by the media. I believe that the media stage is central to all politics and all international affairs. It is not quite as powerful as some of our media friends think it is—not least because they all disagree with each other. Nevertheless, that is a powerful influence on foreign affairs and becoming totally so in the information age.
A further powerful restraint has grown up recently. It is linked to the information network system. It is the growth of the great civic non-governmental bodies like Amnesty, Greenpeace, Oxfam and Médecins sans Frontiéres. Such bodies can now dictate foreign policy. They can so mobilise legitimacy and support publicly in many countries across borders that they, too, can drive policy makers in directions in which they might not necessarily wish to go. While the policy makers may be calling for the caution which my noble friend Lord Skidelsky rightly said should inform all those interventions, the great civic bodies backed by a mass of public opinion—an interactive and digitally driven opinion—may be pushing them in quite different directions.
Further, our nation states, in particular the older ones, are being weakened by pluralism and localism. That may be good for democrats up to a point but it can rapidly boil over into extreme inward-looking tribalism and anarchy and can begin to shatter the whole civic order and compromises on which our nation states were originally put together. That is occurring in many parts of the world, in some parts violently. In our own part of the world, it is happening quietly and we hope non-violently; but it is occurring. It leads great authorities like Professor Norman Davies, who has written a vast volume on the isles, to conclude at the end of the whole history of the British Isles that breaking up is imminent. I think that he is totally wrong. Nevertheless, it is extraordinary that such authorities should air such thoughts. That should send strong alarm bells to all those who talk of the formation of policy to protect our civic cohesion and our nation state and ensure that its interests are pursued.
However, in my scale those are the lesser factors. The major influence that constrains the area in which foreign policy can be formed is that the world stage is now stuffed with institutions all vying to play the global role which they allege the nations can no longer play by themselves. They may be right. We have referred to the United Nations. In the Financial Times two days ago, Mr Kofi Annan said that there is a new norm of intervention. He asked who should decide what the norm was. However, the clear implication

703
was that he thought the United Nations institutions, suitably reformed, should do so. That is the axe he grinds.
The World Trade Organisation tried to please everybody and ended in a spectacular failure at Seattle as a result, mobilising many lobbies hostile to liberalisation of trade yet ignoring the fact that over a third of world trade is not even visible to the statistics of the world trade policy makers, let alone all the capital flows and investment flows which are far more decisive nowadays than old-fashioned movements of goods or even services.
The G8 meets and tries to influence policy with decreasing success because it does not fit into the modern world. The World Bank has decided that it has a new social role. If one reads what Jim Wolfensohn says, it has become an international care counsellor. That has taken it far away from banking projects. Whether it is qualified to do that I do not know. The IMF is completely confused as to whether it should be larger or smaller.
We have not debated the European Union today. Nevertheless, there is the confusion between those who want it to be a superstate—I believe that they will almost certainly fail—and those who think that it should be a looser body.
The defence capability, about which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, spoke with such eloquence, is significant. Underlying it is this chorus that somehow Europe must become a rival to the United States, a superpower on its own: that it must have a destiny, a say in the world, and so on. Behind that is the view that some separate eurotechnology can be devised which will equip the new European capability. It is an absurd notion. In the globalised world the technology of Japan with its microchips, the United States with its surveillance equipment, and Europe with some of its hardware are all wrapped up together. No soldier can proceed on the lowest profile policing operation in Europe without relying on American and Japanese technology. The proposition that there is a separate part to be carved out for European technology and weaponry, or a European defence capability which can act on its own without American infrastructure or air support, is completely absurd; the more so in the global order in which we now live.
Those organisations are vying for the support of the nation states. There are others. We have mentioned the Commonwealth. It is a fabulous trans-regional network, and is growing all the time. It fits well into the new order. It is not a hierarchical organisation. It is part of the network which has no centre. There are NAFTA, Mercosur, ASEAN, APEC, the Nordic Union and an endless string of organisations all wondering whether they can be "the global force" or whether they should merely stick to being associations of member states.
What is my conclusion to all the thrashing which is going on in a turbulent international scene? It is that there will be no world government. There will be no global government to deal with global issues (to use the glib phrase). Nor will there be any demise of the nation
704
state. That is a very fashionable view. Many are the gurus who say that the nation state is too small because it cannot cope with the global issues; or it is too large because it does not tune in to the local sentiments and needs of communities and therefore is finished. The obituaries are written frequently. If we want to start on a sensible line of thought about what influence we can have on foreign policy, far from dismissing the nation state at this stage of our history we should do everything possible to reinforce and strengthen it, and not pull it to pieces from below or above.
Certainly the nation state has to change. We all know that national governments will have a smaller role in society, not least because they will have more and more difficulties in raising revenues, which are their oxygen. We know that national government will be a humbler outfit because their economic pretensions that they can control the economy have been blurred. We know that people increasingly want national governments to concentrate on the core functions of law and order, property rights, competition and ensuring that we have an educated society, and to avoid the more fanciful initiatives that governments like to take.
Above all, I suggest to your Lordships that we need the confidence to ensure that the nation state can be held together and able to perform in the global order: that the nation state, in a sense, is coming to the rescue of the global situation; and that we need great agility and confidence to perform that role.
I conclude with a quotation which comes, oddly, from Boutros Boutros Ghali, who was a wise old Copt, badly treated by Washington, and not necessarily a great supporter of nationalism or mini nationalism. He said;
"The globalisation now taking place requires a profoundly renewed concept of the State. Between the isolated individual and the world there must be an intermediate element. This element is the State and national sovereignty. They respond to the needs of all human beings for identification. In a world both impersonal and fragmented such a need is greater than it has ever been in history".
If we base our foreign policy on that cardinal principle, we shall not go far wrong in an increasingly turbulent and dangerous world.
8 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. I have been struck by the broad consensus on many Benches about what the British contribution should be. I want to follow the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, of the international situation in general rather than follow those who spoke of specific regions or countries. However, there is one exception; I want to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about Pakistan and what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about South Asia in general. I remind noble Lords that we are to debate Pakistan next week.
South Asia is an important area for Britain. I have been involved in electoral politics in West Yorkshire for many years, and it is impossible to forget that Kashmir is a local issue in Bradford. Indeed, the

705
Salman Rushdie affair began in the politics of the Asian community in Bradford. We must be involved in the politics of South Asia, for if they go badly wrong it will affect the internal politics of this country.
Following the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, we have seen a fragmentation of world politics in the past 10 years since the end of the Cold War. There has been a decline of outside interest or support to resolve local conflicts, to help strengthen weak states or to put back together collapsed states and societies in the developing world. We see the United States as the world's dominant military power and economy; what American scholars proudly refer to as "the unipolar moment" of American hegemony over the rest of the world. However, we also see within the United States an increasing air of doubt as to how far they accept their role as carrying the burdens of the world; an increasingly irresponsible Congress; and conspiracy theorists within the American Right. Whereas conspiracy theorists among the Right in Britain orient themselves towards the European Union, in the United States conspiracy theorists believe that the United Nations is a threat to American sovereignty.
That means that we in Europe need to engage in an active dialogue with the United States about the problems of the world and how we should share them together. I accept and share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the weakness of global institutions—the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and so forth—now that they lack the active American support which they received in the Cold War years. They do not yet have sufficient supplementary sources of support from European and Asian democracies instead. It is evident that the international situation requires stronger international institutions, both global and regional.
I welcome the broad consensus around the House that the key to the improvement of the international situation is a closer European-American partnership based on a more coherent approach by European governments to share foreign policy, together with a more active European pursuit of a transatlantic partnership. That must be the way forward, rather than the illusions which in the wilder shores of the Daily Telegraph editorial page and correspondence columns suggest that Britain should somehow be sunk into NAFTA alongside Mexico, in order to avoid closer co-operation with the French, the Germans, the Dutch and the Spanish.
Liberal Democrats have actively supported the Government in pursuing closer European cooperation through the St Malo Franco-British initiative and beyond. I wish only that the British Government had been more open in explaining to Parliament and the public just how far and how fast it is moving. In that respect, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on becoming chair of a new subcommittee of your Lordships' European Union Committee, which will examine the development of
706
common foreign and security policy. I look forward to our debate on the first report of his committee which will shed some more light on such rapid developments.
Last week, I read the communiqué of the Helsinki European Council, and was struck by the number of decisions which the Government had not reported to either House of this Parliament. I understand that there is to be a permanent political and security committee in Brussels; a planning unit within the Council secretariat; a military committee also operating permanently in Brussels and a military staff; and that these will begin to operate in March 2000 on an interim basis before the treaty can be amended to allow them. I was also struck by the quiet way in which Javier Solana was appointed Secretary General of the WEU in late November alongside the secretary generalship of the Council Secretariat, thus moving those two organisations much closer together.
All of those moves are taking us towards a position in which we are not threatening NATO—and I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, that we must not overemphasise the ambitions of ESDI—but which we hope will lead to a useful European contribution to peacekeeping and peacemaking alongside the Americans, responding to the longstanding American demand that Europeans should share more of the burden in our region and beyond of keeping the peace.
There is a firm basis for that in having George Robertson as Secretary General of NATO and Javier Solana as Secretary General of the Council. They are two people with whom American administrations are happy to deal, and whom they have dealt with for a long time. I encourage Her Majesty's Government to take a more active lead in pressing our European partners to do more on their own front. I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in suggesting that the Commission is the biggest problem in that respect.
The weak commitment of many other governments to translate rhetoric into practice is part of what holds us back. For instance, the Germans have cut defence spending this year and the Italians clearly need to raise the level of theirs. As regards arms exports and controls, we read of the current revelations in Germany and continuing problems in France; we are not entirely sure even about British policy on arms controls. As regards eastern enlargement, the question remains open as to how far the European Union and its member governments are willing to make the necessary trade and agricultural concessions to ensure that we can extend security, stability and prosperity across central and eastern Europe.
During the past week, we have seen the absurd situation in which the South African trade agreement, an important symbolic and practical gesture towards the stabilisation of southern Africa, has been held up yet again after three years by the Italian Grappa lobby, insisting that South African Grappa should not be allowed to be sold on world markets under that name. That is an appalling gap between rhetorical commitment and willingness to translate things into practice.

707
There is still a long way to go before we have an effective European foreign policy, but I hope that this Government will continue to push in that direction. It is important partly because we do not always agree with the United States and we need to represent our interests more actively and energetically inside American congressional politics and within the US administration.
We have looked back 10 years to what has happened since the Cold War. Looking ahead 10 years and asking what we can hope for—what Britain should be doing to try to improve the international situation—I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I do not believe that we should still be saying that world interests are Britain's interests. Britain lacks the resources to pursue world influence alone. There is no evidence within our public that they would be prepared to pay the additional taxes for a substantial increase in British defence expenditure, in the Diplomatic Service and in development expenditure of the kind that would be required.
Lord Marlesford: My Lord, with respect to the noble Lord, the point I was making was that there should be a separation between the provision of military forces and the payment for them. It would not involve us in paying more, but if we are ideally placed to provide forces we should be able to do so.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that additional comment. In 10 years' time, only 20 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom will have been born before 1945. And fewer still will remember the Second World War; that brief period when Britain was a super power. I doubt whether the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph will still have such a n easy audience for great power nostalgia. The transformation of the United Kingdom, which is already under way, will have taken us a good deal further.
I was very struck, as perhaps many noble Lords were, by listening to the radio and television on 1st January and hearing the repeated phrase "in each of the four capitals of the United Kingdom" this, that or the other was happening. I was not sure how one had such a multi-national foreign policy from a unified state which is why I was so reassured the other day to hear those wonderful Conservative tones coming from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, about the defence of the realm and the United Kingdom which reassured us that the old world is somehow still there—the multi-ethnic character of our foreign policy in terms of our engagement with Africa, the Caribbean and South Asia of which others have talked. Increasing engagement with our European partners is year by year taking us further into the idea of shared European interests and British foreign policy expressed through that.
Around what should Britain's contribution to international stability be built? First, I suggest closer co-operation within our own region through playing a constructive role within Europe's regional institutions, which clearly includes enlargement. a neighbourly policy towards Russia and Ukraine and an active
708
Mediterranean policy towards our dependent neighbours in the South. Secondly, a redefined partnership with the United States through NATO and through global institutions. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggested in his opening speech, support for regional institution building outside Europe in those areas that are of most concern to us within Africa, within the Middle East, particularly if, as we may hope, the relations between Israel and its neighbours may be placed in a much more favourable and firmer framework through a peace settlement, and within South and South-East Asia. That way, I suggest, offers the most constructive and affordable British contribution towards improving the international situation.
8.12 p m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the first maiden speech of a new millennium in Parliament is an occasion to be noted and celebrated. It was wholly appropriate, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, set an example which will be remembered for its content, its eloquence and its delivery for a very long time indeed. I hope that it is in order for me to say that in thanking my noble friend Lord Carrington. For a reasonably young man here to have the privilege to respond from these Benches in a debate of this nature is an honour, indeed. Far greater was the honour afforded to me to listen for some five hours to many of the finest statesmen who have been committed to serving Britain's interests in international diplomacy over the past 20, 30, 40 and in some cases almost 50 years.
To sum up the debate this evening is well nigh impossible, but I shall attempt to do so. We have heard of the manifold challenges. Our responses to these challenges and our foreign policy must surely be shaped in accordance with what has been called the "information age", a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, my noble friend Lord Inglewood and, in some detail, by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. Through the medium of the Internet and enhanced communications, technological advances have already had a profound and dramatic effect on our society. I believe that they will continue so to do. Our foreign policy challenges can be viewed within the context of the growing globalisation of world finance, economics and politics.
In our increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, many of the problems that face us, and will continue to do so, are no longer open to purely national solutions. In a sense I am speaking of the world bridged by the age of information. But I think it is also possible to speak of a world divided by an age of contradictions. We are faced with many contradictions in global society which impact upon our foreign policy: contradictions between unprecedented peace and prosperity for some and protracted conflict and desperate poverty for others, and between rapid economic globalisation on the one hand and increasing political fragmentation on the other. In a world where globalisation means that our economies are integrating faster and on more levels than ever before, paradoxically, as my noble friend

709
Lord Howell of Guildford stated, the politics of separatism and nationalism are fragmenting societies and in some cases tearing them apart.
My noble friend Lord Carrington set out by looking at the Cold War and its legacy. Although in Western Europe we have basked in five decades of unprecedented peace and security, war and suffering remain part of daily life for too many people elsewhere in the world, including on our continent. Across the globe we can see countless examples of man's inhumanity to man where violence and conflict, whatever their cause, are the harbingers of chaos and carnage, fear and death. We have heard today of some of these issues: the inhumanity that can be seen in the recent separatist and religious violence in Sri Lanka and in the Spice Islands of Indonesia. They can be seen in the diamond-fuelled conflicts of Angola and Sierra Leone. They can be seen in the government-orchestrated oppression of the Karen and the Karenni people in Burma or in the vicious civil war in the Sudan. There are many more examples.
The key point behind those examples is that the majority of today's conflicts, whatever their cause, are now internal. With a few exceptions, such as the territorial war between Ethiopia and Eritrea and the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, wars are increasingly intra-state rather than interstate. Civilians, not soldiers, are today's main victims in the global theatre of war. As my noble friend Lord Lamont noted, this change in the nature of conflict poses a number of critical questions, the answers to which will have profound and far-reaching effects on the foreign policies we pursue in the future. These include questions over the definition of the nation state, the pursuit of foreign policy in the national interest and our legitimate spheres of action, questions of the importance and relevance of national sovereignty, particularly when gross human rights violations have taken place, and the legitimacy and the legality of military intervention under the humanitarian banner in those cases.
Here, the ideas of a permanent international investigation unit and the importance of the international court were interesting themes characteristically developed brilliantly by my noble friend Lord Hunt. A number of your Lordships have commented on the ethical dimension to the Government's foreign policy. The Prime Minister has said that the most pressing foreign policy problem that we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should become actively involved in other people's affairs. It was a view echoed today by my noble friend Lord Hurd, who recognised that we must help while we realistically can. Yet, as the Government's differing responses to the crises last year in Kosovo, East Timor and Chechnya demonstrated, the Government's looking-glass ethical foreign policy continues to obscure the solution to this tortuous problem and to distort the triumvirate of national interest, principle and common sense which influences foreign policy.
710
The Government's rhetoric of high principle in the spring, when we were told that Kosovo's increasingly blood-soaked soil demanded "a battle for humanity" and a "battle for the values of civilisation" began to resemble low compromise in the autumn when terrified refugees were once again in flight—this time Chechnyan ones—and the Government were asked to explain how their ethical dimension to foreign policy was being applied to the crisis in Chechnya.
I make these observations not so much in disagreement with the action the Government have taken, but merely to echo the point made by many of your Lordships this afternoon and this evening and most poignantly by my noble friend Lord Biffen and again by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that the relations between ethics and foreign policy are perhaps rather more complex than the Foreign Secretary's strictly presented admission statement in May 1997 acknowledged. A human rights policy and foreign policy are not the same thing; and while human rights are an important component of foreign policy, and indeed need ardent champions, not everything that is morally unacceptable around the world can be rectified by our Government.
In a world where at the flick of a television switch or at the click of a mouse human suffering and tragedy across the world are accessible in real time and where public opinion can be rapidly mobilised by, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, the something-must-be-done mentality, the something must be done call to arms of tabloid journalism, governments are put under pressure to take action, particularly governments with ethical dimensions to their foreign policy. But our foreign policies must be formulated to take this into account rather than formulated on account of this.
So we consider what reforms are needed. As the central pillar for international co-operation on peace and security, it was right that the UN's role was a central pivot in this discussion, as it is in contemporary world politics. It is right that your Lordships reflected on today's political realities and challenges rather than on those of 1945. The subject of the reform of the UN is, I believe, a debate in itself. I hope that the usual channels may look kindly on that suggestion, certainly before the UN millennium assembly in September. For we have heard many useful contributions on that subject during this debate: from my noble friend Lord Carrington a range of suggestions, not least about the regional importance and the impact the UN can have and specific suggestions on the early warning military and intelligence advice which is so much needed by the UN Secretary General. We heard from my noble friend Lady Rawlings about the importance of anticipating crises in the world and in the international political climate that I have described. We heard from my noble friend Lord Howell about having more reliable enforcement machinery.
These suggestions are relevant in the context of another key issue, a subject which can be summarised as "winning the war and losing the peace". The United Nations has been more actively engaged in peacekeeping roles in its very recent history than in the

711
whole of its previous history put together. Since 1989 there have been 35 UN-led blue beret operations, with British military participation in 17 of those 35. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our troops for the distinction with which they have served, and continue to serve, in these operations and to record the deep debt of gratitude which we in this country owe them.
The Minister will have heard the fears that have been voiced today that the Government have presided over a spiral of overstretch of British forces, both in financial and human terms, a point made in an exemplary manner by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. I hose that the Minister will take back the message to her colleagues, both in the Foreign Office and in the Ministry of Defence, that these fears must be addressed if British forces are to continue to undertake the functions which the Government have set out and which the Government have supported. I do not see this pattern of peacekeeping operations changing. We have heard today of the potential flash points across the world of nationalism, ethnic resentments and separatist tendencies which are simmering, some of which are well away from the beam of the media spotlight but which need only a spark to ignite an explosion of violence.
It has not been possible to respond to the many other issues raised by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and my noble friend Lord Hurd with regard to the vital importance of the European security and defence identity and the EU common foreign and security policy. On the ESDI, I will simply restrict myself to saying that it is a deeply complex subject which if handled ineptly could impact disastrously on NATO. In terms of the CFSP, we have seen the cracks appearing already. The statements of Javier Solana, as high representative for the CFSP, on the desirability of an EU representation on the UN Security Council, as well as Commissioner Prodi's statements on the need for a European army, raise questions over the extent to which an enlarged Europe of perhaps 27 nations can effectively develop a consensus foreign and security policy without impairing national foreign policy decision-making. The priority must continue to be given to Anglo-American relations and indeed, as my noble friend Lord Hurd mentioned, to the vital importance of European-American relations.
In conclusion, what I can take away from today's debate is that the key challenge for our foreign and development policy will be, first, the building of a structure of global good governance, a point so well elaborated on by y noble friend Lady Chalker in the context of her work in Africa, within which democratic demands from majorities and the rights of minorities can be accommodated and which will ensure that poverty alleviation and debt relief have a real effect; secondly, the defusing of the underlying causes which trigger a particular conflict; and thirdly, the reform of our system of the international institutions to permit quick, effective and agreed humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping where necessary.
712
I should like to join other noble Lords in taking this opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable work undertaken by our diplomats, at home and abroad, the BBC World Service and the British Council in this country's contribution to the strengthening of global society and global order. Once again, I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington for initiating this debate and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth for providing us with a magical parliamentary moment to savour.
8.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it is a great privilege to close the debate, although I fear that it will be a gargantuan task. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in it and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for tabling the Motion which made the debate possible. Virtually every speaker has referred to the noble Lord's erudition, his value and his unerring judgment. I would not like to detract from any of those comments.
In the debate on the Queen's Speech the House had an opportunity to discuss a number of the current foreign policy issues. I welcome this further opportunity to build on that debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace Saltaire, rightly reminded us, next week we will have the advantage of the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, on Pakistan. I hope that the House will understand if I respond to the comments made by noble Lords about Pakistan then.
I should like to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes. I refer in particular to the elegant tribute paid to him by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The intelligence and wisdom for which the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, is already reputed were clearly shown in his speech. I associate myself with all the comments made in relation to it. I can assure the noble Lord, as one whose heritage is both British and Caribbean, that I share his commitment to the Commonwealth and that we too believe that the Commonwealth is a valuable forum for discussion of issues of world trade and international economics. I was warmed to hear the support for those sentiments which echoed from all Benches. No one in the House will be surprised that my noble friend Lady Amos and I particularly welcomed the glowing comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the excellence and outstanding quality and talent of Caribbean people. The concerns of the Caribbean are concerns for Her Majesty's Government. I can assure the noble Baroness that her concerns are very much mirrored by our own.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was right to draw attention to the changes that have taken place in the world over the 10 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War brought us all great benefits—in reducing the threat of nuclear annihilation and in bringing new freedoms and opportunities to the people of central and eastern Europe. The relief that we somehow all escaped Armageddon was palpable. The world is also changing in other ways. Many noble

713
Lords have spoken about it. There is the globalisation of the world economy and the information revolution, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made particular reference. Both, unthinkable 10 years ago, are having a major impact on the way people and governments interact.
The noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Eden, to mention just a few, remarked on those changes. The changes are much more complicated than before. We have more opportunities but we also face new challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would have us believe that the world has not changed; that we have remained static; that there can be no change; or that it was something that we no longer had to take into account—we did not have to live in the real world. We have new challenges because we are faced with the need to find new solutions.
Britain's foreign policy has had to adapt. The Foreign Office's mission statement sets out clearly how the Government intend to deal with those opportunities and challenges by promoting security, prosperity, the quality of life and respect for human rights.
It is of course in central and eastern Europe where the changes of the past 10 years have been most widely felt. The people of Europe have been given the historic opportunity to re-unite a continent that had been divided for a generation. A number of noble Lords mentioned the idea of a bipartisan approach to foreign affairs. I was pleased to see such clear recognition from all Benches and from some of my most distinguished predecessors at the Foreign Office that it is vital to Britain's interests that it should play a leading role in the European Union. I assure your Lordships that we shall continue to do so.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and to the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, that we see no dichotomy between full engagement in Europe and strong relations with the United States of America. Those relationships are complementary, not competing. They are mutually reinforcing.
The British Government have long championed EU enlargement and are working closely with the applicants to get their institutions and economies into shape. Accession negotiations with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus began, as many noble Lords are aware, during our EU presidency in 1998. In Helsinki, heads of government agreed to start negotiations with Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta. The European Council agreed also that Turkey was a candidate and would be treated on the same basis as the others. The advances made by those countries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, highlighted in her speech which laid particular emphasis on Bulgaria's advancement, have been acknowledged. I assure the noble Baroness that we shall seek to anticipate the problems before they arise. I am sure that we all welcome those historic decisions.
Russia, perhaps more than anywhere else in eastern Europe, has changed, almost beyond recognition, over the past 10 years. It is now a functioning democracy.
714
State planning has been abolished. An independent judiciary is emerging. Progress has been made in establishing a functioning market economy. We must recognise that the transition is far from complete, but the direction of change is clear.
That does not mean that we should refrain from criticising Russia when we believe that its government are making serious mistakes; for example, in their actions in Chechnya, about which many noble Lords spoke. It is incumbent on all those in the West who want to see real partnership between our countries and Russia to let Russia know frankly and clearly when we have concerns about Russian behaviour. The Government have repeatedly recorded our concern at the Russian military action in Chechnya. We recognise that Russia faces a genuine threat and we take fully on board the concerns expressed in relation to those matters. We agreed with our EU partners in December to cut EU assistance to Russia and we are continuing to press the Russians to pursue a political solution and to use the good offices of the OSCE to achieve that goal.
We take extremely seriously the comments made by my noble friend Lord Judd about the challenges with which we are presented in that regard. We understand also the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I assure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government are committed to alleviating human suffering around the world and that the Government take all terrorist threats seriously whatever their origin and are determined that terror shall not prevail.
Many noble Lords—I hope they will forgive me if I do not name them all—have remarked that the most unwelcome consequence of the end of the Cold War has been the re-emergence of extreme narrow-minded nationalism in the Balkans. Those pressures culminated last year in Kosovo. The situation there has been dramatically transformed over the past year. It was right for the noble Lord, Lord Owen, to remind us of the consequences that would have resulted had we not intervened. We must not forget that as we look at the considerable challenges that still lie ahead.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Judd, have said that the challenges that the UN mission and the NATO-led Kosovo force now face are immense: the physical, political and economic rebuilding of a society which has been oppressed and neglected for over a decade. We do not entirely accept the gloomy picture that has been painted by some, but we should say that they are making progress. The refugees have returned, schools have been re-opened and the basis of a modern market-oriented economy is being laid. Free and fair elections will happen.
There is in the wider Balkans an opportunity now to press home our advantage and push for genuine change across the region. The challenge for the next decade is to help the countries of the region shape their future through political and economic reforms and to bring them towards European integration. The EU, NATO, the OSCE and the countries of the region are all engaged in that process under the auspices of the

715
stability pact and their own programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, asked about the size and duration of British military developments in the Balkans. I do not have the precise figures at hand. I hope that the noble Lord will be content that I shall write to him.
The challenges are formidable. But so is the prize: lasting peace and stability in the Balkans. It was right that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised the importance and difficulties of the situation in the wider Balkans, but I assure each of your Lordships that we are watching the situation in Montenegro closely and with vigilance.
One of the consequences of the Cold War has been the way in which NATO and its member states have had to adjust their military posture to meet new realities. Noble Lords have commented upon that already. We have already welcomed Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO. At the Washington summit in April last year, NATO reaffirmed that its doors remained open to further new members.
Bosnia and Kosovo have illustrated that Europe needs to develop an effective and flexible military capability. That is why Britain launched an initiative in the European Union to develop those capabilities. The European Council in Helsinki saw a firm commitment from all members. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, were right to remind us that the military intervention in Kosovo was a success. We welcome the support and understanding of many of the comments made by other noble Lords from all sides of the House; in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and many others.
Our initiative has two key goals: a dramatic improvement in capabilities across Europe and to develop structures for EU crisis management operations in situations where the NATO alliance as a whole is not engaged. That is not a plan for collective defence—that is NATO's role—but rather a mechanism to deal with crisis management operations. It will help to drive change in all EU countries. We need to move away from static territorial defence towards flexible, mobile units.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made specific mention of the European Parliament and the Commission. I reassure them that there is no role in those plans for the European Parliament or the Commission. Defence is an intergovernmental business. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, the noble Lord, Lord Eden, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and my noble friend Lord Longford all raised the importance of the attitude of and the importance per se of the Americans in that regard.
We are confident that they share our view that those arrangements will serve to strengthen further the North Atlantic alliance by increasing Europe's capability to act in a crisis. A stronger Europe must mean a stronger alliance.
716
In response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, perhaps I may say that it is important that on 15th December 1999 the US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, himself said:
"There should be no confusion about America's position on the need for a stronger Europe. We are not against; we are not ambivalent; we are not anxious; we are for it. We want to see a Europe that can act effectively through the Alliance or if NATO is not engaged, on its own, … Helsinki represented from our perspective a step, indeed, several steps in the right direction".
The Americans are with us. Therefore, we are confident that a strong Europe must mean a stronger alliance. As we consider the next steps in the endeavour, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that we shall pay due attention to the advice and comments which he gave us here today. I can also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we, too, see no danger that the nation state will disappear or lessen in significance.
Tonight we have heard views from a number of noble Lords about the Government's policy on human rights. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, highlighted powerfully the challenges presented by disease, prison conditions and the need for penal reform, and the splendid work being done in this regard by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am happy to tell the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government are one of the principal bilateral donors in the area of tuberculosis control in Eastern Europe. We have committed over £1 million in this area in close collaboration with the World Bank and the World Health Organisation. We are committed to protecting and promoting the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core United Nations human rights instruments.
In looking around the world, there are still many regimes which are undemocratic and engaged in barbarous acts. As many noble Lords said, we cannot right every wrong. There are no magic wands or easy answers to intractable problems. However, working in co-operation with our international partners, we can make a difference. I was happy to hear the understanding of that reality echoed round the House by many, many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said powerfully that the world interests are our interests. I know that that sentiment seemed to find favour among many noble Lords this evening. However, we must be realistic about what we can achieve. We need also to be flexible. But that is no reason for us not to be ambitious. I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Eden, in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised the legality of NATO's actions in Kosovo. That subject has been discussed often and at length in your Lordships' House in the past months. NATO's action was legal. It 'was justified as an exceptional response to a humanitarian crisis, and all NATO members agree that the action was necessary and legal.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, emphasised the need for prudence. I echo that need. However, in response to the challenges with which they have been

717
faced on the international stage, I say without apology that Her Majesty's Government have exercised that prudence with considerable effect.
Our policy is to take whatever steps are most likely to secure real human rights improvements on the ground. I know that a number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, among others—tried to tease me to rise to a complaint about consistency. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did so more seriously. However, at this late stage in the evening I shall not rise.
We are consistent in the goals which we pursue. But different circumstances require different methods. In extreme cases, where countries abuse all norms and rules of civilised behaviour—in cases like Milosevic, Serbia or Saddam's Iraq—we may have to resort to military action. As your Lordships know, we have done so with a heavy heart and a sense of the responsibility involved in asking our soldiers to risk their lives.
In other cases, we believe that progress is more likely to be encouraged by dialogue and engagement. That is not a soft option. For example, with Libya and Iran we have taken cautious steps to improve relations with regimes which have shown signs of re-engaging with the international community. That policy of engagement has led to positive gains; for example, the handing over of the suspects for trial in the Lockerbie case.
I turn briefly to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in relation to the Global Witness report about oil in Angola. We believe that Angola's oil wealth should be used for the benefit of all her people. That point was made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Peter Hain, in his speech at the Annual Conference on Action for Southern Africa on 20th November last year. He called also for full transparency in the handling of oil revenues. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I shall write to him in relation to the more specific issues which he raised.
The Government are committed to the UN as the central pillar of international co-operation. But, as the Prime Minister said in Chicago last year, we must modernise the UN and find ways to make it and its Security Council work more effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me a number of specific questions. If I may, I shall try to deal with them briefly. We believe that the United Nations Security Council must be made more representative of the membership of the UN, including German and Japanese membership. We have welcomed the internal reforms of Secretary General Annan, and shall continue to discuss with him and others how to enhance the UN's capacities. We continue to encourage all UN member states to meet their financial obligations to the UN.
A key challenge is to define more clearly the conditions and circumstances when it is right to intervene in the face of massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. We cannot
718
expect agreement overnight. But the Government are working actively to develop a broader consensus. Kofi Annan, in his article in the Financial Times on 10th January, commented on the changing understanding of state sovereignty and the increasing weight attached by the international community to human rights. He concluded that:
"Intervention must be based upon legitimate and universal principles if it is to enjoy the sustained support of the world's peoples".
He went on to comment that:
"Any such evolution in our understanding of state sovereignty and individual sovereignty will, in some quarters, be met with distrust, scepticism, even hostility. But it is an evolution that we should welcome. For all its limitations and imperfections, it is testimony to a humanity that cares more, not less, for the suffering in its midst, and a humanity that will do more, and not less, to end it. It is a hopeful sign at the beginning of a new century".
I hope that we can all agree with those sentiments.
The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, spoke eloquently about Indonesia. As he knows, the Government welcome the election of President Wahid following Indonesia's first genuinely multi-party elections in over 40 years. I can assure him that the Government are devoting significant diplomatic and developmental assistance resources to aiding Indonesia in its transition to democratic politics, with greater respect for human rights than in the past.
Perhaps one of the benefits of the end of the Cold War has been the increased chance of lasting peace in the Middle East. I should like to welcome the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on the Middle East peace process on which he speaks with such authority. I welcome, too, the comments made so knowledgeably by my noble friend Lord Janner. The advances made in this area were perhaps best demonstrated by the unity mirrored by those two speeches—something which I dare say many in this House may not have expected to live to see. I can confirm that it is the Government's understanding that there is now a real possibility of peace on the Syrian track.
I fully concur with the noble Lord's tribute to the political courage shown by both parties in agreeing to resume negotiations. The United Kingdom's position on the key issues and our close relationships with all the parties enable us to speak with some authority in the region. It in no way detracts from American efforts to say that I believe that we play some part in facilitating a resumption of the negotiations. I fully agree that the United States's commitment to help the parties to reach agreement is most important. We and our European partners share that commitment and are working closely with the United States towards a comprehensive and durable peace. We are in no way neglecting the need for agreement also on the Palestinian and Lebanese tracks. We hope that it will soon be possible to look forward to a time when Arab/Israeli conflict is behind us.
The Government welcome too the efforts being made in Nigeria to consolidate democracy, eradicate poverty and build prosperity. In particular, we welcome the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, in that regard. The challenges facing

719
President Obasanjo's government are huge. The years of corruption and mismanagement by the previous regime have left untold damage. The Government have drawn up a range of measures to support Nigeria. That includes support for economic reform, security sector reform, reform of the justice system, anticorruption, human rights and good governance.
Notwithstanding the time, I cannot end the debate without making some comment on the fine speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He rightly referred to the failure of the WTO meeting in Seattle. I am happy to assure him that the Government share his commitment to trade liberalisation and his caution as to the introduction of non-trade issues to too great an extent into the proceedings of the WTO. However, I should say also that following Seattle, the present time is a good tine for careful and mature reflection about the WTO, its procedures and public perceptions of it.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that we share his concern about the dangers of global warming. We shall continue to urge, as we did in Kyoto, effective action by the international community on that vital issue.
The subject of foreign affairs has been popular because it reflects the experience, interest and knowledge of so many noble Lords in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I may not agree on everything but I am happy to say that the insight which he brings to foreign affairs is shared by other noble Lords who have spoken this evening. it is a pleasure to reply to such a high-quality debate.
In particular, I echo the appreciative words of many noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the men and women of our Diplomatic Service. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, will permit me to say that I was particularly enchanted by the vivid account which she gave. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right to say that that will remain fresh in our memories for many years to come.
I also share the concern expressed by many noble Lords that the Diplomatic Service, the British Council and the BBC World Service should be properly funded. That is why this Government are providing an extra £219 million to those three organisations from 1999 to 2002. Perhaps I may say what a particular pleasure it has been for me—perhaps the most junior Member of this House—to have the privilege of making this response.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, it has been a notable debate, not just for its content but for the quality of the speeches. We have heard from four former Foreign Secretaries, three former Chancellors of the Exchequer, if I can count my noble and learned friend Lord Howe twice, about six or seven former Cabinet Ministers, a host of former Ministers, two or three former Permanent Secretaries, one Field-Marshal—and one is tempted to say, "and a partridge in a pear
720
tree". In fact that partridge was probably the disembodied voice audible during the speech of my noble friend Lady Cox, and I was disappointed that it was not on the Speakers' List!
This has been a long debate and this is not the moment at which to make another speech. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for the trouble that she has taken in answering so many queries. I thank her for the speech that she has made. Once again, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, on his maiden speech. Although it must be admitted that we have not exactly solved the problems of the world, I hope that we have given the Government something to think about and in some way have pointed out some of the errors which successive governments have committed and which should really be avoided in the future. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Maternity Services
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlegerose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to improve maternity services.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing this debate, I start by declaring an interest. I am a patron of the National Childbirth Trust and, I hope, a friend to the Royal Colleges involved in maternity services.
This is a new millennium, a new year, a new beginning, new Labour, an appropriate time to discuss a new life coming into the world.
"Pregnancy is a long and very special journey for a woman. It is a journey of dramatic physical, psychological and social change; of becoming a mother, of redefining family relationships and taking on the long-term responsibility for caring and cherishing a new born child. Generations of women have travelled the same route, but each journey is unique",
or so I wrote in my introduction to Changing Childbirth, a policy welcomed by all three political parties, by users, community groups and most professionals working in the field.
The expert committee which I chaired found that women and their partners wanted three things: choice, continuity of professional carer—"all I wanted was a familiar face" was a phrase which haunted us wherever we went—and control over their care. Those are such very simple aspirations and are so possible to achieve.
I know that it can be done because I have witnessed it. I have spoken to countless parents, midwives and obstetricians and there is no doubt that where there is continuity of carer, the satisfaction rates are high and the waiting list is long—long for midwives wishing to work in those units. But more importantly, as research into the pioneering one-to-one scheme introduced by Professor Lesley Page shows, the intervention rates are lower and, as a result, the schemes are cost effective. We know that they are cost effective because they have been evaluated very thoroughly by York University.

721
Where those schemes have closed, the disillusionment has been enormous. Midwives have left because they could not bear to go back to a poorer quality service which satisfied no one. The shortage of midwives does not require rocket science. It is quite simple. We need to stop the closure of one-to-one maternity-led schemes, introduce others, trust midwives, and ensure that they have autonomy over their work.
I know that my noble friend Lord Howe will deal with some issues relating to the midwife crisis and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply on that. I believe that my noble friend Lord Chadlington will deal with some issues relating to autonomy of midwives.
But I am aware that the Government view Changing Childbirth as yesterday's policy. Although it has been reaffirmed by each successive health Minister, there really is no sense of ownership. I am not proprietorial; I am not proud; I understand government; I also understand the needs of childbearing women.
Along with those working in the field, I want the principles in Changing Childbirth to be adhered to. But I really do not mind if the Government tinker with it at the edges. The Government could call it "New Labour", or in deference to the Minister, who I know feels strongly about this issue—he is the father of five children—we could call it "Hunt the baby". However, I really believe that all of us should recognise the common principles, the common sense, the proven value, the NICE qualities inherent in this policy—and invest some political will.
In her new year press release, Yvette Cooper, a Minister in another place, stated that maternity services are at the heart of government. I am delighted, but what does that mean? Can the Minister tell us where maternity services stand in the list of government priorities? Are they third or fourth or 44th? Can the Minister be specific on this issue because we need to know?
The Government are determined to reduce inequalities, and rightly determined to reduce the number of low-weight babies. The Sure Start programme is a brave attempt to do that, with its target of a 5 per cent reduction by 2002. I believe that it is disgraceful that in this country we have a higher percentage of low-weight babies than even Albania and Latvia.
Research shows that intensive support during pregnancy reduces the chance of a low-weight baby, and improves the physical and psychological health of the mother. Joined-up government should target resources and introduce schemes that offer continuity of care by a midwife, caseload midwifery, one-to-one midwifery, or whatever one wants to call it, in areas of poverty and deprivation. Will the Minister take that modern suggestion of mine to his colleagues and ensure that babies born to the most vulnerable parents have a sure start to life?
722
Your Lordships recently debated, with grave concern, the rising caesarean section rate. Mr Nigel Perks, an obstetrician in Greenwich, spoke for many when in Monday's press he highlighted the dangers of a caesarean section and the fact that several women in London have ended up in intensive care.
I strongly support women-centred care and the right for women and their partners to choose the place and type of birth that they would like, but the choice should be informed. How many women choose to have what is a major abdominal operation without being given all the facts? Are they told about the risks of both mortality and morbidity; the pain; the discomfort; the delays in returning home; the separation from their baby; secondary infertility and the increased risk of complications including deep-venous thrombosis and infection? Do they really appreciate the effects that that type of birth will have on their baby, including the greater risk of respiratory disorders?
Does the Minister agree that,
"Because hard evidence of net benefit does not exist, performing Caesarean sections for non-medical reasons is ethically not justified"?
Those are not my words, but the words of the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Do the Government agree with that expert committee and, if so, what action will they take? Is the high rate of caesarean sections associated with the lack of experienced obstetricians in labour wards? That is an issue that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will explore. I believe that no one in the House is better qualified to do so.
Does the Minister realise the cost to the NHS? With every 1 per cent increase in the caesarean section rate, we add £5 million to the maternity bill—the equivalent of 167 midwives. If the caesarean section rate reached 50 per cent, it would consume a third of the total budget. People may feel that that is a ridiculous statement to make, but the figure has already reached 29 per cent in some places and it is still rising. Does the Minister agree that action is essential?
I know that an audit is being undertaken by the Royal Colleges but that, of course, is a one-off exercise which will take months, if not longer, to complete. We need systems in place that will produce annual audits, close monitoring and consistency, and information UK-wide in the same format so that comparisons can be made on an annual basis. Those systems need to be put into place now. Just as with winter pressures, where exact information is not available when planning starts months ahead, so the Government should start to think about this serious and costly issue now.
I wanted to mention GPs and commissioning by primary care groups, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will speak on that issue.
Lastly, can the Minister tell us the Government's policy on home births? I know that he will be aware of the huge concern felt by many that the United Kingdom central council has sought legal clarification regarding the obligation of health authorities to provide a domiciliary service for women planning a

723
home birth. I really want to know the Government's view of that. Arc women to have the assurance that they will be attended by a midwife? If not, what will that mean for those who wish to give birth at home? Is it the intention of the Government to restrict choice? If not, will they ensure that the position is clarified and define once and for all a woman's right to choose that place of birth?
I believe that the start to life is crucial. I leave your Lordships with the sobering thought that each and everyone of us has been touched by a midwife!
9.6 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for initiating this debate, and in particular for all that she has done to improve maternity services in this country for the benefit of mothers and babies.
Having worked for over 30 years as an obstetrician—I mean as an obstetrician rather than a gynaecologist—I believe that there is no other branch of medicine that is more rewarding, exciting and at times frightening as obstetrics. Of course, I am not biased in any way!
I also assure your Lordships that pregnant women and their partners value above all the safety of their baby. Today childbirth in Britain is very safe, but it could still be safer. We have the skills in our midwives, nurses, doctors and scientists to deliver the best care to the mother and the baby, and to create a healthier population with only a little more effort and commitment, and with not a great deal more resources.
How does one judge the quality of maternity services? The key indicators of a good service are, first and foremost, client or patient satisfaction with the service. Others are hard indicators such as maternal and perinatal mortality; morbidity such as reduction in birth handicap, early childhood illnesses and infections. A good service that meets the needs of the consumer will be successful in recruiting and retaining high quality staff.
So where are the shortfalls in the service? As recently as 1935, one in every 200 pregnancies ended with the death of the mother; that is, one death every two weeks in my city of Dundee. Today the risk is less than one in 10,000 pregnancies—one death every three years in my city. That improvement was not the result of better social conditions—although that too has improved—but of better care from midwives and doctors, and with antibiotics, safe blood transfusion, safer abortion and better treatment of medical diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure.
How do we compare with the rest of the world? The lowest maternal mortality in Great Britain was in 1985. Some of our European partners—Scandinavia, the Netherlands, 1Germany, France and so forth—report lower figures. We need to match and better those figures.
The risk to the baby is 100 times greater than to the mother. Before the last world war, perinatal mortality was 6 per cent; one in 15 babies died. Now
724
it is 1 per cent. But that figure, low as it is, represents over 6,000 stillbirths or neonatal deaths in Britain every year. Most are due to prematurity or complications that cannot be prevented in our present state of knowledge, but sadly some of those deaths are preventable.
All deaths of babies and infants are now analysed by the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy—CESDI for short—which recently produced its sixth annual report and with which I have been involved from the outset. It monitors the causes of death. Two years ago it carried out a detailed analysis of 873 babies who died as a result of labour—so-called "intrapartum" deaths. Those were babies who were normally formed and were not premature; at the start of labour the baby was healthy and then something went wrong.
Of those 873 cases, no fewer than 78 per cent were criticised for suboptimal care. Those criticisms were made by panels of experienced clinicians. In over 50 per cent of those cases, better care,
"would reasonably have been expected",
to have made a difference; in other words, the baby's life should have been saved, but we failed to do so. Four hundred and fifty dead babies is not a large number when compared with over 600,000 born safely every year in this country. The chance of a healthy baby dying as a result of labour in hospital is one in 1,500 births. That is two deaths a year in an average maternity hospital. We know that one of those can be prevented. Why is it not prevented?
For the past 50 years, the medical care in Britain's labour wards has been provided by trainees—something I have never accepted and not considered to be correct. In the 1990s, 40 per cent of forceps deliveries were carried out by young doctors who had done fewer than 20 such deliveries before. Those young trainees have done remarkably well, but women now deserve better care from fully trained midwives and specialists.
Last year, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives together produced a guidance document calle Towards Safer Childbirth—minimum standards for the organisation of labour wards. One of its recommendations was for a consultant to be present in the labour ward for at least 40 hours a week—at least; there ought to be more—in all large maternity hospitals. The function of the consultant would be to educate and train younger doctors as well as to look after women with complications in labour; to work with midwives as a member of a team; and to formulate policy in co-operation with the clinical midwife manager.
There is some evidence that in units such as Portsmouth, where those recommendations have been implemented, there has been a reduction in mortality in intrapartum deaths. The question will be asked: can Britain afford a safe service, properly staffed by fully trained midwives? If not from a humanitarian point of view, then from a financial one, the answer is that the NHS cannot afford an unsafe service. Litigation costs

725
the NHS over £300 million every year. Obstetric claims account for 50 per cent of this total. The average sum awarded to a "brain-damaged" baby is £1.5 million. This means, potentially, one £2 million case in the average maternity hospital every year. The number of such tragedies can be reduced. Preventing them would more than pay for improved services.
What about other areas of maternity services, such as pre-pregnancy care and advice, prenatal care, diagnosis of foetal abnormalities, and antenatal tests? Currently, the expertise to deliver care in all these areas varies from region to region and from hospital to hospital, with a lack of national guidance.
I shall now speak briefly about the rising rate of caesarean sections. Of course the noble Baroness is right, the caesarean section rate has risen in the past decade and in some hospitals—mainly tertiary referral hospitals—it is nearly 18 to 20 per cent. I agree that any decision to undertake major surgery such as a caesarean section, which carries a risk of mortality and morbidity, should be taken seriously.
Advances such as the ability of paediatricians to care for smaller and smaller babies; increasing numbers of pregnancies as a result of assisted conception and multiple pregnancies; increasing numbers of older mothers; successful pregnancies in women with medical conditions; and an increasing number of women wishing to have a caesarean section by choice, particularly if they have had a caesarean section previously—I agree that that choice should be based on informed consent and should be clearly understood—have also contributed to this increase. Because of the complexity of factors involved in human birth, and both the changing circumstances and outcomes that are desired, defining the optimal caesarean section rate is difficult.
I believe that a proper audit needs to be carried out, particularly to find the reasons for inter-hospital variations in rates of caesarean sections for the same cause. There are three major causes: Cephalo-pelvic disproportion (failure to progress), foetal distress, and repeat caesarean section. This matter needs to be explored. There is also a need for guidance and monitoring of the rates of caesarean section. I hope that the audit that is being carried out by the two Royal Colleges will provide some answers in this matter.
I believe that the time has come when all the good recommendations in the variety of reports on maternity services compiled by professional organisations, government and other bodies should be brought together in a national service framework for maternity services. Standards should be subject to audit. I believe that this would help to improve maternity services and make childbirth in this country even safer and a happy time—which I believe that it ought to be—for parents. I have no doubt that we can make maternity services in this country consumer friendly and safer and that we can match the best outcomes that exist anywhere in the world. Will the Minister's department consider the proposal to develop a national service framework?
9.17 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I also am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for introducing this important debate. I speak this evening very much as a layman although I am also the father of four young children and have taken a keen interest in the National Health Service all my life. I served on the policy board of the National Health Service between 1991 and 1995.
The health of mothers and babies is clearly of paramount importance in this country. The midwifery profession, despite increased pressures both in terms of changes in society and the resources available to it, has continued to provide a service to mothers and babies which is a shining example to other countries. We have a midwifery profession of which we can justifiably be proud and we must make all efforts to preserve those aspects which make this profession so exceptional.
Since 1983 midwives have shared their legislative framework with nurses but the profession has been recognised as quite distinct. It benefits from a mechanism which is held up as an example of responsible nursing to the rest of the world—the statutory supervision of midwives. That mechanism must be preserved. It provides both the midwives and the mothers whom they serve with a unique support structure which in turn gives the babies in their care the best possible start in life.
The first point that I wish to raise concerns the recognition of midwifery as a profession distinct from nursing. Indeed I should like to see this distinction strengthened and reinforced by further empowerment of midwives, allowing them to practise autonomously. It seems to me that the most effective way to do this is to take midwifery out of consultant hospitals and put the emphasis on midwife-led birth centres.
In accordance with this view I therefore wholeheartedly support the Changing Childbirth policy which my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has both championed and spoken of already in this debate. I believe that my noble friend is absolutely right and that it is a first-class policy which should be reaffirmed. There can be no doubt that the role of the midwife in our society is a highly valued service. We need the health service to support pilot schemes for midwifery-led care, which have been run in parts of the country already, and to show a determination to implement that policy on a nationwide basis.
What stronger signal can we give women that the Government take this issue seriously than a network of midwife-led birth centres devoted to the health of mother and child? After all, midwives are not just there to assist with the practicalities of the birth itself. The responsibilities now taken on by midwives are wide ranging, dealing not only with the dissemination of information to the expectant mother but often providing much needed emotional support.
To pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege about the regular monitoring of services, I suggest that the Commission for Health Improvement should review all of the Changing Childbirth pilot

727
schemes and, in addition, should consider why we are experiencing such a rapidly increasing caesarean section rate in this country.
Secondly, I should like to see every woman in this country guaranteed that a midwife will be present at the birth of her child. The current situation allows for one-to-one care solely in the case of a home birth or where an epidural is required. Provided that there are enough midwives available to provide such a service, perhaps with the comfort and support of midwives at every birth the need for obstetric intervention may be lessened.
The resources are there in human terms—although admittedly thin on the ground—but we need, in addition, a way of mobilising and motivating midwives, especially when, for some reason or other, the number of women in labour at any given time is particularly high.
Having access to a midwife before, during and after a birth has proved to be of real benefit for both mother and child. A 1998 national survey by the Audit Commission, which researched women's views of maternity care, clearly highlighted this. One of the findings of the survey was that when participants were asked the question,
"How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the time during your pregnancy",
66 per cent strongly agreed with the statement,
"Midwives talked to me in a way I could understand",
while only 47 per cent strongly agreed with the statement,
"Doctors talked to me in a way I could understand".
This is further evidence—if one would need it—in what seems to a common sense argument that midwives provide a service which women perceive to be of real and relevant benefit. Surely no woman should be denied the opportunity to take advantage of what this country can proudly assert is a first-class service.
Maternity services can and must be improved. The Changing Childbirth model ensures that improvements are executed. I understand that midwifery-led care would certainly be popular with those in the profession and that large numbers of midwives would be keen to be part of teams in midwife-led units.
Midwifery-led care has been demonstrated to be perfectly possible and the next step is to progress with the implementation of such a policy.
9.23 p.m.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing the debate. I declare an interest as chairman of Brighton Health Care NHS Trust, where, for the past five years, I have been very involved in developing maternity services to improve the quality of care to pregnant women during their pregnancy—from the antenatal period, through the intrapartum stage the delivery and postnatal care. We aim to incorporate the Changing Childbirth aims of choice, continuity and control.
728
Within the five years we have actively evaluated any changes that we have made. Indeed, after four years of introducing a pilot scheme of midwifery with three teams of midwives, changes were made to ensure that instead of three geographical areas having team midwifery, midwives were reorganised into five groups to ensure an equity of care, although this meant that a smaller package of care was given because we needed to cover a larger geographical area.
Fundamental to the development of team midwifery was the philosophy of integrated patient care which during this time involved a total capital expenditure of £2.3 million to develop the unit. That included bringing together the ante-natal facilities and all the facilities concerned in the maternity department, including foetal assessments and diagnostic procedures as well as a modern delivery suite and a birthing pool, a post-natal ward and an intensive baby care unit, as well as developing role descriptions to allow multi-skilling among the staff within the unit.
The first evaluation showed that, where appropriate, care was given in women's homes. The numbers of bookings rose by more than 120 per cent between 1993 and 1997. Home-based ante-natal visits increased by 37 per cent and home assessments rose from nil to 68 per cent. Continuity of care was assured, with two midwives being present at all home deliveries. That illustrated that there was an increase in women's choice for home deliveries. The current home birth rate in my trust is 8 per cent.
However, the evaluation demonstrated that there was a need to give parity of care which could not be afforded by developing and maintaining team midwifery across the geographic area while at the same time ensuring that an optimum number of midwives was available in the hospital unit.
The reorganisation for midwives has resulted in continuity of care during the intrapartum period but allows less flexibility to ensure continuity of ante-natal and post-natal care. Even to achieve that the addition of six whole-time midwives is required. In the period between 1995 and 1999 the number of hospital midwives increased by 12. Those in the community rose by four and then the number was reduced by four. The total number of midwives is now 88, with a vacancy factor of five. Funding is currently required for an additional six midwives. That has been discussed by the primary care group and the health authority. We know that if this funding is not forthcoming a further reorganisation will have to be undertaken. That will inevitably reduce the continuity of care which is our aim.
It will be impossible to sustain the home birth rate of 8 per cent. Therefore, women who wish to have a home birth will be asked to deliver in hospital. Should those women refuse to transfer into hospital, that will present a grave clinical risk as midwives will be unable to attend. The number of midwives on call will be reduced; therefore flexibility will be reduced. Antenatal clinic continuity will be reduced, resulting in women not knowing their named midwife. Post-natal continuity will be compromised, resulting in inconsistent advice and a reduction in effective care.

729
Midwife availability to provide breast feeding support at home will be greatly reduced. Intrapartum continuity of care for any women will be impossible. Outreach work for non-attenders at risk will cease. Ante-natal clinics, which are currently provided at small GP surgeries, will have to be withdrawn, thereby necessitating those women to attend hospital for antenatal care. Such care currently delivered in the home will cease.
That is a grim picture when women have been promised a safe standard of care to which they have become accustomed over the past five years. The neonatal intensive care unit responded to an increased demand of ITU cots, and a further £258,000 was invested by the health authority to pay for the extra activity. That resulted in the appointment of a second neonatologist and a part-time specialist registrar, together with 4.5 whole time equivalent nursing staff.
Activity has continued to rise. The occupancy of the 20 cots has risen from 93 per cent to 119 per cent during the period 1999–2000. Special care occupancy peaked in September to November at 136 per cent, which caused a bottleneck in our ability to accept intensive care admissions.
Quality of care is costly. Evidence-based practice, taking into account the best practice and consumer views, has to be gauged within available resources. Maternity services urgently need to know what actions Her Majesty's Government propose in order to improve those services and maintain standards that have already been established in these pilot schemes in the interests of providing a quality service, resulting in a healthy mother and a healthy baby.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for bringing this important issue to our notice this evening. It is, as other noble Lords have stated, appropriate to acknowledge my noble friend's expertise in this subject and the enormous contribution she has made through the work she did in producing the excellent report Changing Childbirth in 1993.
There is, I suppose, a temptation to cut the debate short by asking the Minister why the Government did not continue the implementation of my noble friend's recommendations: if that had been done, the need for the debate would neither be so great nor so pressing. However, it has not been done, and today we face a situation which, rather than having improved, has obviously deteriorated since 1993 or 1994.
I am no great expert in maternity care, but, like many men, I developed a degree of interest when I first became a father over six years ago. Although I am no greater expert now than I was then, I consider myself to be a reasonable amateur mid-husband, in part due to my wife's decision to give birth at home and in part as a result of my increasing interest in midwifery, following the absolutely outstanding level of care that
730
my wife and children received from our midwife—which experience, sadly, is in contrast with the national trends that we have heard about tonight.
My noble friend's report clearly made the point that there are not enough midwives, and every noble Lord has emphasised that point. The figures that I have seen show that at present only 36 per cent of registered midwives are practising today, and the increase in midwives nationally is only 3.3 per cent. Although new admissions to the UKCC Register have increased by 1.7 per cent, I am told that this increase is entirely due to the number of registrants from overseas. One reason for this situation appears to be that the career and pay structures for midwives act as active disincentives to them to continue in practice. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to address the situation?
One of the consequences is that the choices open to women as to the way they give birth, which we all consider to be so important, are more limited. It is interesting to note that, while midwife numbers have been in decline, during the same period the number of obstetricians has remained stable. That is a good thing, but it means that women are bound to be pushed in the direction of a hospital-based medical birth as opposed to a midwife-led home or hospital birth, regardless of their individual wishes. I suspect that this may be compounded by the post-natal fees that general practitioners can claim, which are bound to encourage them to steer their patients in the direction that suits them rather than that which suits the patient, thus further limiting choice.
These two factors must contribute to the alarming increase in birth by Caesarean section, which every speaker this evening has mentioned. The figures that I have seen indicate an increase of 27 per cent in recent years. While Caesarean births will always be an important feature of childbirth, they cannot be ideal or desirable in cases where they are not absolutely necessary; nor can any other medical intervention unless necessary.
I shall take a lot of persuading not to conclude that too many of these operations are performed to suit the consultant rather than the patient. Clearly, all women are vulnerable at the time they give birth, and they need to be able to trust the professionals who care for them. It is therefore all to easy for the consultant to steer the woman in the direction that is most convenient for him, at the expense of the patient and also at the expense of the taxpayer. Clearly it is more costly to provide medical intervention in a hospital than a home birth or a midwife-led birth in a hospital.
I believe that some of these problems, if not all of them, occur because of our attitude to childbirth. The health service exists to help people who are ill or injured, or at least who are not well. But pregnancy and childbirth are not illnesses; they are part of the natural healthy process of life. Only in the minority of cases where something goes wrong with the mother or child do they become issues of ill health. The problem with hospital and doctor centred maternity care, wonderful though it is, is that it is naturally focused on

731
what might go wrong rather than what, for the majority, goes right. The very fact that the Minister who is to answer the Question of my noble friend tonight—which I am sure he will do extremely well—speaks for the Department of Health, amply demonstrates that point.
But maternity care is not primarily a health issue. It is a women's issue. Eighty per cent of the women in this country give birth at some time in their life. For many of them it is one of the most significant experiences of their whole lives and it is not being given the attention it needs or deserves. In that respect I have to say that I am sadly disappointed not to see the Minister for Women in her place this evening. In a recent newspaper interview, the noble Baroness said that, now that the House of Lords Act was on the statute book, she could turn her attention to her more important role as the Minister for Women. Indeed, in the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday, 8th December, she wrote saying that she had,
"spent the last year on the road … listening to what women desire from government … I heard from 30,000 women and they stated very clearly that they want to be fulfilled at work and also as mums.
This government is committed to ensuring that women have choice … The proof or our intent is the long list of policies that have been implemented since May 1997 that directly benefit women".
I shall not read the whole letter because noble Lords may read it in the Library. However, at the end she stated:
"The Women's National Commission is rightly celebrating 30 years of existence, but for a large part of that time there have been Conservative governments who failed to do anything to improve the lot of women. As well as celebrating the birthday of the organisation … we should also celebrate the fact that, at last, we have a government prepared to put women at the heart of its agenda".
Well, tonight we are debating one of the most important, if not the most important, of all issues affecting women. Yet apparently the Minister is too busy either to attend or to participate in this very important debate. Perhaps we should reluctantly conclude that the Ministry for Women is like the rest of New Labour, all talk and no substance.
The final point I want to make is this. This debate is, quite properly, focused on the narrow area of maternity care because, as we know, it needs careful attention. But there are other factors to be taken into account. In particular, the report entitled Poor Expectations, published in 1995 by the Maternity Alliance, draws attention to the problems of poverty and nourishment in pregnancy—as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege mentioned, the problem of low weight babies. However carefully we look after women during childbirth and immediately afterwards, it will always be an uphill struggle if, in the months between conception and birth the mother and child do not receive the food and warmth they need. It is clear from that report that the benefits paid to pregnant women at present are not sufficient to provide for an adequate diet. It is also clear that, for those on income support, this problem is compounded if, for example, they are compelled to service a fuel debt during pregnancy.
732
In answering the Question, I have no doubt that the Minister will seek to lay at least part of the blame for the failure to implement my noble friend's report on the previous administration; but not too much, I hope. The previous government did implement a great deal of it. However, this Government appear to have stopped or prevented many of those initiatives from moving forward. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
I shall of course listen with great care to the Minister's response, but, having listened to it, I suspect that my noble friend may well want to return to this matter before too long.
9.39 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I hope that I may have the indulgence of the House to say a few words before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, addresses noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I have much appreciated the opportunity to be present at this debate this evening. I had not expected to attend. I confess that I am here only in the wake of the debate on the international situation that took place earlier Knowing the noble Baroness's interest in and commitment to this issue, I believed that it would be a debate worth listening to, and it has been. The debate has been most instructive, informative and, in some cases, even moving, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her presence.
The noble Baroness might have felt some discouragement at the sight of all the empty Benches around her when she initiated a debate of this importance. I hope that she will not be too discouraged. Not only will everything that has been said appear in Hansard, which I hope those interested in this matter will read and find informative, but I am also aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who has a deep interest in and commitment to these problems, will take these matters back to his colleagues. I hope it is not inappropriate to say that the noble Baroness can be assured that all that she has said will have the impact that it should have on the Government's thinking.
Like many other noble Lords I am not knowledgeable about this subject. Although my wife is a doctor and I have had some second-hand experience of these problems, certainly I am not an expert. However, I believe that at the end of this debate I know a little more about it than I did at the beginning. The only reason for rising to my feet in the gap is to express heartfelt thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing a debate of this kind which is in the very best traditions of your Lordships' House.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, with all other noble Lords I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for initiating this debate. I pay particular tribute to her long involvement and expertise in this field. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Having listened with enormous

733
interest to the debate, the range of expertise displayed is not something that I can possibly hope to match in my contribution.
I declare an interest as a patron of the National Childbirth Trust. I pay tribute to that body, the Royal College of Midwives and other organisations in this field in their campaign for better maternity services. My own recent experience of maternity services occurred when my son was born across the river at St Thomas' on the first day of spring 1998. My motives in supporting the NCT arise particularly from the desire to see other mothers have the same quality of care as my wife and I experienced at the hands of the community-based Alpha Team at that hospital.
With great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, like the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, perhaps I have the rather unreasonable prejudice that the best births are those without doctors, if possible, despite the fact that both my nephew and his wife are obstetricians. It appears that my nephew's wife shares this prejudice since recently she gave birth to a healthy eight-pound girl at home.
There are many issues with which the maternity services currently have to grapple, and they have been graphically described by your Lordships during the course of this debate. Many of them stem from shortages. The most recent report of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting shows that numbers entering the profession each year have fallen since 1994. Based on those figures there are about 2,500 fewer midwives than two years ago. Many senior people have left the profession and, as a result, there is a shortage of experienced staff.
In a reply before Christmas to a supplementary question that I put to him, the Minister seemed to imply that with the recent recruitment campaign the problem was now solved. Is that indeed the case? Has the shortage of midwives now been fully made up? After all, London hospitals such as the Chelsea and Westminster were turning away women in labour as recently as November because of lack of staff. Are we still recruiting midwives from abroad as we were last year?
I believe that our shortages will not be made up until we improve radically the pay of midwives and have much more flexible patterns of working. Without adequate midwives I fear that the grave picture painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, is only too accurate. By contrast there is an alleged oversupply of obstetrician and gynaecological doctors in training. What an argument for a massively improved workforce planning system.
There appears to be a strong link between shortages and the rising rate of caesareans outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. We shall have to wait for the Royal College's audit referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to see whether that is indeed the case. Be that as it may, the shortages have militated against what should have been the very essence of maternity care as
734
described by the Winterton report, Continuous Care and Choice. There is clear evidence that staff shortages have meant that midwives have not been in continuous attendance. There is equally good evidence to show that continuous care has a major impact on outcomes.
As regards choice, the NCT survey carried out last year and published in August, showed that there was a lack of awareness among expectant mothers about the full range of options, and then a lack of choice about the lead professional. There was also felt to be a lack of unbiased information. There were of course as well wide variations in frequency of seeing a consultant obstetrician. Very importantly, there was a lack of choice as regards home births. The majority of GPs seem actively to discourage home births, as that survey showed. I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to see the matter clarified.
There has been a long gap, as the noble Baroness illustrated, between the end of the period of the original 1993 five-year strategy, Changing Childbirth, of which she was the author. That has clearly not been implemented in full because of lack of resources, as the Audit Commission clearly showed in 1997. Do the Government now plan a national service framework, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which can set a truly high standard for maternity services? Are the Government planning a replacement strategy for Changing Childbirth? What guidance are they giving to primary care groups which are now thrust into the commissioning of those services? When the Health Act was going through this House, we were assured that user groups would be involved closely with PCG commissioning. Is that happening with maternity services?
What emphasis is being given to particular aspects of training? Is this being adequately resourced? I am sure that the House is aware that there are worrying issues about standards and some alarming cases pointing to a lack of training. Indeed, the joint report of the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians showed that a lack of adequate training, for example in the use of heart monitors, is at the root of a great many problems in delivery.
I hope that the Minister can at least respond to some of these questions. The NCT's 10-point plan published in 1998 seems to me to provide an excellent basis for the way forward. There are many aspects of the 10-point plan and the objectives of the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services, which I could highlight. The aspects which strike the greatest chord with me, however, are the need, first, for user involvement in PCGs and in maternity service liaison committees; much improved recruitment and retention of midwives, in particular senior midwives; the importance that the NCT and others attach to integrated services, so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and, above all, the need for a national strategy to tackle inconsistencies and anomalies in maternity care.
I have one final point. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, I am also very sympathetic to the establishment by midwives of autonomous group

735
practices within the NHS. As has been pointed out to me, however, there is the legal right for midwives to do so, but no structure within the NHS by which that can be done. Can PCGs be stimulated to encourage the growth of such practices and of such birth centres?
Those and other questions that have been put to the Minister are of vital importance to expectant mothers from 10 Downing Street outwards. I look forward to hearing his reply.
9.50 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for the characteristically capable and heartfelt way in which she introduced her Unstarred Question tonight. I hope that the Government will pay close heed to what she said. My noble friend has a deep understanding of maternity services, based on many years' experience in the NHS and in government.
However, there was one matter on which she did not dwell but which ought to cause us particular concern. It is the current fragile state of morale among midwives. Midwifery is a special discipline and one that is quite distinct from mainstream nursing. Like nursing, it is a vocation and not just a profession. That means that midwives will always work longer hours and shoulder additional burdens, rather than compromise the professional standards of care given to the patient. I have no doubt that the commitment of midwives to their work has protected maternity services from the full effects of resource shortages over the past few years. I believe that but for that, the situation on the ground—by which I mean the situation as felt by the patients—would be far worse than it is.
If we believe that midwifery is a vocation—and I venture to suggest that we all do—it must be a cause of special worry that so many midwives are choosing to leave the service. That is not a sustainable position for the NHS if, as is now the case, more midwives are leaving the service than are joining it. This year's RCM survey shows that three out of four midwifery units are currently carrying vacancies and that the number of long-term vacancies has increased to 55 per cent of all vacant posts. Up to one-third of trusts are unable to provide one-to-one care for women. Pilot schemes promoting continuity of care have been discontinued. I have heard of some hospitals having to shut their labour wards and send women down the road to other hospitals.
When just before Christmas we debated the issue of the rising number of caesarean sections, the Minister said that the shortage of midwives in England as a whole was 2 per cent, based on those midwifery posts that had been vacant for more than three months. I do not dispute that figure but, like all averages, we should treat it with caution. In North Thames, the long-term vacancy rate is 5.9 per cent; in South Thames it is 6.1 per cent; and in Anglia and Oxford it is 4 per cent. Some units in London are operating with as many as 20, sometimes 30, vacant posts. In other words, there are particular parts of the country where the shortages, both long and short term, combine to create acute
736
difficulties in service provision. Nor do even those figures tell the whole story. Because the proportion of midwives working part-time has increased during the past five years, there has been a reduction in the number of hours per midwife available to the service.
No one is saying, not even the midwives, that the answer is simply more pay. It is about much more than that. It is about the status accorded to midwives as a profession distinct from that of general nursing. It is about the ability of midwives to exercise real autonomy and to contribute to improvements in the quality of care on the ward and outside it. Midwives need to feel that there is a proper career structure open to them that offers real opportunities for advancement. Many midwives feel that these things are being denied them and, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, that the grading structure within the profession offers inadequate reward for the level of responsibility and commitment that midwives undertake.
I have no doubt that until these issues are addressed, the recruitment, but more particularly the retention, of midwives will continue to pose a problem. Indeed, with the forthcoming reduction in the hours of junior doctors, the pressure on midwives is likely to worsen. In turn, that will lead to a diminishing ability to develop the standard of care to expectant and new mothers. That can only run counter to the Government's declared and worthy aim of providing women with greater continuity of care and with choice and control over their experience of childbirth.
Lest the Minister accuse me of setting out a stall full of problems rather than solution, let me offer one thought. One of the difficulties facing hospital managers—and, I suspect, Ministers—is that relatively few maternity units can claim to have coherent systems in place for defining and reviewing staff levels. The estimates made of staff shortages are, therefore, bound to be subjective to a greater or lesser extent. Yet, if the quality agenda is to mean anything and is to be delivered, proper planning is essential. As variations in care outcomes begin to attract more intensive scrutiny, it is certain that maternity units will have to justify both the quality of service provided and the number of staff employed to provide it. What is needed is a robust planning system such as Birthrate Plus that matches staffing and workloads to ensure that if more midwives are needed, the case for them is convincingly made to trust boards, health authorities and government.
However, we cannot examine the current state of maternity services without taking a hard look at what has happened in obstetrics. Some five years ago it was recognised that the number of consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists was too few in relation to the total number of senior house officers, registrars and non-consultant doctors. What the NHS had was a service that was consultant led, at least nominally, but which, in practice, depended far too heavily on non-specialist medical staff. What it needed was a service that benefited more directly from the professional input of the consultants themselves; in other words, more consultants actually on the labour wards.

737
The introduction of the Calman training programmes was intended to remedy this by ushering in a more structured, less disjointed and foreshortened training scheme for obstetricians and gynaecologists. The hurdle of progressing from registrar to senior registrar was removed and a new grade of specialist registrar was created. Because the training programme was to be condensed, more trainees would be completing their training in a shorter period of time than they would otherwise have done. It was therefore agreed that the numbers of specialist registrars should increase at a rate of 6 per cent year on year until the planned total of approximately 2,000 consultants had been reached. The process of gradual expansion was programmed to take place over a period of about 15 years.
In the event, the increase in consultant posts over the past five years has fallen considerably short of the planned rate of 6 per cent. The result is that we can now look forward to large numbers of trainees completing their training in 2000 to 2003 with no consultant jobs to which to go. For some, this is already a reality. At the moment, there are some 128 individuals who have completed their specialist training and who are not employed as consultants. Most of these, if they are unable to find work abroad, face imminent unemployment. However, over the next four years the position will become even worse with three times the current number likely to find no consultant posts available to them.
That is serious enough for the individuals involved, but it is even more serious for the NHS. The direct consequence of the failure to create enough consultant posts is that the number of trainee obstetric posts is now being dramatically cut back in step with this. Simultaneously, the money which would have funded the planned number of trainees is being siphoned off into other specialties. We are fast being drawn into a vicious spiral in which standards will be compromised and the individual who will suffer most is the patient. If both consultants and trainees are being cut back, who will there be to provide the necessary service? The answer is that midwives and gynaecological nursing staff will have to bear the brunt of it—the very thing that in their current depleted state we should not be asking them to do. The case for expansion in consultant numbers and for increasing labour ward cover for consultants is as strong as it ever was. But where is that expansion to come from if the Government refuse to facilitate it?
Dr Ian Bogle, chairman of the BMA, has said:
"The frightening thing is that the government thinks it has a good workforce plan when in fact it is shambolic. These doctors have been betrayed and deceived".
I must urge the Government to address these issues as a priority. The Minister ought now to say whether the Government and the NHS executive are committed to a long-term expansion of consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. If they are, a useful start would be to introduce an element of central direction to NHS trusts to ensure that something approaching the planned rate of consultant expansion can be
738
reinstated. The money that is being siphoned off from disestablished obstetric and gynaecological posts should be retained by postgraduate deans to fund a sensible level of recruitment into those disciplines. Does the Minister agree that these things are both logical and desirable?
If we needed any convincing as to the importance of maintaining standards in obstetrics and gynaecology, we need only look, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, emphasised, at the two most recent annual reports of CESDI—the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. In 1995, 453 babies died as a result of asphyxia or trauma suffered during labour or delivery where care was suboptimal and where different care would reasonably be expected to have made a difference to the outcome. That number represents, as the noble Lord said, just over half of infant deaths occurring during childbirth. I do not draw any inferences whatever from that statistic in terms of the total numbers of consultants or midwives practising nationally. What it does raise is a number of far-reaching issues related to the training, supervision and practice of skills of professionals—in all grades—looking after women in labour and newly born babies. That is not just my conclusion; it was a key part of the recommendations made by CESDI itself. Painful as it is, we need to remember that more than 40 per cent of all litigation costs incurred by the NHS relate to obstetrics and gynaecology. In terms of patient safety and all that flows from it, we simply cannot afford to short-change those who rely on this vital area of our health service.
10.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, this has been an important and instructive debate and I certainly intend to reflect on the points raised by noble Lords. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on securing the debate. It is a particular pleasure for me to respond to her Unstarred Question. I worked happily with her when she was chair of the National Association of Health Authorities. She went on to greater things as a regional chair and then a Minister. As other noble Lords have said, her leadership and commitment have led the way, along with many other people, to bringing about real and lasting change to maternity services over the past decade. All Members of the House will be indebted to her for her contribution. I know that she intends to continue championing this area in the new millennium and certainly intends to keep me on my toes.
Although the noble Baroness expressed concern about where maternity services stand at the moment, it is my contention that as a result of her work and the work of many other dedicated people huge advances have been made over the past decade. I believe that the experience of women during pregnancy and childbirth has radically improved. As the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, suggested, the Audit Commission report, which reflected the views of many women,

739
underpins that view. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, deserves enormous credit for everything she has done in that area.
The noble Baroness went on to ask what priority the Government give to maternity services. I want to assure her that we are fully committed to the principle of high quality, women-centred maternity care that offers greater choice, continuity of care and control to women. The ethos of putting women at the centre of maternity service planning is now firmly embedded in mainstream practice. I also believe that further improvements in maternity services can be made and are being made from the wider government initiatives that we are taking to modernise the National Health Service, improve public health and strengthen family life.
The noble Baroness asked me to say where I would place maternity services in the list of priorities. She asked whether they are number three or number 44. I shall not fall into that trap. The noble Baroness knows as well as I do the dangers of priority setting in the National Health Service; one may veer from picking two or three particular issues and focusing on those to setting 59 different priorities. In that case the messages to the service are mixed and the conclusion is that nothing is a priority.
I would look at the situation in the following way: maternity services, as I have stated, are a clear priority. The NHS is not in any doubt as to the philosophy and framework in which those services need to be developed. In the light of the commitment that I have given on our underscoring and supporting the principles of high quality, women-centred maternity care, I hope that the noble Baroness will take from this debate an understanding that we remain firmly committed to high quality maternity care services.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked about the national service framework. There are of course many claims on the national service framework process. It would be wrong for us to hold out hope that there could be an NSF in relation to maternity services. Those matters must be considered from time to time against many bids and pressures put forward. If one looks at the areas where we have started to develop NSFs, the priority must be in those areas where there is a lack of policy and consistency within the health service. The position in regard to maternity services is much better in terms of the philosophy, based on Changing Childbirth, and actually in practice, than many other services. While I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would wish to see a national service framework, and while we shall consider that suggestion along with many others, I cannot hold out much hope to him.
I turn to the issue of caesarean section rates which we debated in this House only a few weeks ago. We are determined to tack] e areas of practice where there is a lack of clarity about appropriate standards, as is the case with caesarean section rates. We are aware of the concern expressed over the variation in rates between different maternity units. I assure the House that we have an active programme of work in hand to address
740
that issue and the rise in caesarean section rates overall. I do not need to repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, as to the reasons for that increase. The reasons are complex: they include technical advances; the fact that women are leaving motherhood until later; the risk of intervention increasing with age; and the increasing demands that women themselves are making, being more aware of the available options. On that point, I should say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that the decision about whether to perform a caesarean section should be based on clinical need. We agree with the words of the international committee that she mentioned.
Noble Lords are probably aware that the World Health Organisation does not make specific recommendations about the rates of caesarean delivery, which it has concluded will inevitably vary from place to place. They will reflect the health and nutritional status of pregnant women and the level of maternity care provision. However, the Department of Health has an active programme of action in hand in line with WHO's view that countries with caesarean section rates over 15 per cent and under 5 per cent should consider the possibility of whether the intervention is either over-used or under-used. That is why—as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggested—we have commissioned a national audit study of caesarean section rates from both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives, which will then set standards in an area where they are badly needed. We shall be looking carefully to see what lessons can be learned from the audit and to ensure that the results can be used in best clinical practice in the future. I understand the noble Baroness's impatience regarding when the results of that audit study will come to hand. The audit will start in May this year. We expect that it will cover every NHS trust and that the results will be available early next year.
In the meantime, we have taken steps to strengthen local audit processes by publishing for the first time figures for caesarean section rates by individual NHS trusts. I understand that the publication of those rates has at the very least started the process of trusts considering how they stand in comparison with other trusts, and has led them to start to question whether they have in operation the correct policy and clinical practices. As I believe the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, that will, of course, be underpinned by the whole process of clinical governance which, in itself, should be leading to the process of evaluating those figures and the caesarean rates in operation in individual NHS trusts.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the position of electronic foetal monitoring. The department has commissioned the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to produce evidence-based clinical guidelines on the use and interpretation of electronic foetal monitoring. The main aims of the guidelines will be to ensure that technology is used appropriately in clinical practice and that those using it are competent in their

741
interpretation. I hope and, indeed, wish to see that that should result in a reduction in some unnecessary caesarean and instrumental deliveries.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked about the 40-hour recommendation. My understanding is that that is in the process of being implemented and is something which we very much support.
As the structure of the NHS changes, we must consider the impact of those changes. A number of noble Lords raised the question of primary care groups and the impact of primary care groups on the commissioning of maternity services. Of course, primary care groups have the ability to shape and commission the services that they consider appropriate for their patients and for the community they serve. However, commissioning decisions by those primary care groups should be made in agreement with all the local partners involved, based upon a shared vision contained in the local health improvement programme. I regard the role of the local health authority, in partnership with the primary care group, as being extremely important in ensuring that those commissioning decisions are consistent with the overall policies which we wish to see developed in the National Health Service. In addition, I understand that there are 16 midwives who are serving on the boards of primary care groups. On those groups where a midwife is not a member of the board, there are arrangements for the midwifery voice to be heard. Again, that is something which I very much wish to support.
The noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, asked a number of questions in relation to the position of midwives. First, he asked about the continuation of the statutory supervision of midwives. We are committed to the continuation of that position. We believe that it is a valued and valuable system and one which we see as being an integral part of clinical governance in the future.
The noble Lord asked also about the recognition of midwives as distinct from nurses. We expect that the new regulatory arrangements in relation to nurses and midwives will make it possible to take a mature and collaborative approach to that issue in ensuring that midwives play a full and active role in the new arrangements for self-regulation.
I turn to the matter of midwives. A number of noble Lords raised questions in relation to morale, shortages and the overall position and contribution which midwives make. We are all agreed that we owe much to the midwives in this country and to the enormous contribution which they make and the hard work that they do in so many settings.
In relation to recruitment issues, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, quoted back to me the statistics which I gave in December. I confirm that the position is that 2 per cent of midwifery posts have been vacant for three months or more. But we are not complacent about that. I take the point that 2 per cent can hide greater shortages in some trusts. Our aim is to work closely with trusts facing particular issues and pressures.
742
There are some positive signs. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, chided me about the morale of midwives. I say to him gently that nothing was more damaging to that morale than the staging of pay awards introduced by the government of whom he was a member. One of the most important decisions which this Government made when the pay review body recommendations were put forward last year was not to stage the awards.
There are other positive signs. Applications for midwifery training have risen by 50 per cent, so there are far more midwifery students now coming out of training as a result of the expansion which this Government have funded over the past two years. Again, I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that between 1992 and 1995 the number of nursing and midwifery training places was cut back by as much as 28 per cent. That has had a fundamental effect on some of the issues we have been facing in relation to nurses and midwives.
The future looks brighter. This year there are almost 19,000 nursing and midwifery training places available—4,000 more than three years ago. The noble Earl will know that more than 5,000 nurses and midwives are either returning or planning to return to work in the future.
I shall not respond in detail to the issues raised in relation to consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology. Of course we are aware of the problems. I listened carefully to the points raised. We have the benefit of a working group set up with the Royal Colleges, the BMA and others which made recommendations some time ago. We have held a series of regional workshops involving NHS managers and the relevant professions to explore how we can improve the staffing position in that specialty area.
I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that cooperation rather than direction is the key to good workforce planning. One of the great problems in workforce planning over many years in the health service has been that far too often in the past decisions were made by great and good committees at the centre without being relevant to needs in the field.
The new workforce planning arrangements, parts of which were put in place by the noble Earl's government, are starting to pull together the interests of local managers and those concerned at a national level in medical workforce planning. I believe that we are moving to much more sensible arrangements. But it takes time.
I was extremely interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, who gave us an interesting insight into the experiences of her trust. I was really impressed by the figure of 8 per cent for home confinements. Her trust is to be congratulated.
She gave us a flavour of some of the challenges which NHS trusts face. I do not run away from the fact that they do face challenges and pressures in deciding where to spend their money and where their priorities should be. But such decisions must be taken in the context of the overall increase in resources which this Government have and will continue to put in to the National Health Service.

743
I turn to the issue of home births. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made some helpful remarks. As I understand it, although the NHS has a legal duty to provide a maternity service, there is not a similar legal duty to provide a home birth service to every woman who requests one. However, I certainly hope that when a woman wants a home birth, and it is clinically appropriate, the NHS will do all it can to support that woman in her choice of a home birth.
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised about the Sure Start programme, which I believe is an important aspect of any maternity service, it is to provide £452 million over three years to give support to the children of families most in need. From a maternity service perspective Sure Start will integrate and build on existing antenatal and postnatal
744
provision. Specific targets have already been identified in relation to caring for mothers with postnatal depression. We are working closely with the Sure Start unit to identify examples of good practice so that we can learn lessons.
In the short time available—I realise I have overshot my time quite considerably—I hope I have assured noble Lords that we are anxious to ensure that we continue to improve and develop good quality women-centred maternity services in this country.
I have listened to all the contributions tonight in this extremely interesting and informed debate and I assure noble Lords that I shall reflect seriously on many of the constructive points put forward.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.

  Zimbabwe: Human Rights
  Zimbabwe: Human Rights
  Wassenaar Arrangement: 1999 Assessment
  Wassenaar Arrangement: 1999 Assessment
  Yugoslavia: Television Broadcast Equipment Export Controls
  Yugoslavia: Television Broadcast Equipment Export Controls
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960
  The European Union and UK Jobs
  The European Union and UK Jobs
  Political Staff, 10 Downing Street
  Political Staff, 10 Downing Street
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
  The Prime Minister
  The Prime Minister
  10 Downing Street: Expenditure Scrutiny
  10 Downing Street: Expenditure Scrutiny
  Nuclear Safety: Departmental Responsibilities
  Nuclear Safety: Departmental Responsibilities
  10 Downing Street: Constitutional Role
  10 Downing Street: Constitutional Role
  House of Lords Membership
  House of Lords Membership
  Armed Forces and Homosexuals
  Armed Forces and Homosexuals
  Infant Formula Regulations: Contraventions
  Infant Formula Regulations: Contraventions
  Softwood Thinnings: Forest Enterprise Sales
  Softwood Thinnings: Forest Enterprise Sales
  Pet Travel Scheme
  Pet Travel Scheme
  Agriculture Council, 14 and 15 December
  Agriculture Council, 14 and 15 December
  Fisheries Council, 16 and 17 December
  Fisheries Council, 16 and 17 December