Sitting of 19 January 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords].
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Objective 1
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on additionality and match funding in connection with objective 1 European structural funds; and if he will make a statement. [103487]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including objective 1. The provision of match funding will continue to be the responsibility of the grant applicant. That ensures local ownership and commitment to the projects. Additionality of European structural funds support is measured at the level of the member state, as set out in the structural funds regulations.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he, however, take this opportunity to assure all potential investors in objective 1 schemes in Wales whose projects are on hold because of the Government's lack of commitment to provide full match funding, in order that the projects can progress and the best be made of the funding?
    Mr. Murphy: I have made the Government's position very clear in the House and to the hon. Gentleman on numerous occasions: the spending review that has begun will address the issue between now and July. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear his commitment to the success of the scheme. I remind the House that it was my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who obtained objective 1 status for Wales in the first place. Anyone would think that the Opposition parties had gone to Berlin themselves and won the deal. They did not do that. The Conservatives never tried for objective 1 status
    828
    and the nationalists never thought that we would do it. Now, between them, they are using the success of our negotiations cynically to bring down the Assembly and wreck the devolution settlement.
    Sir Raymond Powell: I agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said to Opposition Members. Everything that we are trying to achieve on objective 1 is in support of what we promised in the general election and in the Welsh Assembly elections. I am sure that he will give sympathetic consideration to a development at the Bridgend paper mills in Llangynwyd. It deserves consideration, especially because of the high unemployment rate in my constituency. I am sure that he will look favourably at the application.
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is aware that these matters are not for the United Kingdom Government but for the National Assembly, but I am aware of the problems to which he refers. I am a valley Member myself, and I understand the importance of the factory to his constituency. He may rest assured that I will raise the matter when next I have discussions with the First Secretary.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Secretary of State admit that, in the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), it is as plain as a pikestaff that there will be no additional funding from the Treasury to bring down objective 1 funding for Wales? Does not that mean that the Assembly's health and education budgets will be raided to provide the matching funds? How does he intend to overcome that problem?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman must know something that I do not. I spend a great deal of my time—I shall do so later today and during the rest of the week—discussing with my Cabinet colleagues and other Ministers precisely the nature of the spending review and how much money will be involved for objective 1. We have to go through that spending process, as he knows. That is the way of government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our general commitment, which I repeat, but it will take between now and July for us to sort out the detail of the negotiations.
    As I said, it was a Labour Government who obtained the funds for Wales and it is a great disservice to the people of Wales for Opposition Members to do nothing but criticise and whinge when they have not lifted a finger to secure those funds.
    Mr. Barry Jones: My constituency would be happy to accept objective 1 or objective 2 status, surrounded as we are by objective 1 both to the west and to the English east. When my right hon. Friend sees the First Secretary or travels to Brussels, will he say that we would expect at the very least a £25 million grant for the A3XX project, because if we do not get that, we in north-east Wales will not look kindly on the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff?
    Mr. Murphy: I am aware that my right hon. Friend has spent a great deal of time and energy in the past month putting the case for that project very forcefully and robustly. He knows that because I have been with him in

    829
    his constituency to look at the project. He may rest assured that I will raise the matter once again when I see the First Secretary next week.
    Mr. Robert Walter: I am not whingeing, as the Secretary of State suggested, but the House and the people of Wales need some clear answers on this subject. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is no money in his allocation to provide any match funding for 2000–01 or 2001–02 and that, if any money were forthcoming, it would have to fall within the departmental expenditure limit? I remind him of his answer to me on 10 November 1999, Official Report column 621W, when he said that the departmental expenditure limit was not being changed as a result of the negotiation of objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys. That means that any allocations would have to be taken from education, health or roads in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has no confidence in the Labour Administration. The people of Wales do not believe the Prime Minister when he says that he will not let Wales down.
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his figures in that the allocations for the National Assembly for Wales and for my office are different. Obviously, it is for the Assembly to determine what happens in the first year of objective 1 funding. I am assured by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary that such moneys are there for the first year of that funding. As to after that, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government normally fund all their projects through the spending review. The Chief Secretary has told me and other colleagues that the Treasury accepts the fact that objective 1 funding and the relationship between the block grant is different from previous years and that that will be dealt with in the forthcoming spending review.

    Cardiff International Airport
    Mr. John Smith: When he next plans to meet the First Secretary to discuss the role of Cardiff international airport in the future economic development of the region. [103488]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues including transport and its impact on the future economic development of Wales. This includes the non-devolved subject of airports—a matter reserved to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The First Secretary has not requested a meeting specifically to discuss Cardiff international airport, but access, and transport generally, are issues considered in the Assembly's economic development plans.
    Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that the success and regeneration of the Welsh economy with objective 1 support will depend on access to an international airport providing regular, scheduled business flights. He may not be aware that Cardiff international airport may not develop to its full potential and provide such a service to business if it does not get a dual highway to link it to the motorway network. When he next meets the First Secretary, will he bring that
    830
    urgent matter to his attention? If he does so, he will have the backing of nearly the entire south Wales business community.
    Mr. Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that issue. As the local Member of Parliament, he is very much aware of the significance of Cardiff airport to the Welsh economy. It is one of the United Kingdom's fastest growing airports and has the longest runway west of Heathrow and south of Manchester. On the matter that he raised, I am pleased to tell the House that the Assembly and the Vale of Glamorgan local authority are considering a link between Culverhouse Cross and the airport and have already spent about £300,000 on the design and preparation work for such a road.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware that the economic regeneration of the catchment area that is served by the airport, and indeed the well-being of the airport itself, will depend on sorting out the mess that has arisen between the Department of Trade and Industry and the European Commission in Brussels about regional assistance. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that we do not lose any companies in Wales—in that area or any other part of Wales—as a result of the fact that we are without the regional assistance that we should have had in place from 1 January? When does he expect that assistance to be in place?
    Mr. Murphy: First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House. We are aware that he is on the mend and I hope that he improves even more. Obviously, we are aware of the difficulties regarding the matter that he raises. It has been discussed in Brussels. In the meantime, I understand that the National Assembly for Wales has prepared provisional arrangements so that when companies apply for such grants they will be given conditional assistance. Obviously, I share his view that we need to sort the matter out as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: When my right hon. Friend is discussing airports, would he not forget the special contribution that is made by the smaller airports, such as Pembrey airport in my constituency—which will soon start regular flights to and from London—to the economic regeneration of Wales and, in my constituency, in south Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Assembly has embarked on a study of air services generally in Wales, and I am sure that that will include the airport at Pembrey. The study was commissioned by the former Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I hope that it will be published in March.

    Transport
    Mr. Donald Anderson: If he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on transport in Wales. [103489]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend has discussed the impact on transport in Wales with the First Secretary and with the Assembly Cabinet. Both myself and my right hon. Friend addressed a plenary Session of the Assembly in the context of the Government's legislative programme, and we listened to the Assembly's views on a range of issues, including the impact on transport. I also meet regularly with the Assembly Secretary for Local Government, Environment and Transport and have discussed the Transport Bill with him.
    Mr. Anderson: Is not one of the major co-operative achievements on transport between the Labour Government and the Labour leadership in the Assembly the fact that we have half-price concessionary fares on the buses for our pensioners in Wales, and will shortly have free buses for pensioners, under the Assembly? By chance, does my hon. Friend have to hand the number of pensioners in Swansea and Ceredigion who will benefit?
    Mr. Hanson: I can confirm that British Government resources used by the Assembly will ensure that, in Wales from April 2002, all pensioners will receive free bus transport. By chance, I happen to have the numbers who will benefit in all constituencies in Wales. My hon. Friend mentioned Swansea and Ceredigion in particular, and I can tell him that more than 36,000 pensioners in Swansea city and 14,500 in Ceredigion will receive free bus transport. I hope that they will recognise that shortly in Swansea, Ceredigion and elsewhere in Wales.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is not it time that we had a common-sense approach for the car user in Wales, including Ceredigion? In 1997, petrol prices were about 59p a litre. Now, they are about 75p a litre. Thanks to the Government, taxes on the car user have gone up by 13p a litre. What representations is the Minister making to the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the mugging of the rural motorist, which hits the pensioner, the student and the farmer alike? When will the Government recognise that the car in rural areas is a necessity, not a luxury? When will the Government stop caning the countryside?
    Mr. Hanson: You will tell me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, but I do believe that it was the Conservative party who introduced the fuel escalator, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has agreed to review and will decide upon, year on year, in each Budget. In Wales, £179 million is being spent on transport infrastructure—far more than was spent by the Conservative Government. We value the motorist, and we value the need for rural areas to have strong motoring economies. However, at the end of the day, we must face transport problems generally for rural and city users. The hon. Gentleman should not come to this House today to talk about the fuel escalator when the Conservative Government introduced it.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency suffers from probably the worst road congestion in Wales? The railways should alleviate that, but the valleys line suffers from under-capacity because there is insufficient incentive to put down track to carry passengers. Cardiff Central railway station suffers from under-capacity, and is unable to meet
    832
    the demands from the nearby Millennium stadium when 60,000 people flow out and congest its platforms. What plans do the Government have to address that under-capacity problem on our railways?
    Mr. Hanson: I fully concur with the views of my hon. Friend. The Transport Bill will introduce a Strategic Rail Authority, and Wales will have a representative on that authority who will be able to argue strongly for the Welsh perspective in the interests of improving the infrastructure of the rail system in Wales. My hon. Friend has mentioned issues that are important to the valleys and to Cardiff, and I hope that we as the British Government will work in partnership with the Assembly to ensure that we improve rail transport for the needs of both communities.

    Special Advisers
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will list the responsibilities of the special advisers to the Wales Office. [103490]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Wales Office has two special advisers, Professor Hywel Francis and Mr. Adrian McMenamin, both of whom assist me across the whole range of my responsibilities. Professor Francis is primarily based in Cardiff and mainly liaises with the National Assembly, and Mr. McMenamin is primarily based in London and liaises with other UK Government Departments.
    Dr. Lewis: Given that the two special advisers seem rather underwhelmed with work at the moment, may I make a helpful suggestion? Does the Secretary of State realise of his two predecessors—both of whom remain Members of Parliament—that as of the new year, out of 73 Divisions of the House, one had voted only once and the other had not voted at all? As a gesture of kindness, could not he offer them the services of his special advisers to dream up some excuses for that appalling voting record?
    Mr. Murphy: I am not sure how that question relates to the role of special advisers in the Wales Office. My advisers have plenty of work to do, if only to address all the issues that hon. Members have raised today.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with his special advisers the lack of public accountability of quangos in Wales such as the Arts Council of Wales and Forest Enterprise Wales? Does he agree that the decision by Forest Enterprise Wales not to sell Chepstow Park wood will be greatly welcomed in my constituency, and that the decision by the Arts Council of Wales to suspend its flawed drama strategy will be equally welcomed?
    Mr. Murphy: I am not sure whether my two special advisers can take credit for both those decisions, but I, too, welcome them. I said to him at the previous Question Time that there would be a satisfactory outcome as far as the Forestry Commission was concerned, and that has been the case. I am also delighted that the Gwent and other theatre companies have been saved.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What are the special advisers doing, because post offices in Wales are under

    833
    threat; farmers in Wales face the worst crisis in 60 years and some of them are surviving on incomes of only £2,000 a year; when objective 1 match funding is uncertain and even a former Labour Secretary of State for Wales has criticised its handling; and when intensive care patients are being treated in recovery rooms? Is not it time that the Secretary of State retired his special advisers and invested the money saved in services that would benefit all the people of Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: Again, the hon. Gentleman gives my advisers more powers than they have and certainly more money than they are paid would be needed to solve the problems to which he refers. On one specific issue he mentioned, my predecessor is fully aware that the negotiation to obtain objective 1 moneys is a process, not an event.

    Aerospace Projects
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What discussions he has had about the provision of financial assistance for the A400M and A3XX projects. [103491]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues that are clearly matters of great economic importance to the UK as a whole, and to Wales in particular. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed those issues with my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, Mr. David Roe Beddoe. He also visited the British Aerospace site at Broughton in September and received a deputation from the company to discuss the Airbus project, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside.
    Mr. Hoyle: Obviously, I share the concerns about the future of the aerospace industry. Many jobs in north Wales and Lancashire are dependent on the next two projects—the A3XX and the A400M. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the case for Wales and Lancashire is put strongly, and will he recognise that the C 17s do not bring any jobs to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes some relevant points, and I recognise the importance of financial support for the A400M and the A3XX projects. Some 4,000 jobs at the Broughton site in north Wales depend on the projects, and there is the potential there for 1,400 additional new jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in contact with the Welsh Assembly and the Department of Trade and Industry on these important matters, and we shall certainly battle in Government on behalf of Wales' interests.

    Law and Order
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What reports he has commissioned for 2000 on law and order issues in Wales. [103492]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have not commissioned any such reports. Law and order in England and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I discuss these issues with other Ministers on a regular basis.
    Mr. Hughes: Will Ministers in the Wales Office talk to their Home Office colleagues about two important law and order matters in Wales? The crime figures published yesterday for north and south Wales and for Dyfed-Powys were very good, although those for Gwent were less good. The two police forces in England and Wales with the highest rates of violent crimes as a proportion of all crimes are Dyfed-Powys and Gwent. In both of them, more than one crime in five is a violent crime—way above anywhere else in England and Wales.
    Will the Minister work urgently for something to be done to discern the cause of so much violent crime in Dyfed-Powys and Gwent? Is it not possible that alcohol may contribute to the problem? If so, should not those matters be tackled as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Hanson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, although yesterday's figures show that overall crime rates fell in three out of the four Welsh police authorities, which is good news for Wales. Clear-up rates in Dyfed-Powys and Gwent are relatively high, compared with other police authorities. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised some serious issues, and I assure him that the Government are committed to tackling violent crime. I shall discuss the matter with colleagues when the opportunity arises.
    Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend knows that it is three years since the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in north Wales was commissioned. There is considerable concern at the long delay in publication of the report, especially among my constituents, some of whom were directly involved in that child abuse. They are now adults and they want to know when the report will be published. Will my hon. Friend give some indication of when that will happen?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend raises an important issue in which I take great interest, both as a Member of Parliament representing a north Wales constituency, and as a Wales Office Minister. The report has been received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is currently being prepared for publication, and the summary of the report is being translated into Welsh. I anticipate that we will be able to publish the report as soon as that work is complete, and I look forward to that happening soon.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Who is to blame for the rising crime in Wales—the Labour Government in London, or the Labour regime in Cardiff?
    Mr. Hanson: The figures published yesterday showed that crime fell in three of the four police authorities in Wales. The Government have put extra resources into those authorities, with the result that Wales now has more police officers in post and on the beat than when the previous Conservative Government left office. The record

    835
    of this Government is that there are more police officers, and that crime has fallen in three out of the four authorities in Wales.

    Block Grant
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What arrangement has been put in place for the regular review of the block grant for the Welsh Executive. [103493]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Welsh block is determined within the framework of public expenditure control in the United Kingdom, and is normally assessed during the regular reviews of the Government's spending plans. The next spending review is taking place this year and continues the three-year planning cycle established in the comprehensive spending review.
    These arrangements are detailed in the document "A Statement of Funding Policy", published by the Treasury on 31 March 1999.
    Mr. Bruce: I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to boast that Wales already gets more than its fair share of central Government expenditure, and that it has done very well out of regional assistance. Does he agree that to give extra money to the Welsh Assembly for match funding would be wholly unfair to the UK taxpayer?
    Mr. Murphy: First, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Wales gets only its fair share of public expenditure. The system to which he refers has served Wales well for two decades. Any money going to Wales under objective 1 funding is a result of the fact that Wales qualifies, in terms of deprivation, for objective 1 status.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [103517] Mr. David Crausby: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 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 such meetings later today.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not the case that nurses, midwives and national health service staff thoroughly deserve their pay rise for the way in which they have kept the NHS going, not only in the face of the flu epidemic, but in the face of a generation of Tory neglect? On future health funding, can my right hon. Friend confirm that private medical insurance for a pensioner couple costs up to £87 a week? Does that not show that Tory policy on privatisation is totally out of touch with the needs of the majority of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The additional pay award will help recruit and retain nurses in the health service. Indeed,
    836
    there has been a 24 per cent. increase in the number of nurses starting training as a result of the increase last year. There is a very clear choice. Conservative policy is to ensure that there is tax relief for private medical insurance. The cost of providing such tax relief for those who already have private medical insurance would be enough to wipe out the entire nurses' pay award for this year, plus cancelling every refurbishment of every accident and emergency department in this country. The Conservatives are doing that because of their so-called tax guarantee. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said this of it:
    "to say that you are going to reduce the proportion of taxes to GDP in all circumstances is mad … You simply don't unless you make … swingeing cuts in the health service".
    That is the Conservative policy.
    Mr. William Hague: With crime rising for the first time in six years—violent crime is up 6 per cent., robbery by 19 per cent., and total crime by more than 110,000 offences—has not the Prime Minister's failure to be tough on crime now become one of the causes of crime? Is it not the case that thousands of victims of crime have discovered that the right hon. Gentleman's pledge to be tough on crime was empty, worthless and fraudulent?
    The Prime Minister: It did not take the right hon. Gentleman long to move off the subject of the health service.
    Since the election, recorded crime has fallen by 7 per cent. It is correct, particularly in respect of the rise in the West Midlands and Metropolitan police force figures, that the recent figures show a 2 per cent. increase. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the Government of whom he was a Member, crime doubled.
    Mr. Hague: When the right hon. Gentleman took office, crime had fallen—was falling—and the number of police officers was up by 16,000. Now police numbers have fallen by more than 1,000 under the Home Secretary, stop-and-search powers have not been used, honesty in sentencing has been dropped, police morale has plummeted and crime is rising after six years of falling. Who does the right hon. Gentleman think is responsible for the rise in crime, the fall in police numbers and low police morale in the past year?
    The Prime Minister: Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman. Crime did not fall under the Conservatives—it doubled. As a matter of fact, domestic burglaries have fallen by 20 per cent. and the theft of vehicles has fallen by 17 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are not introducing any tougher measures on crime. It is this Government who have introduced tougher measures for drug dealers; it is this Government who are halving the time that it takes to get juvenile offenders to court; and it is this Government who have introduced the policy of "three strikes and you're out" for burglary.
    Mr. Hague: Yesterday, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation said that the Home Secretary
    "has presided over the largest fall in police numbers for years, a huge rise in crime and the most demoralised force".

    837
    The police know who to blame, and they know that the Prime Minister's pledge to be tough on crime has turned out to be a worthless aspiration.
    As the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about pledges, will he tell us whether, when he said that he would increase health spending by 5 per cent. in real terms for five years, that was an absolute pledge or an aspiration?
    The Prime Minister: Let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman on crime. As I admitted a couple of Question Times ago, it is correct that police numbers continued to fall during our first two years, because we had inherited proposals that were made by the Conservatives. It is also correct that police numbers fell during the last few years of the Conservative Government by more than during our first two years. However, as a result of the fund introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we can now recruit more police officers and turn that around.
    In relation to health, I stand entirely by what I said on "Breakfast with Frost".
    Mr. Hague: Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is on the Front Bench next to the Prime Minister, said:
    "We shall ensure that, over five years, there is a 5 per cent. real-terms funding growth in the national health service."—[Official Report, 18 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 744.]
    That is a clear pledge.
    Yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesman said:
    "I can't say there will be a 5 per cent. increase this year, next year, and so on."
    Those are utterly incompatible statements. Which one represents Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: Let me read what I said on the Sunday programme:
    "If we run the economy properly over the next few years"—
    Hon. Members: If!
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am not deaf; I can hear what is being said.
    The Prime Minister: I said:
    "we've got the first year … of substantial extra resources for the Health Service going in. Next year is the same, the year after that it's the same. If this July when we work out the next three year period after that three year period we can carry on getting real-term rises in the Health Service"
    we will come up to the European Union average.
    I am entirely confident that we will get those 5 per cent. real-terms rises, because that is what we have achieved in this comprehensive spending review. The choice, therefore, is between the Labour Government, with our 5 per cent. real-terms rises, and a Conservative party, which, because of its tax guarantee, will not commit itself to spending any extra money on the health service. That, of course, is why the Conservatives go for the ludicrous notion that the problems in the health service can be solved by private medical insurance. When the right hon.
    838
    Gentleman gets to his feet, perhaps he will say whether it is indeed his policy to make that private medical insurance compulsory.
    Mr. Hague: Let us have an answer from the Prime Minister, instead of that waffle about what he said. So far, we have had Frost on Sunday, panic on Monday, U-turn on Tuesday and waffle on Wednesday. If there was a pledge, why, yesterday, did the Prime Minister's spokesman say that he could not say that there would be a 5 per cent. increase year on year? That was the Prime Minister's spokesman—he is responsible for his spokesman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No he isn't."] Oh, the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for his spokesman. Not only does he deny responsibility for most things that are happening in the country, he now denies responsibility for his own press spokesman. Is the right hon. Gentleman happy to repeat the statement made in the House last night by his junior Health Minister, who said:
    "We shall ensure that, over five years, there is a 5 per cent. real-terms funding growth in the national health service."
    The Prime Minister: We are putting in a 5 per cent. real-terms growth. We are doing that. As I have said—not only on "Breakfast with Frost", but in the House in December—if we carry on running the economy properly, we can get these real terms rises in. [HON. MEMBERS: "If!"] If the Opposition think that the public will be disappointed, come July and the comprehensive spending review, they will find that they are the ones to be disappointed.
    One of the reasons that we can bring in the real-terms rises is the way in which we have run the economy. There are 700,000 extra jobs. Social security spending on the costs of economic and social failure are falling. The choice is between our pledge to put in those extra resources, which we are doing, and the right hon. Gentleman's pledge that he will force people to go to private medical care for non-urgent operations.
    In The Sunday Times this Sunday, the Conservative health spokesman said that
    "the Conservatives are no longer concerned with the maintenance of the NHS as the primary provider … 'Philosophically, we have moved on … Insurance companies could cover conditions that are not high tech or expensive, like hip or knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations. We could then leave expensive treatments like cancer therapy to the NHS'".
    If that happened, it would cost people over 60—many of whom are watching our proceedings—£60 to £80 a week to take out private medical insurance.
    The reason why the right hon. Gentleman cannot commit himself to match our resources in the health service is the tax guarantee. Perhaps he will finally explain what his policy is. I believe that this is a classic Hagueism—a misjudgment—because he gave the tax guarantee, and now he wants to give a spending guarantee, but the two do not add up.
    Mr. Hague: One might think that the right hon. Gentleman had enough to do misrepresenting his own policies without misrepresenting ours. He knows that we are committed to improve and expand the national health service, but he also knows that every informed commentator and every other Government in Europe

    839
    believes in also improving health care from other sources—except him, with his blinkered ideology and his hostility to the private sector.
    Today, we have seen that what the right hon. Gentleman said on Sunday was not an announcement of money to get the health service through the next five years but a piece of rhetoric to get him through the next five days. Fraud in this country has gone up by 29 per cent. but in his answers it has gone up 129 per cent.
    We now have a country where crime is up, waiting lists are up, the NHS is in crisis and police numbers have fallen. Things are getting worse under Labour. Does not Britain deserve better than that?
    The Prime Minister: Let us just deal with two of the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. The first is that we are not prepared to look at other health care systems. Perhaps, in light of what has been in the media in the past few days, I should explain what happens, for example, under the German or the French system. German employers have to pay about 7 per cent. on top of each worker' s salary for health cover. Each worker has to take about £1,300 out of their pay to fund health insurance. In France, employers pay about 12 per cent. on top of each worker's gross wage. There is no way whatever that private medical insurance could solve the problem in the health service—none.
    The right hon. Gentleman says that we are refusing to co-operate with the private sector. We shall of course co-operate where it is sensible. The private finance initiative in hospital buildings is co-operation with the private sector. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman today that half of NHS residential care—worth £730 million a year—is provided with the private sector. What is a con trick, though, is to tell people, when we need more nurses, doctors and facilities in the national health service, that forcing people who will not be able to afford it to go private will solve the problems of the national health service. It will not.
    Finally, let me deal with how the right hon. Gentleman tries to get out of this, because he has his tax guarantee and his waiting list guarantee or his patient guarantee. A short time ago, he said in the House that he would fund his way out of this problem by making savings because—people will remember this—the costs of Government had risen by more than £1 billion since we came to power. We have had that figure checked. The right hon. Gentleman gets to it in this way.
    First, the right hon. Gentleman deals in cash terms, not real terms. [Interruption.] Well, most people deal in real terms. Secondly, he takes as his starting point the end of the financial year 1997–98. Forgive me, but I thought that we were in power between 1997 and 1998. Taking the true figures, under the present Government the cost of central Government has actually fallen, not risen. So the way the right hon. Gentleman funds his pledges is rubbish. The truth is that, every time he turns his mind to policy, he has zero judgment. His policies are a joke and his party is divided; and that is one reason why this country will never trust the Tories with the health service again.
    Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government have no intention to legislate to allow the promotion of homosexuality in our schools?
    The Prime Minister: We believe, as we have said already, in getting rid of section 28. That is not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Some people may make political capital out of the issue, but I think that it is a sensible change and that it is the right change. I hope that we can get a more mature debate on it than we have had in certain quarters.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Assuming that the Prime Minister and the Government intend to go ahead with the proposed 1 per cent. reduction in income tax in April this year, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much that will cost the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: I also said in the interview that I gave on Sunday that the measure is in part compensation for the other tax changes that are being made. I believe that it is the right thing to do. Yes, we can always put up taxes and spend more, but, as a result of the changes that we have made, we will put this year into the national health service—
    Mr. Kennedy: How much will it cost the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks, "How much?" We will put in a real-terms increase of 6 per cent. That works out both in real and in cash terms as several times the amount that he pledged at the last election.
    Mr. Kennedy: I simply asked the Prime Minister how much it would cost, and answer came there none. It will cost more than £2 billion in April of this year. How many people out there in the country would rather see that money going on local hospitals, solving the problems of the health service, dealing with the operations that have been cancelled and so on and so forth? That is our priority; that is where the money should go. Why is it not the Prime Minister's priority? He should be putting the money towards health and not towards tax cuts.
    The Prime Minister: First, let us deal with the Liberal Democrats' economic policy. As a matter of fact, on the Finance Bill, they have tabled deletions of rises and tax cuts that amount to more than 1p on the standard rate of income tax. If they are going to be consistent, there is no way that their sums add up at all.
    Secondly, the important thing is that we are now able to get into the national health service really big real-terms rises. Why? Because we have run the economy effectively. I make no apologies whatever for allowing people to keep more of their income tax, but I tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I said to him last week, that what the Liberal Democrats cannot do is launch attacks on us because they say that we have raised the tax burden one week, then tell us the next week that we should put it up even further.
    Caroline Flint: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the great steps forward that the Government have made in addressing the issues of child care and family friendly policies. Is he also aware that the

    841
    House is failing to meet the needs of its staff, who desperately need access to child care? As a parliamentarian, will he join me in supporting, in this new century, a chance to modernise this place to ensure that staff have access to child-care facilities for their children?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have more than a passing interest in child care. However, I say to my hon. Friend that this is a matter for the House authorities and it would be wrong for me to say more than that.

    Referendums
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the equalisation of the total sums of public money to be spent on each side of the argument in future referendum campaigns.
    The Prime Minister: The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill received its Second Reading last week and will put into effect the Neill committee recommendations. It provides that up to £600,000 of public money should be made available by the Electoral Commission to designated umbrella organisations on each side of any referendum campaign.
    Dr. Lewis: Given that the Bill allows equal sums of public money to be made available, why is the Prime Minister also putting into the Bill rules that mean that parties that favour the euro will be able to spend much more of the money that they raise than parties that are opposed to British entry into the euro? Could that be because at least 64 per cent. of the British people are opposed to the Prime Minister's policy of abolishing the pound, and he knows that he can only hope to get it through by rigging the rules in that way?
    The Prime Minister: That is nonsense. The two main parties will qualify for the same limit. In any event it could not be said that the no campaign was not well funded; indeed I should have thought that the opposite could be said. The rules are very fair for the no and yes campaigns because the sum of public money given to each side will be precisely the same, and the limit is the same for the main political parties. There is parity of treatment on both sides.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: On the equalisation of moneys for the referendum, is the Prime Minister aware that Yorkshire property developer Mr. Paul Sykes told the Yorkshire Post last year that he is prepared to spend his £235 million fortune campaigning against Europe and the euro? He is already spending £20 million putting up very flattering pictures of me with my name on in my constituency, which my constituents think I have paid for myself, so I thank him for that.
    Is the Prime Minister further aware that the Tories' new isolationist, anti-European business friends are already raising millions of pounds, in addition to the fact that newspapers owned by foreign proprietors campaign day and night against Europe? Will he ensure that when a referendum happens, there is equal play for those of us
    842
    who believe that Britain's future lies in Europe and that we should not join the Tory crusade to isolate Britain from Europe?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, which is why, as I said to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the no campaign is incredibly well funded, and it would be rather odd for anyone to claim that it would be discriminated against in funding.

    Engagements
    Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Prime Minister aware that every independent analyst and the House of Commons Library show that the so-called £21 billion health spending increase is, in real terms, £6.3 billion? If we used the Government's double and treble counting for the Prime Minister's age, on his next birthday he would turn 93 instead of 47, and on the following birthday he would enter the "Guinness Book of Records". In view of the crisis in the health service, perhaps a bit of straight talk and simple truth on those figures is warranted for the British people.
    The Prime Minister: The £21 billion is £21 billion extra. I am sorry to have to point this out, but the one group of people who cannot complain about the amount of money going to the health service is the Conservative party. Let me educate the hon. Gentleman about his own policy. The Conservatives guarantee that they will cut taxes irrespective of the economic circumstances. There is no way that they can implement that policy while increasing spending on the health service. That is why they have never pledged to increase spending on the health service by the amount that we have pledged in this comprehensive spending review. That is no part of their guarantee. If the hon. Gentleman wants extra spending on the NHS, he should take a leaf out of others' book and start crossing the Floor.
    Mr. Phil Hope: After the years of damaging Tory failure and isolation in Europe, does the Prime Minister welcome the publication today of Neil Kinnock's programme of radical action to overhaul the European Commission? If so, will he take a lead among European Union member states to make sure that we back tough action to clean up Europe and bring the Commission into the 21st century?
    The Prime Minister: The programme will make substantial differences to the way in which the Commission is run and to its accountability, transparency and efficiency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry if Conservative Members do not support that, but it is after all what both Governments—this Government and the previous Government—were calling for over many years. Now that it has been delivered, the least that we can do is to acknowledge it.
    Sir Robert Smith: The Prime Minister will know that the continuing crisis in agriculture is hitting all sectors. Specifically, does he want the pig industry—both farming and processing—to survive? To that end, will he back Agriculture Ministers' efforts to remove from the pig

    843
    industry the cost of the BSE crisis? The pig industry faces the cost of regulations relating to a crisis in whose creation it played no part.
    The Prime Minister: I understand the difficulties of the pig industry. The problems, although very bad in some other countries, are especially bad in this country. We shall look and are looking for ways in which to reduce the cost and burden of regulation on the farming industry. However, some of the regulations have been introduced for animal welfare reasons, for example, the regulations on tethering animals, which were passed with cross-party consent in the previous Parliament, although they have been implemented universally only more recently. All those matters have to be seen against a background of real difficulties which are outside our control and have to do with loss of market share. We shall consider every means possible to help the pig industry, but most consumers would not thank us if we reduced animal welfare standards.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend share my distress at the activities of carpetbaggers who deprive building societies of funds that they might otherwise have used to provide resources for affordable housing? Does he agree that borrowing members of building societies are as important as saving members? Does he agree with the Select Committee that urged swift legislation on the matter?
    The Prime Minister: The Government recognise the variety and choice that societies bring to the savings and loans market. On entering office, we acted promptly to increase the turnout threshold on conversion votes from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. Only a society's board can propose conversion, which requires the support of 75 per cent. of saving members on a 50 per cent. turnout, and 50 per cent. of borrowing members who vote. Those are high thresholds, which have been reinforced by our action, but it is right that they are high. The current balance is correct.
    Mr. David Trimble: The Prime Minister will know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is one of the few police forces to have had the honour of being awarded the title "Royal". What precedent is there for removing such an award, and is not its removal regarded as a sign of dishonour? Nothing the Government say or do can dishonour the RUC and the men who have served in it, but they can dishonour and are dishonouring themselves.
    The Prime Minister: There is no dishonour intended to the RUC: its officers have given their lives and shown outstanding bravery for many years. We are trying to ensure that Northern Ireland has a police service that is capable of attracting support from all sides of the community, so that it can police better. For that very reason, the Good Friday agreement provided for an independent commission, which has been headed by a former Northern Ireland Minister in the Conservative Government, to look closely into the issues. I do not want to pre-empt the statement that is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, except to say that our desire in making any changes is not to devalue in any shape or form the enormous contribution made by the RUC, but to ensure that we get a police service in Northern Ireland that can attract people from all communities and enjoy the confidence of people from all communities, because we believe that that is an important part of a better future in Northern Ireland.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the draft regulations on part-time workers published on Monday by the Department of Trade and Industry will be welcomed by the CBI, the TUC and part-time workers—in fact, everyone but the Conservatives, who do not appear to like the fact that the regulations emanate from Europe and that they give workers rights? Will he assure the House that he will consider carefully ways in which the rights to fair pay, holiday entitlement and training opportunities that are offered to part-time workers can be extended to casual workers?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly consider the point that my hon. Friend makes about casual workers. The purpose of the new regulations is to ensure that part-time workers get a proper deal. That is part of ensuring that we have a labour market in which there are certain basic standards in place. The minimum wage is one such standard. The fact that we are introducing proper rights for part-time workers and the fact that people will have for the first time the right to paid holiday entitlement are all basic, decent rights. They are all things that the Conservatives are committed to scrapping. That shows only how entirely out of touch they are.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Patten Report
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's decisions on the report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, known as the Patten report after its chairman, Chris Patten.
Of all the issues that have divided society in Northern Ireland, policing is probably the most controversial. In the past 30 years, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has faced demands completely unlike those faced by any other force in the United Kingdom or, indeed, elsewhere in the developed world. I would like to place on record the Government's deep admiration for the courage, resilience and professionalism with which the RUC has met these challenges. The accounts that I have heard of personal tragedy, pain and loss in the RUC family are profoundly moving and humbling. Three hundred and two officers have been killed, and many thousands injured. We all owe the RUC a huge debt of gratitude. The George Cross is a fitting acknowledgement of its sacrifice.
However, in rising to the challenge, the RUC has inevitably, if unfairly, become identified more with one side of the community than the other. It finds it hard to recruit from the nationalist community and, with 88 per cent. of its members Protestant and only 8 per cent. Catholic, is not representative of all sides of the community. That is not a desirable state of affairs. The RUC itself is forward looking and accepts the need for change. It is eager to police a normal society in a normal, professional way, but it is held back by the burden of history.
The talks which led to the Good Friday agreement addressed but did not resolve these problems. Instead, Chris Patten and his colleagues were asked to design arrangements for
"a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen to be an integral part of, the community as a whole."
The Patten commission rose to this challenge and I pay tribute to it. Its report covers, among other things, composition, training, culture, ethos and symbols. My right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) accepted the report in principle, and launched a period of consultation about the details. Since my own appointment, I have met all the interested parties and police groups—some more than once—and have listened very carefully indeed to what they had to say.
The decisions that I am announcing today will be reflected in legislation which we will bring forward later in the Session. In reaching them, I have been driven by, and have tried to keep in balance, three distinct but interdependent considerations: representativeness, effectiveness, and respect for the sacrifices of the past. I say "interdependent" because only a police service that is accepted and draws members from both traditions and is therefore accepted throughout the community can hope to be fully effective. It is only by recognising the sacrifices of the past that we can move forward together to meet the challenges of the future. I am determined that the police in Northern Ireland should be modern, representative and effective, and no longer the fulcrum of antagonistic debate.
846
However, Patten also points out that the implementation of some recommendations will
"depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops",
and that judgments will need to be made on how and when they should be introduced. That is advice that the Government will, rightly, keep firmly in mind as we take the process forward.
Patten rightly places much emphasis on human rights. The Chief Constable and the new Policing Board together will be made responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive programme of action, including an audit to ensure full compliance with human rights requirements.
We also accept a new police oath as proposed by Patten, which will be taken by all new recruits to the police service. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for already attested officers to take the new oath, which would in any case raise significant legal difficulties. All officers will, however, receive human rights training and will be required to behave in accordance with a code of ethics. That code will be provided for in legislation and will, like the new oath, emphasise the priority to be given to human rights.
The Government accept Patten's recommendation for the creation of a new Policing Board composed, as the report recommends, to replace the current Police Authority. The new Policing Board will be responsible for securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police service and holding the Chief Constable and the police service to account.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the work of the Police Authority over the past 30 years. Many have served with distinction on the authority and were prepared to come forward even when there was a direct terrorist threat against them. Two members of the authority were murdered by terrorists. The contribution of the authority, its members and staff will not be forgotten.
The report recommends clarifying the roles of the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. The broad thrust of the recommendations is that the Policing Board should play a more developed role, setting objectives, priorities and performance targets, while leaving operational control and direction of the police firmly in the Chief Constable's hands.
I entirely agree with the report that the new Policing Board
"should be empowered and equipped to scrutinise the performance of the police effectively".
I therefore accept the recommendations and will introduce legislation accordingly, subject to the Chief Constable continuing to answer to me on all matters involving national security and the work of relevant agencies.
Patten proposed the creation of district policing partnership boards to provide an element of local accountability. He envisaged that they should have a primarily consultative role, with an ability to monitor police delivery against an agreed local plan, and I endorse that. He also proposed an additional community safety role, with powers to purchase services on top of normal policing. The latter activity is currently a subject being considered by the criminal justice review. Until decisions are taken on the review, which will be published shortly, I do not intend to extend their function in that way. It will

847
be better, in any case, to concentrate initially on building up relationships at the local level, in what I propose to call district policing partnerships. I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast, where I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships.
Progress on the style of policing and the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat and the public order situation. There will be no question of rushing forward with changes in the absence of a stable security environment. Subject to that overall proviso, in line with the report, the Chief Constable has decided to re-organise the police service into district commands based on district council areas and geared towards policing in partnership with the community. District commanders will have much higher levels of devolved authority under the overall command of the Chief Constable, who intends this structural reorganisation to be under way by November.
The Chief Constable will also re-organise police headquarters to produce a slimmer structure. Headquarters will, in future, take a more strategic approach to management. Special Branch and CID will be retained and placed under a single Assistant Chief Constable, as the Chief Constable believes is desirable, when the security situation permits.
The Government accept Patten's recommendations on the future size of the police service—a regular complement of 7,500 full-time officers—provided, as the report says, that the security situation does not deteriorate significantly. We accept Patten's recommendation for the enlargement of the part-time Reserve and the discontinuation of the full-time Reserve. Again, that is subject to the security situation.
The severance arrangements to enable serving police officers, whether regular or reservist, to leave the police service will be generous and sympathetic. The Government are committed to finding the necessary resources. Negotiations with the police staff associations are currently in progress. I hope that those discussions will help all sides to agree arrangements that will address officers' understandable concerns about their future.
I attach particular importance to Patten's recommendations for action to transform the composition of the police service. They are essential to gaining widespread acceptability. I endorse the proposal for 50:50 recruitment of Protestants and Catholics, from a pool of candidates, all of whom—I stress this—will have qualified on merit. We propose that the requirement for that special measure should be kept under review on a triennial basis, with rigorous safeguards to ensure that the rightly challenging targets for recruitment do not diminish the standard required of recruits. There will be no question whatever of ex-terrorists joining the service.
Our aim is to develop a police service that is both effective and accepted throughout the community. That aim, as Patten recognises, clearly bears on the name and symbols of the RUC. The issue is not whether the name of the RUC is wrong or something of which people should not be proud. I understand exactly why serving and former officers, their families and, indeed, widows are proud of the RUC and its name. The issue is whether a change in name, underlining a new start, is a necessary and indispensable part of attracting balance in recruits to the new police service.
848
Of course, the name is not the only barrier to recruitment. At times, there has been disgraceful intimidation of nationalists who wished to join the RUC. However, a change of name was, in Patten's view, essential, and I agree.
That change is needed to signal the new beginning, which will be symbolised in particular by the arrival in the new training environment of the first recruits entering through the new independent procedures and selected on the new balanced basis. That point will come in the autumn next year. At that point, too, I will bring into force the new title, which will be the Police Service of Northern Ireland, a name that I believe is preferable to that proposed by Patten.
At the same time, a service badge incorporating this title will be introduced after the new Policing Board has had a chance to address the issue. In that context, the RUC will wish to consider how best permanently to record the award to it of the George Cross last autumn. Existing police memorials will remain as they are, and the colour of the uniform will not change.
The Government also accept Patten's important recommendation for information technology improvements to put the police in Northern Ireland at the forefront of communications and information technology, and for police training. I am also delighted to tell the House that we have accepted the case for a new police college, and appropriate resources will be provided. Those measures are in addition to a range of other forward-looking recommendations on practical policing issues, which, although I will not detain the House by detailing them here, we will also implement.
Finally, Patten recommends the appointment of an oversight commissioner to monitor the implementation of those changes, which have been agreed by the Government. That appointment will not in any way cut across the responsibilities of either the new Policing Board or the Chief Constable, and the accountability that I and my colleagues have to the House on policing issues will not diminish as a result. The oversight commissioner will help to create a first-rate police service for the future.
The implementation of those changes will entail a major and challenging programme of work for the Government, the Chief Constable, the Police Authority and, in due course, the Policing Board, but, most of all, for police officers themselves. This is not an overnight event, but a process of change that will extend over several years. I am confident that the police will meet the challenge of change positively and with commitment.
For those in the Unionist community who have fears, I urge them to accept the need for significant change to create a police service in which all can feel that they belong and with which all can identify. To nationalists who have for so long withheld their support from the police in Northern Ireland, I would ask them to reflect on the transformation that is planned and to reconsider their position. It is now time for them to support this programme of change, unambiguously to support the police and to encourage young men and women from their community to join the police. The prize is a modern, effective police service drawing support and strength from all parts of the community. It is within our grasp. The proposals I have announced today should enable us to achieve it.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: In paying the most handsome tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the

849
RUC Reserve, it must be said that without their courage, even-handed professionalism and terrible sacrifice, the Good Friday agreement and the opportunities in Northern Ireland that have flowed from it would quite simply not exist. They have been the thin green line standing between the maintenance of democracy and a descent into anarchy. Their sacrifice is without equal: 302 officers have been murdered and more than 10,000 maimed or injured. The award of the George Cross is richly deserved.
With that in mind, does the Secretary of State share the widespread dismay that one of the most disappointing and hurtful aspects of the Patten report is its failure to pay proper testimony to the sacrifice and achievements of the RUC? The Patten report is nevertheless a useful basis for what policing could be like if peace were firmly established. The overwhelming majority of its recommendations are non-controversial, have been foreshadowed by the Chief Constable himself and should be implemented quickly, but there are aspects of the statement that we cannot support.
We do not believe that the name of the RUC should go. It is a name of which past and serving officers and their families are justly proud. The evidence used to support change is not convincing. The most recent Police Authority survey shows conclusively that changing the name will cause major offence in the Protestant community and will not lead to significant improvements in support from the Catholic community. The hugely respected Monsignor Denis Faul has argued for retaining the name. The Secretary of State should accept the compromise name recommended by ourselves, the Police Federation and others: the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If it is right to honour the force for seeing us through the past 30 years, surely the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with its proud name intact, has earned the right to be Northern Ireland's police service in what we all hope will be a new era.
The Secretary of State referred to a number of security-sensitive measures. Does he agree that it would be dangerous folly to introduce them before there is a real and lasting peace and substantial decommissioning? Will he assure us that, at a time when the capacity of the main terrorist organisations remains totally undiminished, there will not be substantial cuts in the size and capability of the force, including the abolition of the full-time Reserve?
We of course want greater representation of the Catholic community in the RUC. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the greatest disincentive to Catholic recruitment remains IRA intimidation? Like him, I call on the leaders of the Catholic community to encourage their young men and women to join the police force.
We welcome what the Secretary of State said about the district policing boards, but what guarantees can he give that they and the new Policing Board will not lead to greater politicisation of policing, rather than the removal of politics from it? Will he give me this afternoon an absolute guarantee that the operational independence of the Chief Constable will be fully preserved?
Everyone, including the RUC, recognises that there must be changes. We all share the goal of building a police service that is genuinely representative of the community, routinely unarmed and has no need of flak jackets and armoured vehicles; yet for many people, the
850
process has been all take and no give by the terrorists. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the greatest contribution to dispelling that and to transforming the policing environment in Northern Ireland would be for the terrorists immediately and finally to begin decommissioning their illegally held weapons?
Mr. Mandelson: I say straight away to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly share his views about decommissioning. The Good Friday agreement is not there to be cherry-picked; its parts stand or fall together. It is not acceptable for some parts of it to be implemented and for others to be overlooked or forgotten. Decommissioning, as Sinn Fein itself has acknowledged, is an essential part of the peace process. If it is to be completed by the deadline in the Good Friday agreement of May this year, an early start is absolutely necessary.
On the right hon. Gentleman's overall response, I am glad that he shares our vision and goals for a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. The problem is that, although he shares the ends, he is not prepared to will the means of getting there and of achieving that new beginning for the police service that we all want.
I, as it happens, regret that the Patten commission did not say more about the sacrifices of the RUC. I have said that before, and it remains my view. I understand why it did not, but it is a deficiency in the report, and an unfortunate one.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—I have already said this—that one of the factors, and an important one, in discouraging people from the nationalist community from joining the RUC was straightforward IRA bullying, thuggery and intimidation. However, other important factors are that Catholics and nationalists in Northern Ireland do not identify with the RUC and that the nationalist community does not encourage its young people to join. People from the nationalist community who have thought of joining have feared a loss of family and community support for joining. We have to tackle that problem and make changes to make the police force in Northern Ireland acceptable to the nationalist community as a whole if we are to persuade individuals from that community to come forward and join that force.
I can say quite honestly that in a perfect world I, too, would have kept the name of the RUC. I would have liked it to be maintained. It is a proud name that represents a fine tradition and is rightly honoured by the whole RUC family, but I am afraid that it is not owned by both communities in Northern Ireland. I realise the hurt that is involved in giving up the name, but I equally recognise that the police service will never be entirely accepted unless that change is made, so change there must be.
Mr. John Hume: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. My party will study it in detail. We look forward to working with him and with the other parties to implement the Patten report in full.
This is a time for reflection. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the basis of order in any society is not the police force but agreement on how we are governed. That is the most fundamental principle of democracy. When there is no agreement on how people are governed, no matter where that is, the police force will be seen as on one side or the other.
There have been victims of past failures to reach agreement on how we are governed. That has been the situation in Northern Ireland since it was founded. There

851
have been many victims of that failure, especially in the past 30 years, but now we have a new beginning and a real opportunity to create a lasting basis of peace and order on our streets. For the first time, we have reached an agreement on how we should be governed, and we are already working together to implement it.
The parties must take the opportunity to have meetings with the Secretary of State and talk to everyone who needs to be talked to about implementing the Patten report in full. That will give us a police service that has the loyalty of the entire community and a membership drawn from the entire community, so that when policemen walk the streets in Northern Ireland, no matter what district they are in, they are walking among friends. That would be a real change. It is an enormous challenge to us all, and I hope that we are up to it.
Mr. Mandelson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman said a single word with which I disagree, but I have something to add. When we have studied what I have said, debated the detail, considered exactly how the proposals are to be implemented and all reached the conclusion that a new beginning for policing has indeed been created in Northern Ireland, that will be the time when leaders of the nationalist community, like him—both political and religious leaders—must stand up, speak up and back the police, and call for people from the nationalist community to support the police. He is right to take time to look at the details of what I have said. I hope that in due course, when he has studied them, that call will be forthcoming.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Secretary of State accept the support in large part of my party for the proposals in the Patten report? I brought up the matter recently in Northern Ireland questions, and I am encouraged to see that progress will now be made on the proposals to try to resolve some of the issues that he has just highlighted.
We support some of the specific elements of the report: for example, the very strong emphasis on human rights, including the commitment to uphold human rights in the oath. That gives Northern Ireland a real opportunity to lead the United Kingdom in terms of the attitude and character of the police force.
Will the Secretary of State also accept our support for the concept of district policing, which puts a greater emphasis on community policing? The latter might in turn help to dismantle the power of the military vigilante operations in some parts of Northern Ireland, which lead to the completely unacceptable paramilitary beatings that have been going on for so long.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept our support for the introduction, at long last, of video recording in custody suites? We have criticised the Government for failing to implement that for some time. It is good to see the promise of a generous retirement and severance payment scheme. The details of the scheme will determine whether those eligible will agree to it.
Is the Secretary of State sensitive to the real and genuine concerns felt by many people, not merely in the Chamber but in Northern Ireland, about the change of name and symbols? While I recognise the difficulties and sensitivities that surround the matter, we tend to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that something needs to
852
change. Given the reaction in the Chamber, it is clear to those who would abandon such a closely held and greatly revered name as the Royal Ulster Constabulary that such a change has to be made sensitively. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, while some may try to score party political gain from such statements, those who genuinely represent Northern Ireland constituencies and rightly bring those concerns to the fore here today have the right to be listened to and to participate in the discussions and negotiations that must necessarily take place before those changes are implemented?
I have two further concerns. Will the Secretary of State reassure us by reiterating that the police force will not be reduced in size until it is clear that the peace is long lasting and sustainable? Otherwise, there could be instability.
Will the Secretary of State commit himself to asking about quotas? Does he realise that getting more Catholics into the police force cannot be achieved simply by having a 50:50 quota in place? As he said, the key issue is that Catholics have been dissuaded from applying. Will he consider adding to the Patten recommendations by doing something to promote such applications in the first place?
Finally, the Patten report is, by and large, uncontroversial, as we have heard. Therefore, the Secretary of State will need to give us an assurance that the matters that are so controversial and provoke such strong emotional as well as intellectual reactions will need to be handled with the greatest sensitivity in the House.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and that of the Liberal Democrat party for what I have announced. I can readily accept and endorse the bulk of what he said. On the oath, the House may be interested to learn that the Home Secretary is considering extending the reference to human rights to the police oath for the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be welcome.
On the hon. Gentleman's questions, yes, we will be doing everything we can to promote the new police service and to encourage applicants from all parts of society in Northern Ireland, not merely nationalists, to join. On reducing the size of the police service, that is a judgment that the Chief Constable will make in the first instance, and it will indeed be linked to his assessment of the security threat.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Secretary of State will remember that the very first paragraph of the terms of reference of the Patten commission instructed that commission to
"bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements".
Does he realise that despite his euphemistic language, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) —;the leader of the Ulster Unionist party—is absolutely right to say that what has been announced today degrades, demeans and denigrates an honourable force that has stood four-square between the law-abiding community—the greater number of people in Northern Ireland—and the terrorists for the past 30 years? Can I suggest to the Secretary of State that it is misleading of him to suggest that the changes that are taking place have anything to do with the Belfast agreement, or with anything that my party assented to within the terms of that agreement?

853
May I remind the Secretary of State that his predecessor, on her first visit as Secretary of State to Northern Ireland, made the dangerous promise that she would change the nature of the RUC? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to admit that the preparations for Patten were carried out by the Chief Constable when he was Deputy Chief Constable and brought forward his fundamental review? Furthermore, does the Secretary of State accept that many of the points in that fundamental review were quite acceptable to the majority of people and would have found widespread community support if they had not been changed and corrupted by the Patten commission, and if those issues had not been endorsed by the Government?
It appears that there were two major objectives of the Government's plans. One was to change the name of the RUC, and I have dealt with that. The other was to ensure that the RUC would be able to recruit from both traditions within Northern Ireland—something that my party wholeheartedly supports. However, is the Secretary of State suggesting that we should create district police partnerships, in which the scum of parochial politics—the Mr. McElduffs and Mr. Conways—will participate?
In case people do not know who Mr. McElduff and Mr. Conway are, I should point out that Mr. McElduff has campaigned against a senior Roman Catholic cleric, Monsignor Denis Faul, who has tried to interface with the RUC on behalf of the community with which he works. If Mr. McElduff and his like are prepared to take on Monsignor Denis Faul and to ask the archbishop to remove him as parish priest in Carrickmoor, what are they likely to do to 18 and 19-year-old young men and women whom the Secretary of State and I want to join the RUC?
The intimidation will continue because although the Secretary of State has proposed that the name of the RUC be changed, one thing has not changed—the name of Sinn Fein-IRA. Those people continue to organise and to be armed. They continue to ride on the backs of the entire community and, as Monsignor Faul has said, specifically the Roman Catholic tradition in Northern Ireland—
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand fully the strong feelings on this issue, but I have a lot of business today to safeguard. The Secretary of State has let the House know that there will be areas of legislation on which speeches will be made. With respect to the House, today is not the time to make speeches—it is the time to question the statement made by the Secretary of State. I have so far called only three other Members to question the statement. I hope that those whom I wish to call will be brisk in putting their question and, likewise, that the Secretary of State will be brisk in answering. This cannot go on, as we have so much more business to conduct this afternoon. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point?
Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful, Madam Speaker, that you recognise the sensitivity of the issue. This concerns the future of law and order in Northern Ireland, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. He talked about human rights, but can he tell us whether there will be any human rights training for those two members of Sinn Fein-IRA who will be on the police board? How will the Secretary of State find hundreds of millions of pounds to create the
854
package he has promised, when last week he could not provide the £5 million overtime money requested by the Chief Constable? Is the Secretary of State disappointed that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in his contribution, did not encourage members of his tradition to join the RUC?
Mr. Mandelson: I think that it would be best if I responded to three specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, rather than responding in kind to the rhetoric that he offered and that, on mature reflection, he might like to reconsider.
Mr. Maginnis: I am not a betrayer.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman has said to me many times in the past that he compliments me on what I have said about the RUC, that he welcomes statements I have made in support of the RUC, and that he is glad of the stand that I have made for the RUC since I became Secretary of State. Therefore, I am surprised that he chooses to say something different in public from what he has said to me in private.
On the three specific points, it is true that the decisions I am announcing today stand alone on their own merits and independently from the Good Friday agreement. I intend that the reform of the police in Northern Ireland will continue, whatever cloud happens to gather over the institutions of the Good Friday agreement.
As for the district police partnerships, there is no question of any member of any district police partnership being able to exercise any improper influence, let alone control, over any aspect of police operations or any individual member of the police in that district. As far as human rights training is concerned, each member of the police board will be subject to the same strictures and expectations as every member of the police service of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There are only two collective areas to which the George Cross has ever been issued—one is Malta and the other is the RUC. Malta was proud to call itself Malta GC. I understand from what my right hon. Friend has said that, in 2001, the Northern Ireland police force can be known as the Northern Ireland police force GC. That will be a continuing recognition of the work of the RUC into the future. I hope that Ulster Unionist Members will accept that the significance of the award of the George Cross to the RUC will continue to be recognised in the development of a police force that will service the whole community.
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The George Cross was awarded by the Queen to the RUC in recognition of its success in leading a campaign against the most sustained onslaught of terrorism the developed world has ever seen. During that time, the RUC exhibited extraordinary courage, bravery and valour, and that will never cease to be associated with the RUC and also—I hope—with the police as a whole in Northern Ireland. The RUC and the Chief Constable are considering how the award of the George Cross can be recognised in perpetuity—I am certainly determined that it should be.
Mr. Peter Brooke: On 9 September, when the Patten report was published, the Secretary of State' s predecessor said:
"This report is about policing. As Chris Patten said, it is not about politics…It has been the RUC who have held the fabric of this society together over the past 30 years."
Against that background, can the Secretary of State share with the House the reactions at all levels of the RUC itself to these proposals, as the morale of that force is crucial to the future?
Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the morale of the RUC is absolutely central to our continuing ability to combat terrorism, and crime in all its forms. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for focusing on the question of morale.
I have never once visited Northern Ireland without meeting members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have done more than just meet them: I have sat down to discuss policing with groups of officers drawn from all ranks. That has happened on each and every occasion that I have made a visit.
I acknowledge that there is uncertainty in the RUC. There is some fear—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And hostility.
Mr. Mandelson: Among some individuals there is indeed hostility to the changes that are being made. However, it is equally true that there is a ready recognition in the RUC that change must come. Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, the police in Northern Ireland have acted as a security force. The force now has to change into a normal police service that polices Northern Ireland according to normal, peacetime terms.
Officers understand why change must come about, and readily accept and acknowledge that the extreme religious imbalance in the composition of the police in Northern Ireland is simply unsustainable. A normal, peacetime society cannot be policed by a force that is so extremely unrepresentative of the society that it serves. Therefore, although all RUC officers may not agree about the means that we are employing to overcome that imbalance, they certainly share our objectives. When they reflect on what we are proposing—and on the paucity of alternatives—many officers will come to accept that, painful and hurtful as they are, this change and these reforms are necessary.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is full support for the statement that he has made today among those on the Labour Benches? He has made a number of courageous and difficult decisions, and he deserves our party's support. However, is he also aware that large sections of the community in parts of Northern Ireland do not share the admiration for the Royal Ulster Constabulary expressed by many hon. Members today? Officers in the RUC who uphold the law impartially always deserve our support, but some officers have fallen short of that high ideal on many occasions. It should be recognised that that is one of the reasons for the changes announced today.
Will my right hon. Friend inform the House about the role of the new oversight commissioner? When can we expect the name of that person to be announced? Will the
856
appointment require legislation, and what steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that whoever is appointed has the full support of both communities and of the new Northern Ireland police service?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his strong support of, and welcome for, what I have announced. His words will find an echo in crucial parts of Northern Ireland, and notably in the nationalist community.
In response to his specific question about the oversight commissioner, I can tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe that it will be necessary to wait for legislation to make appointment to the post. The search for that personality has already begun, and I believe that it will be possible to appoint someone who commands cross-community support. However, I want to stress that the responsibility of the oversight commissioner is to implement decisions taken by the Government. It will not be the commissioner's job to cut across the responsibilities of the Chief Constable, the Policing Board or the Secretary of State.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I declare an interest. Like others hon. Members, I may owe my life to the professionalism and bravery of RUC officers.
While it is beyond argument that Northern Ireland needs a more broadly based police service, does the Secretary of State understand that many will object in principle to his decision to change the name? Many more will strongly object because they will suspect that he is doing it only to try to buy an element of peace from terrorists. To thwart that perception, will the Secretary of State agree to make the name change—if he is determined to go ahead with it—conditional on the acceptance of all the main aspects of the Good Friday agreement?
Mr. Mandelson: That linkage between the Patten recommendations and the Good Friday agreement would not be very welcome to all members of the Ulster Unionist party, for obvious reasons. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the objectives that I have set out a broad acceptance. There is no question of my having judged these issues on anything other than their strict merits—not for what they might or might not buy in return. I am simply not trading the future of the police in Northern Ireland in some sort of political marketplace. People may disagree with certain conclusions, and they may take issue with some of the details of what I have been saying, but I hope that they appreciate the sincerity of our objectives.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the excellent work of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs? Under the superb chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), it produced a report in July 1998 that was a useful signpost for the Patten commission.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the all-party group saw the need for significant reform of the RUC to make it more representative of the communities that it seeks to serve? Does he recognise that that principle was underpinned and endorsed by the people of Northern

857
Ireland in the referendum on the Good Friday agreement? Does he recognise that the members of the Select Committee dealt with such controversial issues as the need to address the incompatibility of membership of sectarian organisations like the Orange Order and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Finally, does my right hon. Friend regret that there is not more mature consideration across the Chamber of his response to the excellent work of the Patten commission?
Mr. Mandelson: When people consider the careful and sensitive way in which I am implementing a number of Chris Patten's recommendations over time, I think that they will focus more on what they welcome in my comments than on those things to which they object.
Of course I acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Its report was a significant milestone in considering these matters. I believe that the Patten commission extensively took into account the Select Committee's report, and quite right too.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Secretary of State aware that the remit of the Patten commission was to produce proposals that would find broad acceptance and support throughout the entire community? Bearing in mind the fact that the pro-Union community produced a petition with more than 400,000 signatures—300,000 from Northern Ireland—and given the reaction of the elected representatives of that community, can it be said that the Patten proposals and the Government's decision to act on them can possibly be in accordance with the principle of widespread community support?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, have repeatedly said that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked? They cannot be severed. However, under the d'Hondt principle, these proposals would place on the supervising advisory board at least two members of a political party that is inextricably linked with one of the most ferocious—if not the most ferocious—terrorist organisations in western Europe. That is the board to which the Chief Constable will be accountable.
In relation to the comments that have been made on the award of the George Cross and the difficulties that will arise, is the Secretary of State aware that many members of the RUC believe that that award was made for political purposes? As one senior officer said, it was tantamount to a soldier being given the Victoria Cross on the first day of the Somme, and shot for dereliction of duty on the 10th day.
Mr. Mandelson: I shall leave it to the House to judge the final remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Gentleman does not support the Good Friday agreement; he does not support the Executive; he does not support devolution; he does not support local decisions being taken by local people with local accents in Northern Ireland. He has made no contribution at all. No pain and no gain are experienced, given or received by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The key point about the contribution made by the hon. and learned Gentleman is that, whenever he speaks against the Good Friday agreement and against local
858
devolved responsibility in Northern Ireland, he never offers any alternative. He never suggests how we might achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. He has been on form this afternoon, as usual.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: The background to the Patten report was based on one of the most extensive consultation and listening exercises undertaken in Northern Ireland. When Chris Patten reported, he said that the report must be considered as a package and not cherry-picked. He acknowledged that the changing of symbols would undoubtedly be controversial—crucially, some of the symbols that were about tradition and the past had to change. However, the report was not about disbanding the RUC, but transforming it.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to maintain and build trust and confidence in both communities, the most fitting and most lasting memorial that we can offer to the 302 officers who died and to the thousands who were injured is for all hon. Members of the House to play their part in ensuring that the reforms succeed?
Mr. Mandelson: I welcome my hon. Friend and his contribution in every sense of the term. He is right. The greatest disservice to the RUC would be for people to argue that there is no need for any change by that body, or for them to try to manipulate the emotions of the RUC family. That would only make the pain of the change all the worse. I hope that those who appear to be grandstanding—more for political effect than to give support to the members of the RUC family—will bear that very much in mind.
Mr. Michael Mates: If the ultimate aim of all these changes is to produce a balanced police force, acceptable to all, that is an aim that I would certainly share with the Secretary of State. However, is he aware that, at the end of the day, this is not about names, symbols and emblems, offensive as the decisions on those have been to the majority community in Northern Ireland? It is actually about getting the IRA to stop intimidating members of the nationalist community to prevent them from joining a police service in which they can be identified.
If the Secretary of State has not had assurances from the likes of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness that they will acknowledge that this is a new start, and that, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) markedly did not say, the nationalist community must now be encouraged to join the new police service, all that he has done is to take another step down the road to appeasement of the terrorists.
Mr. Mandelson: There is no question of appeasing anyone. During my political career, I have not been known to be very willing to appease, or pander to, anyone. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about intimidation, but I think that the best way to ensure that that intimidation is isolated, rejected and overcome is to ensure that those who wish to join the police can do so in the knowledge that they have the consent and backing of their wider community. That is what is so important.
I have only just this afternoon announced the Government's conclusions and decisions on the implementation of the Patten report. People have hardly

859
had very long to reflect on what I have said. I hope that, when they do, their commitment will be great, and that we can successfully overcome whatever residual intimidation might linger in and around the nationalist community, so that we achieve the balanced and acceptable police service that the hon. Gentleman says that he supports.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend find a way of expressing the fact that the normalisation of the police service is of immense benefit to the whole community of Northern Ireland, including the constituents of many Opposition Members who are fiercely antagonistic to these proposals? Will my right hon. Friend, in seeking to persuade people of the benefits of the proposals, emphasise that those members of the nationalist community of a strong disposition to peace nevertheless hardly ever regard it as natural for their offspring to enter the police service?
I speak as someone with relatives in the Province, in the nationalist community, and as someone who comes from a line of people, many of whose uncles made the police force in New York, Chicago and elsewhere. That family tradition never emerges in Northern Ireland, because we need a discontinuity. We have had an unnatural—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard Madam Speaker's comments. I should be grateful, and so would the whole House, if he would now put his question very briefly.
Mr. McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that message about normalisation, about the importance of the name change, is taken on board? That is the real barrier to peace-loving nationalist people who refuse to countenance joining the police force.
Mr. Mandelson: A normal society in Northern Ireland is precisely what all hon. Members, of whatever party, are seeking to achieve—a normal society, in which people can go about their everyday lives without fear of bombs and barricades; a properly locally run, democratic society, in which there is not the high-profile security presence that many people find intimidating but that, for the time being, it is necessary and important to maintain, and a society in which there is a normal police service. Those are all different definitions and descriptions of the same thing—a normal society. It is into that state that Northern Ireland is now finally emerging. The decisions on the police that the Government have taken will assist, and not hinder, that further progress.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Secretary of State accept that, to some of us, he has appeared to sign the death warrant of the most efficient, effective, professional and courageous police force in the world and has sold out lock, stock and barrel to the republican element and terrorism in Northern Ireland? To whom do many of those to whom the right hon. Gentleman has pandered with his bland words owe their loyalty? I am proud to be a member of the United Kingdom. Are those to whom he has pandered of the same view? Do they owe the same loyalty as I do?
Mr. Mandelson: The whole point of the peaceful environment that we are creating in Northern Ireland and
860
the political dispensation that is emerging there is that people are able to live as Unionists—proud of their Britishness and continuing as part of the United Kingdom—alongside others who have a different nationalist aspiration. It is to find coexistence and harmony between the two traditions that the Good Friday agreement was created in the first place. I am afraid that I do not accept in one respect what the hon. Gentleman said about the police service in Northern Ireland. Yes, the RUC is efficient and it has won successfully a war against terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, if it is to remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past, it must also become representative of the society that it seeks to police. To achieve that representativeness and to enable the police to continue to be effective, we are implementing the decisions that I have announced.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an announcement that maintains the momentum for the reform of the institutions of Northern Ireland. However, in the light of the photographs that were published this week of members of the Royal Irish Regiment parading with Orange Order banners, what proposals does he have for a review of the Royal Irish Regiment?
Mr. Mandelson: I have absolutely no proposals for a review of the Royal Irish Regiment. I look forward to home regiments continuing to be garrisoned in Northern Ireland in perpetuity. As for the photographs to which my hon. Friend referred, I am sure that they are a matter that relevant commanding officers and the General Officer Commanding will be willing to look into if my hon. Friend were to raise it with them.
Mr. John D. Taylor: As a Minister in 1970 at the time of the previous review of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and as someone who owes his life to the RUC, I naturally feel emotional today. However, I accept that there have to be changes to policing in Northern Ireland. After 30 years, there must be changes.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Ulster Unionist party agrees with 70 or 80 per cent. of the Patten report? However, there is no doubt that the report landed the Secretary of State in a difficult situation and on a topic that will cause on-going debate for several months. Does he understand that Ulster Unionists agree that we must have more of the Roman Catholic community serving as police officers in Northern Ireland?
We agree that there must be training in human rights, not just for policemen but for members of police boards. We agree with the proposals for a police college and, of course, with the information technology proposals, but does the Secretary of State understand that all that could be achieved without changing the name of the RUC, a force that has served Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom well. Will he also tell us for how many years the oversight commissioner will be in office? Will the 50:50 proposal for enrolment of new officers into the police system in Northern Ireland contravene fair employment legislation? Will the 50:50 proportions apply to part-time members as well?
Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman makes a special contribution to this debate because he was a casualty of the terrorist war that the RUC fought and

861
finally won. His contribution therefore has considerable weight. I am grateful to him for saying that the overwhelming bulk of the changes proposed by Patten, which we are agreeing to today, commands the support of all sections of society from both traditions in Northern Ireland.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all genuine respect, that I do not agree, and cannot accept, that, if we failed to change the RUC's name, it would simply be possible to wait indefinitely for people from the nationalist community to join the police. I do not believe that it would happen. If I thought that there was any way that we could have made those changes and transformed the composition of the police in Northern Ireland without changing the name, I would have done it.
On the basis of all my contacts, my conversations, my research and my exposure to opinion in the nationalist community, I do not accept that nationalists or Catholics in Northern Ireland would join a police service that continued to be called the RUC. Frankly, they associate that name with Unionism and the British state. They accept that the principle of consent is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement, but they also have a nationalist identity and aspiration, and those must be made compatible with their desire to join the police service. I am afraid that a change in the name is a necessary condition for that.
Mr. Taylor: What about part-timers?
Mr. Mandelson: On the specific question of the part-time reservists, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.
Ms Margaret Moran: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the centrality of human rights to the reform of the police. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members seem to find that funny. It is a radical move that should be extended.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) referred earlier, found that one of the major impediments to the retention of police from the Catholic community was the wider canteen culture that remains prevalent within the RUC? Will there be measures, alongside the new quotas that are proposed, to ensure that recruits from the Catholic community—who will increase from the current figure of 8 per cent.—will be retained and trained appropriately?
Mr. Mandelson: I readily accept my hon. Friend's point. RUC training is the best and the most rigorous of any police service in the world, and those standards will continue when the new police service is created.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I spent about a year working closely with the RUC, and I patrolled the streets of Northern Ireland with Catholic and Protestant officers. I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State in his desire to get more Catholics into the police force. Everybody does.
862
Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the evidence of his own Department from April 1988, which said that the main reason given by Catholics for not joining the RUC is that they
"fear intimidation or attack on themselves or their relatives"?
Why instead—this question has been asked before—has he given way to the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA and as a result is allowing the very people who have attacked and intimidated police officers to have their way? He is giving way to those who have sustained the terror campaign of which he spoke earlier.
Mr. Mandelson: If I were meeting the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA, I would be disbanding the RUC, because that is what they want and have demanded. They have made a string of demands that are completely unacceptable—they were unacceptable to the Patten commission and remain unacceptable to the Government. I readily acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's experience and knowledge, but I repeat that the use of words or symbols perceived to associate the police with one side of the constitutional argument has an effect. Their use is an inhibiting factor that discourages people from joining the police, over and above any form or degree of intimidation. We have to recognise that. In an effort to overcome it, we support the changes that I have described this afternoon.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement, which gives a precis of the way forward for policing. I am sure that he agrees that today is an important day for Northern Ireland. The changes will enable us to have a police force that commands the respect of all the community—I say "all" advisedly. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, to underpin the peace that we have, it is absolutely essential that both the actuality and the symbolism of the new police service is readily acceptable to both communities.
I should like to place it on record that the Social Democratic and Labour party, which represents the vast majority of nationalists in Northern Ireland, expresses our deep regret over the deaths of RUC members who have been murdered, and our sympathy with their families, who continue to grieve, and with those families who have suffered maimings or killings. We have put that on record many times before, even in our written response to Patten.
Having said that, I find it sad that those sacrifices are being used almost as a political weapon to prevent progress. That is most regrettable. I am sure that, in his travels around Northern Ireland and conversations with members of the RUC, the right hon. Gentleman has, like me, found that they welcome change—the vast majority of them want it. They want to be acceptable and to walk in safety in our communities. The only way to achieve that is through the Patten proposals, accepted by the Secretary of State, which will create a force that is acceptable to both sides.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the best interpreters of the will and attitudes of the nationalist community are its representatives. Much of the blame for

863
the bipartisan situation surrounding the RUC lies with Opposition Members from Northern Ireland referring to that force as their police force, their men—theirs, not the communities'. There are many instances of that being true: we all remember Bombay street and Hooker street, and the RUC B-specials burning down one street after another. That remains in our folk memory. We must have impartial symbols and attitudes if we are to underpin a new service and the peace, and thereby prevent—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must have heard my earlier comment, so will he please now bring his question to a quick conclusion?
Mr. McGrady: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely essential that the symbolism, as well as the actuality, of reform is carried through, so that the full support of both communities can be gained?
Mr. Mandelson: Obviously, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is notable that he and other leaders of the SDLP have readily and generously associated themselves with tributes to the sacrifices made by the RUC during the past 30 years. I am grateful to him for repeating that this afternoon.
It is unfortunate that certain individual—probably maverick—Unionist spokesmen have in the past 24 hours referred to the RUC in a way that suggests that the police service literally belongs to Unionists in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say that no Member of the House has done that, but other Unionist spokesmen have. It is as if they are saying, "You can do anything you like in Northern Ireland as long as you keep your hands off our police force." It is precisely that sort of attitude and statement that confirms people's worst suspicions. I am glad to say that it is thoroughly unrepresentative of mainstream Unionist opinion and of the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's support will be forthcoming for the changes that I have announced, and will be followed by an encouragement of his supporters
864
and those from his community to join the new Northern Ireland police service. I cannot predict better than the Chief Constable himself, when he said:
"If these recommendations"—
referring to the Patten report—
"bring about a new beginning for policing, the pain that my colleagues and friends are being asked to endure becomes a pain that they have to endure for the greater gain".
That "greater gain" is a representative police service in Northern Ireland, one that has cross-community support and that nationalists finally join. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be encouraging them in that direction.
Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the immense contribution made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland and in fighting terrorism throughout the United Kingdom?
Given what the right hon. Gentleman has said about district policing partnership boards, will he give an undertaking to the House that any legislation that he brings forward will not contain powers that would enable those boards to employ terrorists, as recommendation 32 of the Patten report would make possible?
Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman either was not here or did not hear what I said in my opening statement. Possibly he was here, in which case I apologise to him. I said that I was not at this stage going to proceed with those aspects of the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to community policing and the expenditure of moneys for those projects to which he has referred. That remains the position.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that this is a very important matter. However, it is one to which the House will be returning in due course. We have spent a long time on the statement and, to preserve the rest of the business, we must move on.

Points of Order
4.53 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a procedural matter relating to the proposal to deal with the Disqualifications Bill next Monday and Tuesday. I know that that has not yet been confirmed by the Leader of the House, but I seek your advice, given that the proposal is, as I understand it, that there will be Second Reading on Monday followed by all remaining stages the following day. That appears to present consider difficulty to hon. Members in the tabling of amendments. Will you advise me and the rest of the House on how we can go about tabling amendments to a highly controversial Bill? Is there a way in which you or Madam Speaker can help hon. Members in the tabling of amendments, given the extraordinarily and, in my view, unacceptably short time that is being proposed between Second Reading of a controversial Bill and the remaining stages, which will be dealt with the very next day? I would appreciate your help and guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Madam Speaker has asked me to let it be known that she understands the right hon. Gentleman's problem. The selection of amendments in Committee is likely to be for the Chairman of Ways and Means but, in the absence of any order to permit the tabling of amendments before Second Reading, Madam Speaker is sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means will be sympathetic to starred amendments.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you notice that, in the debate this afternoon, which lasted a considerable time, only one woman Member was fortunate enough to be called? I raise the matter because, in Northern Ireland,
866
women's voices are not easily heard, and I should be grateful if, in future, the Speaker's Office would take that point on board.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that Madam Speaker and the Deputy Speakers are entirely fair in selecting hon. Members, whether they are male or female. The hon. Lady made the point herself when she referred to a debate. It was, in fact, a statement, but it verged on a debate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the difficulties to which you referred, but I want to put it on record that the capital city of Northern Ireland, Belfast, had one representative in the Chamber, who was not called. It is the largest area of the Province, and the hon. Member representing it has served for the past year with the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a parliamentary police scheme.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that he, too, will understand that we spent an extremely long time on the statement. We have other business to deal with, and we must move on.
Mr. William Ross: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on next week's business. Surely it is the usual procedure of the House not only to allow time between Second Reading and final stages, but between Committee and Report stages. They all seem to be rolled into one on the Disqualifications Bill. How on earth can we discuss it during Committee stage and table amendments for the remaining stages later on the same day? That does not make sense.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no strict rule of the House, as the hon. Gentleman implies. I cannot add to my earlier comments.

Community Protection (Airport Noise and Pollution)
4.57 pm
Mr. David Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require airport operators to reduce operational noise and pollution levels in consultation with local authorities and communities near airports; to enable local authorities to enforce noise and pollution mitigation agreements; to involve communities near airports in the shaping of balanced planning frameworks controlling the operation of those airports; and for related purposes.
There is little effective legislation to control the levels of noise and pollution generated by aircraft and airports. Indeed, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 specifically exempts aircraft noise and emissions from the general nuisance controls that it contains, irrespective of whether an airfield is small and unlicensed or a major national airport.
Tranquillity and air quality are environmental Cinderellas, whose interests have been continually damaged by their ugly sisters, noise and pollution. The aim of my Bill is to give much needed protection to airport communities against the incessant noise and growing pollution that they daily endure.
No hon. Member who has a sizeable airport in or near his or her constituency will be unaware of the impact on the local economy. The industry estimates a contribution of £10 billion to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product, and half a million direct and indirect jobs. Only last month, the number of jobs generated by East Midlands airport in north-west Leicestershire went through the 5,000 barrier, and numbers are still rising rapidly.
Nevertheless, the aviation industry tends to overplay its future economic potential. It is apparent that the successful and expanding businesses of the new century are more likely to depend on smart communication systems than on the physical movement of goods, which characterised the industries of the past century.
As with all economic activity, aviation has an environmental downside, which needs to be tackled in the interests of sustainability. As the number of air travellers has grown and the volumes of freight moved have increased, the loss of open countryside, higher pollution levels and the perpetual noise intrusion are the price being paid by the many thousands of people living around and on the flight paths to the nation's airports.
It is in no one's interest to ignore the increasingly widespread anxieties about the environmental impact of air travel. For too long, aircraft noise and air pollution have had a seriously adverse effect on the quality of life of hundreds of airport communities. Projected new laws by the previous Government were shelved time and again. That must not continue. The time is right for the Government to act, and the Bill includes some suggestions for action.
I welcome today's introduction by the Government of a national air quality strategy and I support their existing commitment to drawing up a 30-year airports policy, about which consultation begins soon. However, I urge the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to widen the brief to devise a comprehensive air transport policy.
868
There is already a specific target of expanding regional airports to take the pressure off the south-east—from where two thirds of passengers fly and where three quarters of airline and airport jobs are located. However, any such expansion should be accompanied—or, indeed, preceded—by a far more effective regulatory framework spelling out the rights and responsibilities of airports, planners and local communities.
All that is underpinned by the pressing need for the Government to accept that there are limits to the number of aircraft movements that the system can tackle and the effects that communities can tolerate. In short, we should abandon the predict-and-provide principle, which has seriously flawed our air transport planning for a generation. We must also abandon the stock DETR belief that the current local plan process is adequate for resolving airport issues. It is not and does not.
Using a projected average annual growth rate of 6 per cent. in demand for flights would lead, over the 30-year strategy period, to a tripling in size of every regional airport. Down that nightmare flight path lies an environmental disaster of unimaginable proportions for already beleaguered airport communities. Air travel and air freight are significant players in our economy. They must be allowed to grow, but only in a responsible and responsive way.
A key principle in environmental policy formulation is that the polluter must pay. However, the aviation industry seems to be excluded from that. It allows—even requires—the wider society and economy to bear the burden of its environmental costs. The aeroplane is the most polluting form of transport, and is responsible for around 10 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is exempt from tax on its kerosene fuel. That problem requires urgent, Europe-wide action.
Airport communities are almost powerless to protect their quality of life against excessive airport noise and must often rely on the good will of their powerful and important neighbour. However, business pressures are such that any voluntary codes of conduct can steadily become ineffective and unsustainable.
The focus of the Bill is raising airports' operating standards, especially in relation to noise limitation. Apart from the designated airports of Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, which are subject to specific noise legislation, all the others depend on the lottery of local agreements. The Bill would superimpose a minimum framework, which specified common and enforceable limits that airports would have to observe for renewed Civil Aviation Authority licensing. Those limits would not be part of a voluntary agreement, or reluctantly conceded for planning permission, and they would not lack independent means of monitoring and verification. They would be part of a comprehensive deal, which would aim to protect the quality of life of airport communities.
What needs to be contained in the framework? A prime requirement is the financing and installation by the airport of an appropriate noise monitoring system, relevant to the pattern of noise that it generates. The system would have to be managed independently, with penalties for operators who violated noise, route and other restrictions. The proceeds would be distributed to local organisations by an independent local panel.
Secondly, the airport, local authorities and airport communities would collectively agree noise-preferential routes, especially for departing aircraft, with appropriate

869
restrictions on turning and overflying. Comprehensive mandatory pilots notes on the agreed local regime would have to be produced and incorporated into relevant publications.
Thirdly, there would be a collective agreement about seasonal night flying quotas, with a complete ban on chapter II aircraft, whether hushkitted or not, and on chapter III aircraft above a specified weight, as the heavier ones can be even noisier than the older aircraft that they replace. Fourthly, an independent executive forum of airport owners, operators, local authorities and community groups would monitor and try to resolve any airport environmental problems.
Finally, the framework would include a range of provisions such as ground running, property soundproofing, complaint logging, public safety zones and control of further development.
The patchwork quilt of regulatory bodies means that a national approach is needed to obtain higher environmental standards for all airports. The comprehensive action needed for noise and pollution mitigation has to be part of a national aviation policy, which is itself the basis of discussion with international aviation bodies and other Governments. Technological and operational measures alone will never obtain that limitation of aircraft noise and disturbance levels which is so necessary for so many people.
My Bill is a meaningful, reasonable and enforceable measure that would produce a more satisfactory framework within which airport operation and development could occur. It would provide a level runway for airports so that they could raise standards in parallel with their competitors and improve relations with the people affected by their operations. It spells out to local planning authorities an unambiguous and enforceable regime based on environmental considerations and would achieve a better balance between commercial airport needs and legitimate local requirements. Finally, it offers to airport communities no less than an environmental charter to control the noise and pollution generated by the aerial motorway over their homes. I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Taylor, Liz Blackman, Mr. Colin Burgon, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Paul Flynn, Judy Mallaber, Mr. John McDonnell, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas and Mr. Mark Todd.

COMMUNITY PROTECTION (AIRPORT NOISE AND POLLUTION)
Mr. David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to require airport operators to reduce operational noise and pollution levels in consultation with local authorities and communities near airports; to enable local authorities to enforce noise and pollution mitigation agreements; to involve communities near airports in the shaping of balanced planning frameworks controlling the operation of those airports; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 48].
Orders of the Day
  Representation of the People Bill
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
  Representation of the People Bill
    New Clause 1

      REGULATIONS UNDER SCHEDULE 2 TO THE 1983 ACT
      '. (1) The Secretary of State shall publish in draft any provisions he intends to make by regulations under paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of Schedule 2 to the 1983 Act as amended by section 9 of this Act and shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him to have an interest in the operation of those provisions.

      (2) No regulations making provisions under paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of Schedule 2 to the 1983 Act shall be made by the Secretary of State until three months have elapsed from the date of the publication of the draft provisions referred to in subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Greenway.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.7 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      May I remind hon. Members, out of courtesy, of my interest in the Institute of Sales Promotion? The institute has no particular interest in the Bill, but I would not want any hon. Member to think that I had been in any way discourteous, even though aspects of this matter affect marketing in a way quite separate from my own interest.
      As recently as last Thursday, a Committee of the whole House discussed in some detail the vexed issue of the inclusion of an opt-out box on electoral registration forms: how that would be achieved; how voters would be made aware of the effect of ticking such a box by a leaflet explaining what that would mean and, more important, of the availability of a full and an edited register to various organisations for various purposes, including uses that could best be described as commercial. We had a fruitful and constructive debate. Some progress was made and the Under-Secretary kindly informed us that he was persuaded of the case for including credit referencing as one of the legitimate purposes for which the full register should be available.
      Less than a week—a brief period—has elapsed, but I make no criticism because that is the way in which our proceedings sometimes work, and given the pressures of business, one understands why. Nevertheless, we felt that it was pertinent and proper to revisit the issue on Report to test some things further with the Minister and—more to the point, for reasons that I shall explain—to include something further in the Bill.
      As I have said, the Bill provides for the commercial sale of both the full and edited registers. Thanks to amendment No. 21, to which the Minister kindly agreed, there is a clear requirement to explain to voters on both registers the consequences of ticking any opt-out box. However, the Bill does not clarify or indicate in any way which organisations will and will not have access to either register—or, indeed, for what purposes they will have such access on payment of whatever fees and under whatever licensing arrangements are to be enshrined in regulations, none of which is in the Bill.
      I should make it abundantly clear that, in moving the new clause, the Opposition are in no way suggesting that we are not prepared to take on trust the Minister's commitment to

      871
      further consultation, which is welcome. We entirely accept that the hon. Gentleman is willing to consult, and will continue to consult. Our concerns are different: several very important questions remain to be answered.
      First, ideally, consultation before the Report stage should have been more extensive and comprehensive. The working party on electoral reform, whose report the Government are seeking to implement, was published, following the recommendations in July, only in late October. Meaningful consultation on the effects and implications for many commercial organisations and our constituents took place only after the Government signalled their intention to have an opt-out box and published the Bill. The Minister's promise to consult, which we take at face value—it is entirely right—implies clear acknowledgement that consultation thus far has been less than adequate to resolve all the issues. This is a complex matter and such issues will take some time to resolve.
      Secondly, we must ask whether the Minister's mind is fully made up on the question of access and use for commercial interests. Has he decided which organisations or types of organisation may have access to the full register, and for what purpose?
      The Minister's response in letters and replies to some of my questions in Committee last week is not completely clear. In a letter to the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, Mr. Colin Lloyd, on 12 January— I pointed this out in an intervention on him in Committee—the Minister said:
      "The full version will only be made available for electoral purposes, for law enforcement and crime prevention and in connection with applications for credit."
      However, in direct response to my question on whether the letter was the final, definitive statement on who will have access to the register, he said:
      "we want to ensure that all interests are taken into account."
      He went on to say:
      "It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry."
      5.15 pm
      I do not know whether the Under-Secretary or his officials had a chance to edit whatever he said or meant to say, but his statement is ambiguous. One interpretation is that the industry will not be allowed the full register, and another is that it will be allowed the full register but that that register will not be available for all kinds of commercial uses. So, there is a doubt.
      Later in last week's proceedings in Committee, however, the Minister appeared to reaffirm the point made in his letter when he said:
      "The full register will be available for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes, which include money laundering and fraud protection checks. We have invited the financial industry to consider the best way in which to facilitate that."—[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 460–3.].
      That appears unambiguous.
      Only two conclusions can be drawn from the Minister's responses: either he has made up his mind, in which case we must wonder what the promised consultation is for, or he remains open to change and further argument. Has he signed off his policy and come to a final position on the use to which the full register will be put for commercial
      872
      purposes, so that further consultation will not change his mind? If that were the case, such consultation would be pointless, except to allow—this is what he may have meant—for continuing discussion on the use of the edited register, the leaflet and the fee and licensing arrangements for which the regulations will provide. All those things are extremely important, but none of the consultation would address the central issue of whether the full register should be commercially available to interests other than the four that he set out in his letter to the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association.
      If that is not so, might the Minister still be persuaded to widen the scope of the full register's use? We rather hope so, as do many commercial interests in both direct marketing and other organisations—including, still, many financial institutions.
      Given that the Bill has reached such an advanced stage, the position is unsatisfactory. In agreeing Third Reading, we must consider whether the Bill is satisfactory—and whatever the Minister's reply, my comments suggest that it is not. If policy is settled, why are the provisions not more explicit? Alternatively, why do we not have draft regulations to consider?
      In the Standing Committee considering the Freedom of Information Bill, we have been discussing constructively the fact that much of that legislation will be enacted through regulations. The Minister has confirmed the advanced state of drafting of those regulations, for which I commend him. Indeed, as he knows, in Standing Committee B yesterday, I expressed some surprise that the process was so advanced. That only fuels my argument that if the policy is settled we should have had the opportunity to consider draft regulations in conjunction with Third Reading.
      We can only conclude that this Bill has been rushed. We said that on Second Reading, as recently as 30 November. To be charitable, we understand the urgency with which the Government want to hold trials of different ways of conducting elections and their desire to be ready by the spring. We understand that that was the purpose of the working party and we appreciate the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose interest in the Bill we commend—we are glad to see him here—has put in a great deal of work.
      We also understand the Government's desire for consensus, but my central point on the opt-out box is that the issue is in no way ready for Parliament to approve. Even if the rest of the Bill is satisfactory—and we have other concerns that we will raise later—clause 9, in our judgment, is not. That is why we have begun our debate on Report with this issue.
      Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend was taking me with him until he said that he understood the reason for the urgency and seemed to offer his support for it. For the life of me, I cannot see what is urgent about this. I suggest the opposite: there can never be anything urgent about making radical, experimental changes to electoral law. I hope that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that he endorsed any spurious urgency that the Government have attached to the measure.
      Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend puts me in some difficulty, so I will pour myself a glass of water and pause for thought.
      Mr. David Maclean: Whisky, John.
      Mr. Greenway: Alcoholic beverages are reserved for the Chancellor, I think, and his day is coming soon.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must understand that our party, to which we are absolutely committed, had a representative on a working party that made recommendations about changes in electoral arrangements. We have considered whether it is sensible to accept the recommendation that there should be pilot schemes in respect of different ways of voting, on different days and with different procedures. [Interruption.] I hope that my right hon. Friend is listening, because what I have to say is important to him, given his constituency.
      The Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows for changes in voting in the Greater London Assembly elections. Parliament has already approved that. If this Bill is enacted, it will allow similar experiments to take place in other parts of the country. I do not happen to have local elections in my constituency this spring, but many others do.
      I do not want my right hon. Friend to think that we do not have concerns about other elements of the Bill. The fact that we have tabled amendments on issues such as the local connection declaration—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be tempted away from the new clause. Perhaps he can return to it.
      Mr. Greenway: I was about to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was simply going to say that we have concerns about other aspects of the Bill and have tabled amendments accordingly, and I am sure that hon. Members will seek to catch your eye to express their views on them.
      We have tabled the new clause because we believe that the opt-out box provision is the most unsatisfactory part of the Bill, and that it has nothing to do with the main thrust of the recommendations on the introduction of rolling registers or changes in the conduct of elections, which is what the working party was really about.
      We have all been sent on a wild goose chase that has nothing to do with the central requirement of the working party to examine our electoral procedures. Had the provision been put in any other Bill, it would not have been rushed as it has been; there would have been much more time for consultation with industry; and we would have had a much more settled position for Parliament to consider on Report and Third Reading than is the case tonight.
      Mr. David Wilshire: I want to add to the interesting comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). My hon. Friend is keen to co-operate, but just because some of us do not approve of the way in which the elections for the mayor of London are to be conducted, there is no reason why we should have two lots of elections carried out in the
      874
      wrong way. An equivalent argument is that, if I beat my wife, that is no reason for my Front-Bench colleague to beat his.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) responds, he should be aware that that intervention, too, was well wide of the new clause. I would be grateful if he would deal with that.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would simply remind my hon. Friend that there was an experiment on proportional representation in elections last June in which the Government got a bloody nose, as a result of which their excitement over, and enthusiasm for, PR has been greatly diminished. I ask my hon. Friend not to anticipate the outcome of the pilots, which may not be—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no wish to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I will do so increasingly firmly unless he returns to the new clause.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We think that clause 9 is not satisfactory, but the provisions are not central to what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. But for the urgency of the provisions, it is doubtful whether the Minister would be seeking approval for the clause, given the uncertain outcome of so many key interests of importance to our constituents. He has already acknowledged—at column 458 on Thursday—that the House should debate the matter again.
      The Minister also says that he wants further consultation, and we do not doubt his word, but we think that it is not unreasonable in all the circumstances to reflect the incomplete nature of clause 9 by including in the Bill both the case for, and a commitment to, further meaningful consultation. That, in a nutshell, is what new clause 1 would do. We also want adequate time to be provided for these matters to be considered—and for representations to be made by those affected, both in industry and as individuals—before Parliament is asked to approve the regulations giving effect to the final outcome of those consultations.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend confirm what is not in the new clause but may be implicit in his thinking behind it—namely, that the minimum three-month period would apply only to periods during which Parliament was sitting? Secondly—and, I think, importantly—in view of Lord Falkland's wise adage that that which it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change, does he agree that the consultation that he seeks through new clause 1 should be wide, detailed, academic and, preferably, protracted?
      Mr. Greenway: Even on his birthday, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is razor sharp. I am sure that we wish him many happy returns. We are all the better for having him here. He makes his own point extremely well, but I want to reflect a little further on what he said. Part of the problem is that the consultations often take place over four or five weeks during the holiday period. I am not entirely sure that Parliament needs to be sitting when consultations take place with industry, as we have a lengthy recess in the summer and autumn.

      875
      In drafting the new clause, we initially thought that the consultation period might be six months, but that would be unprecedented. Three months is normal for draft regulations and arrangements to be consulted on with interested parties. Three months would give ample time to bring the matter to the attention of even those hon. Members who take the longest holidays during the recess—this does not apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who attends to all his duties with considerable care—and would allow for proper consultation.
      5.30 pm
      Before concluding, let me draw the attention of the House to three other issues related to this matter that remain outstanding from Thursday's debate. First, I ask the Minister again to consider the use of the full register for debt recovery. We understand that the effect of what the hon. Gentleman has thus far agreed is that credit referencing agencies will have access to the full register to assist them in advising financial institutions on whether to grant credit. That is an important agreement because it in part tackles the concerns of many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the risk and danger of social exclusion that would arise from the opt-out box and the creation of an edited register. It seems extraordinary that the Minister can conclude that the use of the full register for such credit referencing would be legitimate while its use to assist with debt recovery would not. I want the hon. Gentleman to revisit that issue in his reply.
      Secondly, I asked the Minister what research his Department had undertaken into the use of the raw data in the electoral register as the sole source of names and addresses for sending unsolicited mail. He says that such mail is the main source of complaint to electoral registration offices—I think that the working party made some comment to that effect. Our understanding is that the data on the electoral register are seldom used in such a way—they are seldom the only source of names and addresses of persons to whom literature may be sent. They are more widely used as a source to verify data obtained by some other means. It follows that if the register is not to be available in any way to the direct marketing industry and those commercial organisations, they will not be able to verify and up-date their data. The consequence will be that the volume of junk mail will rise.
      If electoral registration officers are already receiving complaints about the volume of unsolicited mail because people perceive that the senders obtained their names and addresses from the register—we think that that is a false perception, but it is none the less a valid one—the Minister must consider what will happen if the amount of junk mail increases. The complaints will rise and the position will get worse.
      Also, if the letter to Colin Lloyd, the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, is a settled policy, can the Minister tell us why no new regulatory impact assessment has been carried out? There has been no such assessment of those aspects of the provisions.
      Thirdly, and finally, the Minister said that direct marketing firms would not have access to the full register, as that would conflict with the European Union data protection directive. How can the directive allow credit referencing, but not screening for unsolicited mail, or indeed, use of the register by charities? Also, it appears
      876
      that only Home Office officials and the Data Protection Registrar gave evidence to the working party on data protection. Before the Minister closes his mind on the subject, would he be willing to receive a paper from the Direct Marketing Association and the CBI as they have a contrary view?
      I have looked in detail at the submission of the Data Protection Registrar to the working party, and it is hardly conclusive. On the contrary, the registrar's advice appears to confirm that, provided that voters are advised of the fact, their data could be used for other purposes. In her submission, the registrar states:
      "Even if such a case can be made in relation to some purposes individuals should still have a choice over the sale of their data for other purposes particularly the compilation of direct marketing lists".
      Far from the registrar confirming that direct marketing use of the full register was incompatible with the data protection directive, which is enshrined in the Data Protection Act 1998, in the summary of her advice to the working party, she clearly sets out the circumstances in which it would be compatible. That is another reason for us to conclude that much of this provision has not been thought through.
      I do not want to detain the House further, and must reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not intend to speak at length. I have taken interruptions that have led us to stray from the key point of the new clause. I hope that what I have said demonstrates that there are far too many unresolved issues in relation to clause 9 for the House to be satisfied with how matters stand. Yes, let there be consultation—we welcome the Minister's comments on that and I suspect he will further reassure us later on his willingness to consult—but Parliament must continue to have a role. New clause 1 makes that role and our interest in and attention to the matter more likely than if we leave the Bill as it stands. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Forth: I am sure that you will advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not the occasion for me to tell the House that the fact that a colleague of mine apparently served on some obscure working party commits me in any way. I am sure that you would advise me that Third Reading would be the time for me to tell the House why I feel in no way bound by a colleague who, unbeknown to me, conspires with the Government in a working party to give this measure a spurious urgency that I do not understand and that has not yet been explained to me. Those points will come later and I cannot wait for Third Reading to make them. I hope that it will not be too long before we reach Third Reading because I am dying to make that speech.
      This is the occasion for us to concentrate our thoughts narrowly on clause 9 and the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
      Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says that, according to the Government, he seems to have been committed to the measure by a member of the Conservative party. The Ulster Unionist party was not committed to it by anyone because we were

      877
      not represented on the working party. Furthermore, I should think that we are the party in the House that knows most about fraud.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that he could not wait for Third Reading. I am afraid that he will have to do so.
      Mr. Forth: As ever, you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I make it clear from the start that I welcome the new clause. It gives me pleasure to say that I welcome it—
      Mr. Bercow: Unalloyed pleasure.
      Mr. Forth: Certainly. In his usual analytical but forceful way, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has illustrated all too well the weakness that regrettably still exists in clause 9. He has done us a great service in that respect, because doing so usefully puts in context the sense of urgency that he inexplicably introduced into the proceedings. It gives us the occasion to pause and reconsider whether we are wise to allow clause 9 to proceed in its present form.
      The new clause therefore gives us the opportunity to find out from the Minister, if we can, not only the answers to the many questions my hon. Friend rightly posed but whether it would be helpful to include new clauses for the reasons that he gave and one or two others that I could modestly add. The more I read clause 9, the more delphic I find it. That would be worrying enough in any Bill, but it is more worrying in a Bill proposing radical changes to our electoral procedures. I hope to catch your eye on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I will want to expatiate on why the Bill is unnecessary and dangerous. However, I will leave that until later.
      In the meantime, I want to concentrate on clause 9 and try to get from the Minister a clearer idea of what its provisions mean. The clause is tantalisingly long, but almost equally opaque. It does not reveal—as it should—either the intention or the effect of the proposals. The House has already spent considerable time on Second Reading and in Committee speculating on why we are to have this bifurcated register, and to what purposes it might be put. The fact that we are still speculating illustrates the difficulties in which the House may find itself.
      Clause 9, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is seeking to strengthen with the new clause, says that "provisions" should be made. That is a generous but vague word, which allows any amount of latitude to the Secretary of State of the day. The clause states that provisions will be made
      "specifying a form of words".
      That means that almost anything can be written into the provisions. It goes on to state that the provisions specifying the form of words will explain to those registered or applying to be registered
      "the purposes for which the edited register might be used".
      If that is not a circular argument, I do not know what is.
      The form of words in the Bill is completely without meaning or substance. The Bill says that something will happen in the future which will give rise to an explanation
      878
      of the purposes of something that we do not yet understand. That is what the House is being asked to accept in this important Bill, and it is not good enough.
      The clause goes on, with impudence of the highest order, to say that the provisions will ascertain what is requested by or on behalf of such persons. We have the ultimate in legislative nonsense, with the Bill using a form of words which tells us nothing and leads us nowhere.
      Mr. Bercow: I endorse my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the new clause. Is not it absolutely typical that the clause that the Government are defending has been drawn up by a Department which, according to my immediate calculation, contains four Ministers—the Home Secretary, two Ministers of State and an Under-Secretary—who are lawyers?
      Mr. Forth: That frightening thought may go some way to explaining our difficulties. However, our job on Report is to get ourselves out of those difficulties, and recognising them is an important first step. My hon. Friend, who will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale's excellent introduction, may not have been reassured to be told that this nonsense is the outcome of a working party which produced a consensus and led to the urgency with which the Bill is being rushed through the House today.
      5.45 pm
      All of these words—"working parties", "consensus" and the spurious "urgency"—would make me suspicious about a Bill on any subject. However, this is where the new clause may come to our rescue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was persuasive, but it will take some considerable effort by the Minister to persuade me to support the Bill, although I do support the new clause. The doubts about the Bill, and its flaws, are evident.
      The advantage of the new clause is that before we are led astray by the looseness of the drafting of the Bill—and before the peculiar provisions alluded to in clause 9 lead to a miasma of inexplicable verbiage—we will be rescued, in part, by the draft to be published and by the time that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, in his sagacity, has allowed for that process.
      Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a draft of the regulations before us would be a considerable improvement on what we have now, which is nothing?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. The irony is that the Government, who have told us so much about the virtues of pre-legislative activity and the strengthening of legislation by being open, have produced the antithesis of that—unless my hon. Friend believes that the working party, of which one of our colleagues was a member, did all the pre-legislative work.
      Mr. Greenway: No.
      Mr. Forth: That reassures me. We have a degree of reassurance with the safety net in the new clause, which may help us to correct a fundamental weakness in clause 9.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have not taken a close interest in the progress of the Bill,

      879
      but it so happens that the last time I attended such a debate, the House was discussing this very clause. I have never understood how many people will have the right to have the register, unrestricted. If that number is more than three, any suggestion of limiting its use is pie in the sky.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever, and he may have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale asking a similar question. The fact that we still have to pose such a fundamental question illustrates the extent to which we have got ourselves into difficulties with the Bill. Notwithstanding the working party and the consensus—I am beginning to wonder how real that consensus was—the Minister has failed to answer that fundamental question. That leads me to the conclusion that unless we get a satisfactory answer, the House may not want the Bill to proceed and should find a way to send it back for further consideration.
      I shall encapsulate my views by saying that I believe that the fundamental weaknesses and inadequacies of clause 9 can be partially corrected by new clause 1. On that basis, I am prepared to support the new clause, although I await the Minister's comments. I remain to be convinced of the necessity for, or viability and benefit of, the Bill.
      Mr. Maclean: I was prompted to take an interest in clause 9 and new clause 1 because of the Minister's comments in the debate last week. I do not blame the Minister personally because he has to carry the departmental brief, and the Government as a whole are responsible for the extreme haste with which clause 9 was produced despite their not having thought through the consequences. The Minister answered concerns raised by Labour Members about direct marketing and credit checking. He said:
      "We are discussing the detail of that with the industry. It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry. However, we are examining with the industry ways in which credit issues can be better resolved."
      We are about to reach Third Reading of an important Bill that deals with the registration of electors, and the House should not be faced with such a clause as clause 9 which is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, completely inexplicable. It is so ambiguous that it could mean anything that any Minister wants it to mean, depending on what sort of regulations he wishes to produce or what sort of mood he is in.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): My right hon. Friend has mentioned an issue of grave concern to me. He will be aware that I have tabled several written questions exploring concerns about the use that might be made by the credit industry of the information made available under the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I are both officers of the all-party group on insurance and financial services, and I find it extraordinary, in these days of pre-legislative scrutiny, that the Government are putting proposals before the House when they have not yet finished their consultations on the safeguards for the public.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right, and the humbug we get from the Government on that point is amazing. I sat on a Committee considering the Immigration and
      880
      Asylum Act 1999, which was also the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, and the same Minister also served on the Committee. We heard from him a daily mantra of how wonderful the Government were for having conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny and that a range of complex issues had been discussed in advance. We are now considering a complex issue that will affect everyone on the electoral register, as well as all the direct marketing agencies, the banks and credit checking agencies and Members of Parliament, but the Government do not have a clue about the regulations they will draw up.
      It gets worse. In the previous debate, the Minister was pressed on the subject of regulations and said:
      "Once new regulations governing access to the full electoral register are in place, we can expect the public and any industries which are affected to make their views known about the impact of those regulations."
      He later continued:
      "I have no doubt that hon. Members will continue to raise points of concern and, where appropriate, changes will be made to accommodate them." —[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 461–621.]
      That is a new doctrine from new Labour now it is in government. The attitude is, "We are not going to consult about the regulations in advance. We are going to pass them and if you don't like them, you can complain about them and we may change them later." If Ministers in the previous Government had tried that on, the Labour Opposition would have demanded emergency statements PDQ. It is an outrageous thing for a Minister to say. We know how difficult it is to change regulations after the event.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham rose—
      Mr. Maclean: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer.
      Mr. Bermingham: I declare that interest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many regulations have been sprung on the House at the last minute in the past 10 or 15 years, and it was only when objections were raised to them that changes were made? What has changed?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) answers that point, I think that we have dealt sufficiently with the timetable surrounding the Bill. I ask Members now to deal with the contents of new clause 1.
      Mr. Maclean: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have covered the background to clause 9 and I shall now address the content—or what I believe should be the content—of the regulations.
      I support new clause 1 because it attempts to make the diabolically vague clause 9 slightly better. New clause 1 would provide that
      "The Secretary of State shall publish in draft any provisions he intends to make … and shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him to have an interest in the operation of those provisions."
      We heard from Labour Members in earlier debates about their concerns about the effect on direct marketing organisations. Denouncing junk mail is a popular pastime,

      881
      but some junk mail we like and some we dislike. I have no particular objection to junk mail from a direct marketing organisation that may have obtained my name from the electoral register. If I do not like the wine on offer from Bordeaux Direct, I do not have to buy it and I can put the leaflet in the bin. If I do not want the thermal slippers from Kaleidoscope, I do not have to buy them. However, I am forced to deal with the junk mail I get from Members of Parliament and national lobby groups trying to blackmail me into supporting one cause or another in the House. I wish I could remove myself from that list.
      I suspect that all the 35 million people on the electoral register have different views about the junk mail that they would not like to receive. However, I do not know how many organisations would consider it vital to have access to the full register but would be prohibited from doing so under the Bill. If those organisations were to be consulted before the regulations were drafted, the Government would have a chance to get them right. That is not a political point, because if any Government planned to make regulations that introduced two types of register—one with all the names on and one without some names—I know from my Home Office experience that a dozen organisations could stake a legitimate claim to one version of the list and another dozen would feel as strongly that the first lot should not get that version.
      6 pm
      In addition, what about the charities, some of which have been mentioned? I and other hon. Members received some very worrying correspondence from St. Dunstan's, the marvellous charity that helps people blinded, or partially blinded, as a result of military service. Every year that organisation, like other charities, sends out about 3 million letters and circulars to targeted people. Some would call that junk mail. I do not know where the mailing list comes from, or whether the charity buys it, or from whom. However, I think that the electoral register plays a key role as no charity would want to spend a fortune on the expensive lists available commercially.
      I made a special trip to talk to the charity's organisers. Their sense that they were not getting proper support from the Government or the national lottery is not relevant to the debate, but they emphasised that their charity needed mailing lists for the millions of letters sent out. There are many other charities, of course.
      Will the Minister say what position charities involved in direct mail operations will occupy in the future? What effect will the Bill have on other, commercial direct operations?
      Mr. James Gray: I am struck by what my right hon. Friend has said about charities. Is he not worried that the Bill will prevent charities from targeting their fund-raising activities on middle-class or prosperous households, with the result that they will get less than at present?
      Mr. Maclean: I agree that that is a worry. Charities use the electoral register, Yellow Pages, postcode data and other data that they buy from other organisations. Target markets depend on what they want to sell or the funding that they want to raise: their target audience need not be
      882
      middle class but could be any social group. The Bill could prohibit that activity. The new clause would at least give charities a chance to bring that difficulty to the Government's attention.
      I have never won the Reader's Digest prize draw but I do not mind putting that magazine's circular in the bin, yet that advertising is precisely what the Government seem to want to stop. If that is their prejudice, so be it, but clause 9 and the Government's reluctance to consult about the regulations mean that other, legitimate operations—such as charities—would suffer.
      Mr. Rowe: If hundreds of people are entitled to have access to the unrestricted register, is not it almost certain that some of them will engage in illegal practices? The demand for the register is great, and its availability vast. Will we not be creating a jungle of potential crime?
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend prompts me to bring forward the point with which I intended to conclude my contribution. In my little computer case in my office I have a compact disc entitled "Info UK". It contains more than 49 million names and addresses.
      Mr. Forth: Gosh.
      Mr. Maclean: Some telephone contact numbers are also included, although I do not use them. I acquired the CD—for about £49.50—because I was told that it existed. I did not believe that it could contain so many names and addresses, but it does. I could enter the name of almost any hon. Member, and acquire the relevant address.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman have so much time to waste that he can check 49 million names?
      Mr. Forth: He will read them out in a moment.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall not go down that route, but there are various ways to waste time. Some would say that it is more interesting to read 49 million names and addresses than to read the speeches or court case reports of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is true that there are many different ways of wasting time, and the right hon. Gentleman is verging on one.
      Mr. Maclean: That is why I shall not be tempted out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The CD that I have described is already in wide circulation and is constantly updated. A different worry stems from the forthcoming CD containing aerial photographs of every house in the country. When the two discs are amalgamated, there could be serious security breaches involving senior police and military officers, politicians and others.
      A large industry exists with access to the electoral register, but that comprises only a small part of a comprehensive database that can be easily searched and which is easily available. I suspect that most of the information on that database is bought from other companies. Every time we subscribe to an organisation or a Christmas catalogue, we have to tick a box to prevent our names being passed on to other companies.

      883
      Huge resources are devoted to the compilation of information. All the telephone directories and full lists of internet and e-mail addresses are available on computer. The Government can try to restrict access to the full register as much as they like, but the one copy that may be made available to a credit card checking company may well be sufficient to act as authentication for the almost total picture already compiled about the 56 million people in the country.
      Hypothetically, we could abolish the electoral register completely. However, I suspect that it would remain possible to garner enough information from telephone directories, the internet and other sources to provide a pretty accurate register.
      Mr. Forth: I just want to capture the moment and ask whether my right hon. Friend considers that the sources to which he has referred could, in an ironic sort of way, serve as an invaluable source of cross-checking and verification of the electoral register? Might not the downside of what he has suggested become an advantage? That matter is covered by a later amendment, but I wanted to ask the question as my right hon. Friend was on the topic.
      Mr. Maclean: Yes, and one can use the House of Commons address checker facility to check whether a letter comes from a constituent. That facility can determine on which side of a constituency boundary an address may lie. Hon. Members can use the House of Commons system for that, and I am sure that outsiders can tap into it too. A later amendment would make it possible for electoral registration officers to check on commercial systems to verify whether the names supplied to them are legitimate and valid.
      Because of the intervention of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, the Minister may have thought my point about the huge amount of information that there is on compact disc a cause for humour. It is not—it is a cause for concern. It is therefore vital that the Government consult before they draw up the regulations.
      I was alerted to Info UK by the police service. The police were legitimately concerned that, having taken vigorous steps to keep the names of certain officers off the electoral register for security purposes, their names were still on a CD that has sold about 1.5 million copies in the United Kingdom. The Government should consult the police service and other organisations with an interest in these matters, such as charities and direct marketing firms. I am absolutely certain that in a minefield such as this, with the best will in the world, no Government and no Minister can get it right in advance.
      The Minister may live to regret saying last week that the Government will make the regulations governing access first, and that, once they were in place, they would wait for complaints on where they had got them wrong, and might then be minded to change them. That approach will cause enormous difficulty.
      The new clause may be imperfectly drafted, but at least it will give the Government a chance to amend the regulations before they bring them before the House. I challenge the Minister: when, in his two years in the Home Office, has he prepared draft regulations that have not needed amending because someone spotted something wrong and suggested improvements? That is not a
      884
      weakness, nor a fault. There is nothing wrong in preparing regulations with the help of the best lawyers that the Home Office can get its hands on, consulting on those regulations and then discovering a flaw or an omission. Pre-legislative scrutiny, consultation and trusting the people are supposed to be new Labour strengths, but the Minister is saying that he will not do that.
      If the Government reject the new clause, it will be a sign that they believe they know best. They will keep the provisions to themselves and rush them through quickly, and to blazes with those outside who may suffer. I do not think that that is the Minister's attitude. I am sorry that he is locked into this box; it has no doubt been forced on him by his colleagues and by the agreement that he reached in an alleged committee in Cabinet. We can also blame the working party. I hope that he can wangle out of it tonight by accepting the new clause.
      Mr. Bermingham: I hope to be but brief. I think that there is some sense in the new clause. I know that the Government may not agree with me, but sometimes it pays to stand back, to look and to think.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) did not think me facetious when I asked whether he had checked that there were 49 million names. I could not for a moment understand who the heck would want 49 million names on a compact disc. When I hear that 1.5 million have been sold, and that a CD will be issued showing an aerial photograph of everyone's house, I begin to wonder about the words "privacy" and "personal privacy", and it causes me some concern.
      I came in here and, as I have done for years, glanced at the new clause. I listened to the comments and, when I heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) giving forth—no pun intended—I thought, "Here we go again. What's this load of rubbish?" Then I looked at the new clause again, and I thought very carefully. When in opposition, I said time and again about regulations, "If only people would stand back and think, we might cut down the number of challenges in the courts." That I have said not once but a thousand times in this House.
      The regulations on the electoral register may not be perfect. It would be so nice to get them right, which is why I think that the new clause has some merit. It may need redrafting, but the thought behind it is not hostile. The new clause would effectively provide that, when the provisions have been drafted, they should be put out to consultation with a view to reaching agreement. It is better to agree something by consensus than to vote it through against opposition.
      The second half of the new clause is also sensible. How many times do we get a raft of regulations and orders in July that most of us do not read? Then, some time in the fall, a constituent or someone connected with us says, "Did you see that regulation? What about X?"
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that his support for the new clause is warmly appreciated by Conservative Members, even though it has already earned the obvious wrath and probably the undying enmity of the representative of the Patronage Secretary—the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt). Will the hon. Member for St. Helens,

      885
      South (Mr. Bermingham) say, on the strength of what he has already told us, whether he has a preferred length of consultation and a preferred format?
      Mr. Bermingham: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) —my Whip—will not exercise his wrath on me. He, like me, is a civilised and dignified man; if we disagree, we will disagree head to head, as I would with my son. I have no fear in saying what I think, and I can now answer the hon. Gentleman's questions.
      The Government should consult as widely as possible, and the period of that consultation should be realistic—a matter of months, not weeks or days. Indeed, if I may return to the point that I was making before the hon. Gentleman's intervention—I did not see the purpose of the intervention, but that does not matter—if the publication or the draft is published at the beginning of the summer, for example, there should be a realistic time for consultation. The period allowed for consultation should be parliamentary time, not calendar time. I have in the past railed and ranted against the previous Government for publishing in July draft proposals that had a closing date when Parliament was not sitting. That seems counter-productive. The object of the exercise when consulting is to consult.
      If one is to be realistic, one consults in a way that enables those with whom one wishes to consult—or, if it is the public, to invite ideas—to have a realistic and practical opportunity to make their views known. Those views may or may not be of value—one does not know before one asks.
      There may be considerable value in the new clause, just as there was in another Opposition amendment that I mentioned the other week—the one originally tabled in December. I am not sure about the wording or the drafting, but it has merit. It should be considered, and I hope that the Government will do so.
      Mr. Wilshire: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I hope that all hon. Members listened to the key reason that he gave for supporting new clause 1. I believe that it is of the utmost significance when a barrister tells the House that he supports a proposal because it will mean less work for the courts. A barrister advancing the argument of less work for his profession means that his motives are of the purest. It means that the House is being given advice that, whatever our political party, we would be foolish to reject.
      Mr. Greenway: It is free advice.
      Mr. Wilshire: The advice may be free—time will tell.
      It is also a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I listened with much interest to his various definitions of junk mail, but I was deeply disappointed to learn that he does not extend his definition to my pet hate in the letter box—the invoice and the bill. On reflection, he might
      886
      agree that they were dispensable. Indeed, perhaps we could legislate against sending bills to Members of Parliament.
      It is always enjoyable to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). This evening, he treated the House to a speech of great brevity and clarity, with the result that I was completely confused. The point of the new clause is to deal with confusion. My right hon. Friend's clarity made it clear that we cannot allow the Bill to proceed in its current form because it will confuse all those who try to tackle the matter.
      I have no difficulty in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I shall willingly vote for new clause 1, should he ask me to do so. As I said earlier, I have reservations about the haste with which the Bill has been introduced—that is one of the reasons for my intervention in the debate—but I wonder whether the new clause goes far enough.
      However, my colleagues and I are grateful to the Government for accepting the amendment that was tabled in Committee. In opposition, one rapidly learns to be thankful for small mercies, so I am more than willing to thank the Government for that especially small mercy. The amendment makes a bad Bill slightly less bad—I would go no further than that. However, even that is something. We should not be grudging in our thanks to the Minister. Having heard those words of thanks, I hope that he will accept the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South and will thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the new clause.
      I am concerned about some of the detail in the new clause. Under subsection (1), it states:
      "The Secretary of State shall publish in draft".
      I am worried about the words "shall publish". I am all in favour of the Secretary of State publishing draft provisions, but I should have preferred the new clause to specify that the Government should place them before Parliament. If the words are merely "shall publish", the Government will probably give a press briefing, which parliamentarians will not attend. If they do not do that, they will organise a press release and will slip the measure out late at night, when we shall not have an opportunity to discuss it as soon as it appears. Alternatively, to judge by past experience, they will leak it. They will claim that to be publication.
      We need a new clause and a new Bill that provides for such provisions to be placed before Parliament. If we cannot have that, I am most willing to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. If the Minister does not accept my comments and the Bill goes to another place, I hope that he will try to strengthen the new clause and accept it.
      I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House—
      Mr. Gray: The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is responsible for the Bill, is leaving the Chamber. He told me, from a sedentary position, that he did not have time to listen to the debate. Is that not worrying?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the Minister responsible for the Bill, and I am in the Chamber.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is just a statement of the position.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful that the Minister is in the Chamber. I assume that, when the Under-Secretary left the Chamber, it was to take instructions from Mr. Campbell as to whether he should accept—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to new clause 1.
      Mr. Wilshire: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      When the Minister replies to my point about the distinction between placing before Parliament and publishing, will he tell us which draft publications he has in mind? Surely, we cannot have reached this stage of the Bill's progress without the Government having at least the beginnings of some ideas. Will the Minister throw some light on the matter? When the time comes to vote on the measure, that will guide us as to whether we need it.
      My second concern relates to the words—also under subsection (1)—
      "shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him".
      I am not happy to leave it to a Minister to decide what "appears to him" to be correct, when we are dealing with the representation of the people. That is at the heart of our democracy. The new clause would be improved if the words were "as appears to Parliament". It is a parliamentary matter, and cannot safely be left to the Executive. Throughout the world, Executives have a nasty habit of playing fast and loose with democracy if they get half a chance. Parliament is the safeguard of our democracy. It should be for Parliament, not for Ministers, to decide whom it appears appropriate to consult at a given moment.
      Mr. Bermingham: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there has always been a list of the great and the good—the bodies to be consulted? That list rolls on from Government to Government. I cannot understand why he has such difficulty with the wording of that part of the new clause—it is the same format that has always been used.
      Mr. Wilshire: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. I pointed out that, just because something has been done wrong for 100 years, there is no reason to continue to do it wrong. At least I am being consistent, because I am making the same points about the defence of the rights of Parliament that I made when we were in government. In dealing with matters that are at the heart of representative democracy, I have always believed that it should be for Parliament and not for the Executive to make the decisions. I suggest that the measure is one such matter.
      I have some concerns about subsection (2) of the new clause, which includes the words
      "until three months have elapsed".
      888
      Reference has already been made to that matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale will not mind my saying that I should have preferred the words to be "six months".
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, South is correct: the three-month period makes it possible that the consultation process could take place when the House is not sitting. That cannot be right. It doubly reinforces my point about representative democracy. The provision is one that must come before the House, yet it could be dealt with during our absence.
      There are several other considerations. During the summer, the people who are consulted might find it difficult to hold proper consultations. I assume that the Minister proposes to list a range of representative organisations who will be consulted. They will have to ask the advice of their members before responding. If an organisation with a large number of members—such as some of those in the direct marketing profession—has to consult those members during three months in the summer, it might not be able to undertake realistic and effective consultations, so as to give the Government the advice that is needed, during that period.
      6.30 pm
      It is also the case, as I have observed and I am sure that the House has observed during the past few weeks, that the United Kingdom comes perilously close to a standstill for an ever-longer period over the Christmas break. If the three-month consultation period were to include the run-up to Christmas, Christmas, the gap between Christmas and the new year, the new year and the hangover after the new year, an awful length of time within that three-month period could well be used up, and again we would not be getting the advice that we so urgently need.
      Another aspect of the new clause that causes me slight concern is that although, admirably, it calls for much more clarity in the consultation process, it does not address what I consider to be a further issue of great importance—the need to secure parliamentary approval for the guidelines and regulations after consultation has taken place. I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will reassure us that he will take on board the concept of returning to Parliament and allowing us the final say on the suitability of the entire consultation process.
      I hope that the Government listened to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, even if they did not listen with any great care and attention to what Opposition Members said, because I am convinced that the new clause strengthens the Bill and meets the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am amazed that it takes an Opposition amendment to address such a concern.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The new clause appears perfectly worthy, and worthy of Government support. I hope that the Government will be positive. I only add one PS. It comes to something when the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mistakes the Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), for the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt).
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The new clause was moved with characteristic vigour by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but I cannot invite the House to support it as it does not add sufficiently to the Bill to justify its inclusion.
      As the House is aware, we are carefully considering what form any regulations governing access to the full electoral register should take. We are examining carefully the representations that have been made to us, and my officials are holding regular meetings with representatives of the credit and finance industries to discuss those matters. Only two days ago they had a very helpful meeting with them. We have also received advice from the Data Protection Registrar. Obviously, we need to strike a balance between meeting privacy and data protection concerns and ensuring that we do not unduly harm the industries that now make use of the electoral register. We believe that we can strike that balance, and that the regulations that we draft will achieve that. Any such regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, so I can tell the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that Parliament will have a full opportunity to debate them. I can also repeat a previous commitment: that the regulations will be accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment.
      Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend begins to reassure me, but I do not understand why the regulations cannot be published in draft, to allow representatives not only of the regulatory industries and the financial industries but of other bodies to comment on the proposals. Then, when the regulations come before the House for debate, they will at least have been seen by many other people who have been able to have an input, or offer advice on what will become the regulations drafted by the Department.
      Mr. O'Brien: If my hon. Friend had borne with me a little longer, he would have discovered that the regulations will be published in draft and consulted on.
      As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we believe that the full register should be available to credit and finance companies for the purpose of establishing identity in connection with credit applications, and the Data Protection Registrar has confirmed that she would be happy with that. Such a step will ensure that those who opt out do not inadvertently suffer by finding it hard to obtain credit. Our discussions with the banking and finance industries are now concentrating on precisely how we would make such an arrangement work.
      As I hope to show, there is no question of ill-thought-out regulations being slipped through. The regulations that emerge will be based on the outcome of full and proper consultation with the industries concerned, and I am sure that they will be properly scrutinised here and in another place.
      Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am anxious to make progress. We have a great deal of work before us today. There are many amendments further down the selection list on which I am sure hon. Members would like to make progress, so I am
      890
      us to accept further interventions. However, I am happy to accept an intervention on this occasion from the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister; I hear his warnings. What he has just said is very welcome to all of us. We have obtained from him the huge concession that there will be proper consultation before the regulations are promulgated by his Department. Much as we welcome his conversion, what has changed since last Thursday when he made the opposite statement, as is recorded in Hansard?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure that anything has changed, nor that I made the opposite statement. We have always taken the view that, on this matter, we need properly to consult with the industry on regulations. I have maintained that view throughout, in letters to and meetings with various parts of the industry. We have never been in any doubt that the industry will be legitimately concerned with these matters and that we should ensure that we take on board their arguments.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale asked whether we have a settled view on the direct marketing industry. We do have a settled view, but not a dogmatic view, about how we shall proceed. We are prepared to listen to representations from any organisation that may be prepared to make them and we shall happily consider them, but we shall need to be convinced by the strength of the argument. The Government have data protection and privacy obligations. The previous Government signed the data protection directive, with which we need to comply—I am sure that the hon Gentleman would want us to do so. It is our clear view that this legislation is necessary to comply with that.
      The working party also consulted on all these issues. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not suggesting that we could not be taken on trust. Indeed, he said that he was satisfied that we were prepared to consult on these matters, and I am grateful to him for putting it in that way. He was worried that the consultation period may not have been very long because the full report of the working party came out in October, but I can tell him that the initial findings of the working party were known in July and that there was the opportunity to make representations, although I accept that it was over the summer period.
      Some industries have been making representations and we have been continuing to listen to them. We do listen to the strength of the arguments. We have a settled view and a clear policy, but it is not dogmatic. The Direct Marketing Association and the Confederation of British Industry have sent us papers, and we shall continue to consider any representations that they are prepared to make.
      The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that the credit card industry and the finance industry could seek information from other sources—even the telephone directory. He is right. In fact, most other European countries have quite stringent restrictions. Many of them prohibit the selling on of an electoral register. In those countries, the credit card and the direct marketing industries find the other means that are available to them. They might have to create new industries to gather that information, and that might

      891
      benefit the economy by creating new business opportunities. However, the credit card and the finance industries will have the opportunity to move forward.
      I wish to deal with the issue of debt recovery that was raised by the hon. Member for Ryedale. We have consulted the Data Protection Registrar closely and the view taken was that the use of the register for debt recovery would be contrary to the spirit of the data protection directive. She took a different view to that about discovering the initial identity of individuals to decide whether credit could be granted to them. We could, no doubt, have a legalistic argument about the distinctions, but the registrar is there to advise and we have listened carefully to the advice that we have been given.
      Mr. Greenway: Will the Minister consider whether the explanatory leaflet given to householders would touch on the effect of ticking the opt-out box on debt recovery and on the use of the register for direct marketing purposes, so that existing data can be verified to restrict the amount of junk mail? Is his mind open to those ideas so that, when people tick the box, they know that they are granting consent for the data to be used for those purposes? That would get round the problem of the directive.
      Mr. O'Brien: As I understand it—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—he is asking whether, when a person considers whether to tick the opt-out box, he will know that the issues of debt recovery and direct marketing are before him. I see no reason why, on the face of it, such information should not appear in the leaflet that we shall circulate. Whether the debt recovery industry wants such information in the leaflet is a matter for consultation, but, in principle, I have an open mind. I am quite happy to consult the industry.
      The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border asked whether we would consult the police. I am happy to inform him that we are doing that. My officials had a meeting with the National Criminal Intelligence Service only yesterday. Full and proper consultations will take place.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked how we will proceed. My officials are already consulting the industries and, once the Bill is enacted, we will produce a draft. That will be put on the internet, it will be circulated among those who have signalled their interest, and we will listen to their concerns. I do not want to place a three-month limit on the consultation because that would raise all sorts of issues, but we shall talk to the industry about the time that it needs for reasonable consultation.
      I have given hon. Members as much reassurance as I can that we shall consult as much as is reasonable in all the circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will withdraw his motion.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to hon. Members for contributing to the debate and for making pertinent points in support of my case that the House should receive greater reassurance about the implications of clause 9 and the forthcoming regulations. There should be consultation and proper time should be given to interested parties to reflect on the regulations. The House should then have the opportunity to debate and approve them.
      I am grateful to the Minister for responding in the way that he did. His answer confirms that this has been an extremely worthwhile debate. I understand his point that
      892
      he does not think that the new clause adds sufficiently to the Bill to justify its inclusion. That encourages me to try to do a little better next time to ensure that my new clauses are slightly more wide ranging.
      6.45 pm
      In effect, the Minister said that, although he has come to a settled view about direct marketing, it is not a dogmatic one. I interpret that to mean that his mind is not yet fully made up and that both his door and his mind are not closed to further representations. I intervened on the Minister because the more I study the Data Protection Registrar's concerns, the more I am convinced that the problems can be got round through the information that is given to people about the implications of ticking the opt-out box. As the Bill allows, the information should explain to them the effect that ticking the box would have on a number of issues.
      All we can do in our debates is to provide the industry with the opportunity to discuss the issues further with the Minister. We have achieved that aim, but it is up to the industry to decide whether it is worth taking that opportunity. As I confirmed to the Minister the other day, the industry is perfectly prepared to pay the cost of the production of the leaflet, which would then be distributed at local authorities' expense when they make their electoral registration canvass.
      I think that we have made significant progress in the last couple of hours—we have made considerably more than on Thursday. The Minister should expect the matters to be further scrutinised if and when the Bill goes to the other place. However, in the spirit of the Minister's positive response to our concerns, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      NEW SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, leave out lines 26 to 31.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 6, page 8, leave out lines 39 to 43.
      Mr. Maclean: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke with his customary wisdom in the previous debate, I reflected briefly that it was an unfortunate custom of the House that my right hon. Friend cannot properly be referred to as my right hon. and learned Friend. Not only does that form of address have a certain ring and cachet about it, it is absolutely appropriate and correct in view of the—to borrow his own phrase—sagacity of his previous contribution. My contribution will not be nearly as sagacious and it will be brief because I wish to reserve my energy for the Second Reading debates that will follow.
      The amendments relate to different clauses of the Bill. Amendment No. 13 would amend clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6, but they would both do exactly the same thing. They would delete the three-month residency qualification for Northern Ireland.

      893
      Amendment No. 13 would delete lines in clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6(5) and remove the words:
      "Where a declaration of local connection is made for the purposes of registration in Northern Ireland, the declaration must state that the declarant has been in Northern Ireland during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration."
      Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, but we have no such requirement for a special three-month residency qualification in any other part of the United Kingdom. No doubt it could be said that before the so-called peace settlement the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland meant that to avoid fraud—it would not be personation in this case—a three-month residency qualification was necessary. I am not sure what the justification is for that. Presumably, the aim was to check the bona fides of the applicant for electoral registration to ensure that citizens of the Irish Republic, a foreign country, were not popping up to Northern Ireland on registration day, staying in the Province overnight, and getting on to the register.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that the differential should exist and that it should be debated on the very day that the Government have claimed that normalisation will be achieved by the implementation of the Patten report on the RUC?
      Mr. Maclean: That is a rather sad coincidence.
      I shall give the House an example that demonstrates the absurdity of maintaining that provision in the Bill. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I have a friend who is an officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on attachment in this country. He is a United Kingdom citizen, born and brought up in Northern Ireland, serving his country in the RUC. He has been working in this country for a few years and when he returns to Northern Ireland, if he has not maintained his place on the register, that British citizen, who pays taxes through the nose in this country, will have to live in the Province for at least three months before he can get on to the register in his own country and have a right to vote in British elections.
      On the other hand, citizens from a foreign country—the Irish Republic—may pass through Great Britain and get on to the electoral register here. I am talking not about people who come here for a holiday or for the day, but people who are doing short-term work in this country. They may not be paying a penny of tax in the UK. They may not care a jot for this Parliament, this Government, this Opposition or any of our country's institutions. However, the fact that, due to an historical anomaly, we grant citizens of the Irish Republic the right to vote in British elections, those people will get on to the electoral register in Britain without having to spend three months here to gain a residency qualification
      I think that I have got the facts correct: citizens of the Irish Republic passing through Great Britain get on to the register overnight, but UK citizens serving in Her Majesty's forces who return to their homes in Northern Ireland cannot get on to the register unless they have lived in the Province for three months and produced all the necessary documentation to prove that they are not frauds or foreigners.
      894
      I do not find that an absurdity; I find it an obscenity. It is outrageous that we have built-in conditions that disadvantage our citizens, particularly those who are most likely to be affected: members of Her Majesty's armed forces who come from Northern Ireland to serve in regiments outside Northern Ireland and who return to their own country to retire or on posting, and who for technical reasons may not have the right to vote. Of course, that disadvantage may affect hundreds of other civilians who are also doing worthwhile work.
      If there was justification in the past, and there may have been, for the three-month Northern Ireland residency qualification, there is certainly no justification for allowing foreigners, such as citizens of the Irish Republic, to vote in British elections. However, that is another anomaly, which I shall leave undisturbed tonight. If there was justification in the past, what is the justification now when we are told that the peace process has resulted in fundamental change?
      We are now to destroy the RUC itself. We are to allow two members of Sinn Fein-IRA—whom my hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist party call "unreconstructed terrorists"—to participate in the Government of Northern Ireland. Perhaps they are to have an office next to mine and £50,000 of allowances in a couple of weeks. Perhaps they are to have access to the whole of Parliament, to be called a party and to be given short money because they are now democratic. Perhaps they will be wandering in and out of the Cafeteria. If all that is to happen, it is surely a sign that we are in a radically different world from the one in which a three-month residency qualification was appropriate.
      Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the forthcoming Disqualifications Bill in his important speech. Will he inquire whether the Minister will make available to us the Government's security knowledge of the two individuals whom we shall allow into the House next week? That would make very interesting reading.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We would be pushing it if we moved on to that particular subject.
      Mr. Maclean: Even I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, recognise that that is not a subject that you want me to pursue tonight, although the hon. Gentleman's point is valid and needs to be explored in a future debate.
      I described the situation as an obscenity. It will be even worse next Tuesday when another Bill is rushed through this House, because it will not be just any citizens of the Irish Republic who are entitled to be on our electoral register and to vote. The Government intend to extend to Members of Parliament in southern Ireland the privilege of becoming serving Members in any of our parliamentary institutions—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying from the point. He knows full well that we are discussing a narrow amendment, and he is going wide of the subject.
      Mr. Maclean: I entirely accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment would delete the three-month residency qualification. I was merely trying to illustrate

      895
      the point that people from Northern Ireland who work in the rest of the UK and return to Northern Ireland will have to prove that they have lived in the Province for three months before they can vote. The Minister will probably say that he does not want to remove that condition and that, for various reasons, it must remain. He would say to the people of Northern Ireland, "Tough luck, ladies and gentleman. You have got to have a three-month residency qualification."
      I was not trying to explore the Bill that we shall debate on Monday and Tuesday; I was simply trying to illustrate how wrong the situation is for British citizens in Northern Ireland, because if the Disqualifications Bill goes through the House next week, Senators—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say once again to the right hon. Gentleman that he has already said that. He has made that case to the House and he must move on without repeating what he has already said.
      Mr. Maclean: I have no intention of repeating my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not clear that the point had been made. I am not as capable of making lucid points as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I sometimes think that I have to put my point again in a slightly different way to make sure that it has been understood. I accept your advice that it has been understood.
      I move on to the substance of my remarks. The three-month residency qualification is in clauses 4 and 6. Without touching on the previous debate—if I were to mention that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order—I can say that it was about the Government making regulations. Clause 9 is vague and gives the Government great scope to produce any regulations that they want, yet in clauses 4 and 6 there is no suggestion that the residency qualification should be dealt with by regulation.
      7 pm
      What will happen in a couple of months' time when the Bill has been rushed through the House, rushed through another place, and becomes law? What happens when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the Cabinet sub-Committee and says, "More progress has been made in Northern Ireland, so we must now scrap the residency qualification"? Given the pace at which the Government have been changing the constitution of this country and the law in Northern Ireland, it is no exaggeration to say that it is likely that, at some point in the future and for various reasons about which I shall not speculate, the Government will conclude that the three-month residency qualification is an obstacle to further progress in the peace process, or offends one or another of the political parties in Northern Ireland. However, if the amendment is not made, the provision will be in primary legislation; therefore, to change it, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have to introduce another piece of legislation.
      I am giving the Government an opportunity. If passed, the amendments would delete the relevant lines from clauses 4 and 6. However, if the Government believe that a residency qualification is essential for now, they can build in a regulation-making power that would enable them to make such a provision. They might be sensible to
      896
      take the chance offered in another place to change clauses 4 and 6 and take a power that enables them to make a regulation requiring, for the time being, a residency qualification in Northern Ireland. Then, in two or six months' time, when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that, in the interests of peace, the residency qualification must be dropped, the Government will be able to make the necessary changes immediately, without consultation.
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend knows that I have the highest regard for the way in which he raises all sorts of important issues in the House. However, does he accept that many people criticise the Government's legislation for leaving too much to secondary legislation, as was the case with the Health Act 1999? Would not the acceptance of his proposals leave far too open matters that deserve, and should receive, the House's full attention, rather than being left to a decision made Upstairs?
      Mr. Maclean: I accept my hon. Friend's point that important pieces of election law should not be subject to the whim of regulation. However, we have just spent an hour or so debating a vital clause, the provisions of which are to be left entirely to regulations that we have not yet seen, which are likely to be subject to a brief consultation process before being bounced through. If the Government consider it acceptable to make a host of regulations under clause 9 and other clauses, why do they not use regulation in the narrow matter of the Northern Ireland residency provision?
      The Government can easily put in the Bill a provision stating that there will be a residency qualification in Northern Ireland, renewable by regulation each year until such time as the Secretary of State concludes that it is no longer needed—it would be similar to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. There are other means by which the Government can attain their end, so why put it in the Bill? I am giving the Government an opt-out, but what I really want to hear is not that they will make that provision through regulation, but that it is not necessary at all, because it is wrong to discriminate against British citizens who live in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Forth: I rise to reinforce the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and to thank him for his generous words. He might come to regret them, but I shall try to live up to his praise.
      I start by reinforcing my right hon. Friend's final argument, which is well worn but none the less important. During consideration of almost every Bill with which I have been involved during my many years as a Member of Parliament, we have, quite properly, debated the wisdom or otherwise of putting a provision in a Bill, thus giving it a sort of sanctity—fixing it. It is often argued that, if a matter is sufficiently important, there is a case for putting it in the Bill in order deliberately to make it more difficult to remove or alter. We have all heard that argument, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend's question is whether that argument makes sense in the context of this Bill.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out, it seems strange that, just a few hours after hearing an important statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the future

      897
      of the RUC in the context of progress being made—Northern Ireland was changing and that we must all be prepared to make changes—we are considering a Bill that features a measure that would, by definition, be fixed or at least extremely difficult to change. I cannot understand how those two things can be squared.
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes a sound point. Does he agree that, as in many other circumstances, the soundbite "joined-up government" makes no sense in this instance?
      Mr. Forth: That is true. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department consulted about the provision that we are debating. The Minister will agree that it appears greatly at odds with the message that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants to send—which is about the normalisation of Northern Ireland as conditions there come more into line with conditions in the United Kingdom mainland—to have in the Bill a provision that marks out Northern Ireland as being distinct and different from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Opposition are challenging that contradiction and the wisdom of the Government approach. The Government cannot have it both ways: if government were joined-up, there would be consistency between the arguments that they present and the content of their Bills.
      The problem goes deeper than that. Anyone who has spent any time as a Member of Parliament knows that, as soon as something is put in a Bill, it becomes fixed to some degree—not immutable, but extremely difficult to alter, because a provision in primary legislation can be changed only by further primary legislation. Do the Government really want to fix a measure relating to Northern Ireland to that extent, given their desire to persuade us that matters in Northern Ireland are moving forward, progressing, changing and improving—that Northern Ireland is becoming more "normal", as they would describe it?
      We have with us a distinguished colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I hope that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during this debate, because his contribution will be invaluable in revealing the point of view of our friends in Northern Ireland. We can only re-emphasise our commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom, our regard for Northern Ireland and our desire that it should be perceived as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the provision relating to a residency qualification is offensive, because it deliberately and gratuitously marks out Northern Ireland as requiring special treatment.
      I believe that I can anticipate the Minister's argument. He will say that there is a long-standing fear that aliens from the Republic of Ireland might try to invade the body politic in Northern Ireland by inveigling their way on to the electoral register, thus gaining influence over the voting process in that part of the United Kingdom. Be that as it may—I make no judgment as to the likelihood of that happening or even as to whether it has already
      898
      happened—I can only speculate about whether a three-month residency requirement would do anything to prevent that process. I doubt very much that a three-month residency qualification would deter an alien person from the Republic of Ireland who was sufficiently determined to infiltrate the political process in Northern Ireland.
      Setting that aside for a moment, I hope that the Minister recognises that the provisions of the Bill, as it would be if the amendments were accepted, backed up by provisions dealing with validation and verification of the registration process that will—provided they are accepted—be inserted in the Bill by amendments to which we shall come shortly, will provide sufficient safeguards against the process of alien infiltration of which the Minister appears so afraid and which he might argue is the motivation for his putting such an ill-conceived measure in the Bill.
      We therefore have a peculiar set of circumstances. I shall be interested to hear the Minister weave his way through this part of the argument. I hope that he will deal with the discussions that he may have had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this context and with whether the right hon. Gentleman is content with this part of the Bill. I would like to know whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland feels that he can square what he said in the House a few hours ago with what is in the Bill relating to Northern Ireland. I want the Minister to tell me whether he regards Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, to be treated in every way the same as the rest of the United Kingdom, and whether he believes that the provisions that we shall come to later in our deliberations might well be sufficient to provide proper safeguards in the registration process without the need for an overriding process of the sort that we now have.
      Mr. Bercow: Is it conceivable that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is content with the provision and that, notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said and notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, he advocated its inclusion in the Bill?
      Mr. Forth: We know none of those things. It is ironic that so often we find ourselves speculating, whereas, in an era of alleged open government, we should know for sure. Ministers should be elbowing one another aside in their eagerness to share their thoughts with us and to demonstrate the Government's integrity and the effectiveness of collective responsibility. That should be the position, but I have not seen much sign of it so far.
      Mr. Fabricant: I speak directly to the clause. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a direct consequence of the fact that Cabinet meetings are no longer held in the manner in which they were previously—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking not to a clause but to an amendment. He is out of order.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you know how anxious I am to get through this business quickly and to move on to Third Reading, when I can make really expansive remarks. My remarks now are but a taste of what I want to say. I cannot wait for Third

      899
      Reading. I shall deal narrowly with my hon. Friend's point while I am on my feet, but first I shall respond to the introduction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. He pointed out that we are dealing not only with the matters set out in clause 1 but with the parallel provisions to which our amendments apply in clauses 6 to 8, on page 8. We shall return to the matter when we deal with other amendments, because the Bill is closely intertwined and interwoven with declarations of local connection in the context of Northern Ireland.
      I have a few doubts about such declarations as a principle, a concept and a working practice. Some of the amendments with which we shall deal later are designed to make the matter much more secure. Suffice to say that it is being suggested that, somehow, the declaration of local connection process or procedure in the Bill should be different in Northern Ireland. I do not see why that should be so. We are talking not about aliens coming from a strange foreign country, such as the Republic of Ireland, but local connection and the way in which that can be properly established.
      I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. He has his work cut out tonight. He will have to work really hard to persuade us on this part of the Bill. However, I am sure that he can because he is an able man and has shown himself willing so far to do so. In this instance, he will have to take us carefully through the argument about why, in the context of local connection—we are seeking to amend the process by means of the amendment—Northern Ireland is necessarily different.
      7.15 pm
      I have speculated on what the Minister might say about the previous part of the argument, but I cannot even begin to imagine how he will justify singling out Northern Ireland when it comes to declarations of local connection. I have my suspicions about the entire process, and no doubt we shall examine it later in our proceedings. However, at this stage I wish to point out that, yet again, distinctions are made between circumstances in Northern Ireland and those elsewhere when the Government are at pains to try to persuade the House that distinctions exist less and less, if they have not disappeared entirely.
      In conclusion—
      Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: I will give way, but I wanted to conclude my remarks.
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is dealing with local connection and I wished to intervene before he departed from it. I draw attention to lines 39 to 44 in clause 6 on page 8. Does he not find it incongruous that, about 15 lines beforehand, the clause states that a person can be on the register, having made a declaration of local connection, if he is a citizen of the Irish Republic? Will he contrast that with the fact that a citizen of Northern Ireland who lives there cannot get on the register for three months?
      Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The more we examine the Bill, the more we are forced to believe that it is ill-directed, poorly drafted and
      900
      contains the seeds of some real dangers for our electoral processes. That is bad enough for the mainland; how much worse could it be in relation to Northern Ireland, with the difficulties that it has? The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned earlier in an intervention that he is all too well aware of the dangers.
      I hope that I have said enough to persuade the House that having these provisions in the Bill is utter folly. The position would be bad enough anyway, but having in the Bill such provisions referring to Northern Ireland will not do. I hope that the Minister will accept that. Either he will deploy the most powerful and detailed arguments to persuade us that what I have said is groundless, or he must accept the amendments to put right this part of the Bill.
      Mr. William Ross: Given that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I agree on so many points that come before the House, they will understand how deep is my pain that I must disagree with them on this occasion. I understand from the expression of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that he is quite horrified. I hope that he will understand that my pain is exactly the same as that felt by every member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary this evening, and that of every widow of an RUC officer who was murdered by the IRA. I hope that he will understand how angry those people are.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better. He knows that he must speak to the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: That is the point. I was explaining how deeply pained I am that I must disagree with right hon. and hon. Members on this occasion. They will be aware that, if the amendment were accepted, it would run across existing legislation in Northern Ireland. The legislation provides that there must be residence of three months before 15 September, which is the qualifying date for electoral registration in Northern Ireland. It was provided as a safeguard. It meant that an individual had to come to live in Northern Ireland for three months. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has dealt with the danger that people would move from the Irish Republic into sensitive areas where 100 or 50 votes could make an enormous difference. Individuals had to be resident for three months before 15 September. They then had literally to stay there for another three months until the electoral list became the electoral register, which would be towards Christmas. In other words, all the hearings in the local electoral courts had to be completed and all the rest of it. Instead of having to stay for three months, they had to stay for six. That is why the legislation exists in regard to Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Gentlemen know, in normal circumstances I am most willing that legislation should be exactly the same for the whole of the United Kingdom.
      May I suggest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that rather than removing the provision for Northern Ireland, it should apply to the entire United Kingdom? That would be a much better solution to the problem. I can tell my right hon. Friends that there are always an enormous number of people floating backwards and forwards between the Irish Republic and Great Britain, who have voting rights in this country.
      Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman will see that amendment No. 30, which we shall discuss later, would

      901
      have precisely that effect in respect of declarations of local connection. Its purpose is to avoid abuse at by-elections.
      Mr. Ross: I am gratified that Conservative Members have spotted the loophole—the danger for the electoral process in Great Britain—and are trying to take steps to close it. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say one thing for Northern Ireland and reject the amendment, and then reject the next amendment, which protects the position in regard to Great Britain.
      I am delighted that right hon. and hon. Members with much greater expertise and resources than I have spotted the loophole, or rather, the barn door, and have proposed precautions to close the door. I hope that they are successful.
      I wonder whether the right hon. Gentlemen considered the crazy paragraph just after the words that amendment No. 17 would remove, which states:
      "No declaration of local connection shall be specially made by a person for the purposes of local government elections".
      When I raised the matter in Committee, the Minister said that he would consider the point and write to me. He has not done so yet, so perhaps he has not had enough time to consider it.
      The proposals hang together as a piece. We need to know the purpose of the provision. If it deals with individuals coming into Northern Ireland and the requirement for them to be there for three months, how can it specify that those people cannot come in and register for the sole purpose of taking part in a local government election? The date of local government elections is known years ahead. I do not understand what the words mean. The Minister is listening, and I know that by this time he will have considered the matter, so he will be able to give us a clear answer.
      Mr. Maclean: I have been listening carefully and with great respect to my hon. Friend's point. Is it his firm view that there is still a genuine threat in Northern Ireland of the electoral register being flooded with aliens from another country and distortions occurring in the electoral process, which make the three-month provision vital?
      Mr. Ross: That is indeed my view. I believe that there are certain circumstances and certain areas—perhaps very small—where that could be a factor. Whenever the outcome of council elections especially, and perhaps constituency elections, hangs on a handful of votes, 20 or 30 people moving into each ward or 50 people in a critical ward could make an enormous difference.
      I fear that that is true not only in Northern Ireland, but in Wales, perhaps in Scotland and in certain parts of England. If the Government want to retain the words in the Bill, they cannot refuse to insert the words that Conservative Members will seek to insert in later amendments.
      It pains me to tell the right hon. Gentlemen that I cannot support their amendment, but my pain has been considerably diminished by the discovery that they have spotted the barn door that exists with regard to Great Britain and that they propose a way of dealing with it. I hope that the Government will not wait for the
      902
      amendment to be moved, but that the Minister will rise to say that it is so wise, so reasonable and so much in keeping with the provisions of clause 6 that the Government will instantly accept the amendment, and that they will make certain that the same rules apply throughout the United Kingdom.
      I should not like the Minister to lose his seat, in case a large number of Unionists moved over and settled in his constituency. After the performance of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today, he would not have a snowball's chance of getting an ex-Unionist vote. In the past, many people voted for the Labour party in Northern Ireland. By their actions today, the Government have destroyed any possibility of those people, should they emigrate to Great Britain, ever casting a vote for that party.
      The destruction being wreaked on the police force in Northern Ireland—I dare not stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you would instantly call me to order. Destroying the RUC and leaving so many people open to future attack by terrorists bites deeply and is greatly resented. That resentment will not quickly fade. The Minister will be long gone from the House before it will fade or be forgotten.
      Mr. Wilshire: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) —my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to call him that, because that is indeed what he is. It may help him to know that not only have events earlier in the day caused great hurt and offence to the widows of RUC officers—a matter which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you rightly say we should not discuss—but that the parts of the Bill with which amendments Nos. 13 and 17 deal will also cause hurt and offence to the widows of RUC officers and others who have served so bravely in that part of the United Kingdom.
      I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry that I have always wondered what the Irish air, the Ulster-East Londonderry mist, does to the mind. I was deeply touched to hear ascribed to the Minister a great sense of charity and reasonableness, which I hope will lead the hon. Gentleman later to agree, if not with the Opposition, then with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.
      If that is what the mists of East Londonderry do, perhaps we should all move there, if necessary for the three months, and have ourselves registered to vote in my hon. Friend's constituency. If by any chance today's events have not guaranteed his re-election for life, I for one would be delighted to go there and support him, should he ever need my vote.
      I am an Englishman and proud of it, but I have always done my level best to try to see things through the eyes of those who live in Northern Ireland. Therefore I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the special provisions. He will see from the list of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friends that amendment No. 3 would have provided an alternative way of dealing with the problem that he rightly identifies. Sadly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not select it.

      903
      Had we gone down the route proposed in amendment No. 3, the present debate would not have been necessary. Amendment No. 3 would have removed—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment No. 3 has not been selected, so the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it. He can discuss only the two amendments before us.
      Mr. Wilshire: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that. I am sure that it will be possible to raise the same issue as a matter that arises from amendment No. 13.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry—that the rule should apply to the entire United Kingdom—appeals to me. I might have enthusiastically supported such an amendment, had he tabled it.
      7.30 pm
      Every week, nearly 500,000 people land at Heathrow airport on the borders of my constituency. The thought of their being able to rush into Spelthorne council offices and register to vote before they move on appals me.
      Mr. William Ross: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and also apologise for not spotting the issue that he raised. If I had spotted the problem, I would have tabled an amendment on it. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill builds brick after brick on previous legislation. We have reached a point where we need consolidation. Before tabling an amendment, we need a week to plough through all the legislation.
      Mr. Wilshire: That is the problem with trying to rush a Bill through unnecessarily. Calmer, more reflective consideration would undoubtedly have made a bad Bill slightly less bad.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend speaks of rushing the measure through. The Government's interest is reflected by the presence of only two Labour Members while the Opposition Benches are packed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must concentrate on the amendments.
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) makes the fair point that many Opposition Members are deeply worried about the clause. It is significant that many of my hon. Friends are here to debate amendments Nos. 13 and 17 while Labour Members do not seem interested in them. Even if we cannot discuss the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, we can consider those who are interested and those who show no interest in the amendments. But you rightly urge me to speak about the substance of the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Amendment No. 13 would delete subsection (2). It is important to understand the exact aim of the amendment. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 4(1) set out ways in which people can register. Amendment No. 13 is necessary because of subsection (1)(c), which provides that citizens of the Republic of Ireland can, of right, get on to a United Kingdom register. But for that provision, amendment No. 13 would be unnecessary. I believe that it would have been better to face the problem of our giving
      904
      foreigners a vote in the United Kingdom. If we did not do that, the amendment would have been unnecessary. I have never understood the reason for giving foreigners votes on the internal affairs of the United Kingdom.
      People claim that we have reciprocal arrangements, but, with the greatest respect, I do not want to vote in the Irish Republic. If I wanted to vote in that alien, foreign country, I would become an Irish citizen. I do not want to do that, so I do not understand why right my hon. Friends should have had to table amendment No. 13. We should not have to tackle such a problem. The fact remains that the problem exists, and I therefore support my right hon. Friends' approach.
      Mr. Graham Brady: In earlier discussions, many hon. Members, especially Labour Members, commented on the ability of United Kingdom citizens to vote in this country when they were not resident for a period of time. There is inconsistency in their attitude towards the ability of our citizens and those of the Irish Republic to vote in UK elections.
      Mr. Wilshire: It has become obvious in the past year or two that there are no depths to which the Government will not sink in trying to appease the Republic of Ireland. The provision is yet another example of the appeasement that takes place when the Government are faced with people pointing guns at them. If they believe that such appeasement will work, I have news for them: it will not.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking not only about the Government's insatiable appetite for appeasement but about their determination at all costs and wherever possible to gerrymander?
      Mr. Wilshire: The Government are keen on anything that gives the Labour party an advantage in electioneering.
      I assume that the Minister judged subsection (2) necessary through fear of thousands of foreigners jumping into coaches for an away-day or a weekend break and charging across the border into the United Kingdom for just long enough to try to gerrymander. However, my understanding of Northern Ireland politics, of which I try to be a student, shows that it does not take people on away-days from the Republic to cause a problem; people who are legitimately entitled to be on the register vote sufficiently often to do their own gerrymandering without involving those from a foreign country to add to the confusion. The Government would be advised to tackle the "vote early, vote often" problem rather than concentrating on people being bussed in from Dublin.
      Mr. Maclean: The question for the Minister is one that I wish I had asked my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but it has just occurred to me. If the provision is vital to prevent citizens of a foreign country from swamping Northern Ireland on 10 October, or whatever the date for registration, and they thus cannot be trusted, why should they be entitled to a vote in the United Kingdom or for the Northern Ireland Assembly?
      Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend had no choice but to ask me the question because I gave way to him, but I am the last person to give him a sensible answer. I do not have an answer, and I suspect that the Government do not either. I shall leave it to the Minister to try to defend the indefensible.

      905
      I am worried about the way in which the Bill disfranchises many British citizens. That cannot be right. It is wrong for the House to pass measures that take the vote away from British citizens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border gave one example, but there are others that we need to consider. Not only people who serve the Crown in our armed forces and leave Northern Ireland, but any British subject normally resident in Northern Ireland who for some reason has to spend time in Great Britain in the prescribed three-month period, will be caught by the problem. Such people will automatically be left off the register. People who return to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, perhaps to nurse or take care of members of their families who are ill, during the specified three-month period will no longer qualify for a vote in their own country. People who are normally resident in Northern Ireland and have jobs that take them to Great Britain for periods of time would also be struck off the register. That cannot be right.
      We should consider another group of people: those who have been residents in Great Britain, perhaps for decades, who choose to move to that other part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland. Perhaps a promotion in their jobs means that they move to Belfast, or perhaps they move to be with their families. Perhaps, for the air or mists of Londonderry, people choose to retire in that beautiful part of our country. If such people do so within three months of the compilation of a register, they will lose their vote for the following year. That cannot be right.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government and encouraging investment in Northern Ireland. That is to be applauded. Does my hon. Friend think that there may be individuals in the rest of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland and Wales—who may be deterred from taking one of the new jobs that have been created in Northern Ireland because they would lose their voting rights as a consequence of the measure?
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I must confess I had not got round to. I am most grateful to him for drawing it to my attention and I hope that the whole House will see that as yet another reason why the Bill should not pass tonight without amendment. I find the matter at the heart of amendment No. 13 as deeply offensive as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. If we do not amend the Bill, it will create two classes of British elector: the first-class electors, who will mainly be in Great Britain, and the second-class electors, who will mainly be in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. Up to now, there have been no lengths to which they would not go, but are they seriously telling us that they are content with a Bill that will create two classes of British elector? If so, they should be deeply ashamed.
      Amendment No. 17, on the face of it, appears to do exactly the same thing, but it has its arguments the other way round. As I understand it, the provision with which it seeks to deal addresses those people who, for whatever reason, are at the moment in a mental hospital or institution. They will be given the right to identify a place where they have a local connection. Throughout Great
      906
      Britain, such people will only have to indicate an address for the provisions to apply. But if someone identifies an address in Northern Ireland, an additional test will be applied—the connection will have had to exist for a longer period.
      On this occasion, the test of a longer period could sensibly be applied to Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland because we are dealing with a specialist, sensitive and difficult issue. To have a period of time attached to the address would be in everybody's interest, because it would help to ensure that a sensible, lasting judgment was made. I support the amendment for that reason, but the Minister could get himself out of difficulty by saying that he will reintroduce it in another place, applying it not only to Northern Ireland but to Great Britain as well.
      I believe that it is deeply offensive to the British citizens who live in Northern Ireland to be told that, yet again, they are to be treated separately and in a second-class way. I will be charitable to the Minister and accept that he genuinely does not intend to cause that hurt and offence to the widows of those Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have been killed over the years in the tragedy that has been Northern Ireland. In that spirit, I plead with him either to accept the amendments or to listen to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and solve the problem in the alternative way.
      Mr. Fabricant: I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made some powerful arguments. He mentioned the Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have died, and we should remember that 301 serving officers have died in the cause of freedom, liberty and equity over the past few years in the—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about the RUC. Important as it is, it does not fall within the confines of the amendment, to which he must speak.
      Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that my point might not be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should point out that those officers did not die—they were murdered.
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend might be out of order, but nevertheless I hope that Hansard will note his comment, with which I wholly agree.
      I support the amendment because, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have so ably pointed out, there is an inconsistency. In November, I suffered a personal tragedy: after 10 years, I had to surrender my dark blue passport and obtain my little flexible red European Union passport, which still has on its face—this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the words, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", an integrated whole.
      The Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government in trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is therefore ironic that, today of all days, we should be debating a measure that creates an inconsistency—

      907
      a difference—between one part of the United Kingdom and another. I truly believe that that is wrong on two counts: first, on principle and, secondly, because it sends out all the wrong signals. Today we have heard a statement about the future of the RUC and the hopes of the Government—and, indeed, of the whole House—for the future of Northern Ireland and its normalisation, but only a few hours later we are, I suspect, about to hear the Minister argue against this reasonable amendment, which says that we should take an holistic approach to the Representation of the People Bill in particular and the law in general in respect of England, Scotland and Wales and the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend may agree that an aspect of the statement on the Patten report is germane to the amendment. Several thousand RUC officers will be removed from service and given a substantial payment. They will probably become a mobile element of the population of Northern Ireland. They may move to other constituencies in Northern Ireland or come to other parts of the United Kingdom for a time. In that context, they are very much affected by the amendment.
      Mr. Fabricant: That point had not occurred to me, but is germane. If such officers attempt to seek work in other parts of the Province, they will meet the residency requirement for Northern Ireland, but the Minister must explain whether under the Bill they would have to be resident in a new constituency for three months to have a vote there. I hope that he will make that clear, one way or another.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has highlighted an extremely pertinent point. In reflecting on it, will my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield concede that the greater likelihood is that the problem will be not that an individual will perambulate around Northern Ireland or move to another part of it while looking for new employment but that he will move to another part of the kingdom altogether? If he is absent for several months, he may have great difficulties. Does not that point need to be entertained by Ministers?
      Mr. Fabricant: As ever, my hon. Friend raises a fascinating and powerful point, which demonstrates the inconsistency of the provision. That ex-RUC police officer would have to demonstrate not that he had been in England, Scotland or Wales for three months—merely that he was resident on 10 October or whatever the night might be. I might add that such an officer would have great difficulty in finding employment in a police constabulary in England, Scotland or Wales, given that in Staffordshire, for example, there has been a reduction in the number of police officers. I suspect that the poor ex-RUC officer would end up getting a job as a security guard or something else.
      I understand why the clause was drafted in the first place. I suspect that it was to prevent people from the Republic of Ireland from moving to Northern Ireland in order to vote. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is so. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out, that provision would be no deterrent. Many people living in the Republic have relatives and friends in Northern
      908
      Ireland, so it would present no difficulty for them to claim that they have been resident in Northern Ireland for the specified three months.
      I would simply argue that, first, the clause is no deterrent; secondly, that it is inconsistent with the holistic approach that the Government are attempting to take, despite the fact that there is no joined-up government in Cabinet meetings; and thirdly, that there is no holistic approach to the idea that the United Kingdom is an integrated whole. I am pleased to see Ministers taking copious notes and listening carefully. I expect the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), whose constituency almost abuts mine, to respond fully to the points that and my hon. Friends and I have made.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not wish to detain the House long.
      I have listened with great care and interest to the arguments, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). My hon. Friend made some extremely valid points about the risk that is posed to people who are citizens of Ulster, Northern Ireland, who have to be away from their residences for three months for family or business reasons. Such practical considerations will put those people at a disadvantage in comparison with other citizens of this country.
      Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his remarks, but I think that he is making an error that I have made. The test for qualification is not whether such people are away for the entire three months, but whether their residency of three months is interrupted for any short period. Therefore, somebody intending to live in Northern Ireland for a few months on attachment who returns to Great Britain for a week's course will lose the residency qualification. The provision is even more iniquitous than I thought.
      Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend makes a forceful point, which the Government must answer. The Minister is a reasonable man and will want to deal comprehensively with it.
      The economy of Northern Ireland has been doing well for some time and it is not fair that the people there should be penalised simply because the Government want to ensure some modicum of protection against citizens of the Republic of Ireland flooding across the border, swamping the register and bringing about undesirable changes out of expediency.
      It is extraordinary that, when we are trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland people should continue to have to bear such a burden and be handicapped unlike any other part of the United Kingdom. There is some force to the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that they are second-class citizens.
      Mr. Bercow: One of the difficulties with this debate is that the longer that we discuss the salient matters, the more potential objections to the Government's proposals seem to emerge. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that, under the clause as it stands, there is no distinction

      909
      between, on the one hand, an interruption of the three-month period that could reasonably have been expected to be anticipated, and on the other, an interruption that could not be so anticipated?
      Mr. Howarth: The wording is clear: there is no distinction. A person must be resident in Northern Ireland for the entire three months, ending on the relevant date, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said. If an elector is away for any part of that three-month period, he will suffer disfranchisement, which all of us in the House obviously regard extremely seriously.
      I also have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I have felt for many years that it is simply not right that citizens of a country that is not part of the Commonwealth, does not acknowledge Her Majesty the Queen as head of state and owes no allegiance to this country should nevertheless enjoy the privilege—for indeed it is a privilege—of voting in our local and parliamentary elections.
      We are faced with a predicament precisely because we have for years without any foundation allowed people in the Republic of Ireland to enjoy such a privilege. The clause was drafted to afford some protection from gerrymandering that could bring about a sharp change in policy or, heaven forbid, the constitution of Northern Ireland.
      Both options before the House are unattractive. It is unattractive to have special arrangements for our fellow citizens, who are equally loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and that they should suffer such a handicap, but it is right and proper that we should protect our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland from a sudden influx of people from the Republic who have moved to Northern Ireland for the express purpose of robbing it of its constitution and bringing about change that would not be acceptable to its residents.
      8 pm
      We are faced with two options: to continue with the present arrangements, which handicap our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland but provide them with the protection that I have outlined; or to sweep away that protection but ensure that people do not lose their franchise in Northern Ireland if they interrupt their three-month residency requirement. On balance, sadly, I would not support the amendment, not because I do not agree with the principle—I agree with almost everything that my right hon. Friends have said tonight—but because the consequences would be a greater disadvantage to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
      Ministers must tell the people why we continue to perpetuate the right of citizens of the Republic of Ireland to vote in this country when they owe no allegiance to it or to Her Majesty the Queen and are not even entitled to the protection afforded to all of us who hold a British passport. The situation is anomalous and, I believe, wrong. I do not intend to support my right hon. Friends on the amendment, so I hope that Ministers will do me the courtesy of offering me some reassurance that they will try to engineer a state of affairs whereby we do not
      910
      have to handicap our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland in order to provide them with protection against a concerted political assault from citizens of the Republic.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I understand the arguments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and his desire that the electoral registration system should be as free of inconsistencies across the United Kingdom as is reasonable in the circumstances, but the fact is that special circumstances apply in Northern Ireland, and the three-month residency requirement reflects that. It serves a useful purpose in ensuring that only bona fide registrations are made.
      More important, it is well worth pointing out that none of the Northern Ireland parties have asked for the requirement to be removed, even though the Bill would have provided an excellent opportunity to do that. The comments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) reflected that. The working party on electoral procedures had the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, Pat Bradley, as one of its members, and he did not recommend removing the requirement. As those most concerned seem happy with the existing position, I see no reason to change it.
      Mr. Maclean: Does the Minister share the view of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that there is a real risk of the register being flooded with people who are not normally resident in Northern Ireland if we do not have the three-month qualification?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure that anyone is arguing that there is a risk of floods of voters coming in, but there is sensitivity to voting issues in Northern Ireland, and the provisions have been law since 1949. The right hon. Gentleman described the rules relating to who can vote and I remind him that in national elections British people, Irish people and people from the Commonwealth can vote, and in local and European elections British-registered voters and Commonwealth, Irish and European Union people can vote.
      The right hon. Gentleman described the way in which certain people from the Irish Republic can vote in British elections as an obscenity and an outrage. That obscenity and outrage existed during 18 years of Conservative government and there was not a peep out of him during that whole period. That says enough about the approach that he has taken. I appreciate what is happening today, but perhaps he should not engender more indignation than he can conveniently contain.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) also suggested that the rules take away certain people's right to vote. He, too, did not seem to be concerned about the matter when his party was in government. The position has existed since 1949.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me for a moment?
      Given the situation in Northern Ireland, we need to proceed with some care.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I will give way, if the hon. Gentleman will please bear with me for a moment.

      911
      We would be best advised to proceed with care, and that is the approach that we intend to take.
      Mr. Wilshire: I wanted to intervene only because of the comments that the Minister made about me and my position over the past 18 years. If he can find a moment in a busy day to check the record, he will find that I have been a public and vociferous critic of the way in which Northern Ireland has been treated by all Governments since I have been a Member of Parliament. I did indeed make the same criticisms when my party was in government.
      Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman tells me that he has done that, I will certainly accept his word.
      Various comments have been made and I do not want to go through them all. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of them bordered on being out of order. I am sure that you would have dealt with them had they been out of order. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and others made various comments about Irish voters in Britain and I am sure that the large number of people of Irish heritage who vote in the UK will be well acquainted with his views.
      The best contribution was from the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who said that he was a little bit worried that floods of Unionists might come to North Warwickshire to deal with me during the election. I look forward to that, and I will think long and hard about his suggestions as a result of that comment.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Maclean: I am placed in a difficult position, because I had intended to follow my instinct and press the amendment to a vote, and I am not persuaded by the Minister, but I have to pay close attention to the earnest concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross).
      I want to clarify one point that the Minister mentioned. I think it an awful anomaly that citizens of the Irish Republic should be able to vote in our elections, but the obscenity is not that mere fact but the fact that citizens of the United Kingdom, born and brought up in the United Kingdom, who have perhaps served in the police, the RUC or the armed forces, or as teachers or nurses in Belfast, can lose their franchise if they come to this country for a week's course, for cancer treatment or on attachment for two or three weeks.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for drawing my attention to the point that, if those people fail to be resident for the whole of the period, they lose their right to be on the register and are disenfranchised, while someone passing through from the Republic of Ireland has the vote. Putting those two together is the juxtaposition: not the fact that aliens have the right to vote, but that British citizens will lose it through no fault of their own. Putting those two together is the obscenity.
      I was greatly interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry had to say, which is why I asked the Minister to clarify whether he agreed with him that there is the real risk that, unless we have the three-month qualification, some people from the Republic may—perhaps flood was the wrong word—register
      912
      falsely and have a vote to which they are not entitled. The Minister was using a good Home Office brief, with the points to take and some that were to be used only if pressed. He picked his words carefully. He did not say, "Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Lots of Irish Republican citizens will be flooding the register." He did not use those words but, by the substance of the careful and sensitive words that he used in the present sensitive situation, he was agreeing that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry was right.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated dissent.
      Mr. Maclean: The Government must be agreeing. There must be the risk. That is the only reason why they are maintaining it. Yes, the Government can hide behind the fact that all the parties in Northern Ireland still want the provision. The Government clearly share the view that there is a risk.
      I am faced with an awful dilemma. Here we have an injustice—it is an injustice that people in Northern Ireland have to have the residency qualification when the rest of us and aliens from another state do not. However, because the political parties in Northern Ireland see an even greater injustice in the register being flooded by those aliens who may influence their vote, they wish to keep it. Surely the only way to remedy the problem in future is to impose similar conditions on the rest of us in the United Kingdom, so that we can equalise that injustice to Northern Ireland citizens.
      I have listened carefully to the Minister, who replied carefully. I would not find his arguments on their own convincing or persuasive—
      Mr. O'Brien: Let the record show that the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my comments is not necessarily one that I precisely share. Let my comments speak for themselves in Hansard.
      Mr. Maclean: The Minister's comments will speak for themselves, but I can see the headlines when The Times, The Telegraph and Peterborough write up the essence of the Minister's remarks tomorrow. It will be, "Minister says danger of southern Irish citizens flooding register in north." That is what he said in essence, although he picked his words carefully.
      In view of the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for East Londonderry that an even greater injustice would be caused to citizens in northern Ireland if the amendment were agreed, I will reluctantly withdraw it, but I urge the Government to remove that injustice by another means.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      RESIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION: GENERAL
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 5, leave out lines 7 to 9.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 5, line 7, after 'the', insert 'verifiable'.

      913
      No. 57, in page 5, leave out lines 10 to 14.
      No. 6, in page 5, line 22, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
      No. 7, in page 5, line 32, leave out 'temporary'.
      No. 8, in page 5, line 32, after 'unemployment', insert
      'of less than 3 months'.
      Mr. Maclean: I have moved the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who tabled it. He has apologised that he cannot be here to do so.
      Through this amendment and the related amendment No. 57, which suggest that certain words should be deleted, we seek clarification from the Government as to why they are included and about the detail of what they mean. Clause 3, line 7 reads:
      "Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date."
      Mr. Forth: That is garbage.
      Mr. Maclean: It may be, but it is probably grammatically correct. What does that sentence mean? I confess that I do not know. I have an inkling of what I think that it may mean. I know what, "Regard shall be had" means. What about, "in particular"? If regard is to be had, in particular, what are all the other circumstances that the Government have in mind? Will the Minister explain these particular ones? What about
      "to the purpose and other circumstances … of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date"?
      I think that the Minister would agree that the sentence is opaque.
      I am certain that the Minister, who is kindly with us on secondment again from the Northern Ireland Office—I think that he called it unpaid day release last week, or something of the sort—
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: No fixed fee.
      Mr. Maclean: Yes—on transfer for no fixed fee.
      I welcome the Minister's presence. He is always kind and courteous at the Dispatch Box and always seeks to elucidate where he can. I am certain that, if his brief has been prepared by the people whom I think prepared it in the Home Office—meaning no disrespect to the excellent Northern Ireland Office—it will contain some excellent detail. Admittedly, some of our legislation ended up in judicial review in the High Court—that is always a penalty of Home Office legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister's brief is likely to explain the circumstances.
      What are the facts? I suspect that much of the brief will be available to be put into the public domain, or put on the record, if an hon. Member asks. I suspect that little will be in the "If pressed" category and there may be nothing in the category at the bottom of the brief headed, "Not to be revealed in any circumstances."
      I simply ask the Minister, on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, what exactly those three lines mean and what other matters the Government have in mind that are not included by the words, "in particular"?
      914
      The amendments also suggest the deletion of lines 10 to 14. Those read:
      "For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all the circumstances be taken to be at that time—

      (a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or

      (b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere."

      That seems an extraordinary catch-all. No doubt the lawyers who drafted the clause know exactly what it means. The Minister, with his excellent brief and sharp mind, will know what it means, but it seems like gobbledegook to me and I would be grateful for an explanation. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is no doubt learned in a non-House of Commons, technical, nomenclatural sense, will be able to advise me.
      Mr. Forth: I am afraid that I have to disappoint my right hon. Friend. To try to help him, I took up the explanatory notes provided by the Government. However, the notes for this clause simply use the same words. They state:
      "The subsection provides that a person who is staying somewhere other than on a permanent basis may be regarded as resident if he does not have a home elsewhere."
      Those sound suspiciously like the words that my right hon. Friend read from the Bill. It looks as though we are again trapped by the circularity that is becoming the hallmark of this badly drafted legislation.
      Mr. Maclean: I hear what my right hon. Friend says. I hope that the Home Office has not become so afraid of judicial review under the new Government that the explanatory memorandums are merely copying the exact words in the Bill lest some clever clogs should take the Department to court. However, I would not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Bill is badly drafted. We may discover that in due course. I suspect that it is an obscurely drafted Bill. That is often not the fault of departmental officials, who send away a technical brief that anyone—certainly a Minister—can understand, but get back something from the parliamentary draftsman that no one can understand.
      Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend of the view that, if the meaning of the provision is that an individual is not resident there if he has a home elsewhere, it means also that, if he has a home elsewhere, he is judged to be permanently resident at that other home, notwithstanding the temporary interruption? If so, does it not appear that the wording of that provision conflicts directly with the proposal on page 2 to which we referred a moment ago?
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend's explanation of what the proposal seems to mean appears to be correct, and may be the only explanation. I should like to hear from the Minister whether my hon. Friend has come to the correct interpretation. If he has, there would, prima facie, seem to be a conflict with clause 2.
      Mr. Fabricant: I must confess that I am confused. Is my right hon. Friend arguing that he supports the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), under which the whole clause would be removed because it is gobbledegook? Or is he

      915
      arguing in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), under which the gobbledegook would be improved by the addition of the word "verifiable"—which, to me, makes it even gobbledegooker?
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I will leave the other amendments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For simplicity's sake, I am dealing with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The amendment must be phrased in such a way as to draw attention to what my hon. Friend calls gobbledegook. It is not possible to table an amendment to ask the Minister to explain that passage, so one must use the parliamentary device of proposing to delete lines 7 to 14.
      I would not propose to push the amendment to the vote—unless the Minister's explanation horrifies me—as my intention is not to delete the lines, but to seek information and elucidation. I have every confidence that the Minister will be able to provide that.
      Mr. Forth: I will pick up the baton from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) at this point.
      I was upset when my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) indicated that my amendment was of less than complete value before I had even had a chance to explain it. He will be listening attentively, as always, as I try to explain it. A number of our amendments seek to make the Bill more secure and, therefore, to enhance it. This amendment is probably the least important of that group, but it has its own validity.
      Clause 3 states:
      "Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date."
      However, as soon as one introduces the concept of "the fact", there is a duty to establish whether it is a fact or not.
      Mr. Fabricant: I hesitate to argue with my right hon. Friend—for whom normally I have the greatest respect—but is it not usually the case that when one attests to a fact, one must verify it? Therefore, the amendment to introduce the word "verifiable" is a gross tautology.
      Mr. Forth: I hope that that is not the case. I am barely scratching at the surface of my argument, so my hon. Friend should not rush too quickly to call me to account. If he is patient, he might be prepared to agree with me. If not, he will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and give the reasons why.
      I may not have selected the right word—the House knows how I struggle to find my words—in calling for a "verifiable" fact. I have tried to establish that there should be incumbent on the registration officer an additional procedure, through which he will seek to verify what is claimed in the process of registration by the person seeking that registration.
      We are talking about a new, dynamic register—of which I have not been fully persuaded—so there is a greater requirement for verification at every part of the process. Otherwise, we will introduce a dynamic, but highly inaccurate and vulnerable register, rather than one
      916
      that is tight and secure. I hope that the Minister will agree that adding the word "verifiable" will give greater security to the process than would otherwise be the case. We do not know from the present wording how "the fact" is to be established or proved. Surely we cannot go too far in seeking to make our electoral register as secure as possible, and we shall return to this theme again and again.
      Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend distinguishing between a fact being verifiable and a fact having been verified? There is surely a significant difference between the two. Will he explain whether his concern is that something should be capable of verification and whether, for example, we are to rely upon documents or circumstantial evidence? Or is he making the highly unlikely suggestion for a libertarian Conservative of his high credentials that there should be direct investigation of the whereabouts of particular individuals applying for the list on the date in question?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has, as ever, gone to the nub of the argument with unerring accuracy, and he forces me to come down on one side or other of the fence that he has erected. In this case, I would be prepared to leave it, as we must when considering a Bill of this kind, to the expertise, dedication and discretion of the registration officer to decide the precise mechanisms to be used to verify the contents of the register. My hon. Friend has conjured up a nightmare vision of registration officers acting as though they were Customs and Excise officers— [Interruption.] I thought that that would shock my hon. Friends: it was intended to because I wanted to wake them up. We must avoid that approach, but it is important to ensure that registration officers possess the necessary mechanisms to do the job. I hope that I have done enough to satisfy my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Brady: My right hon. Friend appears to be setting out a burden of proof which is just as great to demonstrate the presence of a person in his home as it is to demonstrate his absence. I think that that is wrong, because one should be able to state that one was present in one's home and have that accepted as a fact. If registration officers wish to prove one's absence, that should be verifiable.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is leading me into ethereal territory—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is the last thing we want.
      Mr. Forth: In that case, I shall return—
      Mr. Bercow: May I attempt to assist my right hon. Friend by encapsulating the solution to the conundrum that he poses? Does he agree that for this purpose, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
      Mr. Forth: We are making progress.
      Mr. Fabricant: I do not wish to complicate matters, or to introduce a Venn diagram in the manner of my hon.

      917
      Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but surely what he was trying to say was that it is impossible to ask, "Hands up those children who are not here."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a debate, not a question and answer session. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wishes to conduct a tutorial, I am sure that he could see his hon. Friends afterwards.
      Mr. Forth: Indeed I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a complicated argument about difficult concepts and it arose because we were exploring the meaning of the word "verifiable" in the context of amendment No. 5. However, I concede that we may have over-complicated the issue. We have probably teased enough out of it to give the Minister the opportunity to clarify the matter. He has followed the argument with ever more glazed eyes, but a useful brief may come to his assistance at any moment. I am confident that he will not need it.
      I shall move on rapidly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I try to be aware of your facial expressions and body language. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 cover different territory and we are, mercifully, out of the area of concept and into the area of numbers. Amendment No. 6 is a probing amendment. Clause 3 states:
      "For the purpose of determining whether a person is resident in a dwelling on the relevant date for the purposes of section 4 above, his residence in the dwelling shall not be taken to have been interrupted by reason of his absence in the performance of any duty arising from or incidental to any office, service or employment held or undertaken by him if … he intends to resume actual residence within six months of giving up such residence, and will not be prevented from doing so by the performance of that duty".
      Amendment No. 6 suggests that the period should be three months, and I invite the Minister to explain why it should be six months. I believe that three months would be more appropriate, but I am open to persuasion. I am confident that the Minister will be able to persuade us of his reasons, but I would like them to be put on the record.
      Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am? Earlier in the debate, the number of months necessary to establish residency in Northern Ireland was put at three, but the number of months in clause 3 is six. We heard earlier about inconsistencies between the laws in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but this is an inconsistency between one part of the Bill and another.
      Mr. Forth: I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister's explanation, but the three months mentioned in the earlier debate about Northern Ireland related to the length of time that one must be able to establish residency before being able to register, but in this case we are talking about how long someone can be away from his established address but still remain validly registered. In the context of the new, dynamic, rolling register, six months may be too long if we wish to guarantee the reliability, validity and security of the register.
      We are launching ourselves into an experiment in democracy. I am not convinced that we need the Bill at all—although I do not wish to pre-empt my speech on Third Reading—but if we are to have this misbegotten,
      918
      ill-thought-out and unnecessary measure, we must do what we can to make the register secure. We must be able to guarantee to the electorate that the new process will be tamper proof and cannot be misused.
      Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend is persuasive, but I am puzzled by his argument. I can imagine many circumstances in which people—such as officers and other ranks in the Merchant Navy, or those serving in the Army, Royal Air Force or Royal Navy—would be absent from home for longer than three months, if not six months. Should not the amendment increase the time that a person is permitted to be away from home without being taken off the register?
      Mr. Forth: I accept that point. I am not aware that there are special arrangements for the military.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth)indicated assent.
      Mr. Forth: The Under-Secretary of State is nodding. I am not surprised. The arrangements are probably buried somewhere in a schedule—[Interruption.] He confirms that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) makes a good point, which we should always bear in mind, but most military people often take the opportunity of proxy votes, postal votes or whatever. However, it would be useful if the Minister said a few words about the matter when he replies to the debate.
      I come to the next provision that we are seeking to probe through a little amendment. Clause 3(4) says:
      "For the purposes of subsection (3) above"—
      the one that we have just been considering—
      "any temporary period of unemployment shall be disregarded."
      That worries me. When I see a term such as "temporary" in this context in a Bill, I wonder whether it is the proper word to use. It gives rise to enormous potential for interpretation by different registration officers. It is possible that the Minister will want to tell me that the provision will be more closely specified in regulations. That would be half an argument.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion—nay, cynicism—that the inclusion of "temporary" with regard to unemployment might be an example of the politicisation of the Home Office?
      Mr. Forth: I do not think that I share my hon. Friend's view. It is just sloppy drafting, not a conspiracy. It is a cock-up, which happens so often these days, I regret to say, even in something as important as legislation. The use of a term as variable and as open to diverse interpretation as "temporary" is unwise in such a Bill. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I have suggested in our amendment that we insert a period of unemployment of less than three months. It would put beyond doubt and beyond interpretation what the registration officer should have in mind when he does his necessary work and verifies the register's contents. I should like to think that the Minister will accept the amendment. I will not die in the last ditch

      919
      over it at this stage. If he were to tell me that the period of three months was not right, but some other period was, I would go along with him.
      If we leave a word such as "temporary" in the Bill, how would that provide sufficient security in the nationwide implementation of the measure, were it ever to come to that? Indeed, does it provide sufficient guidance for either local authorities when they contemplate pilot schemes, or registration officers when they have to implement the provision? I do not believe that it does.
      We are pursuing a constant theme, to which we will return during discussion of future groups of amendments: is there sufficient tightness, sufficient security, in all the measures to make them reliable and effective? That is the thrust of my argument.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: I will, but I am trying to conclude.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way as he seeks to conclude his argument. Does he agree that it would not be mere cynicism, but justified apprehension on our part to consider that the clause's failure to define the meaning of the word "temporary" for that purpose might indicate the Government's intention to allow themselves maximum flexibility in the regulations? Although that might be good news for Ministers, it could be a source of growing anxiety to hundreds of electoral registration officers throughout the country.
      Mr. Forth: That has to be the case. As my hon. Friend spoke, another thought flitted across my mind. I will try to dismiss it because I doubt that it could be true—but it is just possible that, were unemployment to start to rise dramatically from the level that, mercifully, it is at present, that would have a severe impact on the clause and on its implementation, constituency by constituency, registration officer by registration officer. It is one thing to frame such legislation in the happy circumstances in which we find ourselves in terms of unemployment at the moment, but we are legislating for a long period. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, anything that is put in the Bill will, by definition, exist for quite some time. You know better than me that changing primary legislation is not easy. Therefore, we must feel triply reassured about whatever appears in the Bill.
      Those are the questions that I pose. We want to be helpful; we want to be flexible. Conservative Members are not being dogmatic. However, we are looking for the Minister's analysis, reasoning and explanation of those provisions in the Bill, either accepting our amendments or giving us cast-iron reassurances that the unhappiness that I have expressed is groundless and that that part of the Bill is secure. That is what I am looking for.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your predecessor had to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I did not raise this as a point of order at the time, because it would have stopped the flow of a very important debate. My hon. Friend used the word "gobbledegooker" and your predecessor in the Chair could not see the eyes of the Hansard writer above you roll upwards at the use of a
      920
      word that does not exist. Did the previous Deputy Speaker indicate whether some guidance could be given, or whether my hon. Friend should be asked to provide a spelling for the word, because otherwise we will have some difficulty?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member would do better to stick to the amendment.
      Mr. Wilshire: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this was a difficult point in a difficult debate. However, as you say, there are important amendments before us which we must consider and, if necessary, vote on. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) both explained, we are dealing with six separate amendments. Although they are related, they raise five individual, but linked, issues. It is important to consider each of those five issues carefully and separately.
      When moving amendment No. 46, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said that it was a probing amendment. He said, quite rightly, that we wanted the Minister to explain why this provision had been included in the Bill. We should also consider why it is not sufficient to stick to the facts. The subsection provides that we must consider the purpose of someone's presence or absence as well as the facts. I always thought that legislation aimed at being clear and precise and at sticking to the point. Someone is either present or they are not; they are either absent or they are not. The reason why is not the issue. As I understand it, the electoral register seeks to determine someone's residence. We could get locked into an argument about why people choose to live where they do as a purpose for being there. Surely that is not the issue.
      Why are the facts of the matter not sufficient? Why do we have to wander into the issue of the purpose of presence or absence? What does the Minister mean by "purpose"? The Bill is not satisfied with the purpose alone—it states that regard shall be had
      "in particular, to the purpose".
      As my right hon. Friend said, that raises the opportunity to include all sorts of other things, as well as purpose. If the Minister considers it necessary to specify that the purpose is relevant, why does he not tell us which other issues are relevant? Why not spell them out? He chooses to spell out "purpose"—why have the catch-all of "in particular", which allows the Bill to introduce anything else? Does the Minister have anything else in mind?
      Mr. Bercow: Rare are the occasions upon which I diverge in my opinions on these matters from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). But does he agree that the inclusion of "purpose" is not in itself objectionable; it is the fact that the Government have so far failed—it is a risible failure—to specify the difference between good reasons and bad, and to distinguish between circumstances that could be anticipated by a resident and those that could not?
      Mr. Wilshire: I am saddened that my hon. Friend does not go with the flow of my argument. I would be inclined to share his point of view unless I were given a good reason for the word's inclusion. The whole thing is very

      921
      curious and difficult. The Government are asking me to support in legislation the concept that, even if people are present somewhere, it could be said that they are not. Alternatively, we are being asked to accept legislation that provides that, even if people are absent, if they can give a good enough explanation, they can be said to be present. That is the most extraordinary concept to introduce into legislation.
      Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) described the amendment as probing, I am slightly disappointed; the amendment should be for real. The gobbledegook to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred applies to this matter. Why can we not simply stick to the facts? If we accepted amendment No. 46, we should be left with the facts; that should be sufficient for British legislation.
      Mr. Gray: I do not want to do the Minister's job for him. I am sure that he will deal with this point shortly. However, one might imagine circumstances in which a person lives at a particular address for the specific purpose of registering to vote. There could be widespread corruption; for example, people might move to a key marginal seat for two or three months—three months in this case—to change the voting outcome there. It would be right for the registration officer to take account of people's purpose in being in an area when considering their application for registration. It is harder to imagine why people should specifically want to be absent and why the registration officer should take account of that.
      Mr. Wilshire: That is a valid point. If the House supports my hon. Friend's view, it is incumbent on the Government to state which purposes they would accept as good. My hon. Friend gives an example of a practice that, I hope, is not acceptable; it would be a bad purpose. To state only that purposes can be taken into account does not meet the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. If we accept my hon. Friend's argument, the Government will need to introduce further amendments in the other place.
      Amendment No. 5 would come into play if amendment No. 46 were to fail. I am a politician who likes to think well of my opponents, so I have great hope in the Government. I am sure that the reasonableness of the intricate arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the past few minutes will have persuaded the Minister of the justice of our cause, and that we will not need to invoke amendment No. 5. However, in case we need to do so, we should discuss it.
      Mr. Fabricant: I put to my hon. Friend the same question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): does he agree that the insertion of the word "verifiable" is tautology? The word used in the clause is "fact". Do not all facts have to be verifiable, by definition?
      Mr. Wilshire: I was coming to that point as gently as I could. I suspect that the discussion is coming off the rails, because my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has difficulties with some of my arguments and I have some difficulties with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. Amendment No. 5—to insert the word "verifiable"—will
      922
      be essential if amendment No. 46 does not succeed. That is because our society is based on the rule of law—that is how our system operates. I am not a lawyer, but I understand the rule of law to be the ability to prove an asserted fact. If that is so, there needs to be verifiable purpose. I could not go along with the concept that, in a matter that is as serious as the representation of the people, all one has to do is explain something and one's word will be accepted.
      Mr. Fabricant: If my hon. Friend is correct, and he uses that argument to support the insertion of the word "verifiable", would it not be necessary to use the word "verifiable" every time the word "fact" or any other condition is mentioned in a Bill? Clearly, that is not so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. There are a further 13 groups of amendments, which do not include the word "verifiable", to be debated tonight, but if he tables amendments on a future occasion, I should be happy to debate whether that was verifiable.
      Amendment No. 57 deals with the difficult issue of those without a permanent address. I should be grateful if, before we vote on the matter, the Minister would tell us whether, when we are talking about whether a person has a permanent address, we are talking about whether they have a permanent address in the United Kingdom or a permanent address anywhere. If a person has a permanent address outside the country but enters the country and says, "I have no permanent address here", the Bill does not make it clear whether the qualification of no permanent address would apply.
      Another concern that I have about the issues addressed by amendment No. 57 is the fact that I see in a Bill the words "for example". If there is a lawyer in the House at the moment, perhaps that lawyer—or the Minister—will explain whether a colloquial throwaway comment such as "for example" has any place in legislation and could be taken before a court for judicial review, because I rather think that "for example" should come as a footnote. In my 13 years in the House, I have never come across legislation with footnotes. I have seen many a Select Committee report with a "for example" tucked at the bottom, but never in legislation have I seen such a device.
      Mr. Maclean: The words "for example" have been used in legislation—that is, much legislation includes lists of types of things. However, perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the Minister to explain whether the sui generis rule applies in this case and, by quoting these examples, whether other categories of the same generic family would also be included or excluded. That is the important point.
      Mr. Wilshire: That was a fascinating intervention. I should be grateful to hear the answer.
      Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend may not have noticed that the Minister appeared to be nodding assent to the suggestion that the sui generis rule applies.
      Mr. George Howarth: No, I nodded off.
      Mr. Wilshire: My admiration for the Minister knows no bounds if he actually understood the detail of those

      923
      interventions well enough, as a non-lawyer, to explain to me what we have been discussing for the last few moments, because I could not get my mind around it.
      This is all about the question, when is permanence permanence and when is non-permanence non-permanence? I do not find that difficult. What we are seeking to do, if I may say "for example", is to draw a distinction between a person who lives on a park bench for months on end and a person who is chucked out for a night by his wife and has to spend the night on a park bench. That is an example of what we are trying to do.
      However, it occurs to me that a problem arises from trying to draw such distinctions, because if someone says, "I live on a park bench", that is a non-residence, unless the person is resident somewhere else. Perhaps we need to consider what happens if the other place is also a non-residence. If someone sleeps on this park bench or that park bench, does having two park benches mean that one of them is the alternative place of residence, and therefore the provision does not apply?
      The Minister may think that I am being foolish, but I am trying to save the taxpayer money because, if we do not clarify the matter now, judicial review looms on what is permanent and what is not. If we clarify the matter now, we shall save the taxpayer the enormous legal fees involved in letting the courts sort it out later.
      Mr. Maclean: I can give my hon. Friend a better example from a real case, not just what may be regarded as a facetious or spurious case involving people on park benches. When the Newbury protesters were taken to court by the police and the Transport Department, the courts ruled that the holes in the ground, or tree-house, in which the protesters were living amounted to a place of residence, and they were bailed to return to their residence—the piece of land that they were demonstrating on. That demonstration is irrelevant to my hon. Friend's argument, but the point is that a residence can be a tree-house or a hole in the ground, as ruled by the courts in Newbury.
      Mr. Wilshire: That reinforces my feeling that we must clarify the matter before we give the Bill a Third Reading.
      I move on to amendment No. 6. If I understand it, the Bill addresses the issue of how long a person can be away from somewhere without its mattering. The Bill says six months, but the amendment would make it three. That suggests to me that we spent an entirely futile two hours discussing whether in Northern Ireland somebody should be resident for three months before going on to the register. Even though we had that discussion and accepted that provision, we are now saying that it does not matter. I hope that the Minister will tell us which period applies. Is it the one that we discussed earlier or the one that we are discussing now? I see nowhere in the clause the words, "Notwithstanding the references to residence in Northern Ireland". Does the clause refer to the residency test in Northern Ireland? If it does, it should say so. If it does not, why did we have the earlier debate?
      9 pm
      Another issue is short-term unemployment. As was said earlier, the word "temporary" should be defined. As a non-lawyer, I am amazed that the drafters of the legislation could use what I consider to be such a sloppy
      924
      word. If I were unemployed for three years and then got a job, I could say that it was only a temporary period in my life.
      I know what the Government were trying to do. They were trying to catch the sense of "short term". That would have been a better term than "temporary", but both are sloppy.
      Mr. Bercow: Is not the intellectual paucity of the Government's position demonstrated by the conflict in their treatment of Northern Ireland on the one hand and the rest of the United Kingdom on the other? A week is a long time when it suits the Government in the context of Northern Ireland, but six months is a short time in the context of the rest of the United Kingdom because that fits in with their predestined purpose. In a nutshell, are not the Government guilty of what the late Winston Churchill would have called "terminological inexactitude"?
      Mr. Wilshire: Despite occasional appearances to the contrary, I am a kind and generous man at heart. Unlike my hon. Friend, I prefer to believe that that is just sloppiness, not devious Labour politics of the worst kind. I hope that my generosity to the Minister will be repaid by his telling us that he now realises that it would have made much more sense to specify a period of time rather than to throw out a general term such as "temporary". That would have set my hon. Friend's mind at rest and he would not have had to think the worst about the Labour party's motives.
      I could be persuaded that three months was not the period that the Minister had in mind. However, for the purposes of the debate and a vote, let us stick with three months. If he wants us to agree to two or four months, I should also be entirely happy about that.
      Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether the clause could have been better phrased by using the words in the Bill's explanatory notes. If I may read a brief note, they say—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an intervention, which must be brief. Will the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) resume his speech?
      Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise one more issue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield may then catch your eye so that he can develop his point.
      As well as wondering why the Bill is so sloppily drafted, I am mystified why the concept of unemployment gets dragged into a factual matter, such as whether one qualifies to be on the register. That returns me to the first point that I raised. Surely to goodness, we are dealing with where a person resides, not with whether he has a job. I am wholly puzzled by the fact that the Bill considers what a person does with his time. That is not what the Bill is about; it is about where he lives.
      I notice that the Minister has been making careful notes, so I look forward to hearing his answers to my many questions.
      Mr. George Howarth: I shall try my best to deal with the points that have been raised, although I suspect that some were made to fill up time rather than to shed enlightenment.
      Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not it have been out of order if there had been a filibuster and would you not have called the House to order if there had been?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might equally be accused of taking up the time of the House. The Minister was only surmising; it is the Chair who decides.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows that I deliberately did not use the word "filibustering".
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised a number of points with which I shall try to deal, but there was an element of metaphysical discourse in his speech, and I am not entirely clear what specific points he was making. It is not entirely clear whether he himself knew exactly what points he was making, but I shall try to respond to those that I could identify.
      Before I do so, I shall decline the offer that the hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago when he asked me to put at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Having watched the hon. Gentleman for some weeks, I have concluded that his mind is far too fevered for me to put it at rest.
      There was some discussion about verifiability between the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The hon. Member for Lichfield is waiting for a flash of inspiration or enlightenment from me. I have to tell him that verifiability is a word that we all understand, but I suggest that when he has the opportunity he should read the work of Karl Popper, if he has not done so already. I know that the hon. Gentleman is better read than he sometimes appears to be. Karl Popper adds an even more interesting concept to the discussion of verifiability in that he believes that falsifiability is a far better tool. I suggest that when the hon. Gentleman has time, he reads Karl Popper for enlightenment, or revisits his work if he has read it already.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I shall give way once to the hon. Gentleman and that is all.
      Mr. Bercow: We know your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we respect them, but it is of the utmost importance to understand to what the Minister is referring, because it is relevant to his response to the debate. Is the work to which he is referring to be found in "The Open Society and its Enemies" or in "Conjectures and Refutations"?
      Mr. Howarth: It is some years since I have read either of those publications, and I was an undergraduate at the time. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the general philosophy that underlies Popper's approach is that any theory is a good theory only if it is open to falsification. That is relevant to the dialogue between the hon. Member
      926
      for Lichfield and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but it would certainly be remiss of me to advise them to discuss that during this debate.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Having sat through the Committee proceedings on the Bill, I assume that the working party did not explore that area. Certainly members from our party did not report that they rose to such philosophical heights.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I intend to demonstrate in a moment, the working party stuck to practicalities and matters of interest to people who want to vote, because that is what the Bill is all about.
      The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) requested information on the position of those in military service and merchant seafarers. Even though he has since decamped, I shall clarify the matter for the record. Military personnel register by means of a service declaration. Merchant seamen register under section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is not affected by the Bill. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman avidly reads the record of the debate tomorrow, he will understand the situation.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne embarked on a somewhat convoluted dialogue about the use in legislation of the expression "for example." I am sure that he has already read it, but to make matters clear I draw his attention to a good example of the use of that expression in the Bill. It appears in clause 3(2), which reads:
      "Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date.
      For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all circumstances be taken to be at that time—

      (a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or

      (b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere."

      The hon. Gentleman has to concede that the use of the expression "for example" is, in that context, appropriate and enlightening.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am afraid that I do not accept that. I was complaining about the use in the Bill of the words "for example." The fact that the Minister can find another example of their use in the Bill does not undermine my argument. My point is that they should not appear anywhere in the Bill, but I would have been out of order had I addressed clauses that we were not debating.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman objects in principle to the use of the words "for example." I was merely demonstrating, by means of yet another example, how it is possible to use that phrase to provide amplification and illustration of a provision.
      I recognise that some of those right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the amendments are anxious to ensure that the electoral registration process is not susceptible to false claims and manipulation by those who are sufficiently unscrupulous to attempt them. I respect those views and share that concern, but I do not believe that the amendments would help to achieve that aim.
      Even after listening to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) —always a great joy—I am somewhat puzzled by amendments

      927
      Nos. 46 and 57. It appears that they would provide that residence should be determined solely by a person's presence or otherwise at the relevant address on the day in question. If that were so, a possible interpretation would be that a person who happened to be staying at a friend's house on the day of the annual canvass would register at the friend's address, rather than his own. I do not believe that the confusion of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke exists.
      Amendment No. 5 is designed to tighten up the definition of "residence", by introducing the concept of "the verifiable fact". Having already referred to that and to falsifiability, I do not intend to dwell on the subject. However, the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the verifiable fact of someone's presence at, or absence from, a particular address on a particular date. How would that work? How is someone who lives alone to prove that he was at home on the date in question? If a false claim is made, there are established procedures for objecting to the inclusion of a specific name in the register. Those procedures are used when people believe it appropriate and necessary to use them. In my view, they provide a more appropriate and effective safeguard than the arrangements proposed in the amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are designed to tighten the provisions relating to those who are temporarily absent from home in connection with their employment or business. Under new section 5(3)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as substituted by clause 3 of the Bill, a person who is so absent can continue to be treated as a resident at his home address, provided he intends to return within six months of leaving home; and new section 5(4) provides that periods of temporary unemployment may be disregarded in that connection. Use of the word "temporary" is accepted: the electoral administrators who were consulted and who participated in the framing of the proposals believe that that is a suitable definition, and I am content that it should remain on the face of the Bill.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Brady: In my view, it is acceptable for "temporary" to remain in the Bill, but the Minister should give some indication of what the Government have in mind as the definition of "temporary". They must have a conception of what temporary unemployment means for these purposes.
      Mr. Howarth: I have already referred—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening—to people who are temporarily away from their home for the purposes of business. On six months of leaving home, they can be considered for registration. That is not an unreasonable period in terms of being temporarily away from home. It is not necessarily a period of unemployment.
      Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. Having done so, I must make some progress.
      Mr. Brady: We are dealing with an important point that has an impact on other areas of employment law. My concern is the reference in clause 3(4) to "temporary period of unemployment", and the suggestion that that can
      928
      be disregarded. I accept what the Minister says about temporary absence from home on business, but to say that a temporary period of unemployment can be disregarded, when that period could mean anything from three days to three years, is not acceptable. The Government must give an indication of their thinking on the matter.
      Mr. Howarth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that his concern is unnecessary. I do not think that it is necessary for me to state a specific period after which temporary unemployment becomes long-term unemployment. I think that the Department for Education and Employment probably has a definition of when temporary employment becomes full-time employment. Perhaps we can reflect on that subsequently. It is not necessary for us to get into a convoluted argument about that.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he always provides the House with great entertainment. This will be the last time that I shall give way.
      Mr. Fabricant: Why is the time clearly defined in the explanatory notes and not in the Bill?
      Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, explanatory notes explain what is in a Bill. That is why we provide explanatory notes.
      I intend to move on. I understand why Opposition members might want to delay me, but I think I have been more than generous in giving way. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to do so again.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has commented on the use of language. He has been honest enough to say on more than one occasion that he is not entirely convinced of the need for the Bill. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has said, the Bill was conceived as a result of co-operation between the three major parties in the House. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not included in that process. He has his own view on these matters, and the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench may sometimes consider it to be somewhat wayward. However, I do not question the fact that he has the right to take that approach.
      Throughout the process of co-operation, we had the benefit of advice from and the thoughts of electoral administrators. They believe that the arrangements set out in the Bill are useful.
      Amendment No. 6 would reduce the maximum period of absence from employment from six months to three. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would substitute a maximum period of three months' unemployment for "temporary" unemployment.
      I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. The provisions in clause 3 make it simpler for people to register, and clarify the circumstances in which they do so without opening the door to abuse. Given all the advice that we have painstakingly taken, we think that the provisions strike the right balance. I hope that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) jointly will feel it appropriate to withdraw their amendments.
      Mr. Maclean: It is a pleasure to follow the Minister and to hear him explain why the amendments may not be

      929
      necessary or may be misguided. Casual observers may have regarded the debate of the past hour as tedious or boring. I am sure that the Minister was not one of those. He was courteous, as usual, in paying attention to the important points that have been made, and he is always meticulous in responding properly to debate.
      It would clearly be nonsense for me to force a vote on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not wish to press his amendments to a Division because of the generous response from the Minister, which we welcome. As I wish to speak at length on the main business tonight—
      Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is peculiar for the Minister to tell the House that because a measure has been agreed by all parties, it must be beyond reproach? The House will recall that the Child Support Agency had the support of all parties, and I do not think that any of us are particularly proud of that.
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. The issues on which the great and the good agree are often the ones about which we should worry. Some Ministers think that if a measure is bounced through in five minutes on a Friday, that is good. I know that the Under-Secretary does not take that view and is always meticulous and courteous. In order that we can crack on and deal with the main group of amendments relating to pilot schemes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6

      NOTIONAL RESIDENCE: DECLARATIONS OF LOCAL CONNECTION
      Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
      '(5A) Where the declarant falls into the category of person mentioned in subsection 2(c) above, the declaration of local connection must state that the declarant has spent a substantial part of his time (whether during the day or at night) in the parliamentary constituency (or, if the declaration is made for the purpose of local government elections only under the provisions of subsection (6) below, the local government electoral area) during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
      '(10) When an address given in a declaration of local connection is owned or occupied by a person, persons, business or organisation, permission must be obtained from such person, persons, business or organisation for that address to be used in the declaration.'.
      No. 31, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
      '(10) When a declaration of local connection is received by the registration officer, he shall make enquiries in order to satisfy himself that the declarant falls within the categories of person listed in subsection (2) above, and no declarant shall be entered on the register until the registration officer is so satisfied.'.
      930
      No. 27, in schedule 1, page 20, line 35, at end insert—
      '(5A) It shall be the responsibility of the registration officer to take whatever measures he deems necessary and reasonable to verify a declaration of local connection made under section 7B of this Act.'.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at such an early stage. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 deal with those seeking to declare a local connection because they are homeless. That is a small group of people, consisting mainly of rough sleepers. I stress to the Minister that we are looking for flexibility and do not want to be dogmatic. We shall put forward common-sense suggestions, which we hope that he will adopt.
      As it stands, the Bill is pretty thin in respect of requirements to prove that the elector or would-be elector is who he or she claims to be. The Bill is also not sufficiently prescriptive to bar would-be travelling voters from making tactical decisions about where they will register for voting purposes.
      Once the election is called or is about to be called, tactical seats might be earmarked, and registration could take place with the aim of achieving a certain result. The amendments do not aim to be a barrier to legitimate registration, but they aim to be a barrier to protest tactical registration, which I have previously described as the Swampy aspect of the Bill. We must be aware that that could be a problem.
      There are sufficient loopholes in the Bill to lead to an increase in fraudulent registration. The amendments will not cut out the fraud entirely, but they will give electoral registration officers powers to satisfy themselves that the declaration is genuine. Amendment No. 30 stipulates that the person making the declaration of local connection has lived in the area for a substantial part of the time during the three-month period. That is not an unsurpassable obstacle to people stating to the electoral registration officer that they have a local connection, have lived in the area and are not just passing through. They must state that they have such a local connection. I do not believe that the rough sleepers whom I pass on my way up Victoria street in the evening would have difficulty in making a local declaration. Many of them are familiar faces, who have local connections for much longer than three months, more is the pity. They would experience no problem with the amendment.
      The amendment would make the same provision for England and Wales as clause 6 makes for Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has by-elections in mind. Many by-elections are held within three months of their declaration. To use his Swampy analogy, does he fear that homeless people or others may move into an area where there is a by-election to try to change its usual result?
      Mr. Evans: The whole Bill, not only the provisions for by-elections, worries me because it provides for the ability to make that sort of protest at general elections and by-elections. General elections are important and people will be able to use the measure to try to affect the result in a seat that has been earmarked as marginal. Seats tend to be more marginal in general elections than they are in by-elections. Local declarations could be made under the

      931
      Bill with the aim of unseating a specific person—for example, a Minister who made an unpopular decision. If the measure is not amended, such a Minister could be at risk.
      Voters often use by-elections to make a statement about how the Government are faring. I know that, because I have been the victim of two by-elections. If people agree with most of the Government's actions, they will vote for them in a general election. However, in a by-election, people who disagree strongly with only one policy have the luxury of voting against the Government without bringing them down. An amendment that we tabled earlier dealt specifically with by-elections; amendment No. 30 would affect the whole measure by trying to remove loopholes.
      Amendment No. 30 would do nothing more for England and Wales than proposed new section 7B(5) of the 1983 Act, for which clause 6 provides, does for Northern Ireland. That provision states that people who register a declaration of local connection in Northern Ireland must declare that they have lived there for three months. That is sensible, and we want only to extend the provision to all relevant parts of the United Kingdom.
      The argument that we discriminate against homeless people as against those who have houses will be prominent in hon. Members' minds because it was mentioned when we tabled an amendment about registration for by-elections. The amendment does not aim to discriminate, but we discern a difference in the means of registering. It would be incredibly expensive to buy a house to influence a vote. I do not believe that anyone would be prepared to do that.
      The provision for local declaration makes it much easier to register in order to affect a vote. The only expense incurred is that of getting to a specific place. It is argued that it is easier for people to rent a property to influence a vote. It is easier than buying a house, but finding a rentable property involves expense, commitment and difficulty. Local declarations do not involve such difficulties. People can simply go the local town hall, approach the electoral registration officer and state that they have a local declaration. That requires no commitment or proof of having lived in a place. Under the Bill, someone could get off a local bus at Brighton, take a whiff of the sea air and, all of a sudden, become a local.
      9.30 pm
      Such a person could register—that would be down to the town hall—so I hope that the Minister is prepared to look carefully at amendments Nos. 30 and 31. Amendment No. 31 would place the onus on the electoral registration officer, who would have to be proactive in ensuring that people who make local declarations do so truthfully. In previous debates on the Bill, it has been said that the ERO and his or her staff would be aware that there was a particular problem and could perhaps take action if a number of people who did not live in the area went there to make fraudulent local declarations. We want to place on the ERO the obligation to verify declarations made by people who say that they have been in a certain place for at least three months and so rightfully have a local, rather than a passing, connection.
      The Minister may object, saying that the amendment would place a burden on EROS. We already know that they are strapped for cash, and it may add a
      932
      disproportionate cost, as I understand that no extra cash will be made available, but we are talking about a relatively small number of people. I asked the chief executive of the local authority in the Ribble Valley area how many homeless people would use the Bill and register with a local declaration. He said none, and I agree.
      The same will be true for a lot of rural areas as key urban areas attract the homeless. Property is costly these days and illness is a problem for a lot of homeless people, who are attracted to major cities such as London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Bristol. I do not believe that EROs are inundated to the extent that they would be unable to send a member of staff to make sure that a person who makes a local declaration lives locally.
      Mr. Fabricant: Again, I am listening to my hon. Friend's arguments with considerable interest. He will know that Shelter is saying that the number of homeless people is sadly increasing. What assessment has he made of the number of inquiries that might have to be made before an election by an ERO to establish whether someone is resident in a certain area?
      Mr. Evans: There may be problems if a number of people are sleeping rough in a given area and an election is called. Once that happens, there is nothing to prevent people from registering a local declaration. We might find that a number of people in certain areas try to register at the town hall, although that would depend on where they are concentrated. I have referred to Victoria street time and again, because that is the area that I know. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) also walks along Victoria street and he, too, will know how many people are sleeping rough there. There will be problems if people wait until the last moment to register their declaration of local connection, particularly as the ERO and his staff will be extremely busy. I hope that local authorities will ensure that they have staff available. Those staff could perhaps come off certain other duties, but not electoral registration, as that would be vital in the run-up to a local election or a general election, should the Home Secretary decide to extend the measure throughout the country. EROs should be able to take some staff off other duties, such as car parking, in order to verify that the person who has declared a local connection has done so correctly.
      In places such as Westminster, to which I referred earlier, as many as 100 people may be sleeping rough—perhaps even more. That number would put pressure on the authority. I do not believe that there would be any such pressure on my local authority, and I suspect that my hon. Friend would not encounter too many problems in Lichfield either. The main problem would arise as a result of the Swampy factor.
      A number of people may tactically move around the country in order to pick on one large urban constituency. We know that groups of people who live in different parts of the country are now able easily to communicate very quickly on the internet. People who have the same interest and belong to chat groups communicate freely and constantly. Such communication has been used in preparation for demonstrations in London, and we have seen the problems that the police have faced as a result.
      Disparate groups of people could easily use the internet. I am referring not to homeless people but to those who will fraudulently claim that they are homeless in order to

      933
      pick on one or two constituencies in which to register. The ERO and his personnel will have problems checking each application.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend touches on something that is bothering me considerably: the question of multiple voting. As there will not be a national register, does he believe that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that a homeless person does not make a declaration of residence in more than one area?
      Mr. Evans: Clearly not. There are sufficient loopholes that not only allow people to do so but, in certain circumstances, may encourage it.
      I return to the argument that, if somebody is prepared to dig a hole and stay down it for several days or climb a tree and stay up it for several days as a form of protest, making a local declaration of connection in several local authority areas will be a piece of cake. We must therefore be cautious.
      I hope that, if very many people make a declaration once an election is called to try to unseat one Member of Parliament, we shall be able to give the ERO sufficient power to verify whether such claims are legitimate. If proof is given, there should be no problem. The problem will arise when the ERO and his staff find that people are obviously not living in the area and have no local connection. I ask the Minister to take due regard of the abuse that could result from the way in which the clause is drafted.
      Mr. Forth: I shall try to be short in my comments on this occasion—
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I will time the right hon. Gentleman. —
      Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I would be delighted to give way, although he would only be prolonging my remarks. I should hope that he would not want to provoke me at this stage in our proceedings. I want to allow as many people as possible to contribute to this part of our debate.
      This is the weakest and most vulnerable part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has ably outlined his worries, which I share. The concept of the declaration of local connection is wide open to abuse and it is incumbent on us to minimise that abuse, or eliminate it if we can.
      We have just heard the nightmare possibility of people making multiple registrations in different constituencies under the banner of the extremely loose process of declaration of local connection. Amendments Nos. 9 and 27 are designed to reduce the weaknesses and close the loopholes. Amendment No. 9 would require permission to be obtained from the owner or occupier of the address given, be it an individual or a business, the better to verify the use of that address.
      The Bill merely requires the person registering to give
      "the address in the United Kingdom where he would be residing"
      or, in the case of a homeless person, the address that he "is nearest to". That is open to multiple abuse and we must deal with it properly.
      Mr. Robert Syms: Is there not a slight danger that a political party could go around collecting proxies
      934
      from 10, 15 or 20 homeless people in a ward and use its political address as the registered address for a postal proxy vote, and thereby skew an election?
      Mr. Forth: Yes. Regrettably, there are many such possibilities within the procedure. Amendment No. 9 would not deal with that problem, but amendment No. 27 could or would, because it would lay on the electoral registration officer a duty to verify the local connection. Should the provisions ever reach the statute book, EROS, with their great experience, would want to concentrate on this area, to reassure us that the horrors that we are envisaging will not occur.
      The Minister may be able to reassure us in some other way that I cannot yet imagine. I hope that he can. I hope that he will either accept the amendments or give us a guarantee that something of the kind will be introduced, perhaps in another place. I hope that he will do us the courtesy of acknowledging those apparent weaknesses in the Bill, and that he will correct them.
      I do not want the briefness of my remarks to detract from the seriousness with which I view the matter, but I want to give others a chance to contribute. I look forward to the Minister's response.
      Jackie Ballard: We will not support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote. I do not doubt the genuine concern of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about the possible fraudulent exercise of the right to register and to vote, but I wonder whether he has been as concerned in the past about possible fraud by people who have more than one residence and could equally do the things that he is concerned that the homeless might do.
      I suspect that someone who is literally roofless would not be as able to take concerted action to register in constituencies that may be vulnerable as someone who owns about five residences. In the past, the homeless have been discriminated against and have not been able to exercise the right to vote. It would be very wrong for us to add more discrimination in very welcome legislation that gives them that right for the first time. The difficulty is going to be persuading people who literally have not got a roof that they want to take part in the democratic process at all.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Evans: I agree with all that the hon. Lady is saying. We want the franchise to be extended to homeless people. They have been discriminated against once and we do not want them to be doubly so. Our problem is that, for the first time, legislation is making it easier for people to claim a local connection at the town hall. We want to ensure that safeguards are put in place so that the system is not abused by others—not by the genuine homeless, but by other people who want to make protests.
      Jackie Ballard: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, in putting that sledgehammer in place, he will be discriminating against the very people to whom he wanted to give a right.
      As I said, the difficulty will be to persuade people who are roofless that they want to reconnect with the democratic process. That will be a real challenge for all of us and, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, we will oppose it.
      Mr. Fabricant: I welcome the provision that will enable the homeless, as well as prisoners on remand and those who live in psychiatric residential centres, to vote. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, that provision will mean that the legislation will be open to abuse, which means that democracy itself will be open to abuse.
      The Minister said that he is not too concerned if a group of Ulster Unionists moves to north Warwickshire, but we must all be slightly concerned about people who are homeless, or indeed those who are not, registering a local connection in an area when they do not have one. Shelter has said that, sadly, more and more homeless people are living on our streets. One does not have to be homeless to make a declaration of local connection.
      As we do not have a national register as such, how will the Minister ensure that people do not make multiple declarations? In Committee, one Labour Member told me that homeless people cannot get to a number of areas to vote. That is patently not so. If one is on the cusp of a number of adjoining constituencies, it is easy to walk into each to vote during a day. What if one is not homeless and is using the internet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) described? That makes it even more probable that there will be major abuses of democracy.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) mentioned Newbury, where tree-houses and tunnels were designated as places of residence. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the Swampy syndrome. There is a real probability that we will be inviting abuse if tight clauses are not added to the Bill as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested. It is pleasant to see that the amendments in the group are not mutually exclusive. They could all be accepted to ensure that there is no abuse.
      There is no question but that there is abuse. Earlier in the passage of the Bill I asked the Minister how many abuses occur. He was unable to tell me. Clearly, they have not been detected. If the Bill is not amended to ensure that owners of properties must say that the individual who makes the declaration of local connection lives there, we shall be inviting the sort of abuse that my right hon. and hon. Friends have described.
      We have discussed the question of verifying a number of issues, and we had a long debate about the word "verifiable". Amendment No. 9 is an important amendment. Making a person who owns or occupies a property agree that the declaration of local connection is viable and correct will be a small step towards ensuring that abuses do not happen in the future. If these amendments are not adopted, we will be inviting abuse. Surely that is not what the Minister wants.
      Mr. Syms: There are two sides to this question. The first is that people have an absolute right to vote, and the second is that there must be transparency and a right to challenge. The current electoral register is published, and people can check it and their right to be on it. Sometimes, people are open to challenge. If, within a year, somebody missing from the register wants to be added, his name is put up in a local council office or public place so that, in effect, people can challenge that right.
      The real problem with homeless people is checking that they have a local connection. This is a problem not only for the returning officer, but for political parties. Many of
      936
      us in the Chamber could look at several constituencies and say that we have a local connection. In that case, where one votes could be an elective point, rather than a point of residence. That could cause a real problem, and could raise the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
      The system could be open to abuse—not by the homeless, but by people taking advantage of their political position to scoop up a number of additional votes in a particularly marginal seat. All political parties try to take advantage of the electoral law as it stands to maximise their political performance in any seat. There are abuses in proxy or postal votes. Occasionally, agents of parties are accused of abuses because they have signed up people who may not know what day it is. There is scope for abuse by those who know what they are doing in taking advantage of those who are homeless and on the streets.
      An address is a critical point for most of us. We register our address from the point of view of electoral registration, and if we purchase or do anything we are often asked where we live. Often, people check the electoral register. If one wants to join a video club, for example, people will ask for bills, or for some connection with a particular address to verify where one lives. If one does not have that, there is a problem. Political parties across the spectrum may look at an individual and measure whether the local connection is valid and whether that person should be on the electoral register. My fear is that the electoral registration officer will be put in a position whereby somebody wants to be registered and local political agents and parties will object because it cannot be proved that that person has a local connection.
      In my constituency, the only people with a good idea of who lives on the streets are local police officers. The only way in which one could prove a local connection would be to get statements from local police officers who, in certain areas of Poole, know the people who are sleeping rough in those areas. I am not sure that those homeless people would want to go to the police for a statement that they are local residents, because there is sometimes an uneasy relationship between them.
      I have concerns about this measure. It is well intentioned, but open to abuse. If we are not careful, unscrupulous people could take advantage of the homeless.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had many lengthy speeches in this and other debates today. Some hon. Members have suggested that there has been some filibustering—heaven forfend—because the Opposition wish to prevent us reaching the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. This is an important amendment, but I should point out that Conservative Front Benchers have not opposed the next business and it would be particularly hypocritical of them to continue to make long-winded speeches. Perhaps they are just naturally given to them; we will see.
      Each of the amendments in this group is designed to place obstacles in the way of people wishing to register as electors by means of a declaration of local connection and, in particular, those people who wish to use that route because they are homeless. We will need to work hard to get the homeless to register to vote, let alone fulfil the concerns that have been expressed tonight. The Conservative party was represented on the working party on electoral procedures, but it now appears to be backtracking on what it agreed then.

      937
      Amendment No. 30 would, in effect, impose a three-month residency qualification on a homeless person seeking to register as provided in the Bill. That raises the question of why the homeless should be treated differently in that respect from all other electors in Great Britain. Does the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) really think that a rent-a-homeless-vote procession would arrive in a constituency having a by-election and make straight for the town hall to register to vote, having been alerted to the need to do so via the internet to which, as homeless people, they would hardly have ready access? The hon. Gentleman seems to have a name for that idiocy—I can call it nothing else—and he calls it the Swampy factor. It would provoke much comment if such a thing were to happen and would damage any party that sought to organise it. It is unlikely to happen and the hon. Gentleman has presented no evidence for it. If he has some evidence, I would be pleased to see it before he pursues his argument further.
      My objection applies also to amendment No. 9, which would require the homeless person seeking to use, for example, the address of the shop in whose doorway he normally spends the night, to get the shopkeeper's permission before doing so. If the shopkeeper refused, that person would be disfranchised. I can see no justification for that. The shopkeeper would not be affected because the fact that the homeless person had registered under such an address would not give him any rights to remain in the doorway. Indeed, it could be argued that the shopkeeper was consenting to the homeless person sleeping in the doorway if he gave consent to registration. The shopkeeper would be placed in a worse position in that case.
      Homeless people have enough problems with being homeless and registering to vote without the Conservative party trying to restrict their ability to vote. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) described the prospect of the homeless voting as a nightmare. I suspect that one of the worst nightmares of the homeless would be for him to be in government again. The Conservative party simply does not want the homeless to vote. That is what the Conservatives are frightened of and what the amendments are about. They are seeking to deny electors the right to express a view on their policies.
      The Conservatives are frightened of the electorate. They were defeated at the general election and they do not want more people to vote because they, too, would vote against the Conservative party. The amendments would deny homeless people the right to vote. They would undermine the ability of people who should be able to exercise their democratic rights to do so.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Business of the House
10 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
In view of the lack of progress on the Bill tonight, I regret that the first business tomorrow will be the Representation of the People Bill (Allocation of Time) motion, followed by conclusion of the remaining stages of that Bill. The business for the remainder of that day will be a debate on the Braithwaite report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I greatly regret the business statement by the Leader of the House. The Bill that was before us this evening concerns the representation of the people. It is the Government's answer to falling turnouts at local elections and general elections and the dismal turnout at the European elections of just over 23 per cent. Tonight's announcement is a slap in the face for our democratic system and will do nothing to promote representative democracy.
The Representation of the People Bill has enormous repercussions for the way in which we will vote in this country. It gives the Home Secretary enormous powers—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. There must be quiet in the House, so that everyone can hear what he is saying.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill has enormous repercussions for the way in which we will vote in this country. It gives the Home Secretary enormous powers to alter the hours of the vote, the number of days of the ballot, where ballot boxes will be placed and who is able to vote. It is ironic that that is the Bill that is being treated so badly by the Government.
Guillotining that vital constitutional legislation will damage the very fabric of our parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate the debate that has been announced for tomorrow. This is a business statement and I hope that all questions to the Leader of the House will be relatively brief.
Mr. Evans: Full debate on and scrutiny of the remaining stages of the Bill is vital. The lack of it will ensure a poorer Bill. We have accused the Government of having no regard for this country's constitution, and nothing proves it more than their actions this evening. I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the decision and to allow full debate on the remaining stages of the Bill.
Mrs. Beckett: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks in so far as I accept that it is an important Bill. That is why the Government have taken it on the Floor of the House and why we have been prepared to be open in

939
discussion about the handling of it. Indeed, we were asked for a day to deal with the items that were before the House today, and that time was provided.
It is my understanding that the time has been taken to debate the use of such words as "temporary" or the phrase "for example". The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Bill raises important issues. I am sure that he is as aware as I am that the House can work only with a degree of consent. When it appears that a small handful of hon. Members exploit that consent, the House has to take that into account and to change the ground rules.
On Thursday, I made the business statement and announced the time allocated for the Bill. Not one single Conservative Member—the hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is speaking from a sedentary position, was not even here—raised the issue of the Bill, said that there was any problem, or that the time was in any way inadequate. It is too late to do so now.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Thirteen batches of amendments have been tabled on Report. So far today, we have not even completed the first three because of the activity on the Opposition Benches. The last three groups of amendments on the amendment paper stand in my name. If they had been discussed, there is no reason why the Minister and I could not have dealt with them in 20 minutes or so. In drawing up the timetable motion, I hope that consideration will be given to dealing with serious matters towards the end of the Bill that might otherwise be neglected.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I have great sympathy with him. He has a long track record of activity on and expertise and serious interest in these matters. He will appreciate that it is not easy to reflect what he seeks, but I will certainly bear his remarks in mind.
Mr. Norman Baker: Is it not the case that the business statement has been made as a consequence of the insufferable attempts at filibustering by certain right hon. and hon. Members? Is it not also the case that their motive has been not an interest in the Representation of the People Bill, but a desire to talk out the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill? When the Leader of the House makes her statement tomorrow, can she guarantee a slot for the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill so that it receives proper scrutiny by the House and is not subject to further delay?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. It is particularly unfortunate that some of those who have been discussing at great length quite minor issues in the Bill—considering that it contains some serious issues that they could have been discussing—said that their opposition to the original fur farming legislation was because it was a private Member's Bill when it should have been a Government Bill. Now it is a Government Bill, and although I cannot undertake to give the hon. Gentleman full details tomorrow, I can confirm that it will be a Government Act and that it will go on the statute book.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has happened today has been an absolute disgrace and makes a mockery of Parliament?
940
Is she further aware that her statement is quite justified, and that there can be no other way of proceeding with this measure?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the point that when a few abuse the freedoms and privileges rightly enjoyed by this House, they bring them into jeopardy.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House tell us what she is afraid of? Why can the House not continue its proper debate on the Bill, making steady progress as it has been doing this evening? Why has the right hon. Lady come here in a fit of pique, wearing her jackboots? Will she acknowledge that her colleagues are not prepared to continue considering the Bill any time after 10 o'clock, a time that seems to have some magic significance for her? Why can we not simply get on with our business and consider the Bill? What objection does the Leader of the House have to continuing consideration of the Bill in the perfectly orderly way in which it has been conducted so far?
Mrs. Beckett: Many of the issues that I understand the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing this evening could have been raised on either of the first two days that the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House. However, he took no part in those debates. I am sorry to disappoint him but I am not afraid of anything except an abuse of the freedoms of the many in this House by the exploitation of a few.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will the Leader of the House explain what on earth is the point of inviting Conservative Members to participate in the working party on whose work the Representation of the People Bill was built, when other Conservative Members abuse Parliament on Report?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is extremely difficult. We recognise that hon. Members of all parties play a serious part in the business of the House and address the issues that we are sent here to address. However, from time to time there are those who frivolously exploit their opportunities, but there we go.
Mr. David Maclean: Is not this another intolerant act from an increasingly intolerant Government? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady was not in the Chamber for one minute of today's debates. Had she been here, she would have heard her hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) support points made by the Opposition. Will she tell us what the Report stage is about, if we are not allowed a further four hours—at the present rate of progress—to complete the Bill in an ordered and serious manner? If the right hon. Lady had bothered to be in the Chamber during part of the Report stage, she would not have had to rely on second and third-hand accounts of what she thought was being debated.
Mrs. Beckett: Like other hon. Members, I am able to take advantage of modern communications in the House, so I know what is happening. I should take the right hon. Gentleman's representations more seriously, first, if they were not a characteristic feature of his behaviour and,

941
secondly, if he had contributed to the proceedings on the Bill during either of the first two full days of debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend consider the representations on the whole process of timetabling that I made to her and the Chief Whip? Does not tonight's ridiculous charade underline the arguments in favour of timetabling all business?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in that—as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out and as, I am sure, Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen recognise—there are undoubtedly useful issues in the Bill which should be debated. The time made available for debate was not challenged until this evening; that time has been used not to discuss serious issues but to filibuster. That is an abuse of the House.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has not yet told the House what her intentions are with regard to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah.") That Bill raises matters of considerable importance, which touch on the liberty of the subject. I want the Bill to be properly debated, at the proper time, so that I can speak and vote against it. It was never a good idea to put a Bill of such importance on late at night. I hope that when she decides on when we shall debate that Bill, we shall do so early in the day and with sufficient time.
Mrs. Beckett: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have every intention of giving time for that matter to be debated and voted on. I note that this is the first admission from the Opposition that the need to debate the Representation of the People Bill has to do with the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made my point.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House and the hard-pressed fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby what will happen to the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill? Is not the lack of seriousness with which the Opposition take such issues an indictment of the Opposition? When can we return to that important business which is vital to my constituents?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. What is more, I suspect that he is probably speaking for some Opposition Members, although for reasons that we all understand, they are showing a certain amount of collegiate loyalty. Although, last Thursday, I was not pressed to find more time for the Bill that was debated this evening, I was pressed to find an opportunity to discuss fishing issues. My hon. Friend will know that one of the Bills that has been lost for today's business, as a result of the activities of Opposition Members, would have offered an opportunity to discuss fishing issues.
Mr. David Wilshire: When the Labour Members who are shouting and bawling—almost none of
942
them bothered to attend today's debates— [Interruption.] When they read Hansard tomorrow morning, they will discover that, since 5 o'clock, we have held a constructive, good-humoured and well-ordered debate. Will the Leader of the House tell us why she has not bothered to come into the Chamber to see what has been going on? Will she tell the House why she is so terrified of debate, and of scrutiny by Opposition Members?
Mrs. Beckett: I am shaking in my shoes, naturally, as a result of that condemnation. I will simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, so far as I can see, he too is one of those who did not contribute to debates on any stage of the Bill until today. Of course it is perfectly legitimate for him to do so, but I simply say to him that his concern is perhaps a little late found.
Maria Eagle: As the promoter of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill in the last Session, I assure my right hon. Friend that the Conservative Members—two of them in particular—who have been filibustering this afternoon have form in that respect. What does she think that the Conservative party has to say about animal welfare to all those groups who oppose cruelty? The vast majority of Members want fur farming banned. Can she assure us that she will bring the Bill back for its Second Reading as soon as possible?
Mrs. Beckett: Again, let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government have every intention of ensuring that the Bill whose original purpose she promoted reaches the statute book. As she will fully understand, I cannot at this second give her details of when and how that Bill will again be debated, but I can assure her that what has happened in the past has been what many Members across the House regard as an exploitation of the use of private Members' time, and we do not intend to see the same thing happen in Government time.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have not been taking part in these proceedings. Instead, I have been making profitable use of my time in the Library, preparing for the sitting of Standing Committee F tomorrow morning. What makes the right hon. Lady so reluctant to move the 10 o'clock motion, and what is it about Labour Members that they are unable to make use of their time at night when they are not taking part in the proceedings in the Chamber?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender at our debates. I am confident that, in his heart of hearts, he is well aware that to spend time in the House discussing the use of the words "temporary" and "verifiable" may not be the best use of the time that is available to us.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I was referred to earlier. Yes, I participated in some of the earlier debate, but it took me merely six minutes to make two very simple points. It took Conservative Members 60 minutes to make the same points, very badly.
Mrs. Beckett: That is why my hon. Friend is so much more highly paid.
Mr. Roger Gale: My track record on animal welfare is reasonably well known in the House.

943
I am a passionate supporter of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and I have waited patiently here tonight, with a view to coming into the Chamber to support it. However, as one who, wearing another hat, has on occasions had the duty to defend the rights of Back Benchers, I would not wish that Bill to be used to deny Back Benchers on both sides of the House the right to discuss issues on Report. I have yet to hear the right hon. Lady answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): why will she not move the 10 o'clock motion, so that we may complete the discussions on the Representation of the People Bill and move on to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has no more control over his hon. Friends than has anyone else, and there can be no assurance that we would complete the stages of the Representation of the People Bill if we moved the 10 o'clock motion and sat through the following day. He may be prepared to take the risk; I prefer to give him the proper time to debate the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill in reasonable hours and at whatever length is required.
Mr. Phil Hope: Is it not clear that the filibuster by the Conservatives is not just an abuse of the democratic procedures of the House but a denial of the democratic wishes of the people of this country to prohibit the outlandish practice of fur farming? Will my right hon. Friend now take it upon herself to introduce timetabling of parliamentary business so that a minority of Conservative extremists cannot obstruct the democratic will of the people?
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) knows, I have always been reluctant to contemplate the use of the procedure that I have had to announce tonight. I am a strong believer in, and have always practised, the use of sensible programming so that issues of real importance on Bills may be debated and we do not spend time on issues of no real importance or of minor importance.
I wholly accept my hon. Friend's point that the programming of legislation is likely to lead to sensible and proper discussion.
Mr. Gale: Who is the judge of that?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Who is the judge of that?" Any Conservative Member who thought that inadequate time had been proposed for the Representation of the People Bill had the opportunity to say so at business questions. Not one of them opened their mouth.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Can the right hon. Lady cite a precedent in the public business of the House in which two Second Reading debates were taken in succession on the same day and following the Report stage of a third Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should have more sense. If he had been here longer, he would have known that the previous Government did everything.
Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents would have
944
been appalled to see what has gone on in the House tonight, especially the attempt to prevent us discussing the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which many of them want to see passed? Will she ensure that the right of Back Benchers to have such discussions is fully protected and not overridden by the juvenile behaviour of certain Conservative Members?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is an important balance to be struck in preserving the rights of Back Benchers on both sides of the House. We are in danger of straying into territory in which the freedoms that are properly, sensibly and rightly available to Members are used to create problems that will ultimately be resolved. Every Government have had to make such decisions from time to time. If we face continual tactics of the kind that we saw in the discussions of the Representation of the People Bill, such matters will have to be considered.
Mr. John Bercow: As an assiduous attender of debates in the Chamber, may I assure the right hon. Lady that Conservative Members simply sought to amend ill-considered, confused and sometimes downright stupid features of the Representation of the People Bill? Her statement, which attempts to prevent us from continuing to do that, is an abrogation of the democratic rights of the House.
Will the right hon. Lady also note that the hon. Members for Corby (Mr. Hope), for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) all had one characteristic in common when they pronounced judgment on Conservative Members? None of them was in the Chamber for the debates this afternoon or this evening.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind—I notice it continually—that, although Members may not be present in the Chamber, they observe our debates.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On television.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says, "On television" as though there were something shocking about that. Nevertheless, those Members hear our debates. It is not valid to assume that Members who have not been present in the Chamber are not aware of the debates.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is an assiduous attender in the Chamber and takes part assiduously in our business. On the whole—I do not wish to do him any harm—he is not among those who are most guilty of sometimes using our procedures in the way to which I have had to draw attention tonight. Although it may not suit Conservative Members to admit it, he will be as well aware as anyone else that it is important to strike a balance. On the one hand, we should preserve the proper freedoms of Members and, on the other, we should deal properly with the business—Government or otherwise—that is before us. If that balance goes adrift, it has somehow to be remedied.
Mr. Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), in his

945
assiduousness in observing the Chamber's proceedings, has clearly failed to recognise that I was here earlier today—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down if I rise to my feet—[Interruption.] He must not try to continue the debate from a sedentary position, otherwise he will get into real trouble. He raises a point for debate, which he will have other opportunities to raise if he wishes. It was not a point of order for the Chair. We have heard quite sufficient on the matter tonight; there will be a debate tomorrow.
Mr. Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the questions to the Leader of the House on her statement, a Labour Member used the word "filibuster" to describe contributions that you and other Deputy Speakers have clearly ruled are perfectly proper and in order. Is it in order to use the word "filibuster" in those circumstances?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Great emotion normally arises when timetable motions are introduced. The proceedings have been chaired throughout the evening in such a way that we have noticed when an hon. Member has been out of order, and that has been dealt with. For the most part, as we know, proceedings in the House move slowly; at other times, they move amazingly quickly. Generally speaking, everything has been in order this evening.

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Jane Kennedy be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. Mike Hall be added to the Committee. — [Mr. Keith Bradley, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NHS (Avon)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Dowd.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I ask those right hon. and hon. Members who are not staying for the Adjournment debate to depart quickly and quietly.
10.26 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House tonight the situation in the national health service in the Avon area, which is of grave concern to myself and my constituents. The matter is of particular note at the moment because of winter pressures.
May I say at the outset that I want to place on public record my appreciation and tribute to the NHS staff in the Avon area, who have performed remarkable feats in recent weeks. There can be no doubt that it is their dedication, devotion and hard work, which is well beyond the call of duty, that has enabled the health service in my area to keep going under extraordinary pressures.
The chairman of the North Bristol NHS trust, which serves my constituents, said in a letter to all hon. Members in the Avon area:
"Our nurses and physicians are working more than flat out and our surgeons are assisting them."
Clearly, the staff in the NHS deserve our warmest thanks and appreciation, which all too often they do not receive.
It is because of the appreciation of the work that NHS staff are doing that it is particularly important that they are not taken advantage of. My concern is that the NHS is relying too much on the good will and hard work of its staff, and it may even be taking advantage of their good will. In many respects, the NHS is close to breaking point, not only this winter but at other times, and it is only the staff's dedication that prevents things from going seriously wrong.
I want to set out the background to what has been happening in Avon, to look back at events of recent weeks and to consider whether those might have been prevented or dealt with better. I want also to consider the health authority's future and the pressures that it faces. I am grateful to the health authority, to North Bristol NHS trust and to the chairman of my local primary care group for briefing me in advance of this debate.
We have been through a remarkable few weeks. In the two weeks after Christmas, emergency admissions in the Avon area were 14 per cent. above the levels in the preceding autumn, which were themselves relatively high. That is an average over the whole authority. In the North Bristol NHS trust, which serves my constituency, there were
"some days when emergency admissions increased by 40 per cent."
Those are extraordinary pressures for the health service to bear.
How did the service cope? As far as we can tell, it coped remarkably well in the circumstances. The briefings from the health authority and the trust suggest that the planning for the general run of winter pressures, coupled with the good will and endeavours of the staff, meant that many of the worst possible outcomes did not materialise.

947
Having said that, things were extremely difficult—in my view, unacceptably so. To humanise the problem, I quote not the health authority statistics—valid though they are—but the letter dated 12 January from the chairman of the North Bristol NHS trust to Members of Parliament. She writes that the pressure began on 3 January,
"when people, suffering from the complications of flu, started to pour in…We have no doubt that the people who are being admitted need to be in hospital—they are very ill."
There is no question that the admissions were not necessary. She says that on 7 January, the pressures were "particularly bad".
"In Frenchay Hospital"—
which is in my constituency—
"we even had to turn our day surgery units into holding bays for the medical patients we were admitting and cancel all day cases."
By midday that day, out of the 654 beds in the hospital, only one was available. It had to be kept available because, by that point, Frenchay was acting as a receiving centre for neurosurgery, not just for Greater Bristol or for Avon, but for the whole of the south of England and the whole of Wales. Perhaps we should be having debates about the circumstances in which health services everywhere but Avon found themselves, given that our local hospitals were under such pressure, having to serve such a huge area. I am greatly concerned about the time it would have taken for someone from the far south of England or a remote part of Wales to reach Frenchay.
The chairman goes on, making a critical point:
"At this point we did something which we never had to do before. We made an arrangement with United Bristol Healthcare Trust and Royal United Hospital NHS Trust."
They agreed that each hospital would, in turn, for a three-hour period, take in all further admissions in the area, except for "blue light" cases or those who turned up at casualty. That gave each hospital six hours to catch its breath and get things under control.
It shows the strain under which the health service was operating that, for six hours, Frenchay and other hospitals were effectively closed. It worries me that the trusts are running so close to capacity. Even though I acknowledge that there was a seasonal peak in demand—I do not want to argue about whether it was an epidemic—it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that such an event would occur. Hospitals had to close because we run the health service so close to capacity. I am worried that we reached the point where, despite the best efforts of staff, there was only one neurosurgical bed in the whole of southern England and Wales, and hospitals were effectively closed for six hours.
At this point, I should like to put in a plug for my local cottage hospital in Thornbury. The chairman of my local primary care group has pointed out that, without Thornbury hospital, there would have been
"significant extra pressure on Southmead/Frenchay."
Thornbury has 24 beds, but only one of them was free and there was rapid turnover during the Christmas and new year period. Cottage hospitals have recently come under threat; I urge the Government, when considering their future, to bear in mind the important role that they play, especially at busy times.
Could those events have been foreseen or prevented? Management plans were in place, but was there enough preventive work? Was there a sufficiently energetic
948
inoculation programme in the autumn? My impression is that there was some effort, but not enough. Will more effort be made next year, or will we run the risk of the same thing happening again? Is the NHS running too close to capacity? My feeling is that the financial pressures being put on the health service mean that it is, with the result that when circumstances such as a severe flu outbreak arise, its facilities are stretched close to breaking point.
We must look forward and ask what will be the legacy of those winter pressures during the coming weeks and months. It is obvious that there will be pressure on waiting lists. The letter from the chairman of the North Bristol NHS trust states:
"I know you will appreciate that, with this pressure on our services, we are not able to keep up with the planned reduction of our waiting list. We are now falling back by about 40 operations a day. If and when the emergency demands reduce, we will do our best to catch up…but our staff will be very tired and we must not push them beyond the limits of safety."
Over the Christmas and millennium eve period, many staff put in extra time that they would not normally have put in, and they expected a new year break in return. That has not materialised and it is not clear how the waiting list backlog can be cleared without substantial support from central Government.
The trusts face two substantial pressures, the first of which is the additional costs that they have incurred in dealing with flu and the winter crisis. Will the Government meet these costs or will the money have to be found from the trusts' budgets? The money was not budgeted for, so will that mean cuts in other NHS services?
The chairman's letter from which I have been quoting concludes:
"My Board has spelt out clear priorities for the Trust; firstly, to treat emergencies; secondly, to meet the in-patient waiting list targets and thirdly to meet financial targets."
In my view, that is the right sequence—patients first and money second. However, in the modern NHS the trusts are businesses. If the Government do not help them with the additional financial pressure that they face as a result of the winter crisis, how will they cope? How will they reduce waiting lists? How will they improve NHS services and not merely stand still?
The second funding pressure that I fear they will face is from the pay award announced this week. I understand—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the money that has been promised to nurses and others, which is entirely welcome, must be found within existing NHS planned and present budgets. In other words, there is no new money to match the new pay award. If the trusts are finding money to cope with the winter pressures that they did not have in the budget and if next year they have to find money for salaries that was not in the budget, what will be cut? If the Government will not meet these shortfalls, what will the trusts have to cut?
I shall look ahead and set out what might happen if the winter pressures, and the financial pressures that have followed from them, are not dealt with. I received an e-mail from a constituent—to preserve her confidentiality, I shall call her Mrs. A—who e-mailed me within minutes of seeing the news about the lady from the north of England who had cancer treatment repeatedly postponed.

949
The story has appeared in the media. Mrs. A tells a heart-rending tale of the state of the NHS and of the problems that will not be dealt with if the trusts do not have the necessary money. She states:
"We are prompted to write after hearing about the cancer patient…My husband has been fighting cancer for 17 months now and has first hand experience of the desperation waiting lists can cause. He had to wait six weeks for radiotherapy that his consultant really wanted him to have immediately after an intense course of chemotherapy. He has since been told he is terminally ill and we can't help but wonder what difference that waiting time would have. We are disgusted that the national health service has been allowed to be grossly underfunded when, as we have learnt, health is all that matters and that without your health you have nothing. We beg of you to hound government ministers responsible to stop looking at short term voting gains and put the income tax up and the money where it is needed."
The final line of her e-mail reads:
"By the way, my husband is … 32 years old and will leave three children fatherless."
I naturally responded promptly to that communication, and I received a further message from Mrs. A, which re-emphasised the pain that she has felt and her distress about the health service. I shall read part of her message to me. She states:
"On the day my husband was asked if he wanted to give one last, new treatment a go (or else have six months to live) the nurses on the ward were using up 'favours' between the departments to get him a C.T. scan. They could only wrangle an X-ray!! This obviously is just a split moment in our lives that caused desperation on top of desperation. The nurses, no wonder, probably feel such desperation daily, again because of what boils down to lack of funds. What would a penny on Tax be to everyone and how many lives and families could that keep going?"
When Liberal Democrat Members say that more should be spent on the NHS, we are sometimes asked where it should come from. I make no apology for the fact that I have called for extra spending on the NHS. I have called for the trusts to be reimbursed for the costs of the winter pressures, which were unforeseen. I have also called for the Government to meet the costs of the pay rise that were not budgeted for. Above all, when situations arise that affect people such as Mrs. A and her husband, I cannot believe that the NHS is properly funded all year round, let alone during the winter.
The Government have a chance to do more than what the Prime Minister promised, which was to reach an acceptable funding level in five years' time. They could start this April. They could go beyond their published spending plans and not cut the standard rate of income tax by 1p in the pound. That would raise well over £2 billion, which our health service needs now. The Government seem to be saying that it will take years to find the necessary money, yet they are handing over £2 billion to taxpayers who, all the evidence suggests, want that money to be spent on the health service that they and we treasure.
I had the permission of my constituent to read that extract in the House tonight, because she contacted me in desperation about the state of the health service. People who work in the health service have shown yet again this winter their dedication, skill and devotion. Advantage must not be taken of them. When the Government have money to spend on the health service, they should spend
950
it on the health service, not on tax cuts. I hope that the Minister will go to the Treasury tomorrow and relay that message to the Chancellor in the strongest possible terms.
10.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on his success in securing this debate on winter pressures on the NHS in Avon. I am grateful to him for choosing that subject, because it provides me, as it provided him, with an opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary success of the Avon health community and all its staff in coping with pressures which were undeniably extreme. There were greatly increased demands on health services. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Avon has shown by its planning and dedication that when we attempt to meet unprecedented demands, it can be done. It was done in Avon.
We must pay tribute to the staff, who have shown themselves to be extremely flexible, who were recalled and sacrificed their Christmas holidays and the millennium period. Despite the exceptional demands, those who needed care received it in Avon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.
We must acknowledge the contribution of managers and clinicians, as well as that of the nursing staff and ancillary staff, who are often forgotten. They have all played their part in those efforts.
That the NHS in Avon was under intense pressure is undeniable. In December the Avon ambulance service trust dealt with 14 per cent. more emergency responses than in the previous year, and so far this month the number of ambulance activations is 28 per cent. higher than in January last year.
Overall, on average, 254 people were admitted to hospitals per day as emergencies during the period from 27 December to 9 January, compared with 222 emergency admissions per day during the previous period. United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust admitted 726 emergencies between 26 December and 12 January, with the number of medical emergencies!an important point!showing a rise of 36 per cent. over the same period last year.
At the hon. Gentleman's local North Bristol NHS trust, too, the number of emergency admissions rose. He cited the figures. On a number of occasions the extra demand led to isolated problems, with a number of long trolley waits before admittance at United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust.
I acknowledge that the individual cases raised by the hon. Gentleman show that the service was under pressure. I appreciate the distress caused for the patients and families concerned. I in no way underestimate that distress, but it does not show that the NHS in Avon was unable to meet the demands imposed on it by the extended Christmas and millennium holidays or the influenza outbreak.
There is certainly much in the media about the pressure on critical care services—that is, intensive and high-dependency care. Although there was great pressure on those services, all Avon patients who needed intensive care received it locally. That was achieved by the

951
carefully planned use of theatre recovery areas and by extending high-dependency care on to general wards to enable patients to leave intensive care units.
The increase in capacity to deal with peaks in demand was provided by asking regular staff to work extra hours, as well as by using bank and agency staff. Far from being in crisis locally, the intensive care arrangements in Avon were such that the health community was able to provide assistance to other areas, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. It was able to take a number of patients requiring intensive care, as well as dealing with patients transferred into the area for specialist and tertiary interventions requiring intensive care afterwards.
It is further to the credit of staff, as we should acknowledge, that the NHS in Avon coped with the demand without the additional help of NHS Direct, which is available to over 60 per cent. of the population in England. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that NHS Direct will be available in Avon by October this year.
I want to comment on planning, because I do not want us to believe that the system coped by accident: it coped through careful planning, which began with establishing local winter planning groups. They first met in April last year to co-ordinate health and social care services over the winter and the millennium holiday. It is important to acknowledge that, for the first time, we have pulled together health authorities, social services, NHS trusts, primary care groups, out-of-hours and deputising services, police and fire services, the voluntary and private sectors, community health councils and local authority departments. The complicated organisation of Avon health authority, which comprises 10 NHS trusts, 12 primary care groups and four unitary local authorities led to four local plans, based on the four local authority boundaries.
We must acknowledge that Avon health authority represents a tremendous success story. Its plans were assessed by the south-west regional office of the NHS executive and social care regional staff who considered them comprehensive and robust. The millennium executive team visited the local winter planning group in October. It identified some points that required further work, but it generally agreed with the regional office's assessment of the plans
The planning has built on the record extra resources that the Government made available to the NHS. I shall explain that in more detail. Unlike previous years, when money was provided late in the day, in 1999 planning started early, and the resources for contingency arrangements were made available early. In the comprehensive spending review in July 1998, we made additional resources available to the NHS. We made a three-year commitment, which allows for planning. Overall, it was the biggest injection of cash in the history of the NHS.
Avon health authority received £582.5 million, which represents a cash increase of £36.5 million, or 6.69 per cent. Next year, Avon will receive £629.4 million, a cash increase of £40.7 million. At 6.9 per cent., that represents the highest growth in the south-west region.
Mr. Webb: When I spoke to the chair of my primary health group this week, he said that while the Government talk about growth money, it is eaten up by, for example,
952
salaries or the flu bug, and that services cannot be developed because people are running to stand still. The Minister may talk of "growth money" and "record figures"—after two years of near freeze or sticking to Tory plans—but is it not true to say that, on the ground, the NHS cannot expand?
Ms Stuart: Not quite. The extra money is being provided, but in a targeted manner. Some extra money was for local planning. I shall discuss the implementation of such planning shortly. However, I want to highlight the fact that we are considering not simply extra money but modernising the service, changing some of the practices and the ways in which we use beds and deal with admissions. Avon has been excellent at finding innovative ways of doing that.
Last year's total included £4.92 million from the modernisation fund, specifically targeted at waiting lists. I know that the hon. Gentleman is worried about waiting lists and that he secured an earlier Adjournment debate on the subject. Of the additional £5.58 million that the health authority received, funding was targeted at, for example, staff recruitment and retention—again, that paid off—mental health, cancer waiting times and nurse prescribing.
However, we must not neglect the fabric of the NHS. As part of the largest capital programme in the history of the NHS, it is forecast that the total capital spend in Avon will be more than £38.5 million. That includes £2.6 million from the modernisation fund to improve the accident and emergency departments in all the major acute trusts in Avon. Avon health authority and the local trusts will have allowed for the extra spending needed to cope with the expected additional pressures when planning for winter. Making financial arrangements was part of the winter planning.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the increases awarded to nurses. Again, significant account was taken of them in the extra health allocations, which were announced recently. Although all NHS organisations in the Avon area took steps to increase their capacity to deal with winter pressures, I want to highlight the particular measures taken by the South Gloucestershire planning group, as they will be of the most concern to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. North Bristol NHS trust staffed and opened an additional 44 beds and had a further 14 on standby. Those measures included opening 18 medical beds in Elgar House at Southmead. At Frenchay hospital, the trust opened an additional ward with 17 beds to serve as an overflow facility as well as a further four medical beds on existing wards and six low-dependency beds at Blackberry Hill hospital. In addition, the trust has opened a further 62 beds this month to cope with the record number of emergency admissions.
The trust has continued its expansion of the "hospital at home" scheme and placed particular emphasis on early intervention. That has increased the scheme's capacity to take referrals from general practitioners and hospitals, reducing the need for—or cutting down the length of—hospital admissions. The health authority also made a separate non-recurring allocation of £100,000 to North Bristol NHS trust to help with winter pressures. That money has been used to provide occupational therapy, physiotherapy and home-loan equipment and to meet the extra costs of ambulance transport to assist with prompt discharge from hospitals.

953
The local primary care group was closely involved in planning for the winter. It put in place a number of initiatives including extra surgeries without appointments, nurse-run dressing clinics, newsletter information to patients, extra contraception clinics and influenza and pneumococcal vaccination clinics. It also planned for emergency provisions in the case of widespread utilities and systems failures. Thankfully, the last measure was not needed, but although the system failures predicted for 2000 have not happened, those plans were extremely valuable and that should be recognised.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about elective surgery. It is part of normal NHS planning on dealing with waiting lists to take account of the expected close-down over the holiday period and reductions in activity caused by winter pressures. We always expected less elective activity to take place during January. North Bristol NHS trust, to deal with some of the extra pressures, entered an agreement with St. Mary's hospital—a local charitable organisation—to carry out routine surgery there. The doctors carrying out that surgery will be NHS staff working in NHS time. The trust is consulting patients about whether they wish to be treated at St. Mary's. Those arrangements will mean
954
treatment for more than 200 patients, and it must be emphasised that the use of private facilities will not lead to any charges to any patient.
Mr. Webb: I raised the case of my constituent, Mrs. A, who would want the Minister to respond to her tragic circumstances. I hope that she will be able to do so.
Ms Stuart: When a particular case is raised it is only right that I mount a proper investigation and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman contacted me after the debate. I shall investigate the circumstances. This is a serious case and he deserves a serious answer.
It is important to say that, although the success of such planning has been shown in Avon, the future of the NHS is extra funding, which the Government are providing. By modernising our services, we can build on the structures that we have and build capacity. I could go to the Treasury tomorrow to ask for extra money, but that would produce not one extra nurse or one extra doctor. The capacity building that we are undertaking with capital investment and training programmes, combined with an examination of the way in which we deliver services, means that we shall improve the way that we cope with winter pressures. Avon coped with unprecedented demands, and coped well. I want to acknowledge that tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

The Tote
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Mr. Richard Page: I am delighted finally to have managed to obtain this debate through the ballot procedure. Success today has crowned six months of effort. However, the debate may be more apposite today than it would have been six months ago, as there has been a hint that in the next few months—or even weeks—there will be a ministerial statement on the Tote. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate on that.
I should welcome such a statement, as the one made by the Home Secretary on 1 May last year was, to put it delicately, opaque when it came to the ownership of the Tote and even murkier on its future. However, I am a helpful sort of person so I can tell the Minister that I quite understand his position. The Government may be leaky, but if they are to make a statement in the next few weeks or months, I accept that it is unlikely that he will give us all the details this morning. Therefore, I should understand if he were to employ a cricket bat 3 ft wide and 4 ft tall and stonewall furiously this morning. We have all been down that path, and we all understand the need for such defence.
I have two points for the Minister to take on board. The first is straightforward, and this debate underlines its importance. We need a Minister with responsibility for horses, a person in Government to argue the case for racing. That Minister could argue the case for the Tote turning into a trust, the proceeds from which could then be devoted exclusively to racing. We need a Minister for the horse, as exists in France and Ireland, although I fully accept that the Home Office should retain responsibility for betting and gaming.
I believe that my views broadly reflect those held by the vast majority of the racing fraternity in the United Kingdom, and that this debate is not just Richard Page firing off ideas without any support. However, it would do no harm for me to make clear the value of racing for this country—an aspect of the argument that is often pushed to one side.
Secondly, the racing industry employs about 60,000 people, with the betting industry employing another 40,000. One does not have to be brilliant at maths to realise that that works out to 100,000 people. All hon. Members know the ripple effect on other industries in a constituency when one activity weakens, so the total number of people supportive of and supported by racing is even greater than that 100,000.
The income generated by racing and breeding exceeds £300 million a year, generating £150 million a year in tax revenue and another £300 million a year in betting duty. As an aside, the Government must get their act together
200WH
with regard to internet and overseas betting or those figures will go into a decline. However, that is a debate for another day.
There are more than 3,000 thoroughbred breeders in Britain. Some are very small, but some run quite sizeable operations. That sector achieves exports of more than £1 million a year. Last year, more than 5 million people went to watch racing involving the 13,000 horses that are in training. From that audience, the betting levy generated about £52 million. At the same time, the Tote contributed a record £12.3 million to racing. The previous record was £9.3 million, so it is evident that a substantial amount of money came back into racing.
We must bear it in mind that only 1.1 per cent. of horse racing betting turnover goes back into the sport in this country, compared with 4.4 per cent. in Australia, or the mammoth 15 per cent. in Germany. It is clear that Britain is very much the poor relation in terms of the volumes of money involved.
Our parsimonious approach is evident in the returns to British racehorse owners. Prize money receipts average 22 per cent., and in that respect I should declare an interest. Although I should be only too delighted if my prize money receipts climbed to 22 per cent., I have to say that my receipts are in the bottom half of the scale that keeps the average where it is. The costs of keeping a horse in training in this country compare with the 43 per cent. return in Australia. In the United States the return is 47 per cent., in France, 54 per cent., and in Japan, a stunning 87 per cent.
We are clearly at the bottom end of the Richter scale of support. The Tote's income stream is a vital contributor to racing's finances. It is inextricably entwined with, and an integral part of, racing in this country.
What is the future of the Tote? I am tempted to quote in detail from the debate on 26 July 1998 in the House of Lords. However, I want to emphasise two points that emerged from that debate, as I believe that it would do no harm to repeat them again and again.
The Tote was established by private Act of Parliament in 1928. It is worth underlining that the relevant Act began as a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. The Tote was not and has never been financed by Government money. It was financed by loans from racing. The Government do not stand behind or guarantee the Tote in any way; nor do they own any shares in it. The Government are therefore fairly remote from the Tote set-up.
Like any other bookmaker, the Tote has contributed to the Revenue for many years, with the money coming in through off-course starting prices and Tote odds. It returns to racing more than £2 million in sponsorship every year, and it also pays £6 million to race courses for the facilities that it uses. That money is vital, as the standard of some of our courses is disappointing and way below par. Those courses need to improve their image and raise their profile to make racing even more attractive to punters.
Successive Governments have benefited from the operation of the Tote, even though they contributed nothing to its creation and continued existence over the years. It is hard to comprehend how the Exchequer has a right to demand a payment for transferring the Tote into some other existence. Although there will be much

201WH
legal toing and froing, I am given to understand that, to fulfil their plans for the Tote, the Government will first have to nationalise it, then privatise it.
This Government have made much of the windfall gains enjoyed by companies that have taken advantage of privatisation. I find it difficult to understand how the Exchequer can allow an operation to be nationalised—meaning that a fair sum of taxpayers' money will have to be paid into it—and then be privatised. If more money is needed, the Government will be guilty of going in for those windfall gains of which they have been so critical in the past. That is an interesting legal concept that will no doubt develop as time goes by.
I make these points to question the legal right of the Treasury to take its cut. I see no moral right for the Government to take a single penny. The Tote should pay the transfer costs; it would be wrong for them to fall on the taxpayer. The cost of changing its status into a trust is a legitimate cost for the Tote.
Elements of the racing world have come together in an unparalleled fashion. They are not used to working together in sweetness, harmony and unity, but they have called for the Tote to be operated at arm's length by an operating board, not directly controlled by the British Horseracing Board or racing's sectional interest as a charitable trust. The relationship between the Tote and its owners should be that of a listed company and its shareholders.
I envisage the racing trust comprising a chairman and a number of board members. Nominations for the board—perhaps seven, eight or nine—would come from interested bodies, such as the BHB, the Jockey Club, the Racecourse Owners Association and the Industry Committee (Horseracing) Ltd. A number of organisations go to make up that committee. To show the unity that exists, I should like to read into the record the organisations involved—the Amateur Jockeys Association, the British Equine Veterinary Association, the Federation of Bloodstock Agents, the Horseracing Sponsors Association, the Jockeys Association of Great Britain, the Masters of Foxhounds Association, the National Joint Council for Stable Staff, the National Trainers Federation, the Permit Trainers Association, the Point-to-Point Owners and Riders Association, the Point-to-Point Secretaries Association, the Racegoers Club, the Racehorse Transporters Association, Thoroughbred Auctioneers (UK) and, indeed, the Transport and General Workers Union. I hope that the inclusion of that last organisation will sway the Minister.
I also believe that the punters should be represented. Although I can see how all the bodies that I have mentioned would nominate someone, I cannot yet see a mechanism for nominating a punter representative. The one who loses the most money may not be the most satisfactory basis on which to choose a representative. The Tote's employees should also be represented. That would result in a representative on the board from every area of racing.
We need to set the Tote free to get support for the racing industry. I have already mentioned the problems arising from internet and overseas betting. The Tote needs to do its own thing to help racing in a positive way.
202WH
Although I hope that the Minister will give detailed responses to all my points, I quite understand if he cannot. But I should like him to accept that there is a strong feeling that any charge by the Exchequer would be regarded as unfair. If any charge were to be made, and if it was more than a nominal amount, it would cripple the Tote's ability to help racing. Not enough funds go back into racing for us to allow the Tote to suffer in that way.
The racing fraternity—in which I include those Members of Parliament who are interested—does not want this issue to be tied up with any of the consequences that might flow from an election. I should like to leave the Minister with three points. We need a Minister for the horse, we need a racing trust for the Tote, and we need them now.
9.46 am
Mrs. Llin Golding: I favour a trust as well, but I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) about many of the issues being a debate for another day. I do not think that they are. The future of the racing industry must be considered as a whole, and if we are to have a trust, other matters must be considered.
I find the politics of racing fascinating: it makes the politics of this place look gentle, sweet and kind. It is the most interesting part of racing for me. I speak as a very poor owner of horses in the past, but hopeful ever of being a very profitable owner in the future. However, it may be a vain hope.
The problem is the amount of power that could go to the British Horseracing Board if there were a racing trust. The BHB already has control over the fixture list, which causes many problems, as people interested in racing will know. It has three members on the Horserace Betting Levy Board, and discussions are taking place on whether to abolish the levy board. That would mean another ball game altogether.
I understand that the BHB is sending threatening letters to internet betting companies, demanding copyright fees for pre-race meetings lists. I am aware that it already has an agreement with Victor Chandler in Gibraltar, who pays towards the betting list. As he was going to give money to the levy in any case—that was part of the deal that he was organising—is he now taking money from the levy and giving it instead to the BHB? That question needs to be asked. It has set the hare running on who owns the copyright of the racing list. We have not debated that, but it will affect the future of any racing company, whatever happens to the Tote.
There already seems to be a cosy agreement about who will sit on the racing trust. The hon. Gentleman gave a list; agreement has been reached, I understand, between the BHB and the Tote on who will sit on the trust. It is not in the interests of racing for something to be cut and dried before anything has been decided. It is all very well to have proposals, but to go round saying that something is definite when the proposal has not yet been agreed makes it seem like someone wanting to be king of the racing industry without proper consultation. I am concerned about what is happening, and extremely concerned that, if racing is to appeal to a wider audience, we should think carefully before a small group of people is given such wide power.

203WH
We are talking about the future of racing. Many matters are involved—including getting more people to go to racing. There must be proper debate; merely to decide to set up a trust is not good enough. I doubt whether the Minister will tell us that a racing trust will be set up to replace the Tote. I would advise him not to do so. Before such a measure, many more talks must be held—with the whole industry, not just a cosy group who want to carve it up for themselves.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge my comments, and that he will understand that not only one group is interested in the future of racing; there is a wide audience out there. The problems are great, and he should consider the matter far more carefully than many people want him to.
9.51 am
Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the chance to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on having finally achieved the chance to hold the debate, after several months of trying. The matter is important for all parties; it is not party political. Members of all parties who have racing interests—or who have the best interests of racing at heart—will want to take part. I hope and believe that there will be cross-party consensus in favour of racing and of the transfer of the Tote—if it is to be transferred—into a trust controlled by the racing industry.
I think that my constituency has the second greatest interest—after Newmarket—in racing. We not only have a well-known race course, but a huge interest in breeding and training up on the downs. There is also a veterinary interest. I am happy to note that several owners live in my constituency. The industry provides employment, not only in my constituency but in other parts of the country, both for people who are comparatively wealthy—even if many of them spend more time losing money on racing than making it—and for some of the less wealthy members of our community. Perhaps the only chance of employment for those people may be that the racing industry should thrive and be prosperous.
At present, there is a threat to employment in the industry—especially for some of those who are less skilled in other matters—because of the potential ban on hunting. That is a contentious issue, on which I do not want to dwell in detail. I have made my position clear in the past: I am in favour of a ban on hunting. However, those in favour and those opposed will all agree that a ban is likely be introduced in the near future. When it comes in, that can only increase the threat to racing—particularly to national hunt racing. In view of that, it is especially important that we should take care not to damage the industry in any other way—for example, by losing some of the money that currently comes in from the Tote.
Sadly, several yards have already closed—I have lost one or two in my constituency. Several horses have been taken abroad, where, as has been explained, more money goes back into the industry—directly, from prize money, and indirectly, from a levy on the betting industry for that purpose. Some owners have an incentive to take their horses abroad and that is already happening.
204WH
There are race courses that greatly depend on the continuing prosperity of the Tote, so that money continues to come into the industry. As the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire explained, it is difficult to understand the moral grounds by which the Government would remove the Tote and would, in effect, put the ownership and managership of the industry into private hands. There is a danger that the monopoly of Tote betting could be transferred into a private monopoly. The Labour Government would surely not want to make such a proposal. It could not be seen to be in the best interests of racing as a whole if Tote betting were put into a private monopoly—for example, if it were to be taken over by one of the large betting companies.
The Tote was created by racing people for racing people. In the past, it never belonged to the taxpayer. It should not be handed over to the taxpayer. The Tote should be left in the hands of the racing industry. The obvious way to do that is to create a trust, as has been explained, and to leave the Tote in the hands of the racing industry. That would ensure that money from the Tote goes back into the industry; in that way, both the industry and the Tote can thrive in the future.
9.56 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I am most grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who made a compelling case, both in describing the financial background to the situation in racing and, most important, in setting out a structure for the future of the Tote, which was most persuasive.
My hon. Friend mentioned the importance to employment of racing and breeding. It is commonly thought that 100,000 people are employed in the industry. Indeed, racing and breeding employ about 60,000. That needs to be put in context—one in eight of all agricultural workers are so employed. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred to the possible threat to hunting, but, because of the terrible problems in the agricultural sector and the difficulties facing farmers throughout the country, employment in agriculture will be under considerable difficulty and pressure in the months to come. In considering employment in breeding and racing, we should bear that broad agricultural background in mind.
The health of racing is rather like the curate's egg. It is true that prize money remains low by international standards. The contribution of bookmakers via the levy, is about £52 million, so the amount of money currently contributed to racing by the Tote—£12.3 million—is substantial. That is an important contribution—apart from help to race courses and other forms of assistance from the Tote. The future of the Tote and the financing of racing through it will become even more important in the years ahead.
I am happy that the number of people going to race meetings has reached a record going back to 1965. Over the past two years, in my constituency, auctioneering activity at Tattersalls has been excellent. That shows that there is high demand for top-quality bloodstock.
My hon. Friend pointed out that the racing and betting interests are often divided over the outlook for horse racing and the industry in this country. They have

205WH
radically different attitudes as to the financing of the industry. However, all can agree that a contribution of about £12.3 million, which has risen and has the potential to grow, is vital for the future viability of the industry.
The hon. Member for Newbury referred briefly to the internet. I shall deal with that matter at some length because it involves forces that are difficult to control and it will have a significant impact on the whole future financing of the racing industry and, of course, on Government finances. No Government know how to tackle that problem. The internet is driving prices down, as is evident in the retail sector. Offshore betting by telephone has been growing. Ladbroke's, Coral and William Hill have developed or are developing offshore companies. A voluntary ban introduced by Ladbroke's and Hill's was abandoned because Victor Chandler set up in Gibraltar.
At present, the 9 per cent. deduction from all bets in the United Kingdom consumes more than 40 per cent. of the money spent in betting offices and by telephone customers. In the United Kingdom, we have myriad confusing and antiquated betting arrangements. I welcome the Government's inquiry into gambling; we need to understand how gambling will react to meet the challenge of simplification and the challenges that the internet, e-commerce and offshore betting imply. Will the Minister tell us when that process is likely to be concluded?
Not surprisingly, the Treasury is seeking ways to protect its income. Three hundred million pounds is raised from general betting duty on horse racing alone. Can the position be sustainable if the pressures that I have described continue?
In November, the Government announced that it would ban advertising on Teletext by offshore bookmakers, and there is talk of tax penalties. How can Governments control the situation if Victor Chandler offers free telephone calls and a 3 per cent. deduction, versus the current 9.5 per cent. in the United Kingdom? Success beckons, with mobile telephones and the internet—ultimately to racing's disadvantage, because the money from bookmaking helps to finance the industry.
The Betting Office Licensees Association commissioned a report by Europe Economics. It studied the experience of Ireland, where duty was reduced from 10 to 5 per cent. Admittedly, the Irish economy has been doing extremely well, but betting turnover has increased by about 30 per cent. Ultimately, Governments cannot buck the market.
The British Horseracing Board agrees. It has called for a cut in off-course punter deductions to 5 per cent. from the current 9 per cent., and for a cut in general betting duty from 6.75 to 5 per cent. Of course those are Treasury matters, but the Tote's outlook must be viewed in that context. Others would like betting duty to drop to 3 per cent.
It is generally recognised that the current situation is unsatisfactory, and that there are grave questions to be asked about the future financing of racing. Therefore, the role of the Tote, and its ability to generate funding
206WH
for racing, become even more important. I am delighted to say that racing takes a broadly united view of those issues.
In 1991, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended the sale of the Tote to a democratically accountable body. Arguably, we have that body today. The details of how it would operate betting offices and race course facilities must be addressed, so there is much to do, but there is widespread agreement among racing's constituent groups.
Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend may have inadvertently been wrong. I believe that, in 1991, the Home Affairs Committee recommended that the Tote should be given, not sold, to such a body.
Mr. Spring: If I used the word sold, I was wrong. The crux of the matter at the time was that the Committee called for a democratically accountable body.
The time has come for action. We have spoken about the need to appoint a single Minister in charge of the horse, and I believe and hope that one will be appointed. We must give the Tote a status, so that it is viable and enriches racing for the long term. Purchase price, structure and composition will need to be worked out, but I believe that there is an opportunity for the Tote to contribute ultimately and successfully to the viability of racing, that most important industry for this country.
10.5 am
Mr. Neil Turner: My interest in the debate is not confined to horse racing; it is focused on the Tote, whose headquarters are in my constituency. One of the first things that I did when I was elected was to visit them, because the Tote employs about 1,000 people in Wigan. The Tote is investing heavily to bring itself up to date and into the 21st century with new computer technology. It is among the most advanced operations in the betting industry.
However, we need to sort out the Tote's future. There is far too much indecision and far too little certainty. Those who work for it in Wigan are deeply worried. I hope that the Minister will tell us that things will be settled very soon. Many of its workers are part-time, and their shift patterns are convenient, especially for those—mostly women—who have children to care for.
Mr. John Greenway: The point that the hon. Gentleman is making about the importance of part-time work to Tote staff applies not only to Wigan but to all 59 United Kingdom race courses.
Mr. Turner: That is absolutely correct. I am simply saying that, because the headquarters are in Wigan, the issue is greater importance to my constituency.
When I visited the Tote's headquarters, I was surprised to discover that much of the betting that takes place within the Tote involves football, boxing, rugby league and so on. If we are to hand over the Tote to a trust, it should not be restricted to horse racing. People who bet on other sports would be miffed if they thought that the money that they were putting into the Tote was going solely to horse racing and not being used to benefit the sport that they were interested in.

207WH
A windfall tax may be imposed if the Tote is privatised, or nationalised and then privatised. The Government were right to take back some of the excess profits of privatised industries because those industries had been undersold. However, in the case of the Tote the surplus will go to the general public. There is a clear difference between windfalls going into the private hands of shareholders and windfalls going to the general public for the public good.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman seems to be moving towards proposing that the Tote should be privatised. Does he recall the remark made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), now Foreign Secretary, before the general election:
"There will be no proposal by Labour to sell the Tote"?
That was perfectly plain. Does that commitment have the same status as the commitment with regard to National Air Traffic Services, which was that Britain's airspace was not for sale?
Mr. Turner: I was not debating whether the Tote should be privatised or outlining what its future should be. I was merely making the point that, if the Government decide to privatise it, there is a clear difference between the profits from privatisation going to the private sector and private people and the profits going into the public purse. If the Government privatise the Tote, it is right that the surpluses should go to the public sector for use in whatever way the Government wish. However, that is a matter for the future.
I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister that the issue needs to be settled. The Tote must have a clear direction. We cannot have the matter hanging round in the way that it has for so long. The interests of racing need to be taken into account, but so do the interests of the other sports in which the Tote has betting interests. The interests of the work force, particularly those who work in my constituency, clearly need to be taken into account, as do the interests of management who have a clear view of the Tote's future. I hope that, in the not too distant future, the Minister will be able to provide clear direction on where the Tote is going.
10. 11 am
Mr. Laurence Robertson: As I am required to do, I declare an interest. I have a registered interest with the Tote, and Cheltenham race course is in my constituency. It is the source of a great deal of information and, occasionally, expense.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on his persistence in trying to secure a debate on the Tote. I am glad that that has paid off. The fact that he has been persistent shows how much he regards the racing industry and that he, like us all, recognises its importance to this country. He ably and eloquently demonstrated why the industry is important not only to the people who enjoy it, but to the people who work in it and to the Exchequer. He also provided statistics that show its importance.
There are some good statistics on racing. The figures for the number of racehorses in training and the number of people going racing are very impressive. Some
208WH
statistics are more impressive than ever. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are some bad statistics. For example, a small amount of betting turnover finds its way back into racing, and owners in this country recover a lower percentage of their expenses compared with those recovered elsewhere.
It is important that we do not view racehorse owners as a group of extremely rich people. Some horses are owned by a number of people. In these days when world travel is so easy, it is important to recognise that it is much more beneficial to send one's horses abroad. We must be careful about that. There are good and bad statistics for racing and, in some ways, the position is rather static or even worse than that.
My hon. Friend used statistics to show how important the Tote is to racing. It is important not only financially, but in other ways. Under the expert guidance and chairmanship of Peter Jones, much interest has been taken in racing. That has been generated partly by the Tote's performance, especially in recent weeks. Who could have ignored the fact that, for two consecutive Saturdays, ordinary punters, such as me, have had the opportunity to win £1 million on the scoop-six bet? I was not far off winning that sum, but, as they say, a miss is as good as a mile.
The Tote has several options for the future. Of course, there is the opportunity for a straight commercial sale and there would be some advantages to that. It would offer the Tote freedom and it might lead to the injection of capital and new people becoming involved. However, in those circumstances, how would we ensure that racing received the same amount of money as it does now from the Tote? A regulatory system, such as those for the water, gas and electricity industries, could be created. We could create an "Oftot" or something like that to ensure that money went back into racing. However, if we were to promise the private company that was created that we would take its profits away, I suggest that we would not have a successful sale of the Tote. That is not a viable option, especially given the way that it was set up and the reasons for its creation that were described by my hon. Friend.
A racing trust would secure the profits of the Tote for racing and would have racing people running it. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) was right when he said that the Tote takes bets on other sports, but historically, it was set up for racing purposes. I am a football fan and I would not want football fans to be estranged from the Tote. However, the fact that it was set up for the racing industry is all important. People in the racing industry say that betting and horse racing are two separate industries. They are correct in technical terms, but I think that one depends on the other. It is important that the Tote remains within racing and within a racing trust.
I pay tribute to the chairman of the Tote and all those with whom he has been involved in setting up an agreement with the British Horseracing Board and others. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire pointed out, such agreements are even harder to construct in racing than they are in Parliament. The agreement shows the willingness of the

209WH
British Horseracing Board and the Tote to sort out differences and problems and to come together for the benefit of racing. That point, above all others, shows why a racing trust should be set up.
It is important to set up such a trust very soon. When Ladbroke bought Coral and passed some shops to the Tote, uncertainty was created in the industry and among the people who work in it because of the delay in finalising the deal that was caused by the referral to the Office of Fair Trading. I therefore urge the Minister to make a swift decision and the Government to enact the necessary legislation quicker than they appear to intend.
Some months ago, the Home Secretary announced—I think at the Tote's annual general meeting—that there would be a change in its status. Several years could pass before the Government bring that about. The passage of so much time is not good for the industry, so I urge the Minister to make a decision, announce it quickly and persuade the Government to introduce the necessary legislation. It should not be that complicated or difficult.
I wish to consider the money that the Government appear to want to take out of the Tote. The steering group report says:
"the government has not financed the Tote and does not stand behind it, eg as a financial guarantor".
That fact is crucial as is the fact that the Government do not own the Tote. They may have given it a pool betting monopoly, but that is why it was set up and it does not provide a reason to take money out of it.
In the old nationalised industries, such as British Steel, which might have lost £1 million a day at the height of its success, the taxpayer was due a return. Taxpayers have not financed the Tote, so I do not see why they—and I am normally on their side—are due any return. It would retard the prospects of progress and, to some extent, weaken the Tote's position if a substantial amount of money were taken out. That would set things off to a bad start and—to use a racing expression—handicap it against other bookmakers. Is that fair when we want to create a successful enterprise when we change the status of the Tote?
Unlike a case in which a company acquires more shops or more business and has extra profits to pay off a loan, if the Tote's status is changed, it will not gain any extra business immediately from which to pay back the Government. Money would be taken from its present operating costs and income. That would be a smash-and-grab raid on behalf of the Treasury. I urge the Minister to stand up to the Treasury for the good of racing.
In conclusion, I repeat that racing is important to the country. There are worrying statistics, and we need to put more money into racing and to create a trust to control the Tote. That would enable the Tote to expand and carry out many more exciting ventures, which would be good for the industry. The Tote is therefore extremely important to racing. I urge the Government to make a speedy decision and to implement the necessary changes. I further urge the Minister to persuade the Treasury not to handicap the Tote and racing by taking money from it.
10.20 am
Mr. Owen Paterson: I have rather a sad interest to declare in this debate as I have been backing slow horses since I was about 15.
Mr. Gray: And fast women.
Mr. Paterson: I shall pass on the question of fast women.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on securing this debate. I know that he tried extremely hard to do so, and his determination has paid off. This is a unique opportunity to do something extremely good for racing because, as far as I know, everyone in racing agrees on this matter.
I have to take issue with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I do not know anybody who opposes this measure. This is a unique moment in the byzantine politics of racing in that all parties appear to agree.
Mrs. Golding: I made it quite clear that I was in favour of a trust, and I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think otherwise.
Mr. Paterson: I am delighted by that intervention. I understood that the hon. Lady was advocating a delay. If I misunderstood her, I apologise and withdraw my remark.
The unique feature of this proposal is the agreement that has brought all racing interests together. I heartily endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). He was right to say that time is short. We hear much from the Government about globalisation, and no industry can be more affected by globalisation than racing. Trying to stop people betting on the internet would be as effective as King Canute setting up his throne on the beach at low tide. Betting duties would flow straight to the new betting points abroad.
It is pointless and childish to pretend that the Government can ban adverts for internet betting. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, the only way to increase betting is to do as the Irish have done and reduce duties to make the industry competitive. In Ireland, the take has rocketed to 30 per cent. It is childish to try to stop people betting abroad.
It is equally childish to pretend that in today's racing industry horses will stay here and that owners owe us a favour. When the big owners go to Keeneland, they can send their horses all over the world, to Australia, Hong Kong, France or elsewhere. They do not have to come here—we have to offer them the very best. There have been spectacular cases in the past few weeks where horses have been arbitrarily moved abroad. Many jobs and businesses are at stake.
Racing and breeding support 60,000 jobs, which, as my hon. Friend said, means that they employ one in eight agricultural workers. With the pig industry losing millions of pounds every week and milk prices at rock bottom, we have to encourage jobs in the countryside. Here we have a chance to help.
Thoroughbred exports alone are worth £100 million a year. There are 7,300 thoroughbred breeders in Britain, of whom about 350 are full-time. All that could be in

211WH
jeopardy if we do not grab this opportunity. The moment is right because more people are going racing. Last year, 5.1 million went racing, which is the highest figure since 1965. The state is the winner.
In 1998–99, the Tote's contribution to racing was £12.3 million compared with £9.3 million the year before. That is thanks to the new dynamic management in the Tote. Who really won? The state took £3 million in corporation tax and £21.3 million in betting duty. Racing did not gain, as we can see from the fact that only 1.1 per cent. of betting turnover in racing goes back into the sport. That compares with 4.4 per cent. in Australia and 15 per cent. in Germany.
We must not forget that earnings can be sent to those countries with no problems at all. We cannot blame owners for sending their yearlings abroad because the average take by owners in this country, after the cost of keeping a race horse in training, is only 22 per cent. compared with 87 per cent. in Japan, 47 per cent. in the United States and 54 per cent. in France.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury said, if the Government act quickly, they have a chance to do something good for racing. The Government did not set up the Tote—it was set up by a private Act of Parliament in 1928—they do not own it or any shares in it and they have never subsidised it. I raised this matter in Home Office questions this week and the Minister's answer was most unsatisfactory. I noticed that the Minister nodded when my hon. Friend mentioned the monopoly of pool betting, but that is only one sector of betting. The Tote is up against fierce competition from this country and abroad, from the lottery and other forms of betting. It is not a normal monopoly.
On that basis, it is time for the state to get out of racing. The trust has the full support of the industry. How much will the state take for the transfer of an organisation that does not belong to it, and when will it transfer it?
10.26 am
Dr. Lewis Moonie: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on securing this debate. I apologise for my tardiness in getting here and for missing his opening speech, and I can assure him that it was entirely involuntary.
I declare an interest as a paid parliamentary consultant to William Hill. I therefore have a specific interest in gambling, although I have to say to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that, in a long life of trying to defeat the odds, that is the only way that I have ever managed to make any money out of a bookmaker. I finally found a way to do so, and I have not placed a bet since.
This is a welcome opportunity to debate a serious issue facing racing and the gambling industry. This is a crucial nexus. It has become clear from developments over the past six months that the industry cannot be left alone, with the Government simply assuming that it will limp along and we can patch over any cracks that appear. The offshore cracks in particular cannot be patched over, and the loss to Treasury coffers will be substantial over the next few years. I do not think that anything can be done about that.
The present telephone-based system will quickly develop into internet betting. One of the great—or, from the Government's point of view, depressing—features
212WH
of internet betting is that it is impossible for Governments to control it. The quicker they realise that and the sooner they start to live with it, the better for them and for those concerned in gambling and racing, including the general punter.
The Tote, as a pool betting system, is a natural monopoly. I do not see how such a monopoly could be fully transferred to the private sector. That would be wrong and challengeable in law. It could not be defended under European Union competition law unless a trust were set up to organise it. I do not think that the Government have a prayer of getting rid of it. They should recognise that such a natural monopoly would be best dealt with by a trust that is set up to serve racing. We should bear it in mind that to serve racing was the raison d'être of the Tote when it was set up, and that primary purpose should continue.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the need for quick decisions. We cannot afford to dilly-dally over the matter for much longer. I welcome the fact that the Government are setting up a general commission to consider every aspect of gambling. That is long overdue, but the Tote cannot afford to wait until that weighty organisation comes to its conclusions, which could easily take a year or more. Therefore, I would warmly welcome a quick decision by Ministers.
If we allow matters to continue to develop as they have done, there will be a loss to the Treasury and to racing. Gambling will become prey to criminal influences: the moment it is taken offshore, it will become more difficult to control and unsavoury elements may well find a niche. It is far better to recognise the need for change and to accept a reduction in revenue to encourage gambling to remain onshore. In that way, we shall help to ensure a healthy future for racing and the gambling industry.
10.30 am
Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on having secured the debate. For some months, with my encouragement, he has been trying in the ballot to win a place for such a debate. However, I agree that the delay has been worth while, because the time is now right for a decision to be made on the Tote's future. In the period since such a debate was first mooted, clear progress has been made within the racing industry toward drawing up recommendations that can be put to the Government.
Although I speak now on behalf of the official Opposition, I, like many hon. Members, have a close constituency interest in racing, in that the Malton and Norton area of my constituency contains stableyards with a long history, stretching back almost three centuries. I am glad to report that they have of late enjoyed better times, with more big race winners, but much remains to be done. At this juncture, I should express my agreement with all that has been said about the importance to the rural economy of racehorse training, and the need to improve the lot of many of the yards and their staff.
I place on record my admiration and affection for the Tote. I suspect that many participants in today's debate have, from time to time, enjoyed the Tote's hospitality. My association with the Tote began when, with the hon.

213WH
Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We grasped the nettle and inquired into the Tote, the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the equivalent body for greyhound racing.
That fascinating experience began by our being told that we would find an incompetent rabble at the Tote. In fact, we found that, under its then chairman, Lord Wyatt, it was an extremely well run organisation. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) about the staff at the Wigan headquarters. Members of the Home Affairs Committee visited Wigan during our inquiry: we were greatly impressed and found that many of the allegations made against the Tote, especially by some sections of the media, were wholly unjustified. I pay tribute to the Tote's current chairman, Peter Jones, and its team of directors and executives. They have successfully developed the Tote in recent years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, the key recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee report was that the Tote should be given to racing when a suitable body, capable of running racing, had been established. That recommendation was the spur to the creation of the British Horseracing Board. We made our recommendation for two reasons: first, to get the Government out of an organisation in which they had no real long-term role; and, secondly, to enable the Tote to develop its commercial interests to a greater extent than it could as part of the public sector, thus generating increased profits that could be fed into racing, especially in support of prize money and race course development.
That objective is within racing's grasp, but one or two fences remain to be taken. Even though hurdles are lower than fences, using the word hurdles to describe any obstacles would imply that jumping them will be difficult; in fact, it should not be difficult to do so. The chief fence that has to be cleared is the Government's decision on how to proceed.
The Tote is a strategic asset for racing. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire described it as a vital part of the income stream of racing. The £12.3 million it generated in 1998–99 is significantly more than the hon. Member for Mansfield and I remember it producing nine years ago, when our Committee produced its report. That sum is almost one quarter of the revenue racing gets through the levy. The best way to illustrate the importance and effective use of money from the Tote is to draw attention to the Tote's sponsorship of key races at this country's two main racing festivals: the Cheltenham gold cup, which is coming up shortly, and the Tote Ebor handicap at York in August. They are the two great festivals of jump racing and flat racing respectively; without the Tote, they would be all the poorer.
The Tote has never received Government funding or taxpayers' support. The Government do not own the Tote and, regardless of racing's interests, that is one of the key reasons why it should not be sold off to the highest bidder. However, it is important to recognise that the Tote has enjoyed a monopoly on pool betting. In discussions with racing's leadership, I have learned that the industry wants to continue to enjoy that
214WH
monopoly and recognises that it might justify a relatively modest payment being made to the Government to set the Tote free and enable it to become a directly held asset of racing.
The structure of such a transfer to racing of that asset would have to command the support of all strands of racing. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire listed the many organisations that have expressed support for the creation of a new racing trust, but the three key bodies that have had to come together to try to settle a common position are the British Horseracing Board, the Racecourse Association and the Tote. Despite a shaky start, I have been encouraged by what I have seen of their deliberations. For many of the bodies involved, the experience has been a unifying one. The racing industry has, at long last, shown some maturity and responsibility in its attempts to reach agreement.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has been treasurer of our all-party racing group for many years. It is because of the likelihood that I would have to speak on such matters on behalf of the Conservative party that I stepped down as chairman of that all-party group. The hon. Lady said that it appeared that there was a cosy club in racing, but I do not believe that that is so. Racing has been challenged to find a solution and it is not surprising that, in responding to that challenge, it has attempted to resolve all the problems that might arise by creating a new structure. However, I gather that the BHB would have only one of the eight seats on the Tote board.
I do not want to get bogged down in detail, because we have not yet seen the document that gives full details of the proposals—we have seen only the broad outline. However, it appears that, of the available options and in the light of the Government's announcement that they are minded to put the Tote into the private sector, the racing trust proposal is the most attractive. A total sell-off of the Tote is unacceptable, not least because of the likely diminution in profits returning to racing. Also, it would be unacceptable to create a privately owned Tote monopoly of pool betting, a point which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) rightly made. We listened with interest to his perspective on the basis of the main high-street bookmakers.
A private pool would lead to pressure for the pool to be broken up, or it could lead to the end of the monopoly of pool betting. That would be disastrous for horse racing and it would be equally bad for punters. It is essential that the pool monopoly be retained. The same argument underpins the concept of the national lottery. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) did not win scoop 6, and I have no doubt that he is too. He spoke of the value of a massive single pool in terms of attractive bets and the opportunity through horse racing to create millionaires, in addition to the national lottery. That is an extremely important factor.
There are genuine questions about other matters—for example, the protection of the punter, efficacy and the need for the running of the pool and of the Tote itself to be properly monitored. None of these issues is beyond early resolution. There are also the interests of other betting organisations. As the hon. Member for Wigan said, there are other sports interests, which must be

215WH
considered. I do not believe that these matters undermine in any way the concept of the proposed racing trust.
The Government need to take some early decisions on the deregulation of gambling. More importantly—we appreciate that this is not a matter for the Minister—there is the vexed issue of betting duty and the need to deal with the difficulties created by betting on the internet and the offshore activities of some bookmakers.
Those issues are for another day. Our opportunity this morning is to indicate our view on the future of the Tote. I hope that I have made it clear that the Conservative preference would be to give real and urgent consideration to the racing trust proposal. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Wigan that the matter needs to be settled, not least for the members of the staff who work for the Tote throughout the country, to whom we pay tribute. The employment that the Tote generates is important to local communities.
We think that the proposed racing trust deserves every consideration. We are unconvinced by the other options. The trust is the best chance that racing has had to show what it can do for a generation or more. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was right when he said that this is a unique moment for racing, and racing will not forgive us if we fluff this chance.
10.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I join in congratulating the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on raising the debate. It is an enormously important issue. The racing industry is clearly important to Britain. The debate provides a useful opportunity to air many important questions that are associated with the future of the Tote and of horse racing.
There have been some extremely good speeches, including those of my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made an important contribution, given his extensive knowledge of the racing industry. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and others also spoke very well.
I need to make it clear that the Government are not willing to announce today their conclusions about the sale of the Tote. However, I shall give you some indication, Mr. Chairman, of when we might make that announcement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is not a Committee but a convention of the whole House.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said that the industry needs someone to argue for racing. I am not sure whether I want to be designated the Minister for the horse, but I am happy to say that I would want to be an advocate for the success of the industry, which is enormously important to Britain. It
216WH
employs many people and millions of people have an interest in it, even if it is merely to put a bet on horses from time to time.
The industry benefits us all in many ways. For example, betting duty is paid to the Exchequer, which benefits every taxpayer. I agree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that racing is not only a rich man's sport. My father was very far from being a rich man, but he supported the industry for many years. Many people care deeply about racing, and not only because it benefits them economically or is of interest to them. In many ways, it is part of our country's culture. It needs to be respected for that reason.
The Tote is also extremely important to us. A few statistics might illustrate that importance. In 1998–99, the Tote had a turnover of £497 million. That was an increase of 25 per cent. on the previous year. There was a profit of £23.9 million, which was an increase of 34 per cent. From that profit, it gave £12.3 million to horse racing, which was an increase of 32 per cent. It has more than 300 betting offices and the credit betting operation has more than 50,000 customers. It operates pool betting at all 59 race courses and employs 2,800 full and part-time staff.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that it is time to send a clear message that the Government need to get out of an organisation in which it should not have a long-term, direct role. We must ensure that the Tote's long-term future is secured, and that is what we propose to do.
We have given the most careful consideration to how the Government get out of having a role in the Tote and to the way in which we secure its long-term future. We want to be sure that we reach the right conclusion, which pays proper regard both to the interests of horse racing and to those of the taxpayer. We would do neither a service by trying to rush our fences. As we all know, the Government decided to sell the Tote only on the advice of a steering group which was chaired by its chairman, Peter Jones. On the basis of the group's recommendations, we are satisfied that a sale would represent the best means of securing the Tote's future in the increasingly competitive and diverse business environment in which it operates.
One option, which I know is favoured by many, is the sale of the Tote to a racing trust. In considering the sale options, the Home Office received a proposal, jointly sponsored by the British Horseracing Board and the Tote itself, for the acquisition of the Tote by racing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) referred to the politics of racing, suggesting that it made politics in this place look kind. We wondered for a while whether the various political groups in racing would be able to come together and form a coalition government given the proposal that a racing trust should run the Tote. I am pleased that there is a proposal. We will give it careful and detailed consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme called it a cosy deal, rather than a cosy club, but it is not such a done deal. She asked me

217WH
to consider the views of all racing. In that regard, hers are wise words. We need to consult widely and ensure that the industry broadly supports the proposals.
Mr. Page: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I will give way, but only once, as I am anxious to conclude my remarks.
Mr. Page: I cannot think of another organisation that is not signed up to the proposal. If the Minister can think of one that is not signed up, I shall pop along and see its representatives.
Mr. O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and what others have said during the debate. I shall weigh the words of all of them with great care. We shall examine the issues with care and we intend to consult widely. The hon. Gentleman would want us to do so, to ensure an element of consensus in the industry.
The hon. Member for Ryedale is right to say that some element of agreement has been reached, and we should congratulate the industry on achieving that agreement. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on the matter. We need to ensure that the future of racing is secured for the long term.
We have looked at the issues in detail, alongside the other options, the principle of establishing a trust and the possibility of a sale on the open market or a flotation. My officials have had discussions with the relevant racing interests so that we can be confident that we fully understand the detail of the proposals.
We are aware that the Tote is considered by many to be an integral part of horse racing, not least because of its presence at each of the United Kingdom's 59 race courses and through its financial contribution to the sport over many years.
The Government recognise that racing has a stake in the Tote, and it has been one of our key objectives in this exercise to ensure that the interests of racing are safeguarded. There are other stakeholders, notably the present managers and staff, whose collective efforts have been a major factor in the Tote's success. However, it must be recognised that the taxpayer also has a legitimate interest in the business. That was an important conclusion of the Tote review steering group.
Although the Tote was originally constituted under a private Bill, the statutory framework within which it now operates is largely based on the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. Today's Tote is a very different and far more diverse business than that originally envisaged by Parliament under that private Act in 1928, and decisions about its future must self-evidently be taken in today's context, and not in the context of 1928.
Mr. Alan Meale: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I will give way one last time, because my hon. Friend has not contributed to the debate so far. I am happy for him to make a contribution.
Mr. Meale: I thank my hon. Friend. He speaks of protecting the public interest. May I point out to him
218WH
that a recent ruling by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the proposed Ladbroke-Coral merger clearly showed the danger of off-course betting becoming a monopoly? Choosing the route of the trust would prevent that for ever in the industry.
Mr. O'Brien: That is one of the issues to which we must give full consideration. I assure my hon. Friend that, when we make known our views, we will take account of that and many other points.
We must not overlook the extent to which the Tote's status as a public body has been a factor in its commercial success, not least through the perception of its probity and respectability, on which those who work for the Tote are to be congratulated. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury observed, the Tote has enjoyed a commercial advantage over competitors by virtue of the grant by the Government of an exclusive licence to operate pool betting on horse racing. Indeed, that remains the foundation on which the Tote's broader success has been built.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury argued—ingeniously, I thought—that the taxpayer—the public—would smash and grab the racing industry. I disagree with that view. The unarguable fact is that the Tote is at present a public body, and it is therefore reasonable that the taxpayer should obtain some benefit from its sale. The Government will defend the taxpayer against those who would seek to give away potential benefits.
The taxpayer has a legitimate interest and it is important that when the future of the industry is determined, we balance the interests of the industry, the long-term future of the Tote and the taxpayer, which are all legitimate interests. The fact that neither the Government nor anyone else currently own the Tote does not alter that conclusion.
Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: No.
Primary legislation will be required before the Tote can be sold, and we will introduce that at the appropriate time and when parliamentary time allows.
Hon. Members will understand why I cannot say today when we will be able to introduce such a Bill, but I have noted the arguments for it to be introduced sooner rather than later. I will bear in mind the views expressed by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Ryedale said that he wanted some early movement on the matter and we shall take that on board. No doubt the matter will be discussed through the usual channels.
I am aware of the need to reduce uncertainty about the Tote's future in the interests of the business, the Tote's staff and the industry as a whole. I remain hopeful that we shall be able to announce our conclusions about the future of the Tote within the next few weeks. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan asks how long, so I say not long. The future of the Tote does not stand alone as an issue facing the industry, although it is one of the more important issues.
Alongside our assessment of the sale options, the Home Office has been reviewing the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the current levy system. It is our present

219WH
intention to make a single announcement covering both the Tote and the levy board. Examination of the issues has taken some time, but it is right that we should be able to set out our conclusions clearly for those who have a direct interest in the future of the racing industry.
Although the hon. Member for Tewkesbury thinks that the process has taken a long time, it has not taken longer than we planned. We must balance the various considerations that a successful sale strategy would have to cover, and ensure that the financial implications have been properly evaluated. We must also ensure that the racing industry comes together on the proposal for a trust.
If we had gone too fast at those fences, we could have ended up with a situation in which some of the riders had come off at the back and the racing industry had not got its act together at the front. It has now done so, and we can give full and proper consideration to the proposals. We can also begin to examine the other issues that will directly affect the future of racing.
We expect to make an announcement soon. It will set out clearly our perception of the Government's future relationship with horse racing, especially with the industry's funding arrangements. Today's debate has shown that British horse racing is an industry and a sport of major national and international importance, and the Government wish it to prosper and thrive in the years ahead. I welcome the opportunity that the debate has provided to make that important point.

Banking Sector
10.59 am
Mr. Patrick Hall: I am grateful for the opportunity of securing a debate on the United Kingdom banking sector. I would like to focus on banks overcharging small businesses. That is a serious matter of considerable public interest with significant implications for Government.
My attention was drawn to the problem through the experiences of a small business that trades in Bedford. Its proprietor had become convinced over the years that he was being charged too much on his business account. Strenuous efforts succeeded in generating a refund of £16,000 from the relevant bank as a final settlement of the dispute. However, my constituent persisted because he knew that more money was owed. He secured the services of a firm that specialises in recovering alleged overcharges. Even then, the bank delayed, blocked and prevaricated. I became involved at that stage, at my constituent's request. I was surprised that the bank, although it sent me lengthy and courteous letters, initially refused my request for all the parties to meet in an effort to resolve the matter once and for all. It eventually agreed to a meeting, which I attended as an observer.
After two or three hours of vigorous negotiation, the matter was settled and the bank wrote out a cheque on the spot that was well in excess of £20,000. I was taken aback. Together with the earlier cheque, the bank had returned to my constituent's business more than £36,000, including compound interest. That £36,000 should not have been taken from the business in the first place. It constituted overcharges, which represent valuable cash flow—the life-blood of any small business. It should have been available to underpin the business's activities, and assist its employment capability and its contribution to the local economy. That £36,000 was returned only after five years of effort—which would have been better expended in running the business—by the proprietor and after he involved a specialist firm and his Member of Parliament.
My first thoughts about the case were that the unfortunate experience was simply the consequence of a series of human errors and misjudgments by the bank in dealing with an individual customer. I was rather sceptical when the overcharge recovery specialists, Anglia Business Associates, told me that my constituent's experience was not uncommon and was, indeed, so widespread that several firms and individuals specialised in and made a living from recovering bank overcharges for business customers all over the country. Those firms describe themselves as the bank audit industry.
Anglia Business Associates showed me its evidence, which was not only drawn from people who had contacted the company because they believed that they had a problem, but from random testing by spot audits on business accounts in various parts of the country, organised on separate occasions in the past few years by, for example, BBC World's "Watchdog", ITV's "World in Action", Granada's "Tonight with Trevor McDonald" and The Daily Telegraph. That evidence showed that approximately 75 per cent. of all bank business customers have been overcharged at some time

221WH
and that the average overcharge amounts to about £4,000. Those figures have been in the public domain in recent years and have not been countered with evidence from the banks.
High street banks claim to have approximately 3.2 million business customers. The Department of Trade and Industry says that, out of a total of 3.7 million business, 3.5 million are described as microbusinesses—small businesses, which employ fewer than 10 people. It follows that the majority of bank business customers must be small or microbusinesses. The banks will not reveal the proportion of their customers who have bank borrowing, and use overdrafts and loans. However, it is fair to suppose that businesses use bank borrowing for cash flow and other purposes.
If we make a conservative estimate that 50 per cent. of businesses use bank borrowing and apply the figures that I mentioned—75 per cent. of business customers overcharged an average of £4,000—it suggests a staggering total of £4.8 billion in overcharges. If 80 per cent. of business customers use bank borrowing, the total in overcharges is £7.7 billion. Those amounts are shocking. Doubtless, some people will be sceptical, and I do not ask anyone to accept the figures blindly. There is credible, verifiable evidence of a serious problem of bank overcharging in this country; it should be put to the test.
I want to consider what is meant by overcharging. Don Cruickshank, who is chairman of the independent Treasury review of banking services in the United Kingdom, has identified an absence of competition in the sector, especially among those that offer services to small businesses. In an uncompetitive market, it is likely that we will find uncompetitive pricing. That is a definition of overcharging. However, the overcharging identified by some customers and the specialist recovery firms to which I referred is different.
We are considering circumstances in which the advertised rate is not the rate that is applied to the customer. The advertised rate may be competitive, perhaps 5 per cent., but, on later inspection, the applied rate turns out to be 8 per cent. Overcharging does not appear in an identifiable way in accounts. Other devices include calculating interest on wrong overdraft limits; applying penalty rates that should not have been applied; and charging hidden management fees. All those devices have been used without informing the customer. That is not only uncompetitive practice; it is sharp practice.
The question is not whether such practices happen, but to what extent they happen. I would welcome testing the available evidence and gathering more. That should be done through an independent investigation commissioned by the Government. It should be done because strong evidence, beyond prima facie indications, exists of a significant and unjustified diversion of resources from businesses to banks. That can only harm the productive economy and employment prospects in this country. It represents appalling, unethical, socially irresponsible business practice, which is a national scandal and an abuse of trust.
222WH
May I draw briefly from the executive summary of British invisibles 1997 report on banking? To paraphrase, the banking industry operating in the UK is a crucial and integral part of the UK economy. The sector consists of UK and foreign banks operating in the UK and its broad customer base encompasses individuals, companies and public sector organisations. The industry's assets are well in excess of £2,000 billion. Slightly under half are held by the UK banks, which are dominated by the high street retail banks. I am not arguing with any of that. The banks are a crucial and integral part of the economy and most people's lives. It is right, therefore, to expect that they are efficient, competitive and transparent and that they serve their customers and the country well, deal straight with people, charge them fairly and, as a result, earn and are worthy of their trust. It seems that all the high street banks, in varying degrees, have overcharged at one time or another, and not only as a result of human error. Of course there is human error, but if that were the principal cause of overcharging one would expect there to be plenty of gainers as well as losers. The bank audit industry is absolutely convinced that that is not the case.
I have described what is meant by overcharging. The process also involves going into denial if and when a customer inquires or complains. There is, so I understand, a clear pattern of making excuses and saying that there is insufficient staff time to investigate. Paperwork has been lost or never existed. Progress is slow and grudging and, at some point, a partial refund is offered. After a year or so, a fuller amount may be offered to those customers who have survived the obstacle course. May I refer to an example of that?
In February 1997, Anglia Business Associates lodged a claim on behalf of a family-owned engineering business based in North Yorkshire that had been overcharged by more than £15,500. The bank's immediate response was to say that its own review of the account showed not an overcharge, but an undercharge of £650. A month later, however, it changed its mind and offered a refund of slightly more than £4,000 in full and final settlement, stating categorically that it had not made an error. After being pressed to reconsider, three months later the bank's final settlement was raised to £5,700. A little later, it was raised to £6,000 and later still there was a breakthrough to £13,000. Finally, in January 1998—almost a year after the claim was first lodged—it was raised to £15,200, which was about £500 short of the refund originally asked for. Time after time, in every letter that it wrote, the bank stressed that it had not made any mistakes at all. That is interesting: it had not made an error, but was prepared to give money away to its customer if it asked hard enough.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are aware that concern about bank overcharging and other matters in respect of the relationship between banks and their customers has been in the public domain for a long time—well over 20 years—and is not exactly new. It is remarkable that it has not been firmly addressed. Pressure from the National Consumer Council led to the banks setting up and sponsoring the voluntary banking ombudsman scheme in 1986. It has become clear that the scheme is somewhat weak. For example, it cannot recommend on policy or make rules for the banking industry. It can deal only with individual complaints, and does so only if and when all the internal procedures

223WH
of the banks have been exhausted and if the matter is deadlocked, but the banks can be pretty expert in delaying the internal investigation of complaints. The ombudsman scheme as currently formulated therefore turns away a high percentage of complaints.
As I interpret the presentation of the banking ombudsman's 1997–98 annual report, which is the most recent I could find, he received almost 20,000 concern calls on his helpline and 12,000 written complaints. Conciliation settled 960 before formal investigation and 630 went through formal investigation. The indications from that are that thousands of complaints and potential complaints are not being addressed through that route. Another initial weakness of the scheme was that it was limited to personal customers and unincorporated businesses. Continuing public pressure in the 1980s led to the then Conservative Government setting up a Treasury review into banking services—the Jack committee, which reported in 1989.
The Jack committee recommended that the banks adopt a code of practice, that the ombudsman scheme be extended to cover incorporated businesses and that it be made statutory. The then Government rejected the latter two recommendations and the banking code was not introduced until 1992. It is voluntary and not all the banks signed up to it. Those that did are prepared sometimes—perhaps too often—to ignore it, as well as their own company versions of it. In 1991, again in response to representations from small businesses, the public and Members of the House, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the Bank of England to carry out a survey of lending to small businesses. The concern was that cuts in base rates were not being passed on to small business customers.
As part of the outcome of that survey, the Chancellor asked the banks to suggest a code of conduct for small business customers. That is also part of the scene. By 1993, continuing public pressure led to him asking the Bank of England to repeat its survey of bank lending to small firms and, in addition, he agreed to the recommendation of the Jack committee of 1988 that the banking ombudsman scheme should include small incorporated businesses. He accepted, however, the banks' recommendation that that should be restricted to businesses with a turnover of less than £1 million a year, which is not a huge amount for a successful small business. That means that the only option for many small businesses, apart from involving a specialist firm, is legal action, which is an expensive and difficult route for them and for individuals. Only the banks are properly equipped to pursue it.
It is fair to say that, although the issue of alleged overcharging has been around for a long time, it has managed to avoid being put under the rigorous scrutiny of the Government and the regulatory authorities. The usual response has been that charges are a matter for the banks—which exercise their commercial judgment—not for action under competition legislation, and should be resolved through their internal procedures or the banking ombudsman. I am an optimist and I am pleased to sense that there are indications that the worrying and unsatisfactory state of affairs that I have described could at last be effectively addressed. As part of the general context of that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recognised the poor deal on prices that British customers get in a number of
224WH
areas, compared with those on the continent and in the United States. He has promised action, for example on international price comparisons for cars.
With regard to the banking industry, the interim report of the independent review chaired by Don Cruickshank, which is due to report soon, was published last July and was responded to by the Government in the form of changes to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which was then in Committee. One of the positive features of a very long and complex Bill is the proposed one-stop shop statutory financial ombudsman scheme, combining and replacing eight schemes, including that of the banking ombudsman. Unlike the voluntary scheme, it is proposed that the decisions of the new ombudsman will be binding on respondents, which is helpful. The new scheme provides us with a golden opportunity to address the weaknesses of the previous arrangement. There are two areas to which I wish to draw attention.
First, there is a failure to address thousands of complaints. I have no objection to requiring that a customer with a complaint first puts it to the bank for consideration by its internal procedures under its customer code; that makes complete sense. However, the new financial services ombudsman will need to be mindful of the techniques too often deployed by banks before a state of deadlock is agreed in writing.
Secondly, it is important that the ombudsman seeks to improve voluntary customer codes. The banking code, to which I have referred, is, so I understand, drawn from a number of banks and building societies, and tends to reflect the lowest common denominator rather than standards that might best serve the customer. In dealing with complaints over the years, it is essential that the new ombudsman scheme looks to raise standards and improve codes. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary knows that I have raised that point with her in Committee, and I ask her to reflect further on it today.
There is also the key matter of regulation. Banks are regulated by the Financial Services Authority with regard to capital structure and their accounts, and to ensuring that they are run by fit and proper persons. Although the FSA is developing and is very much encouraged and required to develop an outlook more mindful of the customer—to become more customer-friendly—the regulation of banks does not include pricing, or matters that might be seen as relevant to a consumer watchdog. Indeed, there is no consumer watchdog for bank customers. The financial services ombudsman is intended not to act as a consumer watchdog but to be impartial in reaching balanced decisions. That ought to lead to a consideration of how such a state of affairs could be addressed.
How about having "Ofbank"—an office of banking? Ofbank could be an independent banking regulator, complete, perhaps, with regional customer services committees and a national customer council, charged with advising the regulator on policy issues. Such a development would tune in with the independent banking review's observations that the UK banking sector lacks competition—a position strongly supported by the Consumers Association.
Other regulators, such as the Office of Water Services, the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Office of Telecommunications, were introduced because of the

225WH
obvious monopolistic nature of the privatised utilities created by the previous Government. There is not enough competition among banks. The degree of regulation would of course reflect the extent of the competition and, where competition develops, a light touch may be all that is necessary.
It is the intention of the Financial Services and Markets Bill to create the legal base for innovation, competition and greater efficiency in financial services, but until that happens in the UK banking sector, Ofbank will have a job to do.
There is one other major issue that I want to raise. It is clear, is it not, that I believe bank overcharging to be a serious problem; I want it to stop. If it were to cease from today, what would be done about the past? Customers have been overcharged and that needs to be addressed, just as the mis-selling of personal pensions during the first part of the 1990s is slowly and steadily being addressed. It is worth recalling that a final total of—perhaps—1.8 million cases will have been examined in trying to resolve the mis-selling scandal, and that compensation of between £5.3 billion and £7.6 billion may have to be paid.
I ask the Government to do six things: first, to acknowledge that there is a problem of bank overcharging, particularly on small business accounts; secondly, to commission an independent investigation to examine the evidence and establish the scale of the problem nationally; thirdly, and somewhat dependent on the outcome of the investigation, to take proactive, effective measures to compensate customers for past overcharging; fourthly, to create the legal and regulatory framework in which effective competition can take place; fifthly, to ensure that the financial services ombudsman seeks to improve the banking code; and sixthly, to give serious consideration to the establishment of a bank regulator who encompasses the role of consumer watchdog.
I do not expect my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to be able to agree to all of that today, but I ask her to give all the matters very careful thought. I am asking for nothing less than a new deal for bank customers—without whom banks would not exist—which serves the British people and British business and makes it absolutely clear, once and for all, that the practice of bank overcharging is unacceptable, intolerable and must cease.
11.27 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution to this important debate. I should first declare an interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. Secondly, I apologise to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and the Minister because, owing to a longstanding engagement just after 12 o'clock, I may not be present for the winding-up speech
I feel that I have been brought on my first outing to Westminster Hall on false pretences. I thought that this debate was about competition, regulation and the review of the banking sector. The issue of competition crept lightly into the hon. Gentleman's comments, but only in rather scornful terms; regulation did not feature much; and Don Cruickshank was mentioned just twice. Instead, we heard something of a bank-bashing session.
226WH
I was interested to read the press release that the hon. Gentleman issued in advance of the debate. To give him his due, he referred to Anglia Business Associates, to which it might be helpful to allude further. It seems that that company is the basis for the hon. Gentleman's raising this subject. Although it might be seen in his eyes to be providing a public service, it is a commercial, profit-making organisation, which makes its money by taking a 35 per cent. cut of any money that it is able to retain on behalf of clients whose cases against banks it takes on. That should be put on record.
The press release describes the organisation's fairly alarmist claim that in excess of £5 billion has been wrongly extracted from clients of banks over a number of years: 35 per cent. of £5 billion makes Anglia Business Associates a rather wealthy company.
It would be interesting to hear more about who regulates that company and whether they are acting in the best interests of customers and the whole banking sector. The hon. Gentleman's press release refers to a Mr. Mark Radin, who I believe is the owner of the company, and gives his phone number for further inquiries.
I am no great fan of retail banks, and indeed I would be the first to admit that they have been exceedingly hapless with their public relations over a number of years, especially on the subject of charges. They certainly gained a very poor reputation in the recessions of the 1980s and early 1990s for the way in which they treated small businesses. They were greatly at fault, although the matter may not have been quite as one-sided as the hon. Gentleman made out. On average, the banks made a 21 per cent. return on their equity, so they were very successful.
The British banking sector accounts for about 4.2 per cent. of the UK economy and last year paid more than £4.5 billion in tax to the Exchequer, so there is no denying its importance. Because of the common poor perception of the sector, the Chancellor announced an independent review into its working on 3 November 1998 under Don Cruickshank, as the hon. Gentleman said.
The remit of the review was to consider the UK banking industry, with the exception of investment banking; to examine the levels of competition, innovation and efficiency in various sub-markets, and especially the relationship with small and medium-sized enterprises; and to make international comparisons. In January 1999, a consultation document was produced. For all the qualms about the extent of co-operation from the banking sector, it took a great deal of work on the part of commercial banks to provide the information that was required to make the review meaningful.
In April 1999, a progress note was issued by Mr. Cruickshank and the review was widened to include e-commerce. Specific teams were set up to deal with the subject of small businesses in deprived areas and their interaction with the banking sector. Perhaps most notably, in July 1999 Mr. Cruickshank produced an interesting interim report, focusing on the dynamic interaction between competition law and banking regulation, and making six main recommendations designed to ensure that competition considerations are more closely factored into the regulatory process.

227WH
The theory is that in future competition problems should be less likely to occur if the possible effects of regulatory decisions on banking competition are the subject of more rigorous scrutiny at the time when they are made. There was also discussion of the future role of the Competition Commission, taking advice from the Office of Fair Trading.
The publication of the report was timely for those of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and the hon. Member for Bedford, who have served for many, many months on the Standing Committee considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is to continue its path through the House next week. The Conservative Opposition closely agreed with the comments made by Don Cruickshank.
Indeed, the Official Report of our deliberations in Standing Committee A shows that the Conservative Opposition tabled amendments specifically to promote competition in the UK financial services industry—which includes banking—and international competitiveness. Amendment No. 46 dealt with the objective—an objective rather than just a principle—of competition, to include
"the maintenance of competition and promotion of United Kingdom competitiveness".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 July 1999; c. 42.]
We also tabled two new clauses defining the whole subject. Interestingly, in all our sittings—I was at virtually all of them—no comment was made by the hon. Member for Bedford on that subject, which overlaps neatly with today's debate. Indeed, it is clearly recorded that on 8 July the hon. Gentleman voted against proposals that would have included a competition objective and a competitiveness requirement in the Financial Services Authority. Where did his new-found interest in competition come from? When we could have done something tangible about it, by influencing relevant legislation, he had nothing to say and voted against our proposals.
The most important factor that would allay the fears that the hon. Gentleman and many others quite reasonably share is the promotion of competition in the UK banking sector. Conservative Members' entire approach to the Financial Services Authority has been to limit the impeding by regulation of the financial services industry.
There are something in excess of 560 banks in the City of London, including many foreign banks, many of which offer private banking facilities and any of which can apply for licences to set up as banks offering current accounts. There are in excess of 43 banks ordinarily offering current accounts in this country, and myriad other providers of other products along similar lines.
Such services are offered not only by the traditional banks but by the demutualised building societies, by an increasing number of credit unions—we would certainly encourage the freeing up of that sector, which plays a key role—and, perhaps most significantly of all, by the burgeoning internet services, which are proving to be extremely successful in the banking climate.
Only yesterday, the results from Prudential, which owns Egg, were published. In the space of about a year, Egg has brought in about £7.6 billion of private money on deposit, gained more than 800,000 depositors—
228WH
bringing in an extra 100,000 in the final quarter of 1999 alone—and built up an asset book in excess of £2 billion. It has been enormously successful by being competitive and offering low or nil charges and preferential rates of interest. Like any other commercial company with a banking licence in this country, it is perfectly at liberty to do that. It is accessible to anybody who chooses to gain access to it and has the money to bank with it.
Similarly, Virgin is setting up a successful internet banking business. There is also much greater access for foreign banks—this has been a consideration in the Financial Services and Markets Bill—to offer facilities to British customers at competitive rates. The number of credit card providers has doubled in the past six years alone.
It is not only traditional banking houses that offer facilities to individuals. Largely with the approval of the Government—I agree with them—supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Tesco and even car manufacturing companies are offering banking facilities to members of the public. It is interesting to note that, perhaps as a dry run, when the Government launched their initial hapless proposals on individual savings accounts in 1997, they strongly promoted new forms of providers, to increase competition in the banking sector and encourage savings schemes such as ISAs to excess.
Of course, ISAs have been an enormous disaster in terms of bringing in new investors, but that is the marketplace. The market has shown that the product is defective. The product will succeed only if there is a multiplicity of providers offering different products and services that appeal to different people.
Everything that the hon. Gentleman has, justifiably, said today, could be resolved to a large extent by the greater promotion of competition, for which Conservative Members have been arguing for a long time. In practice, there is more competition because of all the new providers entering the market. The hon. Gentleman would do better to concentrate on the prime considerations: the transparency of information on the availability of those products; greater upfront transparency on charges and agreement to them, which has happened since voluntary codes of banking practice came in in 1992; greater product innovation, which will only be hampered by excessive regulation, as has happened in other countries; and, greater moves towards making accounts portable and mobile.
The greatest incentive for a bank not to charge excessively is the power of the customer to say, "I don't like the service or the level of charges that you are imposing and I will take my account elsewhere." Some work could be done to improve the mobility of accounts, in particular when one is tied up with direct debits and such like. Those are the considerations to which the hon. Member for Bedford would do best to direct his ire.
I have no doubt that in future there will be a much tougher regime for banks that promote uncompetitive practices under the competition laws—for example, through the greater powers that are being given to the Competition Commission, the campaigns against so-called "Rip-off Britain", or whatever soundbite one wants to use. However, the marketplace and the greater mobility of customers will help most of all, in particular during the next few years as the way in which financial services operate changes radically.

229WH
The hon. Gentleman's six-point plan contained little if anything about those considerations. He said that the Government should acknowledge that bank overcharging is a problem. There has been acknowledgement of a problem with bank charges—or the perception of them—which is why the Cruickshank commission was set up. The hon. Gentleman asked for an independent investigation. One would hope that the Cruickshank review has some degree of independence—certainly some of the comments in Mr. Cruickshank's interim report in July grated with what the Chancellor had said days earlier, but the Government have not so far been amenable to accepting our amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
The hon. Gentleman asked for compensation for past overcharging. Banking codes have existed since the early 1990s and it does no one any service to rake back over the past 10 or 15 years to prove that, in what was a different environment, banks should have been liable for all those charges. That would provoke a scandal like the pensions mis-selling scandal, on a massive and wholly impractical scale.
The hon. Gentleman also asked that a legal and regulatory base be created within which effective competition can take place. The Competition Commission and what Mr. Cruickshank is trying to do will deal with part of that problem. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman asked that the new financial services ombudsman should improve the banking code, and he came out with the extraordinary statement that the ombudsman is not there to act in the interests of the consumer. The entire Financial Services Authority is there to act on and safeguard the financial interests of consumers, so that demonstrates a basic misunderstanding on the hon. Gentleman's part.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that we need yet another "Of-organisation"—an "Ofbank." We have the FSA, the Bank of England and the Competition Commission. We do not want yet another tier of regulation which could succeed only in stifling competition, which would result in fewer players in the market, fewer products, and less innovation. That could mean only that choice for the consumer and the charges that go with such choice would be diminished, which is not what we are trying to achieve.
This debate has been disappointing because of the way in which the hon. Gentleman moved it. It does no one any good simply to bash the banks and to hark back many years. If the Government are to succeed in many areas, such as saving schemes and the regional venture capital fund that they want to promote, it is important for them to liaise with the banks. The banking sector is vital to the economy. Many things have gone wrong and many need to get better, but it is competition, above all, that will bring that about.
11.44 am
Mr. Martin Salter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this important Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) was somewhat mean spirited in his response. If he thinks that my hon. Friend was bank bashing, he should listen carefully to my contribution.
230WH
I shall concentrate on the on-going review of banking services and the fact that the network of rural and district bank branches is shrinking fast. In doing so, I shall draw on the excellent contribution made by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) to his debate on financial services on 15 December, which also elicited a response from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I also want to demonstrate the concern felt by all hon. Members regardless of party—expressed in early-day motion 822, which attracted about 89 signatures, and early-day motion 962—about the lack of availability of banking and financial services and the worrying pace of district bank branch closures.
I have had direct experience of the sheer lack of concern shown for the elderly and disabled customers of Lloyds TSB in my constituency. Last summer, Lloyds TSB introduced an ill-fated pilot scheme, which completely removed cashier services from four branches in the Reading area. It showed no concern for the elderly or the disabled. How are blind people supposed to use a fully automated bank branch? How are the disabled supposed to access some of the services via what are known as ATMs? What small business can tolerate a system that will offer only £200 in cash? What jobbing builder can operate in this day and age on only £200 per day for building materials? What small shops can cope with the loss of a day's interest on their deposits as a result of it taking four days to clear cheques and deposits as opposed to three when one deposits over the counter?
Only after an extremely high-profile and vigorous campaign, which I brought to this place, supported by local people and also ably supported by our local newspaper, the Reading Chronicle, was Lloyds TSB, the largest and most profitable of our banks, forced to back down and reinstate the cashier service.
I worry that that bank's ill-fated pilot scheme in Reading is simply a nasty glimpse into the future. Robots may well replace people in banking. The disabled, the disadvantaged and those living outside the large town centres would then be denied local access to a range of financial services. That is called financial exclusion and the Government need to lead the way in tackling that serious threat to the quality of life of many of our constituents.
The branch network of Britain's retail banks is shrinking as I speak. More than 4,000 branches of high street banks have closed in the past 10 years and the independent consultant, Deloitte, predicts that a similar number will close in the next five years, which is a significant quickening of the pace of closure. Barclays announced 200 more closures starting this month and, if last Sunday's The Mail on Sunday is to be believed, although I accept that it is not always right, Barclays' new Canadian chief executive, Matthew Barrett, is likely to announce a further round of closures with the bank's results next month.
NatWest has announced a further 200 closures as part of its defence against the Scottish take-over bids and for Lloyds TSB the closures are a continuing process. The closures are hardly likely to stop there. For a growing number of communities in rural areas, urban suburbs and inner-city areas, the result is a complete loss of local banking representation.
The campaign for community banking services, with which many hon. Members have been in touch in the past few years and which acts as the voice of 24 of some

231WH
of the country's best-known charities and trade organisations, has forecast that at least another 1,000 communities will become bankless if present trends continue unabated.
The lack of local banking services impacts most heavily on the vulnerable, the elderly and disabled and on shopkeepers and small business people. It also impacts on those on low incomes or without the use of a car. For many, the lack of such services can mean not only inconvenience but major difficulties—early loss of financial independence and exclusion from mainstream financial services. For the shopkeeper, it often means lost turnover, as the more mobile go elsewhere for banking and take their shopping needs with them. Some of those businesses then have to close, and the lifeblood is drained from our district, rural and inner-city communities.
My hon. Friend the Minister should appreciate that, beyond the obvious problems, there are serious implications for community sustainability and environmental damage, as many are forced to use their cars to travel further—not only for their banking needs, but to shop for items that were previously available within their local communities. The situation will undoubtedly get worse as the full effects of the current takeover battle in the retail banking sector are felt. Frankly, it is spurious for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to claim that the market will be the answer to all our needs. Clearly, it will not, and there is a need for Government action and intervention.
The Government's current attitude—which seems to be to leave the question of branch closures to self-regulation—worries hon. Members, including myself. Self-regulation by an industry in turmoil, driven by the desire to slash costs and increase profits, is likely to achieve little.
Let us look at the banks' record on self-regulation. NatWest gave five weeks' notice to close the only branch in Killamarsh in Derbyshire, which has a population of some 10,000. That was done just before Christmas in 1998. The bank refused to listen to the concerns of thousands of local people. I have referred to the tactics and behaviour of Lloyds TSB in my constituency. The company was quite happy to remove the last bank from the village of Theale in my constituency, and it moved to the self-service, fully automated scheme with no consultation with its customers—those stakeholders who provided the bank's record £3.2 billion profit last year. The village of Wheathampstead in Hertfordshire—featured in the BBC's "Panorama" programme in October—was deserted by Barclays at only two weeks' notice, either side of an August bank holiday.
So much for self-regulation—so much for community consultation. So much for giving a damn about the interests of the people who made those banks so successful and profitable. Can the industry be trusted to self-regulate? I think not.
Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salter: No, I will not.
In anticipation of what the social exclusion unit's policy action team might say, we have seen token experiments in social banking being planned by
232WH
individual banks in half a dozen deprived areas—notably Portsmouth and Salford. By their own admission, the banks concerned see these merely as expensive one-off experiments. That is not much help for the hundreds—soon to be thousands—of communities throughout Britain who are losing their banks.
Three quarters of the cases brought to the notice of the campaign for community banking services over the last two years were not in deprived areas. What sort of help will those token social banking schemes be to middle England, or to rural areas in Scotland or Wales?
I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister that she, unlike her predecessor, finds time to meet representatives of the campaign for community banking services, which has been requesting such a meeting since January 1999. If not, will she at least meet hon. Members, such as myself, who are in the process of establishing an all-party campaign for community banking? Why is provision not being made in the Financial Services and Markets Bill to give the Financial Services Authority at least reserve powers regarding local access to basic banking services?
I thoroughly endorse the six points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford in his measured and thoughtful speech. I believe that we have made the case for a banking regulator to guarantee access to financial services, and to tackle head-on the growing menace of the exclusion of hundreds of thousands of people from financial services.
11.54 am
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this debate. It is important because it puts an increasing focus on banking, particularly the relationship between banking and the small and medium-sized business sector. That is particularly important, because more than 90 per cent. of new jobs are generated through small and medium-sized enterprises. The success of SMEs depends very much on their access to finance, whether venture capital or financial services. The banks have a particular role to play in that respect.
Historically, banks have failed the SME sector in this country by failing to provide funding for small businesses, and by their lack of support in their day-to-day dealings. They have failed also to understand the needs of businesses in areas such as access to cash, cash flow and the ability to give support and advice that are valid and helpful, without the people receiving that support finding that they are then liable for large bills that they did not know about and find difficult to meet.
The initiative for finding funding for SMEs has come not from the banking sector, but from outside. Principally among those outside sources is the much-derided local government sector. I was leader of Lancashire county council between 1981 and 1997, and one of our major policy innovations was to find a way in which the public and private sectors could work together to support businesses. Specifically, we found a way in which venture and loan capital could be supplied to small businesses which the banks had abandoned and, in many cases, had not even tried to help.
In 1986, through Lancashire Enterprises, now Enterprises plc—the county's economic development company—we set up the Rosebud fund. The fund was

233WH
one of the first attempts to assist small businesses. It made—and still makes—loans to small businesses. Those loans were at times as small as £1,000, but, typically, they have reached £100,000 and £200,000. Those funds were then matched with funding from other sources and, in the years since the fund started, more than 260 investments have been made, over £3.5 million has been invested in small businesses in the Lancashire economy—which otherwise would not have received support—and 5,000 jobs have been supported.
The fund was set up with the support of the European Commission through European objective 2 funding. It was innovative—it still is—in that it showed how small businesses could be supported on a commercial basis. The secret of the fund's success is that finance is provided in an appropriate way and on appropriate terms, and is linked to specialist business advice. Firms—particularly small firms—that found themselves in difficulties after the first year or two are able to secure re-financing and have access to proper advice in a way that helps them to prosper.
The Rosebud fund was needed because the banking sector had failed small businesses. Since that time, parts of the banking sector have tried to step into that gap—in a variable way, but with some success. Other funds involving banks, such as the Local Investment Fund, have attempted to assist in localised, poor areas. Organisations such as the Prince's Trust do very good work, and the innovative Merseyside investment fund, using European objective 1 funding, has invested—together with other finance generated—£62 million to support 4,000 jobs in the Merseyside area.
Those schemes were required because of the failings of the banking sector. The ideas started in the 1980s through, in my case, Lancashire county council have been picked up through the new regional development agencies. The agencies are looking at setting up their own venture capital funds, geared particularly to the needs of small and medium-sized businesses. I am glad to note that Barclays has said that it will be willing to invest in the North West regional development agency's regional fund. I also pay tribute to the work that the Co-operative bank has done in identifying the banking sector with the needs of small businesses.
When we think about small businesses, the possibilities of community and co-operative businesses are often ignored. Through co-operative development agencies and the Industrial Common Ownership Fund, attempts have been made to find funding for co-operative development. That is another area in which the banking sector, apart from the Co-operative bank and—to a limited extent—one or two others, has ignored the needs of small and new businesses. I hope that, in the future, the banks will pay more attention to those needs.
Businesses need access to capital through banks, but they must also have day-to-day dealings with the banks. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has drawn attention to many of the problems that businesses and individuals face in their daily operations. Banks are often not friendly to small businesses. They often do not understand the cash flow needs of small businesses or understand the problems that charges for cash deposits impose on small businesses, especially the smallest.
234WH
The consumer, whether a business or an individual, is often unclear about the rate of interest being charged. All too often, small businesses undertake the necessary consultations with banks, but then face a large, unexpected bill, often to the small businesses' detriment.
I support my hon. Friend's proposals for openness, support and clarity for the consumer. The Consumer Association has conducted surveys and drawn attention to the similarities in the difficulties faced by small businesses and consumers in their dealings with banks. The association also points to the difficulties that many consumers believe they would face in changing their bank if they can find a better service. Sometimes, changing banks is not as complex as it is made out to be. The association has performed an important role in drawing attention to those areas, and has assessed of the appropriateness of the different services offered by the banks according to the varying needs of their clients. There is a need for clear information, whether for individual consumers or for small businesses, on the various services offered by different banks and the charges imposed. I support any initiative that will bring more clarity to that information and make it more readily available to the consumer.
I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) when he expressed disappointment with the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), who seemed more concerned about defending banking interests than considering the needs of small businesses and the community. I cannot share his view that the only problem is lack of competition in some sectors. Banks have responsibilities, and they must meet them—preferably by following Government guidance. If that does not work, regulation may be required.
Banks are an important part of our economy and our society. They are rightly under scrutiny because they have failed, and in many cases still fail, the needs of small businesses. Banks also have consumer and community responsibilities. In a recent statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke about his intention to set up new investment funds in areas of particular deprivation, including one in my constituency in Liverpool. Those funds will be extremely important and will take their place with other funds that are directed to those particular needs. However, the businesses set up through the availability of such funds—like other businesses—can be successful only if they have continuing access to sympathetic and reasonable banking services.
So far, banks have not faced up to their responsibilities. I hope that they will do so under the new scrutiny of their dealings with the commercial sector, which is important in generating our economy, and with consumers in general, who are important to our society.
12.6 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: This is an important debate because it raises serious issues and heralds the full Cruickshank report, which is expected by the end of June. Two important specific issues were also raised by the hon. Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). All of us will have met constituents with problems in both

235WH
categories. I sympathise particularly with those problems raised by the hon. Member for Reading, West, because my rural constituency suffers from similar problems.
Better competition is not the full answer, but it is an important part of it, as has been demonstrated in the United States of America. Another issue is exactly how the FSA will regulate banks. Despite the monumental nature of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which has 378 clauses and deals in detail with many issues, the actual banking regulation that the FSA will deliver remains to be considered.
My biggest concern is that the Cruickshank report will be subject to too much spin. The Government will say that the report proves that they are doing something about the issue, but the report will be sidelined. That has already begun to happen, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) pointed out. We have consistently argued that competition should be an objective of the Financial Services and Markets Bill; the FSA is not too keen to focus on it. It has been made clear that the FSA will focus on the objectives laid down in the Bill, and that the principles are considered secondary to the objectives. The Treasury has been successful in heading off Cruickshank's intention, which we share, and has replaced it with competition arrangements that are weak by comparison, albeit worth having.
I was slightly uncomfortable to note that the hon. Member for Bedford focused on data produced by a particular organisation. We all admit that mischarging problems exist, but to quantify them as an amount for compensation is not the best approach. The new ombudsman scheme will address complaints more effectively, and I agree that he or she should review the banking code. I hope that the combined ombudsman will be more effective than the single banking ombudsman arrangements and that the relevant staff at the FSA will read the report of this debate, because it relates to the banking regulatory activities that they will undertake.
If we focus on the competitiveness of the market place, there are arguments both ways, but at the macro level there is a powerful case of insufficient competitiveness, because financial intermediation in the banking system is still enormously expensive. As a cost, it is 4 to 5 per cent. of assets. In the United States mutual fund industry, which has become as big a financial intermediator as the banks, it is about 1.5 per cent. One of the main reasons why the US has been much more successful is its ability to offer money funds that compete with bank deposits. That is not possible in this country, largely because of EU regulation, under which money funds may not account on what is called an amortisation basis. I have to say that, to protect their own position, German banks have not wanted to permit money funds to get off the ground. I have banged on about that for some time, and shall continue to do so, as I believe it extremely important to have competing money funds, as happens in the US.
The lender of last resort doctrine has also encouraged concentration. The original doctrine was that the central bank should stand behind any bank that was well run, whether large or small. That no longer prevails, and the market has been forced to conclude that the central bank—the lender of last resort—will stand behind only
236WH
those banks that are so big that they cannot be allowed to fail. The resulting net reduction in smaller banks has led to increasing consolidation in the banking industry.
Conversely, the argument that banks' return on equity has risen constantly over the past decade is slightly unfair. The starting level was very low, and banks have had very low levels of bad debts for the past seven years, largely as a result of this country's economic success since 1992 and of the golden economic legacy bequeathed by the previous Government to the present Government. However, that situation will change in due course: I am afraid that the Chancellor is deluding himself if he thinks that he has abolished business cycles.
New competitive banks have emerged, such as Virgin, and Egg, which has £7.6 billion in deposits. Barclays bank has noted that it had lost 30 per cent. of the credit card market and now has only 10 per cent. The banking industry here is more productive and competitive than that in France or Germany. In principle, the internet ought to be a major vehicle for more competition, but will customers or providers benefit from the cost savings? That is the big question.
One problem for banking regulators and central banks is the fear of systemic risk. The last time that a Government really tried to get banking competition going was in the early 1970s. Hon. Members may recollect that that was followed by the 1974 banking crisis and the Bank of England's "lifeboat" to rescue a total systemic threat to our banking system.
That period of difficulty came about because lots of new, small banks founds that, although they could obtain deposits by paying high interest rates, their lending risks were high. When the economy turned down, those banks had appalling bad debts and the structure proved to be a house of cards. Regulators therefore have a bias in favour of cartels, which they feel they can manage more effectively against systemic risk, but a balance has to be struck.
I am slightly worried about the new banks that are joint ventures with supermarkets. They are not really new banks, but will be more partnerships between a supermarket and an existing large bank. Will that really provide competition? The Prudential, for example, is already a major financial services business.
Market entry remains a problem. The questions of who can be a bank and of what a bank is have not been clearly defined. Money transmission charges are high, and the relevant organisations operate to some extent as a cartel, representing a barrier to entry. In addition, there are high capital adequacy costs on change of control. Overall, banking concentration is increasing and will manifest itself on a pan-European basis, rather than merely in the domestic economy.
The hon. Member for Reading, West used the phrase "financial exclusion". I dislike that phrase, which I consider to be a politically correct usage, but the problems set out by the hon. Gentleman are real and need to be addressed. I was amazed when my own bank wrote to me to tell me that I could no longer get cash over the counter and that I had to use a machine. I wondered what a bank was for if it was not obliged to dispense my own cash back to me. The incident led me to believe that the services that banks provide might be determined when banking licences are granted. That could be a lever to help tackle some of the issues.

237WH
The large banks would be foolish if they did not take the initiative in addressing those needs, but that will depend in part on the seriousness with which the Government address the issues raised in the Cruickshank report. However, it is only fair that large banks with greater powers should address some of the community issues that have arisen.
The hon. Member for Bedford made some specific points towards the end of his speech. I consider that overcharging must come within the territory of the competent ombudsman. The concept of following the phase 1 and phase 2 pension model is not practical; the necessary regulations do not exist to do so. I do not think that it is legally possible—even were it desirable—to do what the hon. Gentleman proposes in terms of a total financial compensation deal. The territory is for the ombudsman and a review of the banking code. We are awaiting the independent investigation, but the crucial political question is whether the Government will act in earnest or will sideline the findings of the Cruickshank investigation.
The matter of separate regulation arose. The Conservative party has expressed doubts about including banking in the remit of the Financial Services Authority. The US model, the Securities and Exchange Commission, deals with securities and related industries only. However, the decision has been taken, and it does not permit establishing a separate body that might be called Ofbank. The important question is whether banking regulation will simply combine the roles previously taken by the Bank of England and other central banks, or will be wider. The key to that is a more competitive banking environment.
I look to the US model in this matter. It is not perfect, but the US banking system is more competitive and delivers customer needs better than the system here, and substantially better than the system in continental Europe. I believe that the biggest enemy of banking competition is European Union banking regulation, which retains a major element of support for cartels. This debate also reveals one significant point—the importance of the initiative that the FSA will have in formulating its activities and objectives in the area of banking regulation.
12.18 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): It is a pleasure to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this Adjournment debate. He and other hon. Members have raised important matters, and the debate comes at an opportune moment.
First, I shall outline some of the background themes of this important issue. The financial services industry is one of the UK's success stories, accounting for 7 per cent. of national income and employing more than 1 million people. Increasingly, financial services are a key component of local economies throughout the UK. The work force survey shows that, of the 450,000 extra jobs created over the past year, one in three was in the financial services sector. The message is clear that financial services is a growth industry for many regional centres as well as for the City of London.
238WH
Within the general financial services sector, the UK banking industry plays a central role in the economy. A modern economy depends on effective and efficient relationships between its savers and borrowers and its financial services industry. Firms need the investment that the banking industry provides. They also need the financial markets, on which they can raise the capital that enables them to invest, grow and create jobs.
High levels of innovation, competition and efficiency are vital to an effective banking system and essential for meeting the productivity challenge. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget report in November 1998 a review of the services provided by the United Kingdom banking sector.
The Government had a genuinely open mind on the issue, but a number of concerns have been expressed similar to those articulated so well by my hon. Friend about whether the United Kingdom banking industry fully meets the high levels of competition necessary. The review, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and chaired by Don Cruickshank, was established to examine the innovation, competition and efficiency in various sub-markets of the banking industry, including lending to small and medium-sized enterprises, to compare them with international standards and to consider possible options for change.
Don Cruickshank published his interim report in July last year. He noted that it was crucial to get the right balance between regulatory and competition outcomes if there were to be more innovation, more effective competition and greater efficiency in the United Kingdom banking industry. He added that, in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Government had already taken a significant step forward in tackling the issue, and suggested ways in which it might be taken further.
Don Cruickshank made some specific recommendations. The Financial Services Authority should be responsible for making the trade-off between regulatory and competition outcomes in financial services. To ensure that that happens, the FSA should have a primary competition objective in addition to its regulatory objective. He recommended that the financial services sector should have no unnecessary exclusion from general competition law. The rules should be within the scope of scale or complex monopoly investigations by the Office of Fair Trading or the Competition Commission. The OFT should not be required legally to scrutinise every rule issued by the FSA, but its role of overseeing the financial services sector, including the impact of regulation, should be strengthened. The FSA's rule-making decisions should be open to review in respect of their impact on competition. The final recommendation was that the Competition Commission, not Ministers, should be the final arbiters of the public interest in the scrutiny or review procedures.
The Government considered the interim report very carefully and announced their response on 9 November. We accepted all but one of Don Cruickshank's recommendations, and we shall table amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill to give effect to them in due course. In the remaining area, although we share Don Cruickshank's objective that the FSA should have responsibility for making a trade-off between

239WH
regulatory outcomes, we did not accept his conclusion that giving it a new competition objective would assist it in doing so. Instead, we believed it likely that such a change would confuse the responsibilities of the FSA, as the United Kingdom's prudential financial services regulator, and the roles of the OFT and the Competition Commission, which are responsible for competition regulation in the economy as a whole. We are considering the changes to the Bill that will be necessary to meet the underlying recommendations of Don Cruickshank's review.
In summary, the Government took Don Cruickshank's interim report very seriously. Our response demonstrated our commitment to effective competition in the banking sector. Don Cruickshank said in a statement at the time:
"I welcome the changes the Government proposes to make to the Bill to ensure that markets in financial services are subject to effective competition scrutiny."
I understand that the review team is close to finalising its report, and the Government should receive it in the next couple of months. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned June.
Mr. Flight: By June.
Miss Johnson: I think that that is a generous estimate.
I should like to deal with some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. He referred to the difficulties that some of his constituents have had with the banking sector, and we all sympathise with those problems. That is why the ombudsman proposals are in the Financial Services and Markets Bill and why matters are being dealt with under the FSA's supervision. We need those structures, and we are putting them in place. We recognise that there are issues to be addressed.
My hon. Friend also spoke of the details of the financial services ombudsman scheme as proposed in the Bill. I am grateful for his comments and questions. I understand why some hon. Members have attempted to turn this debate into a detailed discussion of the Bill. They will have further opportunities to do so shortly, but now is not the time. There have already been plenty of opportunities. However, the specific areas mentioned by my hon. Friend are relevant to this debate.
The first recourse for those who have a dispute with a bank or other financial institution is to try and resolve the dispute directly. My hon. Friend described some of the difficulties that occasionally arise when doing so. The banking code emphasises the need for fair dealing, transparency on charges and a willingness to correct errors and handle complaints speedily. The industry has shown a willingness to update the code regularly and to take account of the views of a range of outside bodies, including the current relevant ombudsmen.
240WH
I recognise that it is not always possible to resolve disputes directly; that is why the schemes exist and why, as my hon. Friend is aware, the Financial Services and Markets Bill covers that important issue. Part XV sets out the framework for the operation of the ombudsman scheme, the detailed operation of which will be determined in rules made by the Financial Services Authority. This scheme will replace the existing dispute resolution schemes, including the existing banking ombudsman. It will provide a one-stop shop, which is extremely desirable. The scheme's main purpose is to provide easy access for individual retail consumers to a dispute resolution procedure that is speedy and informal. However, it will be open to the authority to define certain categories of firms as eligible complainants. The FSA is consulting on this; it issued a consultation paper in November last year and is seeking responses by 10 February.
As proposed by the FSA, the scheme would provide a free, simple, informal and accessible alternative to the courts. It would enable eligible customers of the banks to resolve a range of disputes similar to those currently covered. It would, of course, also be statutory and its findings would be binding.
The FSA has proposed that firms should be eligible to use the scheme if they have a turnover of up to £1 million, and no more than four employees. A number of people have commented on the proposals, and my hon. Friend may wish to do so. As for his comments about retrospective compensation, it is worth noting that many of the claims received pre-date the banking code. Some other changes, such as advance notification of charges, have been made since then.
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) that we recognise that there is a trend towards smaller branch networks. We welcome the banks' development of alternative delivery channels. Choice and diversity are important; a number of banking options are open for many people, but not everybody. However, there are now many options that were not previously available. Indeed, a number of banks, including Lloyds TSB, have successfully established links with Post Office Counters Ltd. to ensure that banking is available where there is a post office. The post office network is far more extensive than the banking network and provides a number of other options.
I was concerned to hear how events have developed in Reading and about the lack of consultation. That is not how banks should deal with their customers. I was passed a note offering inducements to have a meeting. I shall consider further the possibility of holding such a meeting. The inducement was that my hon. Friend will love me for ever—it says here. I find that quite tempting—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. On that appropriate note, time is up.

Inner London Housing
12.30 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the opportunity to hold this brief debate. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who looks more like a Minister than I have ever known him to do, and I have known him for a long time. I am glad that he will reply to the debate, because, although the housing problems that he faces in his constituency are different from those in inner London, he has a good understanding of the life of people in inner London. I hope, therefore, that he will have some sympathy over the issues that I shall raise.
I have chosen inner London housing as the subject of the debate because the problems there are different from those in the rest of the country. A vacant housing agency has been set up by the Government. Members of Parliament from north-western and north-eastern constituencies frequently complain about the large number of unlettable council properties in their areas—that is a fairly common phenomenon in that region, and raises specific issues that need to be tackled.
However, the situation in inner London is completely different. Every week, my constituency surgery is full of people with desperate housing problems. Those problems impinge on many other parts of people's lives. We must consider that. Recently, a document jointly produced by the London Housing Unit and the Association of London Government set out starkly how poor quality housing affects people's lives.
I shall not quote the whole document, as that would take up the half-hour allocated for the debate, so I shall deal specifically with educational achievement. Teachers in any inner London primary or secondary school will tell us that children living in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation, or grossly overcrowded council accommodation, suffer in many ways. They suffer because they do not have their own bedroom—something that all of us would want for our children—so they cannot do their homework and keep up with other children.
If a child has to share a bedroom with a couple of brothers or sisters, that is extremely unhealthy—especially for older children. Furthermore—on a practical matter—if one child is ill, all the children become ill. In an overcrowded household, the incidence of cross-infection is much higher than elsewhere. If children do not have their own bedroom, where can they do their homework? Homework clubs are fine; they are wonderful, I welcome and support them. However, children should be able to do their homework in their own home and in their own time. That is important.
Truancy rates are higher among children who live in overcrowded accommodation. Often their parents are much poorer. Increasingly, London is becoming a two-class society. In any primary school, one can see which kids have computers and good housing and who are achieving in school. One can also see children who are equally as bright, enthusiastic and intelligent, but do not have computers at home and do not have the same facilities as others. We owe it to our children to ensure that they have decent housing.
242WH
If I might migrate slightly—from the school to the doctor's surgery, or to the local hospital—we can consider the incidence of notifiable diseases and serious health problems, such as bronchial pneumonia. One can often trace those problems straight back to housing. My general practitioner, who works in my constituency, asked me, only half joking, "Why don't we swap surgeries one week, because we're seeing the same people?" Their real problem is not health, but poverty and housing. My GP told me to do my best to improve their housing and he would do his best to improve their health. However, the two matters are closely linked. If one takes into account such matters as the nutrition of people who live in poor quality housing, one can see the whole pattern.
In the attitudes of many of our young people—those in their mid-teens and older youths—towards education and life in general, I detect a sense of anger and dislocation, and a lack of belonging, because they have not had the same opportunities as others. That can often be traced back to inadequate housing. There is no lack of love on the part of their parents, nor a lack of desire to keep the family together. Their main problems are economic and are to do with housing. That is what we must try to tackle.
In inner London overall, there is a serious shortfall of housing.
Mr. Tony Colman: Does my hon. Friend agree that that has been especially exacerbated in Tory-controlled Wandsworth? There, the situation is much worse, because the council has sold a large quantity of its social housing stock to people outside the housing waiting list, as part of its continued mad idea that such housing is not needed. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to be able to haul in Wandsworth council to try to stop that process, given the inner London housing crisis that he so eloquently describes?
Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which he made at just the right time; I was about to refer to the sale of council properties.
Last Sunday, on "Crosstalk", I debated poverty in London with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). She held up Westminster and Wandsworth as paragons of virtue. I pointed out that both those authorities, where a significant number of extremely poor people live in substandard accommodation, had been involved not only in the legal sale of council housing, which local authorities are forced to undertake under the right to buy legislation, but had engaged in the wholesale removal from the social register of council tenants and council properties, and had exported their homeless people to other far-flung boroughs. That issue must be examined.
I entirely accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. I hope that the Minister will ask those two authorities—especially Wandsworth—what they are doing by continuing that policy of disposing of empty publicly owned buildings. There is a big difference between that and the sale of housing to existing tenants under the right to buy.
The Housing Corporation, which funds the construction of buildings by housing associations, has constantly had its funding cut. That has not occurred

243WH
only under the Labour Government; it is part of a long continuum whereby the corporation's capital allocation has been reduced and it must rely increasingly on the private sector for funding. That leads to a disparity between the rents in housing association and local authority properties. That is a serious matter.
If a tenant receives housing benefit, the rent disparity does not make much difference. However, when tenants are trying to find a job, it makes an enormous difference. If they find a job and live in a housing association property with a lower rent than a council property, the gap between being on benefit and working is more favourable than it would be if their property had a high rent—a positive disincentive is created. That matter must be considered.
The total number in the queue for affordable housing in London is about 178,000—an enormous figure. In my own borough, the number is 12,000, of whom several hundred are on the priority list at any one time. That figure masks many inequities and inequalities. To get on to the housing waiting list, it is not just a matter of going to the town hall, the council office or—in my borough—the neighbourhood office and putting oneself on the list. People are included on the list only if they are in significant housing need and if they are not single. Single people, who have no particular medical problems and no requirement to support anyone else, do not go on to the housing list. The number of people in housing need is thus much higher than that figure of 178,000.
When my hon. Friend the Minister examines housing statistics, as he obviously does, will he reconsider the problems that are faced by single people? I give hon. Members an example. A week ago, a single man visited my advice surgery; he explained, reasonably, his housing problems and said that he was trying to find a job. He is due to attend various interviews, so hopefully he will be successful. However, he cannot find anywhere to live because he cannot afford any privately rented accommodation locally. He would be eligible for housing benefit if he could find private accommodation, but he cannot raise the deposit. He is being asked for deposits of more than £1,000 to rent a small flat in the borough of Islington; there is no way that he can raise that.
Either we must consider introducing rent controls in the private sector or we must look at the role of the Department of Social Security in helping to support people in raising a deposit for a privately rented flat. Many single people simply cannot raise the large amount needed for a deposit, and therefore cannot move into a privately rented flat. Meanwhile, landlords increasingly say that they are not interested in people who are on benefit. It is a vicious circle that must be looked at.
Rented accommodation is only part of the issue. Home ownership in London also features in the equation. In the great scheme of things, London certainly has a much higher proportion of council-owned or housing association-owned property than does the south-east as a whole, or, probably, most of the country outside the great industrial cities of the midlands and the north, but house prices are very high. People who own property in London are seen to be on a ladder to permanent wealth, and permanent growth in that wealth.
244WH
However, in the borough that I represent, which is not very different from the rest of inner London, prices are rising very rapidly. In my borough, it would cost about £150,000—sometimes as much as £200,000—to buy a one-bedroom flat for single person or a couple.
The cheapest flat that I have seen on sale anywhere in my borough recently was £80,000. Out of curiosity, I went to look at it. It had one bedroom, a living room-kitchen-diner in one room and a very small bathroom, and was on the second floor of a four-storey Victorian building on Holloway road, above a shop. Holloway road is a major road, by any stretch of the imagination. The flat had been well cared for by the current owner, but it was still priced at more than £80,000—for a very small flat where no one could think of bringing up children in a normal way.
The long-term effect of the very rapidly rising prices in inner London is that if a family in housing need cannot get on to the housing list and therefore cannot be nominated to a housing association property or a council property, they must rent privately—for which they need to raise a large deposit and in which they have no long-term guarantee of tenure—or buy, or move out of the borough.
Throughout inner London—Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth and Lewisham—we are witnessing a rapid migration out of people on average or below average income and a rapid migration in of desperately homeless people who are housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and often wait a very long time to get any housing, and of wealthier people. London will rue the day that it turned its back on the social housing needs of its people, because we shall end up with an extremely polarised city.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge several factors. I have mentioned the problems of housing and inadequate housing, but many people are completely homeless. Some of them sleep on the streets and rely on hostels for a secure roof over their head for as many nights as possible, and some are trying to bring up children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which is even worse than bringing them up in substandard housing.
We must look for solutions. In the 1970s and early 1980s, I was a local councillor on Haringey council. I recall with great pride the year that our borough managed to provide 1,000 new dwellings. We were very proud of our achievement. Many of those dwellings were of high quality. We were trying to build homes with gardens—places that any of us would want to live in.
After the election of the Conservative Government in 1979, the provision of new dwellings dwindled to almost nothing as a result of the cutting off of funds with which local authorities could build, the denial of local authorities' right to borrow in order to build, the encouragement of a limited number of housing association developments and, increasingly, the private funding of housing associations. Indeed, in answer to a parliamentary question that I asked last year, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions told me that, in one year, the total number of new dwellings for social renting in my borough was only 205. We need far more, as does every other inner London borough.

245WH
For solutions, I refer the Minister to a valuable document called "Homelessness in London—a way out" produced jointly by the London Housing Unit and the Association of London Government. Under the heading "Immediate action", it calls for:
"The acquisition—over a three-year period—of 15,000 existing homes, at an estimated total cost of £497m a year. The total public sector grant would be around £1.2b over a three year period, of which 10 per cent. would be met by the boroughs, £50m from the discretionary element of current ADP and the remainder … from additional ADP."
The rest would have to be raised from other sources.
The document also calls for
"A further increase to the current cost limits for 'existing satisfactory property' and 'purchase and repair' categories.
An increase to the notional weighting given to the new homelessness indicator in the housing capital resource allocation formula.
The provision of central Government revenue support for net costs of homelessness falling to the General Fund."
The document then talks about
"new measures to be taken in the medium term to prevent homelessness occurring; such as improvements to the housing benefit system, boosting the housing advice service, improving standards in the private rented sector."
Essentially, my plea to the Minister is that unless there is a significant increase in public sector investment in good-quality housing in inner London, the situation will not even mark time; it will get worse. Since the Government were elected, in May 1997, we have welcomed the release of capital receipts, the considerable amount that is being spent on the enormous backlog of housing repair, and the improvements to estates. In my borough, there is a repair backlog of £500 million. The repairs cannot all be done in one year; we are doing our best to deal with them. I hope that the declaration of a single regeneration budget area around Finsbury Park will further increase expenditure on housing.
However, better running, better administration and better improvement to existing stock do not solve the problem. The fact that the Government quite often insist on mixed developments and allow large amounts of private sector developments on land that was formerly in the public sector does nothing to fulfil the needs of the worst-off people in our society. I ask the Minister to consider very seriously increasing capital investment for local authority and housing association properties in inner London.
I mentioned housing benefit a couple of times, because it is important in many people's lives. In the early 1980s, housing benefit was given to local authorities to administer. They did not want to administer it, and indeed are penalised for doing so. In my borough, the administration has now been contracted out to a company called IT Net, largely because the council—in common with Hackney and many other boroughs—could not afford the capital necessary to invest in a new computer system.
The administration of housing benefit is appalling by any standards. Serious grief is caused. People visit me who are in desperate straits, threatened with eviction by private sector landlords because they are in arrears with their rent because housing benefit has not been paid.
246WH
Others are being threatened by eviction by the local authority for being in arrears, when they are not really in arrears; it is an administrative problem.
I hope that, in monitoring the performance of the administration of housing benefit throughout the country—obviously, in the context of the debate, including London—the Minister will take note of those companies that are making a great deal of money from housing benefit but delivering an appalling service. I hope that he will take note of the vast profits that are being made by bed-and-breakfast landlords, who are getting fat on housing benefit while providing appalling housing. We need to take a serious look at the housing benefit system and perhaps invest more in bricks and mortar than in private sector landlords.
We ended the 20th century with great bangs, great fireworks and great hopes for this century. I hoped that we would have a slightly more social objective towards the start of this century. It cannot be right that, in inner London, the divisions between rich and poor are so big, and getting bigger. It cannot be right that so many children are growing up in inadequate accommodation. It cannot be right that market forces are driving the poor out of inner London and forcing the remainder to live in substandard private rented accommodation.
We must make a real effort to improve the housing conditions of the poorest people in this city. That problem can best be tackled in the way that it was tackled in the 19th century by great social reformers, such as Annie Besant, and by the London county council and many local authorities in the great building boom after the second world war. They built property for affordable rent, to give secure homes to people who would otherwise be denied them. If we deny our young people decent quality housing, we shall deny them many other things in life. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to recognise those needs and to provide us with the investment that we need to improve housing conditions in inner London.
12.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): In his forceful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has raised many important issues. However, he has left me only nine minutes in which to respond to his many questions.
Mr. Corbyn: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.
Mr. Mullin: At the outset, I shall address one or two of the points that my hon. Friend made. However, I may have to write to him to reply to his other questions.
My hon. Friend is right. Before I moved to Sunderland in 1985, I lived in inner London for many years. I am familiar at first hand with some of the problems that he described.
My hon. Friend mentioned the special difficulties that single people have in getting on to housing waiting lists. He is right to say that it is a serious problem, but I am aware of several schemes to deal with it. The Peabody Trust has a scheme in Hackney to help single people into housing and the Bart's and Royal London trust has a similar scheme for its employees. Those schemes are

247WH
aimed primarily at finding key workers somewhere reasonable to live, but we would like to see more of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned the position in Wandsworth and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North referred to Wandsworth and Westminster where local authorities have taken the irresponsible line of selling social housing stock and pushing the problems that they should deal with into neighbouring boroughs. That is regrettable and my officials are in an on-going dialogue with Wandsworth on that and other issues.
My hon. Friend mentioned resources. It is quite right that resources lie at the root of dealing with the huge problems that we face. However, I am sure that he accepts that it is not just a question of resources. He and I have lived in inner London for long periods and will have noticed the extraordinary incompetence and inefficiency that has occurred in some London boroughs over the years. I am glad to say that the position is getting better. We are putting much pressure on local authorities to improve their performance, and many of them have. I launched the best value housing programme this morning. I hope that it will also provide an incentive for local authorities to improve their performance. I am well aware, as my hon. Friend will be, that one can pour good money after bad. Therefore, we want the many extra resources that we are making available to be spent properly.
My hon. Friend referred to the homeless. As he will know, we are putting £200 million into a programme to help with rough sleeping. Given the constituency that he represents, I am sure that the extra pressure that asylum seekers put on housing is on his mind. He will know that we are taking steps to move asylum seekers to those parts of the country where there is no shortage of accommodation. Sunderland, the area that I represent, is for the first time accommodating asylum seekers in some of our surplus houses.
My hon. Friend referred to the Association of London Government document. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has already met representatives of the association to discuss its initiative and he is due to meet them again next month.
Let me make it clear from the outset that the Government are acutely aware of the difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has described. We are determined to do everything that we can to meet the challenge. Our aim is to ensure that everyone has a decent roof over his head and lives in sustainable communities.
The present situation in inner London is the result of several complex factors that cannot be resolved overnight. In the same way, we believe that the solution lies not in one or two high-profile central Government initiatives. A more holistic approach is called for that involves a number of linked activities in a partnership of the private, public and voluntary sectors.
The Government have already taken significant steps to improve the quality and increase the supply of affordable housing in the capital. We are involved in a massive investment programme to raise the quality and quantity of social housing in London. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, an additional £5 billion of capital receipts will have been made available nationally to
248WH
build new homes and to rehabilitate old ones. About a third of that money will go to London, reflecting the high level of need that we know exists in the capital.
As part of that support, we recently announced a £613 million package of capital resources for investment by London boroughs in the current financial year. That represents a 54 per cent. increase over the previous year and accords with spending plans arising from the comprehensive spending review. Of this, more than £400 million will go to inner London authorities. Although some authorities will want to use the money for repairs to their own stock, others will want to prioritise new supply initiatives to ease the pressures on homelessness and families in temporary accommodation.
As I said, we are keen to ensure that the extra resources are spent wisely. For that reason, the housing investment programme allocations are made not on the basis of need alone, but on the quality of authorities' housing strategies and their performance in delivering housing services. That has proved a great incentive for the London boroughs to make real efforts to improve the services that they provide to their tenants and residents. I was pleased to see that, for example, my hon. Friend's local authority, Islington, made significant progress last year and that is to some extent reflected in its award of £28.5 million for the current financial year—an increase of more than 57 per cent. on what it received previously.
Most housing authorities in London are gradually improving their standards of performance, but there are still areas where some could do better. Indeed, some local authorities—I could name them but I will not—have only recently worked out which houses they own and which they do not. We are determined that local authorities should deliver high quality, efficient services that are responsive to the needs and aspirations of local people. That is why we are introducing the best value framework that I mentioned earlier. It will start on 1 April. Housing, as one of the key local authority services, is of prime importance. The new housing inspectorate, which is part of the Audit Commission, will not only act as an independent scrutineer of local authority housing services, but will assist and support authorities to build long-term strategies and tackle service failure where it occurs.
The proposed single pot for housing, also due to be implemented next year, will give London boroughs greater flexibility on deciding their own spending priorities. It will be up to each borough to decide on the balance between investing in its own stock and in new supply. I am confident that the boroughs will take full advantage of the opportunity.
The comprehensive spending review confirmed the continuation of the Housing Corporation's development programme. We have reversed the decline in funding and it will now increase in line with inflation. In the next financial year, we shall invest £276 million in London.
London's supply of land is limited, leading to an imbalance between supply and demand, so one of our main themes is to make more efficient use of existing urban land. The publication of the report of the urban task force has given greater impetus to making urban

249WH
areas in inner London and elsewhere more attractive places to live. Over time, that will help to relieve the pressures on the capital's housing stock.
We must not underestimate the contribution that the planning system makes to the supply of affordable homes in London. That is why the Government give strong encouragement to local authorities to use existing planning powers to insist that developers provide affordable housing in new developments. London boroughs reported that 2,650 homes were secured through planning policy in 1998–99 and many more are in the pipeline. Taken together with more than 15 million of developer contributions in lieu of on-site provision, the planning system makes a real contribution to increasing the supply of affordable housing. My colleagues and I are keen to encourage good practice and I am confident that the planning system could be used to better effect to deliver even more affordable homes.
As I made clear at the outset, I did not have sufficient time to respond to all the points in my hon. Friend's speech. I shall study it and, if there are points that I have not answered, I shall write to him. I thank him for raising this important issue.

Airborne Forces (Pegasus Symbol)
1 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to raise the issue of the Pegasus symbol and airborne forces in this short debate. I am particularly grateful for the presence of the entire Conservative Front-Bench shadow defence team. Another Conservative Member who would very much have liked to be here is my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who has taken a close interest in this matter, but who is unavoidably on a Select Committee visit to the Netherlands. My hon. Friend has, however, left me a copy of a publication which is one of his prized possessions. It is a venerable, official history of British airborne divisions, entitled "By Air to Battle". Typically, because the Pegasus symbol is directly identified with anything to do with the airborne forces, that symbol adorns the front cover of the publication.
My hon. Friend particularly drew my attention to the part of the publication that refers to members of the airborne forces being honoured in December 1944 at a special investiture held in Buckingham palace. It says:
"Each officer and man of these … divisions wears upon his shoulder the badge of Pegasus, the winged horse and its rider, brandishing a lance. As an emblem it is singularly appropriate, and whenever the citizens of Britain catch sight of it, they may perhaps call to mind that other horse which, long ago, it is said, brought armed men into the city of Troy—the vanguard of a victorious army."
To have an entire debate about insignia might seem to exaggerate the importance of such symbolism, but, when we consider it in contexts other than the military, we know that that is not the case. Only today, the papers are full of the argument about the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and no doubt part of that will be the question of what signs, badges and insignia will in future represent that police force.
When one looks at any publication dealing with events in the history of the airborne forces, such as the account of the battle of Arnhem in Martin Middlebrook's definitive version that I have here, it is always Pegasus that illustrates its cover because Pegasus is the brand name that is inextricably bound up in the public mind with the image, the record and the heroism of the airborne forces. It is astonishing that the symbol should have been scrapped when it is so well known.
I am concerned about that matter because I view it not in isolation, but as part of a continuum. I have been noting with dismay a succession of events that have been chipping away at service morale and the military ethos. As I customarily do in these debates, I have taken the trouble to tell the Minister in advance nearly all the points that I intend to make today.
The Minister knows of my concern that, all too often, senior serving military personnel are being pushed forward by politicians into debates, to take the flak and to justify and try to excuse controversial decisions made by politicians. That is not good for the forces; it is not good for the impartiality of serving personnel, and it is imposing too much on military chiefs who have to put on a brave face when confronted by unpalatable decisions.

251WH
Politicians have a habit of showing spite to those who embarrass them. That is as true of the military field as it is anywhere else. I am old enough to remember the case of Colonel Colin Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who was deployed in Aden in the 1960s, when Harold Wilson had announced that it was not possible or viable to continue to maintain British control there.
Colonel Mitchell, on his own initiative, showed by his successful activities in Crater and the Radfan mountains that it was entirely practicable to do so. I believed then, as I do now, that it was no coincidence that, within a very few years, a Labour Government were hell-bent on destroying his regiment, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
I shall touch briefly on other examples before I return to Pegasus itself. The first is the Berlin airlift, which was commemorated in a number of ways in this country. However, unlike in other countries, no commemorative stamps were issued here last year to mark the 50th anniversary of that successful key moment in the cold war. I have a particular interest because my constituent, Mrs. Jessamy Waite, is the widow of Air Commodore Rex Waite, the RAF officer who conceived the practicability of the Berlin airlift.
On 6 April 1998, in a parliamentary question, I asked:
"Will the Minister consider the representations of the British Berlin Airlift Association, which wants the Royal Mail to issue a commemorative stamp to mark that crucial turning point in the war? That suggestion has so far been given a idle brush-off."
The Minister for the Armed Forces was then merely the Under-Secretary. He replied with his usual insouciance:
"I cannot accept that. I have had discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry, which as the sponsoring Department, is discussing this matter with the Post Office."—[Official Report, 6 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 13–14.]
Sadly, those discussions were unavailing and no stamp appeared.
Subsequently, when I was in Germany, I saw the German postal 50-year anniversary cover of what they call the Luftbrücke, the aerial bridge. That followed the stamp that Germany had issued for the 40th anniversary, which followed a stamp to commemorate the 25th anniversary. It is sad that the Germans have a better appreciation of what the RAF did than does the British Post Office, whatever representations the Ministry of Defence managed to make to it.
The second example is the changing-over of the long-term volunteer reserve decorations, known as the RD and the TD. In March 1999, those gave way to a combined long service decoration for reserve forces, which is applicable to all ranks. As someone who never got above the lower deck in the Royal Naval Reserve, I welcome that change.
I do not, however, welcome the fact that, whereas previously officers had the incentive to stay on and work hard for 10 years to put the letters RD and TD after their name, that incentive has now disappeared. Instead of entitling officers and other ranks to have those letters after their name, the change ensures that nobody now has those letters after their name, except those who were awarded the decoration before the end of March 1999.
The next example is the royal tournament. Almost by stealth, and certainly without any major public debate, more than 100 years of history were scrapped virtually
252WH
without notice. The first that most people knew about the loss of the tournament was that it was a fait accompli. When one looked at the royal tournament website, one read the following announcement:
"The Royal Tournament will run from 20th July to 2nd August 1999. It will be a show that will live on in your memory, make its mark in history and make you proud of our heritage. This is the year you must not miss. You will not see its like again."
You can say that again.
What did the MOD have to say about that? Mr. George Robertson, who was then Secretary of State, issued a press release in which he said that
"it is timely for us to take a fresh look at this event … A number of alternatives are under consideration for this tri-service contribution to the year 2000"—
he was referring to the tournament's successor. He continued:
"A study team is currently examining how to modernise the permanent annual tournament after this millennium spectacular has completed."
That press release makes it quite obvious that the Government had no clear idea of what they wanted to put in place of the royal tournament; all they knew was that they wanted to get rid of an established and historic institution.
I revert now to the question of Pegasus and the airborne forces. In the early hours—at about a quarter past midnight—on the night of 5–6 June 1944, three gliders landed at the foot of a bridge over the Caen canal. In one of those gliders was a friend of mine, Mr. Bill Jolliffe, who was then a sergeant-major. He was a quiet, unassuming man, whom I met on what turned out to be his last trip to visit the grave in Normandy of his brother, who had been killed 10 days into the battle. Bill is not able to tell us what he thinks of the abolition of the Pegasus symbol, but one of my constituents, Mr. Bill Cornick, who is now 82, was in the second wave of gliders that landed during D-day itself. He has written to me, saying:
"How can those who have not served understand the morale-boosting effect the right to wear such insignia has upon soldiers? Arguably this is the driving force which makes men rise to efforts seemingly impossible, like all those things which go to make the individual think that his unit is the best. It's part of man management."
That is the voice of a veteran, but what do ordinary serving soldiers think about the loss of the insignia? I offer a couple of quotations from the comments of serving soldiers that were published in a service magazine. I shall identify neither the soldiers nor the magazine, in case Alastair Campbell gets to work on them. One states:
"I think it is disgraceful. I would be upset if the REME"—
the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, of which he is a member—
"got amalgamated, which is one of the worst things, but to have something your parents and grandparents earned taken away must be heartbreaking. People died for that badge."
Another says:
"Each unit needs an identity so I feel they should keep it. It gives them a sense of the past and the endeavours of those who went before them. There are too many changes going on around the Army."

253WH
A third says:
"I don't think they should scrap the Pegasus; perhaps the whole air mobile force should keep it as their emblem. I don't know if the Paras would like that, but it is one way to keep it. It would keep everyone happy, I think."
He is absolutely right—that would be the sensible solution.
In August, I wrote to the Minister about the issue. The second paragraph of his reply of 1 September appeared to be contradicted by the fourth. The second paragraph states:
"The emblem of Bellerophon astride Pegasus was introduced in 1941 for all elements of the Airborne Forces"—
I emphasise, all elements—
"which during World War II included the Parachute Regiment, the Glider Pilot Regiment"—
we know that from my account of the glider attack on the bridge that later become known as Pegasus bridge—
"the SAS, and all within the WW II Army Air Corps."
However, the fourth paragraph states:
"The reason why this emblem has not been incorporated into the new 16 Air Assault Brigade badge is that the parachute element of this new Brigade is only one of the two constituent parts—the other being the aviation or airmobile element".
That argument is undermined by the second paragraph, which states that the symbol has, in the past, been used far more widely than just by the Parachute regiment.
The change in insignia, like the scrapping of the royal tournament before Ministers had any idea of what would be put in its place, is rooted in a word that we hear all too often from new Labour—modernisation. New Labour means Labour without socialism and modernisation in the armed forces means the armed forces without their history. The problem is that the Government have no sense of history, no sense of military morale and, apparently, no sense of the value of the Pegasus symbol as a brand synonymous in the public mind with the concept of airborne forces.
I conclude by referring to one of my frequent visits to Arnhem—I have friends who live close by—made in September of last year, the 55th anniversary of the battle. I have here three photographs taken during that visit. The first shows the sign erected over the road leading toward Oosterbeek cemetery: it says, in Dutch and in English, "Welcome veterans", and silhouetted against the sky line is Pegasus, selected from all the signs that might have been chosen. The second photograph is that of a veteran in a period Land Rover: he is wearing his red beret and his Parachute regiment badge—the Minister will, no doubt, assure us that those are not to disappear; yet his tie is covered with the symbol of Pegasus.
The final photograph is of two wreaths, side by side on the memorial in the Airborne cemetery in Oosterbeek. One represents the British Legion: the card reads, "Lest we forget". The other represents the airborne forces: at the heart of it is the Pegasus symbol. By their despicable action, the Government and the Ministry of Defence have ensured that it is far more likely that we shall forget what we owe to the airborne forces of the United Kingdom.
1.16 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for the opportunity to explain the Army's decision not to incorporate the Pegasus emblem in the new 16 Air Assault Brigade badge; and to explain the Government's position on that issue. I am also grateful to him for having previously told me about some of his broader concerns; I hope to deal with them as well. I believe that he is trying to construct an over-developed edifice on some pretty shaky foundations—it must have something to do with his experience of the Oxford school of philosophy.
It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House if I begin by correcting a widely held assumption, expressed by the hon. Gentleman during our lengthy correspondence, that the Bellerophon or Pegasus symbol is the badge of the Parachute Regiment. It is not, and never has been, specific to the Parachute Regiment. The only badge specific to the Parachute Regiment is the regimental cap badge, approved by the sovereign, which depicts a pair of outspread wings with an open parachute in the centre surmounted by the royal crest. That badge was designed to reflect the operational role of the Parachute regiment. It is not the same as the Bellerophon insignia, and it remains the cap badge of the Parachute regiment today.
The popular, and widely recognised, emblem of Bellerophon astride Pegasus was introduced in 1942 for all elements of the airborne forces. During the second world war, they included the Parachute Regiment, the Glider Pilot Regiment and the Special Air Service. Therefore, it was a specific to arm insignia, as the formation flash of the 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions; it was not a regimental badge. In the post-war period, the emblem was used as a formation insignia in airborne formations, including 6 Airborne Division, 16 Parachute Brigade and 44 Parachute Brigade (Volunteers). I reiterate that the Bellerophon design was not specific to the Parachute Regiment, but was used by the formation as a whole to reflect its inclusion of airborne elements.
The Bellerophon badge has, in recent years, been worn as the combat insignia of 5 Airborne Brigade. It was worn by all brigade members, including logistics staff, engineers, signallers and non-parachute-trained infantry battalions. Equally, it has not been worn by parachute battalions when employed outside the 5th Airborne Brigade. However, the Ministry of Defence and I appreciate fully the significant level of attachment that many feel towards the emblem. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the decision to discontinue use of the Bellerophon emblem was not taken lightly, or without full and careful consideration of all the facts.
I remind the House that 16 Air Assault Brigade also includes the units of the former 24 Air Mobile Brigade, whose winged emblem, called a heraldic pinion, is also being discontinued. That badge has an equally long and illustrious history, having been used originally as the insignia of 24 Guards Independent Infantry Brigade from 1940 to 1947. It is reputed that this was the personal crest of Brigadier "Boy" Browning, who gave it to the brigade when he was its commander. The emblem has been used variously by several infantry and aviation formations over the intervening years.

255WH
The newly formed 16 Air Assault Brigade is one of the most powerful brigade-sized formations in Europe, and the most powerful air-manoeuvrable fighting unit in Britain's history—a history of which we are all justly proud. It is made up of two discrete parts; one is the parachute element, deploying from the air, and the other is the aviation or airmobile element, which will engage in battle from the air. The brigade will comprise 16 different units. In addition to the infantry and Army Air Corps elements, there will be units from the Royal Artillery, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and Royal Logistic Corps, to name but a few.
This exciting new force, with its inherent versatility and flexibility, will dramatically change the way in which we respond to crises throughout the world. The introduction of the Apache helicopter during the year will further enhance the brigade's assault power.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that, somehow, the military was being asked to ratify decisions made by civilians and by Ministers. I stress that there was a recommendation to Ministers from the Army. It is their judgment, given the circumstances that I have described, that the new formation needed its own symbol to reflect its new and unique identity, with which all its members will be able to identify in future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the badge that has been decided upon for the new 16 Air Assault Brigade is a symbolic design of a striking eagle. However, in keeping with tradition, the new emblem incorporates both light blue for the aviation element and maroon for the airborne heritage.
I understand that many people will regard the passing of 5 Airborne and 24 Air Mobile Brigades, remembering, as well detailed by the hon. Gentleman, their achievements and rich traditions. We have not lost sight of the contribution that they have made to Britain's armed forces. However, the new brigade will reinforce the role that airborne forces play in carrying out our defence mission. I reassure the House that there is no question of the specific and unique identity of the Parachute Regiment or any other regiment being lost as a result of the formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, or the discontinuance of the Bellerophon emblem. The identity of the regiment will continue to be represented by its winged regimental badge, which is worn on its famous maroon berets. The regimental magazine of the regiment will maintain the link by retaining the Pegasus title.
In addition, the Pegasus trophy will continue to be awarded each year by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the unit that is deemed to have done the most to enhance the reputation of the airborne forces. The Pegasus symbol will be retained by a number of organisations, including the airborne forces charities, Friends of Airborne Forces, the airborne forces security fund, Airborne Brotherhood and the Airborne Forces museum.
The hon. Gentleman and the House, including the many Members who have written to the Government on this subject on behalf of their constituents, can be assured that the Pegasus symbol, and all the history and tradition that it represents, will continue to be an instantly recognisable symbol of the airborne forces, both past and present.
The hon. Gentleman raised other items in trying to construct the thesis of disregard for our history. I resent that, because we are alert to the issues and traditions of
256WH
our armed forces and the important part that they play in maintaining the cohesion and operational effectiveness of our forces.
We made a significant contribution to the celebration of the courage of those who took part in the Berlin airlift and the success of a remarkable operation. The Royal Mail had responsibility for this. It considered the issuing of a commemorative stamp, but decided that it was unable to do so as it was focusing on a millennium theme in 1999. As the hon. Gentleman kindly pointed out, I made significant representations to the Royal Mail and to the Department of Trade and Industry on the matter. As they work on fairly lengthy time scales, the initiating process should probably have taken place under a previous Administration. However, the airlift was commemorated by the production of a commemorative label and a philatelic medallic cover.
Further, Royal Air Force bands participated in the traditional wreath-laying ceremony and at various concerts. The Queen's Colours Squadron and aircraft from squadrons associated with the airlift participated in events and ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the start of the airlift.
We had to face the real issue of the level of commitment of manpower by the services to the Royal Tournament and the reduction year on year of attendances, which led to a series of losses. The field-gun competition was the subject of some correspondence from hon. Members. Of the 30,000 man days that were taken up by the tournament, about 16,000 were taken up by the naval field-gun competition. The event had significant audience loyalty, and it continues to be held in special regard by those who participated in it. Frankly, however, it was no longer representative of the Royal Navy and its contemporary activities. In practical terms, it led to considerable pressure on other members of the Royal Navy, who were having to fill gaps created by those who were able to participate in the event.
Dr. Julian Lewis: That beggars belief. Of course the Royal Tournament took up a large proportion of the Navy's resources. However, the field-gun competition was synonymous with the Royal Tournament, just as Pegasus is synonymous with airborne forces. I find it incredible that the Labour party is suggesting that people cannot see the value of these symbolisms.
Mr. Spellar: The reality is that, within the Royal Navy, many individuals were having to be devoted to the event. That was putting pressure on other members of the service when, I reiterate, attendances at the tournament were declining, which led to the making of losses. The purposes of the tournament were to provide a shop window for the armed forces, to enable people to associate with them and to generate money for service charities.
We considered how the situation could be improved, We were mindful of the significant attachment to the tradition represented by the tournament. That is why the Royal military tattoo of 2000 will be the armed forces' flagship contribution to the nation's millennium celebrations, with a theme of defence of the realm past, present and future. It will take place against the spectacular and historic backdrop of Horse Guards in July, with a performance on six evenings. It will combine

257WH
the most imaginative staging, state-of-the-art technology, pageantry, son et lumière, lasers, fireworks and the world's largest mobile video screen. It will provide a worthy showcase for the men and women who make up Britain's armed forces. [Interruption.] I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman finds that amusing.
We will not lose sight of the fact that the armed forces have played a significant and integral part in our history. They continue to play their part on the world stage, and will continue to do so in future. The military tattoo will demonstrate that to the country and to the wider world.
In parallel, an annual defence event will be held during the summer outside London—it is important that we get away from London in many instances—at different locations each year. This will be based, where possible, on a successful single service event to minimise the resource implications, and the services will take it in turn to lead on the event.
I am pleased to say that the first of these events will be held in Portsmouth in 2001, with the Royal Navy in the lead, and will be linked to the popular international festival of the sea. We intend that both the location and the content of these regional events will enable the armed forces to showcase their equipment and demonstrate their capability in an exciting and modern way, including hands-on public participation, which was not possible in the royal tournament.
Our armed forces are steeped in history and tradition, of which they are justifiably proud and which contribute to operational effectiveness and to our sense of identity as a nation. Our armed forces have never stood still, and that is one of their enduring strengths. These matters must continue to be judged on their merits and on the way in which they serve the country and the armed services.

Hadley Wood (Parkway Station)
1.30 pm
Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a major issue of local concern in my constituency, and one that raises questions of wider regional and national importance. I am especially pleased to have this, my first debate, in the new Westminster Hall. I am a member of the Modernisation Committee and a strong supporter of the experiment.
One of the reasons that the Committee proposed the Westminster Hall experiment was to provide increased opportunities for Back-Bench Members and Select Committees to have issues debated. The topic that I bring before the Chamber today is one that I have attempted to bring before the House for some time under the traditional Adjournment debate procedure. This is my second attempt to bring it to Westminster Hall, and I am delighted to have succeeded so speedily.
I am grateful to all those who assisted me in my preparations for today's debate, in particular the Hadley Wood Association, a number of whose members are present for the debate; the Council for the Protection of Rural England; the Railway Development Society; and several of the affected local authorities, most notably Hertfordshire, Hertsmere and Stevenage councils.
Transport is clearly a key policy challenge for our Parliament, Government and country. There is wide support in my constituency for the Government's transport policy objectives—to reduce congestion, to enhance the environment and reduce pollution, to foster a shift to greater use of public transport and to promote greater integration between different modes of transport, including between road and rail.
As part of this policy development, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published in July 1998 "The Future Strategy for the M25", which takes a strategic look at the future of that road. In that document, DETR states:
"Among the issues to be addressed … will be the scope for … park and ride facilities near the motorway".
I recognise, as do my constituents, that parkway stations can play a positive and productive part in transport policy, but that an overall view needs to be taken about proposed locations which considers the benefits as well as the drawbacks, in terms of both transport and the environment. Over the past year, new parkway stations have been opened at Luton airport and, last May, at Horwich in Bolton, and they have brought many benefits to those areas. Parkways can work where the location is appropriate.
Great North Eastern Railway has expressed a wish to create three new parkway stations—one north of London close to the M25, one close to Edinburgh and one in Doncaster.
Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising such an important matter on behalf of the residents of Hadley Wood. Does he agree that in transport planning, GNER must be sensitive to local residents and local circumstances? In my constituency a new parkway station is planned, which I believe will

259WH
bring enormous benefits to villages such as Rossington and Finningley, but it must be integrated into the local transport infrastructure. An area such as Doncaster could benefit tremendously, but GNER must be mindful of other partners to ensure the best outcome for all concerned.
Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Later in my speech, I shall deal with a more appropriate location for the proposed parkway north of London. I am well aware of the benefits that can be gained, but also of the great importance of proper public consultation and involvement.
My understanding is that GNER's preferred site for the parkway station north of London is on land immediately adjacent to Hadley Wood. According to GNER, the aim of the new station would be, first, to encourage north London residents to drive out to Hadley Wood, rather than going into central London to pick up their trains, and secondly, to encourage drivers in the area north-east of London and in Kent to drive around the M25 to Hadley Wood, rather than taking the train into central London and going to King's Cross by underground or other forms of public transport.
The proposed site is greenbelt land in the borough of Hertsmere, although most of the affected residents live in the borough of Enfield in my constituency. GNER has not submitted a formal planning application because it is awaiting the outcome of the process of renegotiation of franchises, and has stated that it will not submit such an application until that process is complete.
I am opposed to the siting of a parkway station in Hadley Wood for three main reasons—first, the effect on the green belt; secondly, the impact on the local infrastructure in my constituency; and thirdly, the wider consequences for transport policy in outer north London and Hertfordshire.
The green belt was one of the finest achievements of the post-war Labour Government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the green belt. Hadley Wood is an attractive residential area in the north-west of my Enfield, Southgate constituency. The threat to the green belt is a threat to the amenity and way of life not only of the residents of Hadley Wood, but of all my constituents and the residents of neighbouring constituencies. I am pleased to see my colleague the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) in the Chamber. We have been working closely together on the matter, along with the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), in whose constituency the proposed development would take place.
I pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Hadley Wood Association in drawing the attention of local people to the matter and getting media coverage, and in doing work that has largely informed what I shall say in objection to the proposal.
The site is in the narrowest part of the green belt around London. It is less than two miles wide. The effect of a parkway station would be to extend the urbanised boundary of London beyond Potters Bar. The area is a community forest with two working farms, both of which would have to be closed, were the proposal to
260WH
proceed. They would be replaced by a 2,000-space car park. In other words, two farms would be replaced by an area the size of five Wembley football pitches for cars. That poses a disastrous threat to the green belt.
With regard to the local infrastructure, one effect of the GNER proposal would be to increase the use of roads in our area—the M25, obviously, and local roads as well. The stretch of the M25 between exits 23 and 25 is already heavily overloaded and is a well known bottleneck. It makes little sense to encourage more cars on to an already overloaded stretch of the M25.
Furthermore, like most of London and many other parts of the country, my constituency is increasingly plagued by traffic congestion. Since the opening of exit 24 on the M25, the A111 that passes through my constituency has undergone a heavy increase in traffic. The Hadley Wood Association commissioned a study by the leading traffic consultants, Messrs Colin Buchanan and Partners, in 1997, which demonstrated that during rush hour periods there were more than 1,000 vehicles per hour using that stretch of road. I am certain that there has been a further significant increase in traffic volume since that study was carried out. Buchanan and Partners estimated that a parkway station could add a further 500 cars per hour during peak times.
While one theoretical solution is to widen the roads, there would be substantial local opposition to that as there is little scope or capacity in the Cockfosters area for widening the road. Even were such a plan acceptable, it would be not be viable. In terms of the infrastructure in Cockfosters, Hadley Wood and the wider Enfield, Southgate area, the consequences of such a proposal would be to increase congestion and worsen the bottlenecks. That would contravene the wider objectives of Government policy on transport.
There is a wider argument against the proposal. I am worried about Railtrack's lack of overall planning to develop a coherent strategy for new parkway stations in our part of the country. The case against Hadley Wood is not simply a "not in my back yard" reaction to a proposal to build on the green belt; there is a strong transport argument against it. Hertfordshire county council has clear, well-thought-out transport policies in which Stevenage is the key rail centre for the county. In the past few days, Hertfordshire county council told me that it had received no evidence from GNER or anyone else of special circumstances that would justify building on the green belt. That view is reinforced by Hertsmere borough council, which stated that
"no case has been made"
for the development. Last year, GNER tried to challenge Hertsmere's local plan to facilitate a possible parkway station, but it did not pursue the matter and the local plan stands.
Stevenage council shares Hertfordshire's view that Stevenage should remain the main focus for rail in the county. It goes further, and would like Stevenage to be the site of a parkway station. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) shares that view. The council told me that there was space in Stevenage to build the necessary car parking facilities, that there is scope to expand the station to six platforms, that no greenbelt issues affect it and that traffic congestion is less significant because of Stevenage's

261WH
location as a relatively new town alongside the A1M. People in Stevenage and elsewhere in Hertfordshire are worried that a Hadley Wood parkway station would detract from Stevenage's position as the main rail focus for the county. Anxiety has been expressed that some trains might not stop at Stevenage because of the close proximity of the two centres.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tackle those anxieties in his response. I appreciate that, for the reasons that I outlined, there are no specific proposals from GNER. However, if GNER wins the franchise, it will want to move rapidly to effect its proposals for the three parkway stations, including Hadley Wood. That is why there is widespread anxiety in my constituency and beyond. While the residents of Hadley Wood form the focus of that anxiety, other people in the Enfield, Southgate area and colleagues in neighbouring constituencies are worried about the proposals.
Like my hon. Friend, I am a passionate supporter of public transport and a non-driver. I use public transport every day; I believe in the railways and I support a successful, thriving railway system for our country. There is a persuasive case for a parkway station north of London. However, Hadley Wood is a totally unsuitable location for it. If such a proposal were implemented, it would be a disaster for the green belt, exacerbate already appalling conditions and congestion on our local roads and threaten the future of Stevenage as a rail centre.
I hope that GNER or whoever wins the franchise will abandon the idea of a parkway station in Hadley Wood and pursue the sort of alternatives that I have outlined. I hope that the Minister will take account of my comments and offer some hope to my constituents.
1.44 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall speak briefly to support everything that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) said in opposition to the GNER proposal. I want to make two points on behalf of my constituents. First, if the proposal goes ahead, it will constitute the most devastating blow to the metropolitan green belt in one of its most sensitive areas. The main objective in that area is to keep Potters Bar away from the metropolis. The thin strip of land has already been divided by the M25, so not only the proposed development but the attendant feeder roads would devastate the green belt in that area. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only on securing the debate but on the eloquence with which he put the case.
Perhaps I should declare a possible interest. For many years, I was president of the London Green Belt Council until I was appointed a Minister, when, quite properly, I had to give up that honorary position. The consolation for my friends is that my career has gone downwards ever since.
I want to underline the effect of the proposal on the local infrastructure. The roads are already overcrowded and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate was right to refer to the overloading of the M25 in that area. I disagree with one point that he made. He painted a rather rosy picture of the Government's commitment to conserving our green belt. He mentioned Stevenage,
262WH
which is a much better location for the proposed parkway station, but the Government have permitted a significant development to the west of Stevenage on the metropolitan green belt. Their action reinforces the case for a parkway station in Stevenage, not Hadley Wood.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I begin, as is usual, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing the debate. I am aware that the proposal by GNER for a new parkway station near the M25 north of London is a source of great concern to many of his constituents.
Since his general election triumph in 1997, my hon. Friend is proving himself, in this matter as in so many others, an extremely conscientious constituency Member of Parliament and an outstanding advocate on behalf of the interests of his constituents.
I also thank the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) for his contribution to the debate. As a former resident of Chipping Barnet, who often walked in Hadley Wood, I know that he is also a most assiduous constituency Member of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is another highly effective constituency Member of Parliament. She also made proper representations on behalf of her constituents.
I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset that there is no firm proposal for a new parkway station near Hadley Wood and no final site has been identified. The station is one of three new parkway stations proposed as part of GNER's initial bid for a replacement franchise. The other proposed stations are near Edinburgh and the M18 in South Yorkshire.
However, it is still early days. No decision on whether to replace GNER's franchise has been taken. Even if GNER's bid were successful, careful consideration would need to be given to several important issues including planning, transport and wider environmental implications, before the parkway stations could be approved.
The Chamber knows that last September, the Deputy Prime Minister issued new instructions and guidance to the franchising director asking him to deliver improvements through renegotiation of the terms of franchise agreements. When considering any renegotiation requests, we have asked the franchising director to give due weight to commitments to current performance, customer services, innovation, investment and efficiency; new or earlier investment; securing better performance; initiatives to promote integrated transport; a willingness to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services; and value for the taxpayer.
In November last year, the franchising director announced that the current GNER franchise would be one of the first three to be renegotiated or replaced. The GNER, Connex SouthCentral and Chiltern franchises were chosen because they are thought to offer great potential for improvements and developments which can be delivered in a relatively short time scale.
On 22 December, the franchising director announced that Sea Containers, which is the parent company of GNER and Virgin Rail, in conjunction with

263WH
Stagecoach, had pre-qualified to participate in further discussion of its franchise replacement proposals. They are now preparing their detailed proposals for discussion with the franchising director before final negotiations. It is hoped to conclude these negotiations in the spring.
However, it is important to remember that the franchising director is not committed to accepting either proposal. After careful consideration, he may decide instead to allow the existing GNER franchise to run its course until it expires in April 2003.
In considering any franchise replacement negotiations, the franchising director will consult, among others, local authorities, regional planning bodies, regional development agencies and rail users' consultative committees as appropriate. If the parkway station proposal were to be adopted as part of a franchise commitment, planning permission and full local consultation would be required.
I want to say a word about the Government's approach to parkway stations. We are keen to encourage integrated transport proposals that are designed to encourage people to travel by public transport and to reduce the need to travel by car. I understand that GNER's proposal is intended to encourage a modal shift from car and air travel to rail use and to allow a seamless transfer between transport modes. It believes that its proposed parkway stations would considerably reduce long-distance car usage, thereby reducing road and motorway congestion and associated pollution problems.
We are also keen to improve the quality of rail services and GNER believes that the parkway stations would make long-distance rail travel more accessible and attractive. The parkway stations would be served by GNER's planned new fleet of high-speed trains. I understand that stations would be airport style in design and built to accommodate the needs of passengers, including those with special needs. There is a measure of support for a new parkway station in the north London area and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, for example, believes that the parkway station
"could prove the single most important lever for achieving a modal shift from road to rail for long distance journeys between London and the north east and Scotland."
There are also clearly important planning implications for the scheme, however, and I am well aware that the proposed site for the parkway station lies within the metropolitan green belt. That has generated considerable local opposition and I know that organisations such as the London Green Belt Council, the Association of North Thames Amenity Societies, the Potters Bar Society and the Hadley Wood Association have expressed their concerns.
Obviously, a scheme for a parkway station would need to be the subject of a planning application. Under national planning policy guidance on green belts, which is known as PPG2, such a development would be inappropriate in the green belt. To justify approval being given, it would therefore be necessary for GNER to show that very special circumstances outweighed the
264WH
harm that would be done to the green belt. The land use planning merits of a station proposal would need to be considered against the statutory development plan, and careful regard would have to be paid to all other material considerations. Those might include, for example, the impact of the development on the environment and on residential amenity as well as the effect on the M25 and the local highway network. Should the local planning authority be minded to grant consent to a planning application, there remains the possibility that it might be called in by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for his own determination should it be thought to raise matters of more than local importance.
Last October, we set out land use planning policy on transport, including park and ride, in our consultation draft PPG13 on transport. That emphasised the need for park-and-ride schemes to be introduced as an integral part of the overall planning and transport approach for an area. They should be in the local transport plan, and based on a thorough assessment of travel impacts, and should also be in the development plan and consistent with the strategic context of the regional transport strategy.
In his speech on 13 December, which set out the Government's vision for transport policy, my right hon. Friend explained that the final version of PPG13, which is due out this year, would give priority to well-designed and well-conceived park-and-ride schemes. We are currently examining the responses to our public consultation on PPG13 and aim to publish the final version in the summer.
We are keen that local authorities should consider allocating sites for interchange in their development plans, for example, park-and-ride schemes to town centres and at bus and rail stations. I am aware that GNER objected to the deposit draft of the Hertsmere local plan on the grounds that it failed to support proposals for improvements to passenger services on the east coast main line and, in particular, the provision of a parkway station on land to the north of Hadley Wood. A public inquiry into the local plan was held last year and the inspector's report is still awaited. When it is received, Hertsmere borough council will consider the inspector's recommendations and decide whether any modifications to the plan are required. Those will then be published and the public will have an opportunity to express their views on the merits of the proposed modifications.
I reiterate that GNER's proposal must be regarded for the present as an option, not a firm and agreed package that can be implemented without further consultation. There is a process still to be gone through in which the planning, transport and wider environmental implications would need to be thoroughly considered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate is reassured that any decisions will be taken only after the most careful consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to improve the pay and conditions of teaching staff in(a) colleges of further education and (b) universities. [105143]

  Mr. Wicks
  The pay and conditions of staff in further education colleges and higher education institutions are matters for employers and staff. The Government are investing heavily in both sectors and announced in November 1999 increases of £365 million for further education and £295 million for higher education for 2001–02.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will appoint an ombudsman for further and higher education. [105480]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to establish an Ombudsman for further and higher education.

  School Standards
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how standards are being raised in areas not in education action zones. [105601]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are committed to creating a world-class education service. We have made it clear that raising standards is our top priority and are taking practical steps to help schools, teachers and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to improve. To back up this pledge, the Government have provided an additional £19 billion for education over the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  New initiatives are being put in place to raise standards in schools and LEAs all across the country. The literacy and numeracy strategies and their stretching targets for 2002 are at the forefront of the nationwide drive to improve standards. Other initiatives include Sure Start for early years, Education Development Plans (EDPs) for LEAs, Excellence in Cities, and the expansion of the number of Specialist and Beacon schools. Both Schools and LEAs are also subject to regular inspections by OFSTED. Success is now being rewarded and failure tackled. We also recognise that teachers are of central importance in the drive to raise standards. We have committed up to a billion pounds over the next two years in modernisation measures aimed at increasing teacher professionalism and morale.
  434W
  Standards are beginning to rise. In 1997, 57 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved the standard for their age in English and 54 per cent. the standard for maths. In 1999, this rose to 70 per cent. in English and 69 per cent. in maths. We are well on track to meet the 2002 targets of 80 per cent. in English and 75 per cent. in maths.

  Local Education Authority Administration Costs
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report, column 148W, on local education authority administration costs, if he will update his reply for the financial year 1998–99. [105671]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not yet available. I will write to my hon. Friend when I am able to reply, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105804]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department for Education and Employment has smoking policies in place which provide a non-smoking working environment. Smoking is restricted to specially designated areas, such as smoking rooms. Literature on giving up smoking is available in our training centres, and DfEE HQ sites have in the past offered further support for staff wishing to give up smoking through a number of health promotion events.

  School Governors
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school governor vacancies there are in each local education authority area; and if he will make a statement. [105530]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not routinely collect information about school governor vacancies, but is aware from recent and current research that the level of vacancies is higher than desirable.

  School governors have a valuable part to play in raising standards in our schools. The new framework for schools has increased the number of governors to approximately 360,000 (compared with 300,000) previously. Finding governors is a local matter, for schools, local education authorities and other appointing bodies. The Department recognises the need to recruit more school governors and is active in supporting local efforts. In particular, the School Governors' One Stop Shop, supported by the Department, is now recruiting governors with business and management skills in the inner city areas covered by the Government's Excellence in Cities initiative. In addition, the Department has produced general recruitment materials, developed with local education authority (LEA) advice, as well as a leaflet produced jointly with the National Governors Council (NGC) which encourages people from ethnic minorities to become governors. The Department is also following up recommendations of the Education and Employment Committee report on the role of school governors,

  435W
  including guidance to encourage LEAs to fill their governor vacancies according to the contribution people can make rather than their political affiliation and to collect information about governor vacancies and make it available.

  New Deal (North-West)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give the destination of those who have left the New Deal for 18–24 year olds(a) at the time at which they left the New Deal, (b) 13 weeks after leaving the New Deal and (c) 26 weeks after leaving the New Deal, for each parliamentary constituency in the (i) City of Liverpool and (ii) Wirral. [104615]

  Immediate destination on leaving New Deal: cumulative to end October 1999

  Sustained unsubsidised jobs

  Other benefits

  Other known destination

  Unknown destination

  Liverpool Garston

  254

  92

  97

  141

  Liverpool Riverside

  429

  232

  258

  410

  Liverpool Walton

  430

  166

  173

  330

  Liverpool Wavertree

  343

  119

  226

  277

  Liverpool West Derby

  400

  147

  182

  279

  Southport

  168

  22

  40

  70

  Crosby

  165

  32

  67

  80

  Bootle

  424

  142

  142

  224

  Knowsley North and Sefton East

  386

  171

  135

  236

  St. Helens North

  228

  81

  93

  120

  St. Helens South

  278

  118

  89

  150

  Knowsley South

  418

  183

  170

  264

  Birkenhead

  457

  157

  261

  324

  Wallasey

  328

  120

  196

  203

  Wirral South

  194

  35

  57

  143

  Wirral West

  223

  31

  99

  127

  LEA Administrative Costs
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000 to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane),Official Report, columns 148–52W, concerning local education authority administrative costs, if he will publish on a cost per pupil basis the expenditure on administration for each local education authority listed. [105300]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table gives for each local education authority in England information on administration expenditure, encompassing central management and administration, and service, strategy and regulation costs, in the form of costs per pupil for the financial year 1997–98.

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997—98

  LEA name

  Expenditure on central management administration and service strategy and regulation costs per pupil

  Total education expenditure cost per pupil

  London, City of

  3,168

  15,074

  Camden

  304

  4,296

  Greenwich

  237

  3,406

  Hackney

  319

  4,347

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  246

  4,507

  Islington

  217

  4,025

  Kensington and Chelsea

  271

  5,722

  Lambeth

  40

  5,243

  436W
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The following table summarises the immediate destinations of young people who leave the New Deal in each of the constituencies named. In addition to those recorded as leaving for unsubsidised employment, we know that many of those recorded as leaving for unknown destinations will have found work without notifying the Employment Service. A recent survey found that of those leaving for unknown destinations from the Gateway stage of New Deal, 57 per cent. entered paid employment.

  We do not hold information on the destinations of young people 13 and 26 weeks after leaving New Deal. Our figures for sustained jobs cover those who leave for a job and do not return to claim JSA within 13 weeks.

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997—98

  LEA name

  Expenditure on central management administration and service strategy and regulation costs per pupil

  Total education expenditure cost per pupil

  Lewisham

  166

  3,828

  Southwark

  233

  4,145

  Tower Hamlets

  253

  3,936

  Wandsworth

  207

  4,402

  Westminster, City of

  297

  4,576

  Barking and Dagenham

  138

  3,002

  Barnet

  117

  3,450

  Bexley

  145

  2,551

  Brent

  131

  4,051

  Bromley

  200

  3,144

  Croydon

  99

  3,218

  Ealing

  202

  3,434

  Enfield

  179

  3,125

  Haringey

  109

  3,678

  Harrow

  126

  3,308

  Havering

  82

  2,619

  Hillingdon

  188

  3,142

  Hounslow

  121

  3,129

  Kingston upon Thames

  125

  3,024

  Merton

  171

  3,142

  Newham

  99

  3,160

  Redbridge

  69

  2,999

  Richmond upon Thames

  120

  3,189

  Sutton

  206

  3,181

  Waltham Forest

  249

  3,419

  Birmingham

  83

  2,988

  Coventry

  5O

  2,974

  437W

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997–98

  LEA name

  Expenditure on central management administration and service strategy and regulation costs per pupil

  Total education expenditure cost per pupil

  Dudley

  70

  2,501

  Sandwell

  86

  2,716

  Solihull

  84

  2,485

  Walsall

  58

  2,726

  Wolverhampton

  90

  2,909

  Knowsley

  126

  2,607

  Liverpool

  111

  2,836

  St. Helens

  85

  2,659

  Sefton

  77

  2,742

  Wirral

  104

  2,680

  Bolton

  77

  2,592

  Bury

  76

  2,537

  Manchester

  104

  2,917

  Oldham

  57

  2,577

  Rochdale

  97

  2,704

  Salford

  188

  2,777

  Stockport

  80

  2,489

  Tameside

  84

  2,461

  Trafford

  68

  2,649

  Wigan

  81

  2,532

  Barnsley

  75

  2,495

  Doncaster

  70

  2,663

  Rotherham

  81

  2,446

  Sheffield

  93

  2,678

  Bradford

  82

  2,724

  Calderdale

  125

  2,747

  Kirklees

  104

  2,611

  Leeds

  84

  2,673

  Wakefield

  96

  2,403

  Gateshead

  146

  2,877

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  130

  3,115

  North Tyneside

  40

  2,592

  South Tyneside

  125

  2,612

  Sunderland

  45

  2,477

  Isles of Scilly

  184

  5,038

  Bath and North East Somerset

  117

  2,847

  Bristol, City of

  145

  2,945

  North Somerset

  130

  2,787

  South Gloucestershire

  136

  2,542

  Hartlepool

  116

  2,431

  Middlesbrough

  116

  2,576

  Redcar and Cleveland

  74

  2,546

  Stockton on Tees

  80

  2,429

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  82

  2,574

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  85

  2,636

  North East Lincolnshire

  92

  2,476

  North Lincolnshire

  208

  2,734

  North Yorkshire

  81

  2,661

  York, City of

  56

  2,668

  Bedfordshire

  88

  2,698

  Luton

  94

  2,971

  Buckinghamshire

  160

  2,885

  Milton Keynes

  191

  2,661

  Derbyshire

  49

  2,601

  Derby City

  84

  2,656

  Dorset

  63

  2,742

  Poole

  114

  2,379

  Bournemouth

  147

  2,790

  Durham

  95

  2,621

  Darlington

  105

  2,447

  East Sussex

  123

  2,751

  Brighton and Hove

  140

  2,925

  Hampshire

  87

  2,728

  Portsmouth

  85

  2,818

  Southampton

  37

  2,812

  Leicestershire

  90

  2,652

  Leicester City

  343

  2,984

  Rutland

  153

  3,418

  Staffordshire

  18

  2,387

  Stoke-on-Trent

  90

  2,471

  438W

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997—98

  LEA name

  Expenditure on central management administration and service strategy and regulation costs per pupil

  Total education expenditure cost per pupil

  Wiltshire

  134

  2,844

  Swindon

  64

  2,442

  Berkshire

  83

  2,652

  Cambridgeshire

  101

  2,834

  Cheshire

  57

  2,637

  Cornwall

  68

  2,704

  Cumbria

  60

  2,873

  Devon

  63

  2,640

  Essex

  42

  3,006

  Gloucestershire

  123

  2,901

  Hereford and Worcester

  49

  2,606

  Hertfordshire

  87

  2,810

  Isle of Wight

  172

  2,830

  Kent

  159

  2,797

  Lancashire

  92

  2,775

  Lincolnshire

  120

  2,910

  Norfolk

  56

  2,758

  Northamptonshire

  67

  2,514

  Northumberland

  98

  2,533

  Nottinghamshire

  106

  2,662

  Oxfordshire

  104

  2,756

  Shropshire

  61

  2,748

  Somerset

  97

  2,735

  Suffolk

  55

  2,651

  Surrey

  109

  2,922

  Warwickshire

  103

  2,621

  West Sussex

  87

  2,741

  Total/Average

  101

  2,814

  Further Education Colleges (Agency Staff)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent guidance he has issued to further education colleges on the use of agency staff; and what plans he has to evaluate the impact of the use of agency staff on(a) the quality, reliability and professional development of staff and (b) on student retention and achievement. [104848]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to evaluate the use of agency staff in the further education sector. Further education colleges are independent and consequently the teaching, internal organisation and management are the responsibility of the college management.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applicants for medical schools, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, were(a) accepted and (b) rejected; how many qualified; and how many took up positions in NHS hospitals. [104577]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available data for applicants in the three most recent years are given in the table. Not all those applicants who failed to obtain a place will necessarily have been rejected; some may have declined their offers, withdrawn from the scheme or opted for a year out.
  439W

  Students applying for undergraduate medical courses in the UK via UCAS

  Year of entry

  Number of applicants

  Number of applicants who were accepted

  1997

  12,025

  4,894

  1998

  12,078

  5,029

  1999

  11,807

  5,119

  Information showing the number of students who completed first degrees in medicine is given in the table. Data on the number of students taking up employment in NHS hospitals are not held centrally.

  Students obtaining first degrees in medicine in the UK

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  4,888

  1996–97

  5,072

  1997–98

  5,137

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed (i) in his predecessor Departments in 1979 and (ii) in his Department in 1999. [104016]

  Mr. Wills
  The number of men and women employed by the Department in each of the standard age groups is:

  Age band

  Male

  Female

  Total

  60+

  43

  20

  63

  55–59

  105

  113

  218

  50–54

  279

  233

  512

  Percentage

  Key Stage 2

  Key Stage 3

  Percentage of pupils who achieved at least Level 5 in all three of 1999 Key Stage tests:

  English, mathematics and science

  11

  43

  Percentage of pupils who achieved at least Level 5 in only two of the three 1999 Key Stage tests:

  English and mathematics

  3

  7

  English and science

  3

  3

  Mathematics and science

  5

  5

  Percentage of pupils who achieved at least Level 5 in only one of the three 1999 Key Stage tests:

  English

  4

  8

  Mathematics

  4

  4

  Science

  7

  2

  The percentage of pupils who achieved at least Level 6 in 1999 Key Stage tests:

  English

  1—

  28

  Mathematics

  1—

  38

  Science

  1—

  24

  1> Indicates a figure below 0.5 per cent.

CABINET OFFICE

  Investors in People
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress the Civil Service has made towards the target that all civil servants will be working in organisations recognised as Investors in People by the year 2000. [106129]
  440W

  Age band

  Male

  Female

  Total

  45–49

  367

  313

  680

  40–44

  344

  362

  706

  35–39

  305

  459

  764

  30–34

  282

  464

  746

  25–29

  178

  273

  451

  20–24

  80

  102

  182

  Under 20

  6

  16

  22

  Total

  1989

  2,355

  4,344

  There are no corresponding data available for 1979.

  New Deal (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that have been created in the Greater London area as a result of the New Deal. [104794]

  Ms Jowell
  New Deal is not a job creation scheme; rather it is designed to help unemployed people improve their skills and compete effectively for vacancies. The latest figures to the end of October 1999 show that this policy is working; over 21,000 young people, and 5,800 long term unemployed people aged 25 and over, have gained jobs through the New Deal in the Greater London area.

  SATs
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children achieved one, two or three level 5s in last year's SATs; and how many achieved level 6 in each subject. [105561]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested is given in the following table. The answers were derived from a provisional matching of the 1999 National Curriculum Assessments at Key Stages 2 and 3.

  Mr. Stringer
  Some 88 per cent. of Civil Servants now work in organisations recognised as Investors in People. This is a significant achievement by all concerned and Departments and Agencies should be congratulated on their progress. The Investors in People Standard is an important element of the Civil Service reform agenda and this achievement demonstrates the commitment of the Service. I would refer hon. Members to the report
  441W
  "Investors in People in Government Departments and Agencies" which I have placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the number and value of contracts let by her Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [103607]

  Mr. Stringer
  Since May 1997, my Department has let 15 contracts with external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. The total value of those contracts is £601,694.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Clerks
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many House of Commons Clerks have been appointed in the last five years, indicating the number and percentage broken down by(a) gender and (b) ethnic origin. [104532]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: Since the beginning of 1995, there have been 17 external recruits to the grade of Assistant Clerk and Senior Clerk, including faststream entrants, in the Department of the Clerk of the House. The table sets out the breakdown.

  Year

  Number of Assistant and Senior Clerks recruited

  Male

  Female

  1995

  2

  0

  2

  1996

  3

  2

  1

  1997

  4

  2

  2

  1998

  6

  4

  2

  1999

  2

  1

  1

  Total

  17

  19

  28

  1 53 per cent.

  2 47 per cent.

  Approximately 80 per cent. of these recruits have declared their ethnic origin. All of those who did so are white.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the figures for compensation paid by the Police Authority indicated at the foot of claims against the Chief Constable were omitted from this year's Annual report; and if he will instruct the Police Authority to provide this information to all recipients of their annual report. [103822]

  Mr. Ingram
  A graph showing the amounts of compensation paid during 1998–99 was mistakenly omitted from the 1998–99 Police Authority Annual Report and not detected at final proof reading. This 442W
  information will be provided to anyone requesting it and will be displayed on the Police Authority website at http://www.pani.org.uk.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the(a) cost of compensation and (b) legal costs incurred as a result of claims against the Chief Constable, including the costs of the Crown Solicitor's Office, in each year from 1985 to date. [103823]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not readily available prior to April 1997. The following table shows the compensation paid and the costs incurred from April 1997 to March 1999. Figures for the current financial year are not yet available.

  £

  April 1997 to March 1998

  April 1998 to March 1999

  Damages paid

  720,297

  1,046,115

  Plaintiffs Solicitors costs

  529,829

  619,885

  Crown Solicitors costs

  840,362

  735,637

  Crown Solicitors outlay

  560,975

  408,159

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what written guidance on the Human Rights Act 1998 has been prepared by the Northern Ireland Office; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [103826]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No specific written guidance on the Human Rights Act has been prepared by the Northern Ireland Office. The various forms of guidance that have been produced by the Home Office and the Cabinet Office are adequate for staff in the Northern Ireland Office and its associated public bodies.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which individual in the Northern Ireland Office has been tasked with responsibility for implementing the Human Rights Act 1998. [103827]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is not appropriate for me to name individual officers. The Human Rights Unit in the Northern Ireland Office is responsible for co-ordinating the Department's preparations for the implementation of the Act, under the direction of senior officials.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made to prepare non-departmental public bodies for the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998. [103833]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The public authorities for which the Northern Ireland Office is responsible have been alerted to the requirements of the Act, and will be provided with appropriate training. An inter-departmental working group has been established to monitor progress being made by individual public bodies in preparing for the Act and to identify any issues on which a joint approach would be most effective.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional resources have been made available to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for consultation on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [103835]
  443W
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is defined as a non departmental public body and is funded by means of a grant in aid. The Commission's grant in aid for each of its first three years is £750,000. This figure represents the Government's considered judgment as to the amount of funding that would be needed in order to allow the Commission to discharge its functions effectively.

  No additional resources have been made available to the Commission for its consultation exercise on the scope for defining a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The Bill of Rights exercise has always been part of the Commission's remit as set out in statute. It was taken into account when the original grant in aid was determined and the Government therefore expect it to be funded within the allocated resources.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will lay the designation order specifying which additional public bodies are to be obliged to develop equality schemes in order to comply with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and which bodies external to the public service he consulted when determining which organisations to designate under the proposed designation order. [103813]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: In compiling the designation order, the Secretary of State consulted with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. This consultation raised a number of queries that are still receiving attention. When these have been resolved, the Secretary of State will be in a position to lay the designation order before Parliament.

  Judges and Lawyers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he took in response to the report of the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, presented to the United Nations in 1998. [103819]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), then Secretary of State, met Mr. Param Cumaraswamy, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on 14 April 1999 to discuss the issues which he raised in his report presented to the United Nations in 1998. A copy of the statement that she issued afterwards is available in the Library.

  Property centre

  Property

  Location

  Wholly unoccupied

  Mainly unoccupied

  Date unoccupied from

  DETR(C)

  Concord House

  Paignton

  Yes

  —

  February 1999

  Mullberry House

  Edinburgh

  Yes

  —

  March 1999

  Westpoint

  Manchester

  Yes

  —

  June 1999

  Highwood Pavilions

  Bristol

  Yes

  —

  April 1999

  Seymour House

  Hemel Hempstead

  Yes

  —

  July 1999

  Ogle Road

  Southampton

  Yes

  —

  May 1997

  St. Clare House

  Ipswich

  Yes

  —

  July 1997

  Caradog House

  Cardiff

  Yes

  —

  April 1997

  Valuation Tribunals

  Lynton House

  Woking

  Yes

  —

  November 1999

  34 St. Leonards Road

  Eastbourne

  Yes

  —

  November 1999

  100–102 Winchcombe Street

  Cheltenham

  Yes

  —

  December 1999

  Hamilton House

  Chester

  Yes

  —

  May 1999

  444W
  The report called for an independent inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane. In February 1999 the Government took receipt of alleged new evidence into the murder. We undertook to consider this very carefully before deciding whether any further action was necessary. The DPP(NI) decided to ask the Chief Constable to look into the allegations and a further police inquiry was announced on 28 April into the murder and related issues. A person has been charged with Mr. Finucane's murder. We will be in a better position to decide what, if any, further action is needed when the police investigation and criminal proceedings have been completed.

  Mr. Cumaraswamy refers in his report to the introduction of the new Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. On 11 October 1999, the Government announced the appointment of Mrs. Nuala O'Loan as Police Ombudsman Designate for Northern Ireland. The Ombudsman will have complete control over the Police Complaints system. She will be required to carry out independent investigations into serious complaints against the police. The Police Ombudsman has been appointed on a designate basis until the new office is established. This interim period will enable the Ombudsman Designate to have a direct say in the structure, staff and ethos of the office. This highlights the independence of the office.

  The report also comments on audio/video recording in the holding centres. The police have a statutory Code of Practice which governs video recording and the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects. A statutory Code of Practice on audio recording became mandatory on 24 May 1999. It is a disciplinary offence for a police officer to breach either of the Codes of Practice. Full audio recording and video recording of all interviews of persons in custody now takes place. The Chief Constable of the RUC has invited the Law Society to be involved in the training of Detective Officers who are involved in such interviews.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105312]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:
  445W

  Property centre

  Property

  Location

  Wholly unoccupied

  Mainly unoccupied

  Date unoccupied from

  Driving Standards

  Agency Test Centres

  Derby

  Yes

  —

  1996

  Bilston

  Yes

  —

  1996

  Kidderminster

  —

  Yes

  1995

  Oswestry

  —

  Yes

  1996

  Cardiff

  —

  Yes

  1996

  Skipton

  —

  Yes

  1996

  Harrogate

  —

  Yes

  1996

  Sunderland

  —

  Yes

  1996

  Note:

  The above refers to those areas solely the responsibility of the DETR or its agencies in the buildings referred to.

  Powered Water Craft
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in regulating the use of(a) jet-skis and (b) other powered water craft. [103179]

  Mr. Meacher
  The responsibility for the management of jet-skis and other powered watercraft is primarily for local authorities. Local byelaws, either inland or on the coast, give authorities the power to regulate such craft, for instance by imposing strict speed limits which result in the exclusion of many watercraft from specific areas. Speed limits already apply in some areas, such as parts of the Broads.

  The Review of Byelaw Powers for the Coast recommended, among other things, that local authorities should be given a new power to create exclusive bathing zones and more general powers to regulate activities on the coast which affect the wider environment, such as the use of personal watercraft. We shall be looking for an opportunity to introduce legislation where it is needed to implement the Review's recommendations. In the meantime, we have published a voluntary code of best and safe practice for leisure craft users, and we are exploring options for a voluntary boat registration and identification scheme, which would include jet-skis.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is offered as the level of transport supplementary grant for local authorities for 2000–01. [104229]

  Mr. Prescott
  £13.519 million in transport supplementary grant (TSG) has been allocated in the 2000–01 local transport capital settlement. This funding is given for a number of existing local authority major road scheme commitments.

  In previous years TSG was used for the capital maintenance of bridges and principal road carriageways. From 2000–01 onwards this will now be funded exclusively in the form of borrowing approvals, for which local authorities receive revenue support grant (RSG) each year to meet the cost of repayment. The total allocation within the 2000–01 settlement for capital bridge and carriageway maintenance is £301 million, representing a 24 per cent. increase over 1999–2000.

  Aircraft Crashes
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the latest 446W
  estimate by the Civil Aviation Authority of the statistical probability in a year of a ground fatality occurring as a result of aircraft crashing on take-off or landing at (a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted. [104634]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has identified two landing or take-off accidents within the United Kingdom during the last 40 years in which there were fatalities on the ground. These took place at Gatwick and Dunsfold and involved, respectively, two and six such fatalities. The Authority estimates that some 18.2 million aircraft movements took place at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted over the same period. Because of the very small number of accidents involving ground fatalities it is not possible to produce a statistically meaningful estimate for individual airports.

  Gleneagles Hotel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was realised by the sale of Gleneagles Hotel. [104830]

  Mr. Hill
  The Gleneagles Hotel, the Caledonian Hotel (Edinburgh) and the North British Hotel (Edinburgh) were sold together by the British Railways Board in 1981 by means of a company sale. Two thirds of the shares were sold for £13.5 million and the rest were sold later for £6.1 million.

  Railways (Nottingham)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with(a) Railtrack and (b) Midland Mainline regarding the upgrading of the track between Nottingham and London. [104894]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with Railtrack or Midland Main Line. However, I understand that Railtrack and Midland Main Line are currently discussing plans to improve the Midland Main Line.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to make a decision on the new charging regime proposed by the Environment Agency. [105079]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency is currently consulting on its charging proposals for 2000–01. I expect to receive formal proposals from the Agency next month and to take decisions on them before the start of the new financial year.

  Ports
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for changes in the law relating to ports. [105185]

  Mr. Hill
  We are considering options for legislation in respect of ports, including matters arising from both the Review of the Pilotage Act, published in July 1998 and from our Review of Trust Ports which has now produced the Guide to Good Governance that I launched earlier this month.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors were taken into account, other than indices for local deprivation, when deciding which London authorities would be invited to submit delivery plans for Round 2 of the New Deal for Communities. [105166]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In addition to information drawn from the Index of Local Deprivation, we applied a regional quota. That quota was used to balance our twin goals of spreading the impact of the new approach we are piloting under the New Deal for Communities as widely as possible, and focusing help and support on the areas of greatest need. On that basis, six of the 22 local authority districts eligible to participate in Round 2 are in London. The only other criteria we applied was that local authority areas in London eligible to participate in Round 1 of the programme, should not be eligible under Round 2.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors will be taken into account when choosing which local authorities will be invited to submit delivery plans for Round 3 of the New Deal for Communities. [105165]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The targeting of regeneration funds, including those of the New Deal for Communities, will be considered in our cross cutting review of Government interventions in deprived areas and the forthcoming spending review.

  Railways
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set minimum standards of facility provision at town centre railway stations in relation to(a) CCTV and (b) park and ride. [105547]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 251W.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate the extent of the availability of special offer tickets offered by rail companies. [105548]

  Mr. Hill
  APEX fares and other concessionary fares are not regulated by the Franchise Director and are offered by train companies at their discretion. We do not maintain records of unregulated fares which are on offer, but I understand that some train operators have reduced the number of concessions offered because of increased demand for services.

  Crowe Report
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to respond to the Crowe report; and if he will make a statement. [105329]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, sent on 23 November about the South East Regional Planning Guidance Panel Report. The principles that will underpin our consideration of the Panel's recommendations are set out in that letter. We hope to announce the changes we propose to the draft RPG, as put forward by SERPLAN, soon. Parliament will, of course, be informed.

  Countryside Traffic Measures Group
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times the Countryside Traffic Measures Group has met since July 1998. [105279]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand that the Countryside Agency's Countryside Traffic Measures Group has met on three occasions since 1998.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the consultant's study into the viability of Eurostar services north of London; if he will publish the consultant's report; and when he will make a statement on the report. [105486]

  Mr. Hill
  The consultants' report is currently being considered by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport, who will make a statement soon. The report will be published at the same time.

  Transport Expenditure
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the level of public expenditure, in each of the last 10 years, in each EU member state, on(a) railways and (b) roads. [105188]

  Mr. Hill
  Details of public investment in British railways and roads in each of the 10 years 1988–89 to 1997–98 are shown in Table 1.16 of the Government Statistical Office's publication Transport Statistics Great Britain 1999 Edition. We do not have the requested information in relation to other EU member states.

  Cruise Ships
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the practice of placing passengers' luggage in corridors outside cabins on cruise ships; and if he will make a statement. [105186]

  Mr. Hill
  In the case of a UK flag ship, there are general provisions in the Merchant, Shipping and Fishing (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 2962) about providing and maintaining a safe environment for persons aboard ship. There are also relevant provisions in the Merchant Shipping (Safe
  449W
  Movement on Board Ship) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 No. 1641); for example regulation 4 provides that "the employer and master shall ensure that safe means of access is provided and maintained to any place on the ship to which a person may be expected to go". Such provisions are enforceable on UK ships wherever they may be and could cover matters such as a safety hazard caused by luggage in corridors. In the case of a non-UK ship, the requirements will depend on the provisions in the regulations of the state where the ship is registered. As the UK requirements implement provisions contained in the International Labour Organisation Convention 147, they may also be enforced on a non-UK ship while in a UK port.

  Railway Fatalities
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many railway passenger fatalities there were in each EU member state in the last 10 years. [105189]

  Mr. Hill
  Information about railway passenger fatalities is published by the European Commission in "Transport in Figures". The latest readily available information is as follows:

  Number of passenger fatalities

  Persons killed in accidents involving railways

  1990

  1995

  1996

  Belgium

  0

  3

  6

  Denmark

  1

  0

  0

  Germany

  50

  34

  35

  Greece

  0

  3

  0

  Spain

  4

  0

  0

  France

  30

  22

  14

  Ireland

  1

  0

  0

  Italy

  9

  4

  1

  Luxembourg

  0

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  2

  0

  1

  Austria

  6

  7

  3

  Portugal

  22

  12

  10

  Finland

  0

  1

  3

  Sweden

  3

  2

  0

  Great Britain1

  37

  10

  17

  1 Described as UK in 'Transport in Figures'

  Source:

  UIC (GB from national statistics)

  These statistics are not necessarily based on common definitions and there is thus uncertainty about their comparability. The GB figures cover accidents on National Rail, London Underground and other urban railways, and included all passenger fatalities, both on trains and railway premises.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory obligations local authorities have to provide street lighting. [105341]

  Mr. Hill
  Highway Authorities provide lighting under powers given by the Highways Act 1980. There are no statutory obligations for local authorities to provide street lighting.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the(a) budgeted and (b) outturn investment by Railtrack in each year since its creation. [105703]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: Railtrack's budgets for investment are a commercial matter for the company.

  The table provides details of Railtrack's outturn infrastructure expenditure in each financial year since 1996–97, when it was privatised.

  Analysis of Railtrack infrastructure expenditure, 1996–97 to 1998–99

  £ million cash prices

  1996–97

  1997–981

  1998–99

  Infrastructure maintenance

  732

  702

  694

  Expenditure on renewals

  821

  1,073

  1,098

  Backlog expenditure

  28

  63

  92

  Enhancement investment

  170

  208

  294

  Total infrastructure expenditure

  1,751

  2,046

  2,178

  1 As restated in Railtrack's Annual Report and Accounts 1998–99

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce which company has been chosen to operate the new voucher scheme for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [106372]

  Mrs. Roche
  On 7 January, the Home Office awarded a contract for the operation of the new voucher scheme to Sodexho Pass International.

  The voucher scheme will form an essential part of the new arrangements for supporting asylum seekers which were included in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and will come into operation on 1 April 2000. The provision of vouchers supplemented by a small weekly cash allowance will enable asylum seekers to meet their essential living needs while reducing the incentive to economic migration inherent in a fully cash based system of support.

  Data Protection
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to lay the subordinate legislation to be made under the Data Protection Act 1998. [106373]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I intend to lay in draft next week the subordinate legislation subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I shall publish on Thursday 20 January a draft of the Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations on the Internet at www.homeoffice.gov.uk and place copies in the Library. I intend to lay these Regulations and the other subordinate legislation subject to the negative resolution procedure in good time before the Data Protection Act 1998 comes into force on 1 March.

  Contraband Tobacco
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many retailers were(a) arrested, (b) prosecuted and (c) convicted for selling contraband tobacco in each year since 1996. [104632]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data on arrests are not collected centrally by individual offence.

  The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not hold information on the employment status of individuals or the characteristics of defendants who are not individuals. Nor does it hold information about the characteristics of individual cases apart from those that are evident from the description of the offence with which the defendant has been charged.

  Retailers selling contraband tobacco can be prosecuted under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (either subsection (1) or (2); Common Law (cheating the revenue) and section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (conspiracy to evade excise duty). Such cases cannot be identified separately from the many other offences prosecuted under this legislation, which will include beer, wine and spirits, for example, as well as tobacco.

  London Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors to each of the London prisons were(a) charged with and (b) convicted of seeking to take illegal drugs into a prison in 1999. [104459]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for the number of visitors to London prisons who were charged with, or convicted of seeking to take illegal drugs into a prison in 1999 are not recorded by the Prison Service.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates at each of the London prisons were put on a governor's report in 1999. [104463]

  Mr. Boateng
  Adjudication statistics refer to charges rather than individuals and the available information, for January to November 1999, is given in the table.

  Number of adjudications (governor's reports) on offences against prison discipline, January to November 1999

  Prison establishments in Greater London

  Number

  Belmarsh

  1,430

  Brixton

  1,055

  Downview

  114

  Feltham

  1,832

  High Down

  1,081

  Holloway

  1,279

  Latchmere House

  93

  Pentonville

  1,220

  Wandsworth

  1,060

  Wormwood Scrubs

  744

  Total

  9,908

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many strip-searches of inmates took place in each of the London prisons in each of the last 12 months. [104462]
  452W
  Mr. Boateng
  Prisons are not required to maintain statistics of the number of strip searches carried out. Strip searching is an essential element in maintaining security and good order in prisons. It is not possible to record every occasion on which it takes place, as at present this would have to be done manually. This would pose an unacceptable administrative burden, achievable only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were being held in London prisons for alleged immigration offences on 1 January. [104461]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information is for 30 November 1999 and relates to the number of persons held in London prisons under the Immigration Act 1971. On that date, there were 59 males and 25 females held in London prisons under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates held in London prisons attempted(a) to commit suicide and (b) to cause self-inflicted injuries in 1999. [104460]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table, which covers the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999.

  Establishment

  Incidents of self-harm financial year 1998–99

  Belmarsh

  61

  Brixton

  186

  Downview

  1

  Feltham

  292

  High Down

  61

  Holloway

  250

  Latchmere House

  0

  Pentonville

  94

  Wandsworth

  305

  Wormwood Scrubs

  185

  Notes:

  1. These data are derived from information provided by establishments to the Directorate of Health Care.

  2. Incidents do not equate to numbers of prisoners as an individual prisoner may self-harm more than once.

  3. Statistics on self-harm are collected on a financial year basis.

  4. The establishments listed are those in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates at each of the London prisons were charged with being in possession of illegal drugs while in prison in 1999. [104458]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of offences of possession considered at adjudication is given in the table.

  Number of adjudications on offences of possession of a controlled drug, January to November 1999

  Prison establishments in Greater London

  Number of offences1

  Belmarsh

  2

  Brixton

  18

  Downview

  1

  Feltham

  60

  High Down

  26

  Holloway

  4

  Latchmere House

  1

  Pentonville

  59

  Wandsworth

  6

  Wormwood Scrubs

  21

  1 Individual prisoners may be charged with more than one offence

  Long-service Medals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to equalise the length of service required to qualify for a police long-service medal with periods which apply in respect of the fire and ambulance services. [104502]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The respective qualifying periods for the long-service award—Police (22 years), Fire Service (20 years) and Ambulance Service (20 years) are directly related to conditions of employment. I am not aware of any suggestion by the Police Service that there should be any change to the qualifying period for their long-service medal. I have, therefore, no plans at present to make any such change.

  Holocaust Denial Legislation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce Holocaust denial legislation; and if he will make a statement. [104504]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Holocaust denial is a very difficult area in which to legislate. It is not easy to strike a balance between outlawing such offensive statements while ensuring that freedom of speech is not unduly restricted.

  Therefore, while the Government are following carefully the current debates on this issue within the Jewish community and elsewhere, we have no immediate plan to introduce legislation.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has held on the question of legislation relating to corporate manslaughter; and how soon he will introduce such legislation. [104598]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are currently considering the conclusions of the inter-departmental working group of officials which has been examining the recommendations made in the Law Commission's report no. 237 "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter". The Law Commission's report included a recommendation that there should be a new offence of corporate killing.

  We will be consulting our colleagues shortly and then expect to publish our conclusions for consultation. We will also be considering the prospects for future legislation.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if validated figures for the total number of police officers per police force and in total at the end of October 1999 are available; and if he will make a statement. [104728]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 December 1999,Official Report, column 145W.

  We collect police strength information only on a six monthly basis in order to reduce administrative burdens on the police. Police strength figures as at October 1999 will not therefore be requested from forces.
  454W
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving police officers there were on 30 June and 31 December in each of the years 1992 to 1999 for which figures are available. [104465]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers is set out in the table. From 1995, this information has been collected only twice yearly, in March and September.

  Police numbers 1992 to 1999

  Number

  June

  1992

  127,626

  1993

  128,031

  1994

  127,328

  December

  1992

  128,045

  1993

  127,658

  1994

  127,358

  March

  1995

  127,222

  1996

  126,901

  1997

  127,158

  1998

  126,814

  1999

  126,096

  September

  1995

  126,808

  1996

  127,123

  1997

  126,862

  1998

  126,504

  1999

  1—

  1 Not yet available

  Prison Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the former Prison Service Director of Security has had access to the criteria for the competition for the operation of HMP Manchester and HMP Blakenhurst; and if he will make a statement; [104737]

  (2) if members of the Prison Service Management Board have had access to the criteria for the competition for the design, construction, management and financing of HMP Peterborough and HMP Ashford; and if he will make a statement. [104738]

  Mr. Boateng
  The competitions for Blakenhurst, Manchester, Peterborough and Ashford prisons have not yet started and the evaluation criteria for those competitions have not yet been developed.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules govern senior employees of the Prison Service taking new employment with private companies which have contracts with or are seeking contracts with the Prison Service; how the rules have operated in relation to the former Director of Security; and if he will make a statement. [104739]

  Mr. Boateng
  The rules governing business appointments were last revised by the Cabinet Office in 1996 in the light of recommendations made by the Nolan Committee. The rules require senior civil servants in certain categories or other civil servants who have had
  455W
  official dealings with their prospective employer to report offers of appointment. Approval is required for the initial appointment and any further appointment within two years of leaving Crown employment. These rules have been applied in relation to the former Prison Service Director of Security who made an application on 7 January 2000. In compliance with these rules, the advice of the Cabinet Office is being obtained before her application can be responded to.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Home Office business appointment rules apply to members of the Prison Service Management Board; and if he will make a statement. [104735]

  Mr. Boateng
  All members of the Prison Service Management Board are subject to the rules on business appointments which have been issued by the Cabinet Office.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if members of the Prison Service Management Board had access to the deliberations of the evaluation panel reports of the bids for HMP Doncaster; and if he will make a statement. [104736]

  Mr. Boateng
  The members of the Prison Service Management Board received copies of the evaluation report of the bids for Doncaster prison in October 1999.

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available, in how many and what percentage of either-way cases in which(a) magistrates declined jurisdiction and (b) defendants elected to go to the higher court, defendants pleaded (i) guilty and (ii) not guilty; and if he will make a statement. [104731]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No regular statistics are collected on this. However, there is some information available from the baseline data collected by the Home Office in 1998 for the evaluation of the pilot schemes to reduce delay in the criminal justice system. In a sample of nearly 1,000 triable either way cases dealt with in the Crown

  Number and proportion of defendants tried at the Crown Court for indictable-only offences final plea, 19951—98

  Type of plea

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Not known

  Year

  Total tried [=100 per cent.]

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  19951

  6,899

  3,550

  51

  3,319

  48

  30

  0

  1996

  15,565

  8,327

  53

  7,203

  46

  35

  0

  1997

  15,710

  8,300

  53

  7,368

  47

  42

  0

  1998

  16,740

  8,644

  52

  8,046

  48

  50

  0

  1 Plea data collected as from July 1995.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of(a) police officers and (b) police civilian staff (i) per Metropolitan police division and (ii) in total at the end of each of the last eight years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [104729]
  456W
  Court, guilty pleas were entered by 80 per cent. defendants in cases in which the magistrates declined jurisdiction and by 59 per cent. of defendants who elected to go to the higher court. In 11 per cent. of cases in which magistrates declined jurisdiction and 30 per cent. of those where defendants elected Crown Court trial, the defendant entered a not guilty plea and there was a contested trial. In the remainder—most of which were dropped—no information is available as to plea.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available, in what percentage of all either-way cases defendants elected for jury trial; and if he will make a statement. [104734]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Figures provided by the Attorney General's Department, which relate to prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service, are given in the table.

  Percentage of either way cases committed for trial on election of defendant

  Year on year change

  1995

  33

  —

  1996

  32

  -1

  1997

  28

  -4

  1998

  28

  0

  19991

  32

  +4

  1 January-Septembera

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available, in how many and what percentage of summary-only cases defendants pleaded (i) guilty and (ii) not guilty. [104733]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available, in how many and what percentage of indictable-only cases defendants pleaded (i) guilty and (ii) not guilty. [104732]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is contained in the table:

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police informs me that the total number of police officers per Metropolitan police division as at 31 December for each of the last eight years is provided in the tables. Figures may not be strictly comparable year on year as a result of boundary and organisational changes. A comparable breakdown of police civilian staff figures is not available. The figures for civilians in the table refer to Area totals.
  457W

  Police strengths at the end of December of year shown

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Kensington and Chelsea Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  563.7

  Notting Hill

  229

  238

  245

  229

  250.6

  243.6

  230

  —

  Brompton

  —

  —

  371.83

  375.4

  391.8

  365.5

  341.58

  —

  Chelsea

  187

  199

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington

  216

  218.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Westminster

  Belgravia

  339.8

  341.5

  324.55

  308.15

  306.26

  308.71

  306.3

  286.8

  West End Central

  373

  339

  328

  316

  308

  309

  298

  304.6

  Charing Cross

  419.4

  446.3

  411.9

  398.1

  403.7

  398.6

  395.2

  394.38

  Marylebone

  265.65

  267.8

  268.9

  335.7

  332.7

  329.1

  307.3

  292.1

  Paddington

  —

  —

  466.2

  356.6

  350

  352

  324.2

  345.11

  Paddington Green

  284

  282.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow Road

  224

  224

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  532.12

  Fulham

  197

  298

  217

  216.73

  225.73

  230.76

  217.16

  —

  Hammersmith

  344

  340.33

  328.2

  316.4

  335.52

  311.02

  300.82

  —

  Area sub-total

  3,078.85

  3,104.63

  2,961.58

  2,852.08

  2,904.31

  2,848.29

  2,720.56

  2,718.81

  Camden Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  676.36

  Hampstead

  249

  230

  220

  211

  208.15

  213.35

  186.5

  —

  Kentish Town

  263

  260

  269.7

  276.86

  274

  285.46

  291.66

  —

  Holborn

  209.7

  201.7

  214.2

  210.9

  199.8

  197.7

  186.9

  —

  Islington Borough

  Holloway

  260

  272.6

  270.6

  269.9

  255.9

  250.5

  245.01

  226.4

  Islington

  287

  295.5

  297.3

  292.1

  313.7

  298.9

  284.4

  284.2

  Harrow Borough

  272.2

  277.2

  272.2

  293.8

  283.4

  289.05

  281.45

  291

  Brent Borough

  Brent

  240.91

  253.7

  266.7

  258.6

  272.6

  266.48

  257.48

  246.01

  Kilburn

  383

  366.4

  385.28

  359.14

  367.26

  346.75

  336.18

  313.88

  Barnet Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  680.73

  Barnet

  306

  316.4

  323

  300.3

  285.26

  277.26

  225.55

  —

  Colindale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  428.73

  427.79

  —

  Golders Green

  213.3

  215.6

  211.1

  208.9

  215.15

  —

  —

  —

  West Hendon

  240

  248.6

  256.75

  243.35

  235.65

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing Borough

  Ealing

  338.58

  361.23

  355.93

  363.68

  354.28

  338.35

  312.8

  324.77

  Southall

  281.7

  291.78

  287.93

  296.96

  291.19

  288.16

  281.99

  269.9

  Haringey Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  511.75

  Hornsey

  270.6

  276.6

  284.95

  273.6

  263.3

  261.4

  245.4

  —

  Tottenham

  291

  285

  295

  271

  271.7

  265.1

  273.1

  —

  Hillingdon Borough

  453.9

  443.98

  439.5

  437

  418.7

  398.2

  395.5

  409.3

  Area sub-total

  4,559.89

  4,596.29

  4,650.14

  4,567.09

  4,510.04

  4,405.39

  4,231.71

  4,234.3

  Hackney Borough

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  333

  324

  336.68

  324.6

  326.8

  330.4

  329.32

  313.12

  Stoke Newington

  278

  309

  356.5

  334.94

  349.24

  346.24

  338.1

  325.25

  Tower Hamlets Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  539.3

  Limehouse

  285

  305

  292

  279

  267

  267.09

  259.8

  —

  Whitechapel

  —

  —

  341.7

  334.7

  329.4

  300.4

  301.3

  —

  Bethnal Green

  187

  184

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leman Street

  197

  201

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge Borough

  Barkingside

  270

  279.4

  296.4

  291.1

  292.4

  268

  260.98

  255.88

  Ilford

  250

  257

  257.49

  254

  259.6

  228.95

  231.65

  232.25

  Waltham Forest Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  467.81

  Chingford

  234.4

  242.4

  243.8

  237.3

  238.3

  238.7

  241.9

  —

  Leyton

  227.4

  231.4

  243.4

  226

  238.92

  224.8

  220.2

  —

  458W 459W

  Police strengths at the end of December of year shown

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Havering Borough

  366

  375.01

  377.17

  363.49

  351.05

  334.33

  326.38

  326.54

  Barking Borough

  Dagenham

  286

  287

  304.6

  303.2

  299.85

  299.8

  279.12

  276.72

  Newham Borough

  Forest Gate

  285

  269.68

  306.28

  316.68

  314.48

  303.48

  295.48

  280.2

  Plaistow

  285

  307.8

  316.8

  310

  311.4

  286.88

  286.88

  290.88

  Enfield Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  533.57

  Edmonton

  258

  259.46

  270.2

  265.38

  261.78

  268.3

  267.68

  —

  Enfield

  274

  290

  273.4

  280.1

  292.1

  282

  277

  —

  Area sub-total

  4,015.8

  4,122.15

  4,216.42

  4,120.49

  4,132.32

  3,979.37

  3,915.79

  3,841.52

  Southwark Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  851.8

  Southwark

  283

  293.53

  289.12

  306.08

  308.88

  289.18

  296.87

  —

  Peckham

  294.65

  308.25

  307.35

  316.38

  303.78

  302.63

  296.76

  —

  Walworth

  239

  248

  275

  280.4

  265.5

  268.7

  282.8

  —

  Lewisham Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  533.57

  Catford

  280

  257.6

  260.7

  294.8

  297.7

  290.85

  287.9

  —

  Lewisham

  313.6

  330.8

  337.6

  347.8

  328.6

  319.38

  307.56

  —

  Bromley Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  432.47

  Bromley and Orpington

  —

  —

  500.43

  490.44

  471.44

  464.1

  442.66

  —

  Orpington

  211.44

  217.58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  262

  263

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  626.33

  Plumstead

  284

  271

  308.5

  336.95

  320.35

  313.49

  303.04

  —

  Greenwich

  261

  246.8

  264.7

  286.36

  302.5

  298.4

  292.45

  —

  Bexley Borough

  Bexley Heath

  277.5

  273

  285

  295.5

  287.3

  282

  274.4

  281

  Croydon Borough

  Croydon

  285

  277

  296.5

  291.3

  297.36

  272.84

  265.38

  246.73

  South Norwood

  312.6

  302.69

  327.3

  342.58

  327.98

  327.77

  324.34

  321.83

  Epsom and Ewell

  373.9

  390

  428.9

  431.38

  405.23

  404.5

  392.81

  387.12

  Area sub-total

  3,677.69

  3,679.25

  3,881.1

  4,019.97

  3,916.62

  3,833.84

  3,766.97

  3,700.95

  Heathrow division

  441.55

  423.94

  414.39

  396.19

  366.99

  362.06

  340.73

  297.23

  Lambeth Borough

  Brixton

  302

  309

  322.5

  316.85

  322.65

  299.08

  290.58

  269.58

  Streatham

  266

  262.8

  273.9

  280.01

  272.71

  251.3

  253.3

  242.65

  Vauxhall

  —

  —

  406.65

  372.95

  371.94

  366.51

  350.11

  335.96

  Kennington

  182

  175.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clapham

  230.5

  200.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hounslow Borough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  416.48

  Chiswick

  190.4

  210.7

  202.7

  206.5

  197.2

  186.3

  171.71

  —

  Hounslow

  261

  272.2

  263.6

  277.7

  272.7

  270.26

  266.3

  —

  Spelthorne

  189.4

  208.2

  199.2

  199.8

  198.2

  178.4

  180.8

  155.05

  Richmond Borough

  Twickenham

  298

  321.35

  297.45

  319.85

  295.85

  283.15

  267

  279.14

  Kingston Borough

  375.4

  395.7

  373.14

  393.34

  362.24

  366.89

  329.89

  325.89

  Merton Borough

  291.4

  312

  354.45

  334.85

  325.25

  292.48

  294.83

  310.1

  Wandsworth Borough

  Battersea

  222

  229.8

  298.8

  288.8

  306.9

  268.7

  263.4

  252

  Wandsworth

  217

  217.6

  348.98

  349.38

  355.38

  327.18

  312.58

  320.03

  Tooting

  232.6

  245.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Area sub-total

  3,699.25

  3,784.79

  3,755.76

  3,736.22

  3,648.01

  3,452.31

  3,321.53

  3,204.11

  Area total

  19,031.48

  19,287.11

  19,465.00

  19,295.85

  19,111.30

  18,519.20

  17,956.56

  17,699.69

  MPS total

  28,229.66

  28,045.31

  28,070.59

  27,719.35

  27,420.41

  26,960.45

  26,523.36

  26,164.42

  460W 461W

  Civil strengths as at the end of December of year shown

  Area

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Area

  Divisional strength totals by area

  1. Central

  713.22

  752.35

  743.2

  683.68

  618.25

  595.65

  Central

  2. North West

  945.55

  999.19

  1,055.55

  999.77

  966.72

  1,951.18

  North

  3. North East

  1,018.21

  1,078.99

  1,108.07

  1,033.81

  950.17

  —

  4. South East

  886.92

  1,021.32

  1,081.65

  985.77

  945.56

  1,723.23

  South

  5. South West

  999.64

  1,106.49

  1,139.94

  1,037.12

  1,010.2

  —

  Total

  4,653.54

  4,958.34

  5,128.41

  4,740.15

  4,490.9

  4,270.06

  MPS Total

  14,271.23

  14,303.09

  13,725.1

  12,856.22

  11,457.3

  10,795.94

  Notes:

  1. Totals for Area 5 South West (1994 to 1998) and South Area (1999) include Heathrow division.

  2. All figures exclude traffic wardens and school crossing patrols.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 26 August, 16 September and 19 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. A. Richards. [104457]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 13 January in response to his letters of 26 August, 16 September and 19 November on behalf of Mr. Richards. I am extremely sorry that I was unable to do so sooner, and would like, through my right hon. Friend, to extend my apology to Mr. Richards for the delay.

  Fire Fatalities
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fatalities in domestic premises were caused by fire in(a) 1998, (b) 1993, (c) 1988, (d) 1983 and (e) 1999. [104507]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information provided relates to the number of deaths occurring in dwelling fires attended by United Kingdom local authority fire brigades.

  Deaths in dwelling fires attended by local authority fire brigades, United Kingdom are given in the table:

  Year

  Deaths

  1983

  710

  1988

  731

  1993

  524

  19981,2

  489

  1999

  3—

  1 1998 data are estimated to account for revisions expected due to further information becoming available.

  2 Includes late calls. Heat and smoke incidents not recorded prior to 1994.

  3 Data not yet available.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 11 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104472]
  462W
  Mr. Straw
  A review by my Department of sales of fixed assets previously listed in Chapter seven of the National Assets Register, is being undertaken. To date, it has revealed the following information for the Home Office, including the Prison Service:
  Since 11 February 1999, land and buildings have been sold generating revenue of approximately £10,914,000; revenue from sales of vehicles was approximately £188,000; and sales of plant, machinery and Information Technology equipment produced £76,000.

  Therefore, the total estimated revenue from such sales to date is £11,179,000 (rounded).

  I regret that it is not possible to give an itemised list of such sales because of the large numbers involved and the disproportionate cost of compiling this information.

  As soon as the remaining Home Office entities and the executive Non Departmental Bodies have completed their review, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Stalking
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his written answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 20W, on stalking, when he expects to receive the research report he has commissioned into the effectiveness of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997; and who is undertaking the research. [104843]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The research is currently being undertaken by my Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. I expect to receive the report by July.

  British Greyhound Racing Funds
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the implications for animal welfare of the operation of the British Greyhound Racing Fund; and if he will make a statement. [104839]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received a number of letters suggesting that not enough of the contributions made by bookmakers to the British Greyhound Racing Fund is devoted to the aftercare of greyhounds on retirement from racing. The distribution of Fund income
  463W
  is not a matter for the Government. We are, however, pleased that the Fund and the National Greyhound Racing Club are both financially supporting the work of the Retired Greyhound Trust, which has had some success in increasing the number of dogs re-homed at the end of their racing careers.

  CS Spray
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis indicating, in each year since 1997, the amount of CS spray which the Commissioner(a) purchased, (b) distributed, (c) returned to storage, (d) wrote off as no longer safe for operational purposes, indicating how such unsafe stocks are disposed of and (e) has not otherwise accounted for. [105075]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that in 1997, approximately 29,500 canisters of CS spray were purchased and distributed among Operational Command Units (OCUs). An annual breakdown of purchases since 1997 is not readily available, but since then, a total of approximately 1,000 canisters have been purchased by individual OCUs throughout the Metropolitan Police District. As of 13 January, approximately 1,500 used and 15 damaged canisters had been returned to storage at local OCUs for ultimate destruction by the Army. I understand that no canisters are unaccounted for.

  LD50 Animal Test
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in encouraging the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to rescind guideline 401 concerning the LD50 animal test; what is Her Majesty's Government's policy toward this test; and if he will make a statement. [105072]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 5(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as amended in September 1998, does not allow licensing of the LD50 (Guideline 401) test for the purpose of meeting international regulatory requirements. The general principle is that a test will be licensed only where there is not a scientifically valid and reasonably practicable and accepted alternative. There may be cases where no exact alternative is available and Guideline 401 (the LD50 test) can lawfully be licensed.

  With the support of the United Kingdom Government, the European Commission has invited the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to delete test 401 from its guidelines.

  West Mercia Police
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many notifiable offences there were in West Mercia in each year from 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement; [105070]

  (2) if he will list the clear-up rates for reported crime for West Mercia Police for each year from 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement. [105068]
  464W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The figures are given in the table.

  Notifiable offences

  Clear-up rate (%)

  1992

  79,175

  34

  1993

  82,832

  29

  1994

  83,949

  29

  1995

  80,013

  28

  1996

  82,254

  26

  1997

  76,762

  28

  1998–991

  81,782

  34

  1 Year ending 31 March. The counting rules for notifiable offences changed on 1 April 1998. The figures given for this year are based on the new counting rules, which are not directly comparable to the previous figures. The clear-up rate is likewise not directly comparable.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers West Mercia Police Authority had in each year from 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement. [105069]

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

  West Mercia constabulary: Police numbers between 1992 and 1999

  Year1

  Police numbers

  1992

  2,034

  1993

  2,054

  1994

  2,059

  1995

  2,046

  1996

  2,017

  1997

  2,040

  1998

  2,010

  1999

  2,025

  1 As at 31 March

  Handguns
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many handguns have been surrendered under the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; and of these how many have been(a) destroyed, (b) retained for training purposes, (c) retained for museum and display purposes, (d) sold for (i) export and (ii) re-use and (e) earmarked for other uses. [104802]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A total of 162,198 handguns were surrendered to the police under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997. The vast majority of these handguns will have been, or will be, destroyed when the associated compensation claims have been resolved. There are now less than 800 claims outstanding. A small number of surrendered handguns will be retained by the police, Her Majesty's Customs and the Forensic Science Service for training purposes. No central records are held of the number of handguns retained for this purpose. Examples of particular note or historic interest will be made available to suitably authorised museums. The National Museums Consortium, which represented museums in England and Wales for the purposes of the surrender exercise, has selected approximately 4,600 handguns for consideration for retention by museums. No surrendered handguns have been sold, either here or abroad, and none are earmarked for other purposes.

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to those sentenced to longer than 30 months. [104842]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following the recommendation of the Better Regulation Task Force's Review of Fit Persons Criteria, we plan to review all the rehabilitation periods currently established by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

  Tharcisse Muvunyi
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the immigration status of Lt Col Tharcisse Muvunyi; when he was admitted to the UK; and what representations his Department has received concerning allegations made against him in respect of crimes against humanity. [104512]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: Lieutenant Colonel Muvunyi has limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom until 12 May 2002, having been admitted on 29 March 1998. The Home Office has received a number of representations concerning Lieutenant Colonel Muvunyi's alleged involvement in the genocide which took place in Rwanda in 1994. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has jurisdiction to prosecute persons responsible for this crime and for other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda in the period in question, and was indeed established by the United Nations to do so. The Tribunal which is located in Arusha, Tanzania, has extensive powers to request assistance from states. We have assisted the Tribunal in the past by helping it to approach Lieutenant Colonel Muvunyi for an interview and have made it clear that if the Tribunal requests the future assistance of the United Kingdom, we will act appropriately.

  Primates
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the import of primates from South-East Asia for onward export abroad for the purpose of experiment. [104280]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food authorises the transportation of animals, including primates, to the United Kingdom. Import licences for primates are issued under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 (as amended). These specify the intended use and require the animals to be transported immediately after landing by an authorised carrying agent to an authorised quarantine premises. They must remain there for six calendar months. Licences are not required in the case of animals which land at a port or airport for onward export from the same place within 48 hours. If an animal is exported from the United Kingdom before the period of quarantine is completed, their movement to the port of departure must be licensed.

  As such animals are not for use in regulated procedures in the United Kingdom, the Home Office has no involvement with them except where they are held in a supplying establishment designated under the Animals
  466W
  (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The establishment will be expected to meet the standards published in the Home Office Codes of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals. All establishments are regularly inspected, often without prior notice, to assess compliance with the 1986 Act, the terms and conditions of the certificate of designation, and the standards set out in the Codes of Practice.

  Police
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by Police Authority for each of the last four years the number of(a) civilian and (b) non-civilian employees who have retired early on the grounds of ill health and the cost of such retirements. [105343]

  Mr. Straw
  Tables containing the information requested on the number of ill health retirements for civilian and non-civilian employees from each Police Authority during the past four years have been placed in the Library.

  The Police Pension Scheme is administered locally by individual police authorities. The costs of ill health retirements are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105301]

  Mr. Straw
  The requested information on unoccupied properties held by my Department and its agencies is set out in the table entitled "Wholly or mainly vacant properties on the Home Office non-prison estate".

  In addition, the Home Office is in the process of acquiring/fitting out leasehold offices in London, Croydon and Merseyside to accommodate staff for new initiatives. It is anticipated that these properties will be occupied within a few weeks of acquisition.

  Prison Estate

  A strategic plan is currently being implemented to sell surplus Prison Service-owned land by 31 March 2002. This mainly involves plots of land near existing prison establishments; however, it does include three whole sites. These are two former stores sites at Branston, Staffordshire and Steventon, Oxfordshire, which are partially unoccupied and a site at Finnamore Wood near Marlow, Buckinghamshire, which is wholly unoccupied. The Service has also recently purchased sites for development at Ashworth—Merseyside, Belmarsh—South London, Peterborough and adjacent to Birmingham prison.

  The following residential properties have been notified to the centre as being vacant. The Prison Service's Estate Section does not hold information on the length of time properties have been unoccupied and could only obtain this from the local Governors at disproportionate cost. However, the majority of the properties currently being marketed have been vacant for six months or less.
  467W

  Wholly or mainly vacant properties on the Home Office non-prison estate

  Property

  Unoccupied from

  Reason

  Poltimore near Exeter, Devon (bunker/land)

  December 1993

  Sale with solicitors

  Hope Cove, near Salcombe, Devon (bunker/land)

  November 1992

  Three separate sales imminent

  Southwoods sub-station Southwoods, Yeovil (bunker/land)

  November 1992 but used for automatic equipment until recently

  Property to be sold

  STC Gringley, Nottinghamshire (land)

  March 1995

  Intended as a Secure Training Centre. Planning consent refused and site is being prepared for sale

  Lunar House, Croydon (offices)

  July 1999

  Property currently being refurbished for re-use

  Bridge House, London (offices)

  Acquired by HO December 1999

  To be refurbished as new UK Passport Agency HQ

  RAF Oakington, Cambridge (ex-military camp)

  Acquired by HO January 2000

  Being refurbished as an Immigration Reception Centre

  HMP Aldington, Near Ashford, Kent (ex-prison)

  August 1999

  Ex-prison estate. To be demolished and site used as an Immigration Detention Centre

  2 Marsham Street, London (offices)

  Leased by HO April 1999 (mainly unoccupied)

  Required for central London accommodation strategy. Bids expected 6 March 2000

  16 vacant staff houses at the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh

  1999 (varies, some have been vacant for a year, some have just become available)

  To be let short-term pending outcome of College review

  Vacant residential properties owned by HMPS in England and Wales listed by establishment as at 17 January 2000

  Establishment

  Property type

  Number

  Schedule A—vacant properties currently being disposed of

  Birmingham

  House

  1

  Blantyre House, Goudhurst, Kent

  House

  1

  Blundeston, Lowestoft, Sussex

  House

  1

  Deerbolt, Barnard Castle, Co. Durham

  House

  1

  Dover

  House

  1

  Everthorpe, Brough Yorkshire

  House

  2

  Exeter

  House

  1

  Feltham, Middlesex

  House

  1

  Foston Hall, Foston, Derby

  House

  1

  Guys Marsh, Shaftsbury, Dorset

  House

  1

  Haverigg, Millow, Cumbria

  House

  1

  Kirkham, Preston

  House

  3

  Vacant properties owned by HMPS in England and Wales listed by establishment as at 17 January 2000

  Establishment

  Property type

  Number

  Retention

  Schedule B—vacant properties retained on security/operational grounds (including chaplains) or for future development

  Acklington, Morpeth Northumberland

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Askham Grange, Askham Richard York

  Flat

  3

  Operational/Security

  Belmarsh, London SE28

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Brixton, London SW2

  Flat

  1

  Chaplain

  Brixton

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Buckley Hall, Rochdale Lancs

  House

  2

  Operational/Security

  Cookham Wood, Rochester Kent

  House

  1

  Development

  Durham

  Flat

  4

  Chaplain

  Gartree, Market Harborough Leics

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Hollesley Bay, Woodbridge Suffolk

  House

  1

  Operational/Security

  Holloway, London N7

  Flat

  12

  Development

  Holloway

  House

  1

  Operational/Security

  Hull

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Huntercombe, Nuffield Oxford

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Kirkham, Preston Lanes

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Latchmere House, Richmond Surrey

  House

  1

  Development

  Leeds

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Leyhill, Wotton-Under-Edge, Glos

  House

  2

  Chaplain (1)

  Lindholme, Hatfield Doncaster

  House

  2

  Chaplains

  Long Lartin, Evesham Worcs

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Low Newton, Durham

  House

  5

  Development

  Moorland, Hatfield Doncaster

  House

  2

  Operational/Security

  468W

  Vacant properties owned by HMPS in England and Wales listed by establishment as at 17 January 2000

  Establishment

  Property type

  Number

  Lindholme, Hatfield Doncaster

  House

  11

  Long Lartin, Evesham, Worc.

  House

  2

  Manchester

  Flat

  1

  Mount, Hemel Hempstead

  House

  1

  Parkhurst, Isle of Wight

  House

  1

  Pentonville, London N7

  House

  1

  Stockten, Stretton Leics.

  House

  13

  Wandsworth, London SW 18

  Flat

  1

  Wayland, Griston Norfolk

  House

  1

  Winchester

  House

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs, London W12

  House

  4

  Wymott, Leyland Preston

  House

  1

  469W

  Vacant properties owned by HMPS in England and Wales listed by establishment as at 17 January 2000

  Establishment

  Property type

  Number

  Retention

  Moreton Hall, Swinderby Lincoln

  House

  4

  Development

  North Sea Camp, Boston Lincolnshire

  House

  11

  Development

  Parkhurst, Isle of Wight

  House

  1

  Development

  Pentonville, London N7

  House

  1

  Operational/Security

  Portland

  House

  1

  Operational/Security

  Rochester

  House

  1

  Operational/Security

  Standford Hill, Isle of Sheppy Kent

  House

  1

  Operational/Security

  Stocken, Stretton Leics

  House

  5

  Operational/Security

  Styal, Wilmslow Cheshire

  House

  4

  Operational/Security

  Swinfen Hall, Lichfield Staffs

  House

  1

  Operational/Security

  Wandsworth, London SW18

  Flat

  1

  Defective1

  Wandsworth

  House

  1

  Chaplain

  Wormwood Scrubs, London W12

  Flat

  3

  Leasehold2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Flats

  17

  Development

  98

  1 But plan to sell if possible

  2 Can be sold if freehold obtained

  Refugee Accommodation
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations he has carried out into(a) the quality of accommodation and (b) the value for money offered by accommodation for refugees in the United Kingdom. [105575]

  Mrs. Roche
  Recognised refugees have freedom of movement within the United Kingdom and access to housing in the same way as other British residents. There is, therefore, no intention to make investigations into the quality of accommodation which they occupy.

  A procurement exercise is currently underway for accommodation for destitute asylum seekers under new arrangements for their support by the Home Office. All tenders received are commercially confidential. As part of the process of procurement, checks will be carried out to ensure the quality, suitability and value-for-money of accommodation offered in tenders. We expect these to be carried out in a number of ways, including: scrutiny of financial and other information; visits to some properties; and specified consultation with relevant local authorities.

  Seconded Staff
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [103606]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.
  470W
  For the periods in question, two private sector staff are recorded as having been seconded to my Department. One was from Barclay's Bank between January 1997 to January 1999 and the other is from PriceWaterhouseCoopers for 12 months from 4 August 1999. Other inward secondments of three months or more recorded centrally in the above periods, were predominantly from local government, the health service, and the European Union.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ayrshire
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Ayrshire. [103528]

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

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the vacancy on the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [106130]

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce that Ann Abraham has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in succession to Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe who stood down at the end of last year.

  I should like to take this opportunity to thank Baroness Warwick for her valuable contribution to the work of the Committee over the past five years.

  British-Irish Council
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of those who attended the inaugural meeting of the British-Irish Council, together with the names of their parliaments or assemblies; when and where the Council will next meet; and if he will make a statement. [105572]

  The Prime Minister
  The British-Irish Council, which was established under the Belfast Agreement, held its inaugural summit meeting in London on 17 December. The membership of the Council comprises the UK and Irish
  471W
  Governments, the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the administrations in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.

  I led the UK delegation and, as host, chaired the meeting. The remainder of the UK delegation consisted of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The other delegations were as follows:
  Ireland

  the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern TD

  the Tánaiste, Mary Harney TD

  Minister for Foreign Affairs, David Andrews TD

  Minister for Justice, John O'Donoghue

  Northern Ireland

  First Minister, the right hon. David Trimble MLA MP

  Deputy First Minister, Seamus Mallon MLA MP

  Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey MLA

  Minister for Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan MLA

  Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Bairbre de Brún MLA

  Scotland

  First Minister, the right hon. Donald Dewar MSP MP

  Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace MSP MP

  Permanent Secretary at the Scottish executive, Muir Russell

  Wales

  First Secretary, the right hon. Alun Michael JP AM MP

  Assembly Business Secretary, Andrew Davies AM

  Finance Secretary, Edwina Hart AM

  Isle of Man

  Chief Minister, hon. Donald Gelling MHK

  Chief Secretary, Fred Kissack

  Jersey

  President, Policy and Resources Committee, Senator Pierre Horsfall

  Chief Executive, Policy and Resources Committee, John Mills

  Guernsey

  President, Advisory and Finance Committee, Conseiller Laurie Morgan

  Chief Executive, Advisory and Finance Committee, Mike Brown.

  The Council agreed that its next summit meeting should take place in Dublin at the end of June 2000.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday, 19 January. [105232]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many recent papers considered by the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee have been drafted by Liberal Democrat hon. Members; [105668]
  472W
  (2) what plans he has to establish joint working groups between Government and Liberal Democrat hon. Members with a brief to report back to the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee. [105667]

  The Prime Minister
  As a Cabinet Committee the Joint Consultative Committee's proceedings are exempt from disclosure under the exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, dealing with internal discussion and advice.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 1999,Official Report, column 37W, if he will list the organisations and individuals who made representations in favour of the suggested supplement to the licence fee for digital television purposes. [104113]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: We will publish details of the responses to the Davies report when we announce the outcome of the review, shortly. This will include a summary of them. Subject to obtaining the permission of the organisations concerned, we will also make available the responses themselves. Pending our obtaining that permission, the responses must be regarded as having been given in confidence.

  World Cup
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the progress of the campaign to host the 2006 football World Cup in the United Kingdom. [104793]

  Kate Hoey
  FIFA will make its final decision as to the host country for the 2006 FIFA World Cup on 6 July and so that FA's bid is entering its final critical stage of campaigning. During their visit in October last year, the FIFA Inspection Team made clear their view that England has a very strong technical bid. Efforts to convey its strengths, together with the many proposed legacy benefit associated with hosting a World Cup in England, will be maximised by the FA bid team in the coming months. The government's Envoy to the bid team will play a full part in this work.

  An integral part of recent activity by the bid team has been the stepping up of lobbying of the 24 FIFA voters, involving both receiving visitors in England and the co-ordination of overseas visits. Recent events have included attendance by members of the bid team at the 2002 FIFA World Cup Preliminary Draw in Tokyo, the FIFA Under 17 Championships in New Zealand and the World Club Championship in Brazil involving Manchester United. In the coming months the bid team will make important presentations to each of FIFA's six Confederations across the world. The timetable for these presentations is as follows:

  20 January: CAF, Ghana

  5 February: CONMEBOL, Paraguay

  12–13 May: CONCACAF, Bahamas

  18 May: AFC, Malaysia

  Week commencing 22 May: OFC, New Zealand

  30 June: UEFA, Luxembourg.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of stockpiled(a) chemical weapons with blister, blood and choking agents and (b) bombs and artillery shells for the agents' delivery being held by Iran. [104783]

  Mr. Hain
  In conjunction with other Government Departments we regularly assess the status of a number of countries' stockpiles of chemical weapons and the equipment associated with its delivery. Such assessments draw heavily on intelligence sources and we are therefore unable to comment further.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the long-range ballistic missile capability of Iran and its effect on the balance of power in the region. [104997]

  Mr. Hain
  We regularly discuss proliferation issues with Iran and have frequently expressed our concern about Iranian attempts to develop ballistic missile systems. We remain particularly concerned by Iran's development of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile. Such a system could pose a threat to stability in the region.

  Iran is not the only country in the region to possess such technology, and we understand Iran's legitimate security concerns. Despite this we continue to urge Iran to refrain from the development of ballistic missiles.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the progress made by Iran towards the acquisition of non-conventional weapons. [104996]

  Mr. Hain
  In conjunction with other Government Departments, we regularly assess the status of efforts by a number of countries to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Such assessments draw heavily on intelligence sources and we are therefore unable to comment further.

  Iran is a Non-Nuclear-Weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. We continue to encourage Iran to respect these treaties and to comply fully with its obligations under them.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Iranian President is in control of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence; [105000]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Iranian President is in control of Iran's security services. [104999]
  474W
  Mr. Hain
  The internal workings of the Iranian Government are a matter for the Iranian people. As far as our dealings with Iran are concerned, President Khatami is the head of the Iranian Government, with responsibility for all Ministries within that Government.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role of(a) the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and (b) the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security in acts of terror. [105001]

  Mr. Battle
  This Government condemn terrorism in all its forms. Any such specific assessments could only come from intelligence sources and would, therefore, be exempted from disclosure under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to Annexe 5, Paragraph 3 of the Common Strategy for the Ukraine agreed at the Helsinki European Council, when and where the Partnership Agreement with the Ukraine was negotiated; when it came or will come into effect; who were its signatories; and to what parliamentary procedures it has been or will be subject. [105082]

  Mr. Vaz
  The EU Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with Ukraine was negotiated in Brussels during 1993–94 and signed on 14 June 1994. It came into force on 1 March 1998 after ratification by all parties to the PCA: Ukraine, the 15 EU members states, the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of Her Majesty's Ambassador in Kiev in implementing Her Majesty's Government's policy on relations between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. [105127]

  Mr. Vaz
  Her Majesty's Ambassador in Kiev is charged with promoting the interests of the United Kingdom in Ukraine. The Ambassador plays a central role in pursuing Her Majesty's Government's policy, explaining that policy to the Government of Ukraine, and advising Her Majesty's Government on developments in Ukraine.

  International Court of Justice
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 13 December 1999,Official Report, column 19W, on the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, if he will make a statement on the application of the Court's jurisdiction to those Member States which had not been party to any decision of the European Council taken under article 23 of the consolidated Treaty on European Union. [105133]

  Mr. Vaz
  Article 23 of the consolidated Treaty on European Union is not relevant to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which is governed by Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.

  European Councils
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirements are placed on applicants for membership of the European Union as regards accepting all the currently applicable decisions and conclusions of European Councils; and what the basis is for such requirements. [105128]

  Mr. Vaz
  In order to become members of the EU, applicants must meet the criteria agreed at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 (annexed).

  At the opening of the accession negotiations with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia on 31 March 1998, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, representing the Presidency, laid down the principles for negotiation, emphasising the necessity of
  "full acceptance of the actual and potential rights and obligations attaching to the Union system and its institutional framework, known as the 'acquis' of the Union".

  This includes the decisions and conclusions of European Councils. The applicant's acceptance of the 'acquis' may give rise to technical adjustments, and exceptionally to non-permanent transitional measures. The same principles will govern the accession negotiations with Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia, which will begin in February 2000.

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 31W, on the Ilisu Dam, what specific issues were raised by the Syrian Ambassador about the Ilisu Dam at his meeting with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 23 December. [R] [104853]

  Mr. Hain
  The Syrian Ambassador asked the FCO to take full account of the impact of the Ilisu Dam project on the Syrian economy and people, on relations between Syria and Turkey, and on legal obligations.

  These issues are reflected in the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 December, which outlined the UK's four key concerns, including the need for an assurance that adequate downstream water flows be maintained at all times.

  Counter-terrorism (USA)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a copy of the testimony of the Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism in the US State Department before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 2 November 1999; and if he will make a statement. [105002]

  Mr. Battle
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received a copy of the State Department's testimony. We liaise closely with the United States on counter-terrorism issues both bilaterally and in international fora, such as the G8.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods on the UK Military List have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [106111]

  Mr. Hain
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence to export 160 protective vests to Iraq for use by UN personnel in a humanitarian demining programme. The export of the equipment to Iraq was approved under the oil for Food Programme by the UN Sanctions Committee.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105302]

  Mr. Battle
  The following properties are wholly unoccupied:

  Frankfurt former Residence—vacant since 1998

  Jakarta former Residence—vacant since 1996

  PlymouthformerResidence—vacant since 1995(owned by Government of Montserrat)

  St. Johns former Residence—vacant since 1999

  Tripoli Offices—vacant since 1984.

  The following properties are mainly unoccupied:

  Baghdad Offices—since 1991

  Ho Chi Minh City former Residence—since 1993

  Kabul Offices—since 1992

  Old Admiralty Building, London—since 1999.

  India
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the Vishwa Hindu Parishad Organisation's attack on a Christian meeting in India; and if he will make a statement. [105576]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of reports of attacks on Christians in India and have received many letters on this subject. We have made clear our concern about attacks on religious minorities to the Indian authorities on a number of occasions. I raised this most recently with my Indian interlocutors, including the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, during my visit there in November.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on extending the arms embargo on Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [105578]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 325W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the role of her Department in monitoring and measuring the bilateral debt relief programme. [105681]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our Department has no direct role in monitoring and measuring the use of the bilateral debt relief which is provided as part of an international agreement, including that given under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. We strongly welcome the sharpened poverty focus of the HIPC Initiative agreed in September 1999. In order to benefit under the enhanced Initiative, HIPC countries will have to produce a poverty reduction strategy (PRS), based around the achievement of the international development targets. Our Department is closely engaged in the international discussions on the development of these strategies, including how they will be monitored. We place great importance on both civil society and the international community being able to monitor their implementation, and we recognise that increased international efforts will be required in this area. In November 1999, the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century was launched. Its aims are to provide statistical assistance to HIPC countries in producing their poverty reduction strategies and to develop sustainable statistical capacity in the longer term, to inform and support pro-poor policy making, and programme design. DFID is devoting additional resources to achieve these aims, both bilaterally and multilaterally.

  Bilateral debt relief provided on aid loans owed to our Department is given in the context of our development partnership, and monitored in the same way as all other programmes and projects. The Government have recently announced that they will provide 100 per cent. relief on all the bilateral debt owed to the Export Credit Guarantee Department by qualifying HIPC countries. No additional conditionality will be attached to the provision of this relief nor will special efforts be made to monitor its use. We are confident that the conditions of the revised HIPC Initiative are sufficient to guarantee that monies freed up will be spent on poverty reduction.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the British Council will be involved in monitoring the outcome of debt relief measures. [105683]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The British Council will not be involved in monitoring the outcome of debt relief measures.

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries that will benefit from debt relief, stating(a) by how much in each case and (b) their order of priority. [105235]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The following 41 countries are classified as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC):Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Kenya, Lao PDR, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique,
  478W
  Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zambia.

  To date, debt relief has been provided (in net present value terms) under the HIPC Initiative as follows:

  Countries

  Date

  $ million

  Uganda

  April 1998

  347

  Bolivia

  September 1998

  448

  Guyana

  May 1999

  256

  Mozambique

  July 1999

  1,716

  No other country has received debt relief under HIPC to date, and it is not possible to provide figures on what each will receive in the future. Following the revisions agreed last September, the HIPC Initiative will provide faster, deeper and wider debt relief. This will amount to around $50 billion (in nominal terms), which is more than twice as much as under the original framework. The countries listed will receive additional debt relief, and those countries yet to receive relief will be assessed against the new debt sustainability ratios.

  Countries not classified as HIPC may nevertheless receive assistance with their debt from the Paris Club of official bilateral creditors. There are a variety of terms which may be offered to a debtor country, in the form of debt reduction for the poorest countries and debt rescheduling.

  The Government are pressing for the speedy implementation of the revised HIPC framework. Our target, which was agreed by the international community last year, is for three-quarters of eligible HIPC countries to be receiving relief on their debts by the end of 2000.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to visit Kosovo. [105688]

  Clare Short
  I have no plans to do so.

  Departmental Casual Staff
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the number of casual staff employed by her Department for every quarter since 1 May 1997. [105682]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The information is provided in the table:

  Date

  Number of casual staff in post1

  1 October

  30

  1 July 1999

  40

  1 April 1999

  32

  1 January 1999

  29

  1 October 1998

  32

  1 July 1998

  40

  1 April 1998

  39

  1 January 1998

  39

  1 October 1997

  40

  1 July 1997

  43

  1 Data is available only for the total number of casual staff in post as at the beginning of each quarter. The figures are provided on this basis

  Departmental Website
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the cost of(a) setting up and (b) updating her Department's website; and how often it is updated. [105692]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development's (DFID) website was set up in 1997 at an initial cost of £10,000. The annual maintenance cost is £12,000 and development costs for 1998–99 were £3,500. The website is updated regularly, usually on a daily basis.

  Poverty Reduction
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the role of the IMF in poverty reduction. [105236]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At the Annual Meetings of the World bank and IMF in September 1999, as part of the discussion on revision of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative it was agreed that all low-income countries would produce poverty reduction strategies (PRS). The process of developing these strategies will be led by national Governments, and involve discussion with civil society and the international community, including the IMF. They will integrate macro-economic objectives, structural reforms and social policies and programmes, and centre on the achievement of the international development targets. The IMF have committed themselves to providing their assistance to the poorest countries within the framework of these poverty reduction strategies; as a sign of this new focus, the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) has been redesignated as the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF).

  This commitment to the poverty reduction strategy approach is consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 Review of ESAF, which proposed that the IMF should take more account of the social impact of their programmes, consider the quality of Government expenditure and protect budgets in high priority areas such as health and education. It encouraged greater joint working with the World bank, and emphasised the need to build broad-based support for reform programmes, to ensure their success. Following proposals put forward by the UK, the World bank, in consultation with the IMF and the UN, has developed principles of good practices in social policy. We envisage that these principles will be drawn upon in the design of poverty reduction strategies and supporting donor programmes.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to reduce smoking in her Department. [105798]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Smoking is not permitted in the workplace. However, separate accommodation is available for staff and visitors who wish to smoke occasionally. In addition, we provide staff with information on the health implications of smoking and offer counselling and support to those who want to give up smoking.

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the new year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if she will make a statement. [104469]

  Clare Short
  The total spent on extra bonuses to civil servants in my Department was £16,900. Twenty-nine people received the maximum payment of £500. Fifteen people received the minimum bonus of £100.

  This was mainly to ensure that the Department for International Development's (DFID) information systems world wide were functioning properly and to correct any problems before the resumption of normal business on 4 January.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will publish its response to the consultation document on the Small Business Service. [105978]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have today placed in the Library of both Houses a document which gives a summary of the replies to the consultation and sets out the Government's response.

  We had an excellent response to the consultation to shape the remit of the Small Business Service. We received 700 replies from a wide range of individuals and organisations, including many small businesses. The vast majority warmly welcomed our proposals.

  I look forward to the launch of the Small Business Service this April under its Chief Executive, David Irwin.

  Household Products (Pesticides)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the labelling requirements which apply to the presence of(a) Lindane and (b) other pesticides in household products. [104652]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: All non-agricultural pesticides supplied to consumers must be approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended), which require, among other things, that manufacturers must name on the product label the active ingredient(s), such as Lindane, present in the product. Under the regulations, a scientific assessment by the relevant Registration Authority (MAFF or HSE) of each individual product is carried out. This evaluation indicates what other labelling information is required, such as the safe use of the product and warnings about precautions that should be taken. Following approval, products are subject to an on-going review programme which ensures that the data on which the product approvals are based meets current safety standards.

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his statement to the House on 9 December 1999,Official Report, column 1024, on the World Trade Organisation, what steps the Director General of the World Trade Organisation has taken to achieve the objective of a five-fold increase in the budget for technical assistance and capacity building for developing countries. [104588]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Director General made a plea to all WTO members to increase regular budget funding for technical assistance to which he hoped to secure agreement in Seattle in the context of wider agreement on the launch of the new Round. In the absence of the wider agreement, there is as yet no consensus for enhanced regular budget funding of technical assistance. The UK will pursue this further in the WTO Budget Committee in Geneva and in discussions with EU and other partners.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide details of the licences granted(a) for the export of weapons silencers to Turkey since 2 May 1997 and (b) to Law Enforcement International Ltd. for the export of weapons silencers since 2 May 1997. [104156]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating and most ratings cover a range of goods. Weapons silencers are controlled under entries ML1, ML2, ML6 and PL5018 in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended, commonly known as the Military List.

  As regards export licences granted for the export of weapons silencers to Turkey between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1998, details of export licensing decisions in this period were set out in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; copies are in the Library of the House. As regards licences granted since 1 January 1999, the Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 1999 and 3 January 2000, 21 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and no Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued for the export of goods with a relevant rating to consignees or end users in Turkey. The paper records of the 21 SIELs have been examined and none covered the export of weapons silencers.

  As regards export licences granted to Law Enforcement International Limited for the export of weapons silencers, inquiries are being made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Where confidential information is involved, the parties concerned may be asked if they object to disclosure, and this can take some time. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

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

  Insolvency Practices Council
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the salary is of the newly-appointed chairman of the Insolvency Practices Council. [104889]

  Dr. Howells
  The Insolvency Practices Council is an independent body which is to be funded by IPR Services Ltd., a company limited by guarantee set up by the insolvency recognised professional bodies. Questions concerning the salary of Mr. Graham Kentfield, the recently appointed chairman of the Council, are a matter for that company.

  British Business Promotion
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives his Department is taking to promote British business abroad. [105268]

  Mr. Caborn
  British Trade International brings together DTI and FCO responsibilities for trade development and promotion in a new unified operation. The goals of British Trade International are set out in a National Strategy, which was published on 29 October 1999.

  Copies of the Strategy have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Truck Manufacturing (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance he is giving to truck manufacturing in the north-west. [105263]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  While truck manufacturers based in the north-west of England have received no direct financial assistance from my Department in recent years, officials in London and the Government Office for the north-west in Manchester provide help and advice on a number of issues. In addition, north-west truck manufacturers benefit from wider automotive industry competitiveness and technology initiatives. These include the SMMT Industry Forum, to which the DTI has contributed £6.5 million, and the DTI-led Foresight Vehicle programme, to which the Government are contributing £12 million.

  Car Pricing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on car pricing in the UK. [105276]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Competition Commission is currently investigating the supply of new cars in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt the Commission is looking at car prices as part of its investigation.

  The Commission is due to deliver its report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 January. The report will be published as soon as practicable.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effect of the strong pound on UK manufacturing industry in the last 12 months. [105271]
  483W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government understand the concerns of businesses, and particularly manufacturers trading with Europe, about the value of the pound. However, there are increasing signs that companies are adjusting to the high value of sterling. In the third quarter the volume of exports of goods and services grew at the fastest rate for 20 years. Manufacturing output also increased over the same period by 1.2 per cent., the fastest quarterly rate of growth since 1994, and the CBI's business confidence indicator is also at its highest level since April 1995.

  Electricity Meters
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many properties in(a) Tamworth and (b) the United Kingdom have electric card meters; what proportion this represents of all properties; and how much is paid for electricity by a customer using (i) an electric card meter and (ii) standard payment methods. [105146]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are no electric card pre-payment meters in Tamworth but there are 5,329 token meters. In the United Kingdom there are 3.6 million pre-payment meters (including card and token meters). This represents around 15 per cent. of the number of domestic customers in the United Kingdom (as at March 1998). An average annual bill for an East Midlands Electricity customer on a pre-payment meter tariff would be £263.15 as opposed to £241.95 for a standard payment tariff (both based on a consumption of 3,300 kWh).

  Post Offices
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means individuals will be able to exercise their proposed right of access to a post office in circumstances where an existing postmaster or postmistress is retiring and no other person is willing to continue the business. [105150]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  For the first time the Government will be setting criteria for access to postal services, and there will be a requirement in law for the new Postal Services Commission to monitor these criteria to ensure that they are being met, and to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of any concerns about access to postal services in local areas. Particular attention will be paid to rural and socially deprived areas. Following work by the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), access criteria for Post Office services will be announced within the next few months.

  Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses own their businesses and any decision to sell or retire is a matter for them. But our proposals will ensure that the effects of their decision on the provision of services in local areas can be considered. Under our proposals, where an individual sub-post office closes, individuals will be able to appeal to the Post Office Users' Council about the provision of post offices in their area if they do not receive a satisfactory response from the Post Office. Using the access criteria as a benchmark, the Users' Council, through the Commission, will take up specific cases with the Post Office to ensure the access criteria are met.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will formulate plans for state aid to the UK coal industry which are compliant with article 2(1) of Commission Decision 3632/93/ECSC. [104902]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Article 2 (1) of Commission Decision 3632/93/ECSC sets out the three objectives for which aid to the coal industry might be considered compatible with the ECSC Treaty.

  The Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 1999 in respect of case T-220/98 made it clear that the three objectives listed correspond individually to particular categories of aid.

  The first category refers to operating aid under Article 3 of the Decision, which must cause no distortion of competition or discrimination between UK coal producers or users, requires a plan showing a significant reduction in operating costs over the period to July 2002 with the prospect of viability thereafter. There is also a requirement for degression of aid.

  The second category is in respect of aid to solve the social and regional problems created by total or partial reduction in the activity of production units. Aid for the Reduction of Activity under Article 4 requires a closure date to be set, which must normally be before expiry of the Decision in 2002. There is no provision for investment aid within the ECSC state aid code set out in the Decision. The Government have Commission approval under Article 5 of Decision 3632/93/ECSC to pay state aid up to £891 million over the period to July 2002 in respect of residual environmental and ex-employee liabilities inherited from British Coal.

  The third category covers objectives to help the coal industry adjust to the introduction of new environmental protection standards which require the modification of existing installations.

  We are continuing to work constructively with the industry to promote a level playing field for coal both in the UK and in Europe, and to identify undue regulatory burdens.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105792]

  Dr. Howells
  In buildings occupied and controlled by my Department, smoking is permitted only in a small number of designated rooms or areas. Advice and guidance is available to staff who wish to give up, cut down, or control their smoking.

  Holbeck Holdings
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the date is of the most recent documents received by Companies House concerning the financial standing of Holbeck Holdings of Kilmarnock. [105295]

  Dr. Howells
  Holbeck Holdings Ltd., Company number 0609393, has its registered office in Horncastle, Lincolnshire. It has a wholly owned subsidiary, Buitelaar (Kilmarnock) Ltd., Company number2190181, with
  485W
  the same registered office address. Accounts for both companies for the year to 30 April 1998 were received on 14 January 1999 and subsequently registered by Companies House.

  Export Credits Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the savings from the recently announced changes to the export credits guarantee scheme in the(a) current and (b) next four financial years. [105839]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: ECGD's new Fixed Rate Export Finance (FREF) scheme, which became effective on 1 December, is designed to achieve an improved balance between the interests of the UK exporter and the taxpayer. Financial outturn under the scheme will depend on a number of factors, including the future mix and level of business, which is uncertain. But if the recent business mix is maintained over the coming period, taxpayer savings of around £1 million per annum should accrue for every £1 billion of new loan outstanding supported under the scheme.

  Synchrotron Project
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the ADD Report the synchrotron project will be made available to the public. [105625]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The full ADD Report will not be made available to the public. Its release is exempt under Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Exemption 2— Internal discussions and advice; Exemption 7—Effective management of operations of the public service). The key conclusions of the report together with a summary will be published following the site announcement.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the minimum wage on the(a) level of employment and (b) profitability of businesses. [104882]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government asked the independent Low Pay Commission to report on the implementation of the national minimum wage, particularly its impact on employment and competitiveness. We received the Commission's Report in December and will publish the Report and the Government's response as soon as Ministers have had an opportunity to consider its findings and recommendations.

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions nuclear materials have been withdrawn from safeguards under the provisions of the Tripartite Agreement between the UK, Euratom and IAEA since May 1997; and if he will list the nuclear establishments involved and respective reasons for withdrawal. [104701]

  Dr. Howells
  Between May 1997 and the end of 1999 there were 20 advance notifications of the withdrawal of nuclear material from safeguards pursuant to Article 14 of the UK/AEA/Euratom Safeguards Agreement. The 486W
  withdrawals comprised small quantities of material for use in instrument calibration or radiation detectors, or as analytical tracers or radiological shielding. The organisations from which the withdrawals took place were UKAEA Harwell, the National Physical Laboratory, Nycomed Amersham, Centronics Ltd., and RSL Equipment Ltd. The establishments to which the material concerned was transferred were AWE Aldermaston, HM Naval Base Devonport, DERA Gosport and NRTE Vulcan, Dounreay.

  As indicated by the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), in his answer of 19 October 1998, Official Report, column 1046W, a study of data on withdrawals from safeguards which took place prior to announcement of the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is being conducted, the outcome of which will be made public later this year.

DEFENCE

  Nancekuke Base, Cornwall
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury of 11 November 1999,Official Report, columns 707–08W, on work at Nancekuke, if any additional information has come to light. [104505]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on 11 January 2000,Official Report, columns 125–26W.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on substances buried at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall. [105606]

  Mr. Spellar
  A Land Quality Assessment is currently under way at RAF Portreath, formerly Nancekuke, in line with the Ministry of Defence's policy of undertaking such assessments over a 10 year period from 1996. As part of this work, surface soil and water samples have been taken for laboratory analysis. This analysis has revealed no signs of contamination from toxic agents.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 343–44W, on the common foreign and security policy, if he will make a statement on developments in the issues referred to in his answers following the European Council in Helsinki in December 1999. [105657]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Helsinki European Council, EU member states committed themselves to improving their military capabilities so that they will be better able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain effective forces for NATO or EU-led operations. In particular, they agreed a headline goal, specifying that by 2003 they should be able to deploy within 60 days, and sustain for at least one year, military forces of up to 50,000–60,000 persons capable of undertaking the full range of Petersberg tasks.
  487W
  The Helsinki European Council also confirmed the political and military structures that will be necessary for the EU to decide and act in response to crises, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. To this end, EU member states agreed to establish a permanent EU Political and Security Committee, an EU Military Committee, and an EU Military Staff, with interim bodies to be established by March 2000.

  This work will be taken forward under the Portuguese Presidency of the EU.

  Training Exercises (Ration Packs)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of availability of ration packs for training exercises in the field; and what orders have been issued to limit distribution of such items. [105590]

  Mr. Spellar
  A food war reserve of Operational Ration Packs (ORP) is maintained to support operational deployments. ORP is a lifed product and stock is turned over accordingly. The ORP that is turned over is made available for training and exercises and its distribution is agreed annually with the Services in line with availability. Reductions in the amount of stock carried as a war reserve have reduced the amount of ORP turned over. The implications for the training programme are currently being evaluated, including the option to procure additional ration packs specifically for training.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the British contribution to the intervention in Kosovo to the end of 1999; and what are the projected costs for 2000. [105503]

  Mr. Hoon
  As at the end of October, the Ministry of Defence had incurred net additional expenditure of £125 million on Kosovo operations this financial year. The figure is expected to rise to just below £400 million by the end of 1999–2000.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the costs of the Kosovo deployment for the current financial year. [105618]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The net additional expenditure incurred this financial year on Kosovo operations is expected to be just below £400 million. I have agreed with my Treasury colleagues that these costs will be covered by the Reserve and I am currently discussing the details in the context of my Department's Spring Supplementary Estimates.

  Departmental Land (Access Rights)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rights of access currently exist for hunting wild mammals with dogs on his Department's land. [105496]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are 35 licensed fox hunts and beagle packs that have access to areas of Ministry of Defence land. The areas into which access is permitted are agreed, with each individual hunt or pack, at the time the annual licence is issued. Entry into these areas is 488W
  determined throughout the licence period against the military training requirement, which will always take priority.

  HMS Westminster
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, columns 97–98W, concerning HMS Westminster and the In Year Budget Management Measure, what were the sums allocated for fuel for the Fleet in the current year and in the two previous years; and what provision is made in the budget for increases in fuel prices. [105148]

  Mr. Spellar
  The sums allocated for fuel for the Fleet (HM Warships and RFAs) in the current year and the two previous years were as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  34.572

  1998–99

  40.283

  1999–2000

  137.924

  1 The allocation for the current year includes £9.5 million over and above the original allocation.

  No specific provision is made in the budget for increases in fuel prices, however my Department uses normal in year management flexibility to cope with the effects of short-term changes such as this.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105306]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Meteor Missiles
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards have been offered to ensure that the UK maintains control over the sale of Meteor missiles as part of the package with Eurofighter Typhoons to third countries. [105648]

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

  Armed Forces Discipline Bill
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Special Investigation Bureau investigators are currently employed and at what locations; and by how many he will expand the service following the enactment of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. [105649]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows:

  The Naval Service
  The Royal Naval Special Investigation Branch comprises a total of 20 investigators, all of whom are based at Portsmouth, but who have a Fleet and world-wide remit. It is not intended to expand their numbers following the enactment of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill.
  489W
  The Army

  Location

  Number

  Upavon

  5

  Colchester

  6

  Aldershot

  13

  Shorncliffe

  2

  Bulford

  11

  Plymouth

  1

  Bulford (HQ)

  15

  York

  5

  Catterick

  6

  Hounslow

  8

  Edinburgh

  7

  Donnington

  7

  Preston

  1

  Chichester (Trg)

  9

  Hohne

  7

  Osnabruck

  7

  Bielefeld

  3

  Gutersloh

  6

  Rheindahlen (Inc)

  16

  Sennelager

  7

  Northern Ireland

  20

  Cyprus

  4

  Canada (BATUS)

  11

  Total

  167

  The table shows the number of Special Investigation Branch investigators by their permanent location. Eleven of the 167 are currently on overseas short detachments (five to Kosovo, five to Bosnia, and one to East Timor).
  There are no plans to increase specific SIB numbers due to the enactment of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. However, planning for the implementation of the likely provisions of the Act once it has passed into law is under way, and current plans provide for an increase in the overall number of Royal Military Police (other than SIB). As that work progresses over the coming months, that number will be refined and confirmed.

  The RAF
  The following table shows the number of RAF personnel employed in the criminal investigation element of the RAF's Provost and Security Services (P&SS).

  Location

  Number

  RAF Henlow (HQ)

  34

  RAF Cranwell

  10

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  11

  RAF Buchan

  7

  RAF Halton

  11

  RAF Innsworth

  14

  Rheindahlen

  7

  Cyprus

  5

  Gibraltar

  1

  Falkland Islands

  1

  Total

  101

  The RAF has no plans to expand the P&SS organisation following the enactment of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill.

  Courts Martial Centres
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of courts martial centres. [105650]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows.
  490W
  Naval Service

  Portsmouth

  Plymouth

  Faslane

  Yeovilton

  Army

  Aldershot

  Bulford

  Catterick

  Colchester

  Long Kesh, Northern Ireland

  Hohne

  Osnabruck

  Gutersloh

  RAF
  The RAF does not have dedicated courts-martial centres. Individual courts-martial are normally held at the defendant's unit.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the change in the size of the Territorial Army was in each of the last six months. [103926]

  Mr. Spellar
  The change in size of the Territorial Army in each of the last six months for which figures are available was as follows:

  Number

  1 December 1999

  -314

  1 November 1999

  876

  1 October 1999

  -505

  1 September 1999

  -521

  1 August 1999

  -1,177

  1 July 1999

  -1,867

  Note:

  The above figures do not include non-regular permanent staff (NRPS).

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total intake of new recruits to the Territorial Army was in each of the last six months. [103927]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total intake of new recruits to the Territorial Army in each of the last six months for which figures are available was as follows:

  Number

  June 1999

  517

  July 1999

  395

  August 1999

  471

  September 1999

  531

  October 1999

  1,779

  November 1999

  712

  Note:

  The above figures do not include non-regular permanent staff (NRPS).

  MOD Hospital Units
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) the value for money provided by Ministry of Defence hospital units and (b) their ability to meet future demands. [104416]
  491W
  Mr. Spellar
  A detailed study of the size and shape of the future operational requirements for medical support was carried out in 1995. This study endorsed the strategy of greater integration with the NHS mainly through the creation of Ministry of Defence Hospital Units. This integration has been shown to be more effective than previous arrangements, particularly in ensuring military medical staff receive the required training. A recent further review has endorsed the continuation of this policy to meet current and future demands for the delivery of secondary care.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) of 14 December 1999,Official Report, column 93W, if he will publish those data on sub-critical nuclear test experiments and the exchange of details between the United States and the United Kingdom, which have been made publicly available in the United States of America. [104727]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are not aware that US authorities have made public either the precise data obtained as a result of their sub-critical nuclear test experiments or details of any exchanges with the UK on the subject which are withheld here under the terms of Exemption Category 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, details of the intention to conduct such tests and a general description of their purpose have been published in the USA and on the Internet, for example at the US Department of Energy website http://www.doe.gov.

  Operational Areas
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the areas in which British armed forces have been(a) deployed and (b) stationed since 1970 which (i) have and (ii) have not been designated as an operational area. [104812]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on the many areas throughout the world in which elements of the British Armed Forces have been deployed and stationed since 1970 is available in the annual Statements on the Defence Estimates publications. However there is no centrally collated list covering all these locations or which of those were at the time designated as an operational area, and such a list could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Cluster Bombs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cluster bombs were used by United Kingdom forces during the Kosovo campaign; and what is his estimate of the number of(a) sub-munitions within the cluster bombs that did not detonate on impact and (b) locations where there are undetonated sub-munitions. [104863]

  Mr. Hoon
  During Operation Allied Force, some 500 RBL 755 Cluster Bombs were dropped by the RAF against specific, identified, military targets.

  The bomblets (sub-munitions) within cluster bombs are designed to detonate on impact, but as with any other similar munitions, a small percentage may fail to do so.
  492W
  The manufacturer's estimated failure rate for the RBL 755 cluster bombs used by the UK during the Kosovo campaign is approximately 5 per cent.

  KFOR has now cleared over 7,400 cluster bomb munitions throughout Kosovo, in addition to some 6,100 Serbian anti-personnel mines and 3,400 anti-tank mines. All unexploded ordnance sites in the UK sector of Kosovo have now been marked and 90 per cent. of unexploded cluster bomb munitions cleared.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost since the closure of RAF Chilmark of(a) annual maintenance and (b) cleaning and preparing the site for disposal. [104801]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total cost of annual maintenance at RAF Chilmark since closure of the site in 1995 is in the order of £490,000. The cost of cleaning and preparing the site for sale in accordance with MOD policy has amounted to £371,460.

WALES

  Farming
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary to discuss farming in Wales. [103494]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a range of issues, including farming in Wales.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the Government's proposals for greater access to the countryside. [103495]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have received letters on this issue and I met the Country Landowners Association in October and the Countryside Council for Wales in December to discuss this and other issues.

  Livestock Industry
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on prospects for the Welsh livestock industry and their implications for the economy of cross-border areas. [103496]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a range of issues, including the Welsh livestock industry. I am acutely aware of the long-term problems facing Welsh agriculture, which is heavily dependent on livestock, and the current difficulties.

  A number of steps have been taken to address the difficulties faced by the farming community such as the package announced last September by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and measures introduced by the Assembly. However our priority must be to restructure the industry

  493W
  to produce a stable, sustainable and prosperous future for Welsh farming and I know that this is something which the Assembly is working towards.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the opportunities through national lottery funding for promoting cultural exchanges between Wales and Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Brittany and the Isle of Man. [103499]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Secretary of State for Wales meets the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on a regular basis to discuss a number of issues, including cultural exchanges and the broad priorities for future distribution of lottery funding in Wales through the New Opportunities Fund.

  He would welcome the development of cultural exchanges between Wales and Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, Brittany and the Isle of Man, but it would be for the promoters of those exchanges to explore appropriate sources of funding.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the impact on pensioners in Wales of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget Statement. [103500]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Secretary of State meets the First Secretary regularly, and was pleased to be able to inform him that the Chancellor's pre-Budget Statement guarantees the £100 fuel allowance every year for 585,000 Welsh pensioners, that the 230,000 Welsh pensioners who are over 75 will get free television licences, and that the Minimum Pension Guarantee will be up-rated in line with earnings instead of inflation.

  Care Provision
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on care provision in Wales. [103502]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the impact on care provision of the Government's legislative programme. [103511]

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on care provision in Wales. [103498]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both had discussions with the First Secretary and Assembly members about the Government's legislative programme. The Bills that will impact on care provision in Wales have, of course, been included in these discussions.

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions he has attended and participated in the proceedings of the Assembly. [103503]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have attended and participated in one plenary session of the Assembly, the debate on the Government's legislative programme.

  Transport
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on transport in Wales. [103504]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues including transport and its impact in Wales.

  The introduction of the Transport Bill on 1 December 1999 shows the Government's continued commitment to provide an integrated transport policy for both England and Wales.

  I am keen to ensure that the interests of Wales are fully met and will maintain dialogue with Cabinet colleagues and the Assembly.

  European Union
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what occasions a Minister of the Welsh Executive has(a) accompanied a United Kingdom Minister for discussions with the European Union and (b) led on behalf of the UK at discussions with the European Union. [103505]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues between the United Kingdom Government, Scottish Ministers and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales, Assembly Secretaries are eligible to form part of UK delegations to the Council of Ministers, by agreement. Decisions on Ministerial attendance, and on whether Ministers from the devolved administrations could speak on behalf of the UK in Council, are taken on a case by case basis by the lead Minister.

  To date, no Assembly Secretary has done so. However, I understand that Assembly Secretaries are actively considering which Councils they will be seeking to attend in future.

  Worldwide Web
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to increase the use of the worldwide web by his Department. [103506]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have no immediate plans to increase the use of the Web by my Department.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy
  495W
  of the size of individual unitary authorities in relation to (a) financial viability and (b) maintaining consistent standards of service delivery. [103507]

  Mr. Hanson
  I meet the Assembly Cabinet's Secretary for Local Government on a regular basis to ensure that I am well informed on local government in Wales. However, the adequacy of the size of individual unitary authorities in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, to which responsibility for local government has been devolved.

  SMEs
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget Statement and the Government's legislative programme. [103508]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary to discuss a variety of issues including SMEs. The First Secretary, the Government and I recognise the importance of SMEs to the Welsh economy and the UK as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget Statement unveiled plans for £45 million of enterprise grants to foster the growth of SMEs throughout the UK and represents the Government's continuing commitment to stimulate an already established enterprise culture.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about United Kingdom assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. [103509]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly and discuss a variety of issues, including assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. Measures giving assistance to small and medium-size businesses were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's last pre-budget statement. The introduction of funds for the UK is expected to be worth at least £125 million. These funds will provide welcome but necessary development and support to new and already established ventures.

  Regulation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the regulatory burden on businesses in Wales arising from primary legislation. [103510]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government will introduce the Regulatory Reform Bill this Session. This Bill will make provision to widen the deregulation order making power currently available under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  The National Assembly for Wales is being consulted on this and the Wales Office are working to ensure that burdens on business in Wales, as well as in England, stemming from inappropriate or excessive regulation can be tackled under the proposed new order-making power.

  Information about the impact of all regulations—which is not held separately for primary and secondary legislation—is held centrally by the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit. It is not broken down for different areas of the UK but relates to the UK as a whole.

  Students (Funding)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the funding of students at Welsh universities. [103512]

  Mr. Hanson
  None.

  Health Resources
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent discussions with the First Minister on the allocation of health resources in Wales. [103513]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have regular discussions about the NHS in Wales with the First Secretary. These discussions often cover health resources, but it is for the Assembly to decide on the allocation of the resources in Wales.

  Theatre
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to discuss with the First Secretary issues relating to the theatre in education in Wales. [103514]

  Mr. Hanson
  Following the Adjournment debate on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 93–100WH, I have written to Tom Middlehurst, Assembly Secretary responsible for post-16 education and training, on this issue. The Secretary of State and I will decide whether further discussions with the First Secretary are required when we have had an opportunity to consider Mr. Middlehurst's reply.

  Swansea Medical School
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the First Secretary the proposal to establish a Swansea Medical School in collaboration with the University of Wales College of Medicine. [103515]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about health and education issues in Wales. Future discussions may include the proposals to establish a Swansea Medical School in collaboration with the University of Wales College of Medicine. I understand that, at this point, the Assembly, along with the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, is still considering how the collaboration will work.

  Deeside Industrial Park
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the problems surrounding the proposed extension to the Deeside industrial park. [103516]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that a public and local inquiry by the Planning Inspectorate into the proposed extension to the Deeside Industrial Park will be undertaken shortly. The inquiry's findings and conclusions will be reported to the National Assembly for Wales, which will then determine this application.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105304]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department holds only one property, and it is fully occupied.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has discussed with Treasury Ministers the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit in Wales. [103497]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet with colleagues in Whitehall and discuss a wide range of issues. I fully support the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on the potential effect of the proposed payment of benefits into bank accounts and the effect this may have on rural post offices in Wales. [105571]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I speak regularly with colleagues in Whitehall and we discuss a number of issues. My officials have had a number of discussions with their counterparts in the Department of Trade and Industry. I am fully aware of the planned move to an Automated Credit Transfer system that will assure a safer, modern and efficient way of paying benefits. In addition, the Prime Minister announced on 21 October 1999 that the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) in the Cabinet Office is to carry out a study on the Post Office network which will seek to identify the contribution made by post offices to the viability of local communities. Close independent monitoring of the post office network will ensure that proposed closures which would create significant problems of access to post office counter services, including in rural areas, are taken up with the Post Office, which will then be able to investigate how access needs can best be met.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Second Pension
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish the Government Actuary's report on the financial effects for the National Insurance Fund of the proposed state second pension. [106278]

  Mr. Rooker
  The report is being laid before Parliament today (Cm 4573).

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will ask the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to consider whether lung cancer should be classified as a prescribed industrial disease 498W
  in cases where significant asbestos-related work history is combined with unprotected exposure to asbestos dust; [104778]

  (2) what advice he has received from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on the relationship between lung cancer and significant asbestos exposure in the absence of asbestosis; [104779]

  (3) what reports he has received on the reliability and sensitivity of CT scans and Chest X-rays in indicating the presence of asbestos-related disease. [104826]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council provide us with independent expert advice on the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme. In their report "Asbestos Related Diseases" (Cm 3467 published in November 1996) the Council investigated thoroughly the prescription of asbestos-related diseases, including the relationship between lung cancer and asbestos exposure, and whether CT scans would be appropriate within this benefit scheme. The Council recommended certain changes that were beneficial to claimants, which were brought into effect from April 1997. The Council continues to carefully monitor research, studies, publications and scientific developments in relation to asbestos-related lung disease, as they do for the other prescribed diseases. The Council have made no recommendations to me about asbestos-related diseases since 1996, and we are confident that the Council would re-examine any issue if new scientific evidence emerged. They would then make recommendations, which we would consider carefully.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what support his Department offers to victims of(a) pneumoconiosis and (b) an asbestos-related disease. [104828]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Department provides financial support through the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme, which gives no-fault compensation for disablement resulting from work as an employed earner, either as a result of an accident at work or through contracting certain prescribed occupational diseases. Pneumoconiosis (including asbestosis) and three other asbestos-related diseases are prescribed for this purpose. Other Social Security benefits, as appropriate in individual cases, would also be available depending on the person's circumstances.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases, especially in areas with a high prevalence of such disease. [104827]

  Mr. Bayley
  We do not propose to change the method of diagnosis of asbestos-related disease for the purposes of the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme. Diagnosis methods are the same throughout Great Britain, and we are advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on appropriate criteria.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105311]

  Angela Eagle
  In early 1998, all of the Department's properties were transferred to the private sector under two separate Private Finance Initiative contracts. We now no longer own nor hold any property. Instead, serviced office accommodation is purchased from our two private sector partners, Trillium and the Newcastle Estate Partnership.

  The deal which we negotiated with Trillium, the PRIME contract allowed us to hand back all of our "surplus" space, in both wholly and partly unoccupied buildings, to Trillium so that there is now no continuing cost to the Department. The Department also has the flexibility to vacate and hand back further space over the life of the contract, at nil cost, so it is extremely unlikely that we will have any surplus accommodation in the future. The only unoccupied space that is maintained is held for strategic reasons.

  Benefit Payments (Post Offices)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the Government's plans to switch payments from benefits and pension books to bank transfers and the impact of this change on local post offices; and if he will make a statement. [106041]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 374W.

  Property

  Melbourne Place, Topcliffe Road, Sowerby, North Yorkshire

  Not yet offered for sale. Awaiting issue of Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development by the local planning authority. The site will be marketed thereafter

  The former RAF Station at Strubby, Alford, Lincolnshire

  First offered for sale in February 1995. Little interest from potential purchasers. The site was finally sold in July 1999

  4 Almondbank Perth

  First offered for sale in July 1996. Little interest from potential purchasers. Investigations are under way into the potential for redevelopment and discussions are taking place with the local planning authority

  5 Almondbank Perth

  Not yet offered for sale although part of the site was sold back to a former owner in 1996. Agents have advised that marketing of the site should be delayed until the position with regard to 4 Almondbank is clarified

  The Experimental Horticultural Station at Efford, Lymington, Hampshire

  Not offered for sale on the open market. Until recently this site was fully occupied by Horticulture Research International under the terms of a lease. They have recently surrendered the northern sector of the site to the Ministry. Part of this was sold in October 1999 to the successor of the former owner under the terms of the Crichel Down Rules. Contracts have been exchanged for the sale of the remainder to the same person on the same basis

  Barnhall, Wickford, Essex

  Not yet offered for sale. The Ministry is collaborating with the local authority which owns some adjacent land with a view to selling the MAFF land for development in due course

  Basic State Pension
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of restoring the link between the basic state pension and average earnings in the UK. [105250]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated cost of uprating retirement pension by earnings from April 2000

  £ million

  Gross Costs

  Net Costs

  With linked benefits

  2000–01

  1,300

  1,000

  2010–11

  8,500

  7,500

  Without linked benefits

  2000–01

  1,100

  850

  2010–11

  7,500

  6,500

  Notes:

  1. Gross costs have been calculated by GAD. Net costs have been calculated using the 1999–2000 Policy Simulation and PENSIM models to take account of means-tested benefit offsets.

  2. Estimates for the year 2000–01 have been rounded to the nearest 50 million, and for 2010–11 to the nearest 100 million. Estimates are in 1999 prices.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Property Sales
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates(a) Melbourne Place, Topcliffe Road, Sowerby, North Yorkshire, (b) the former RAF station at Strubby, Alford, Lincolnshire, (c) 4 Almondbank, Perth, (d) 5 Almondbank, Perth, (e) the Experimental Horticultural Station at Efford, Lymington, Hampshire and (f) Barnhall, Wickford, Essex, were offered for sale; and what is the current position with regard to the disposal of each property. [104682]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:
  501W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates(a) the former Central Science Laboratory at London Road, Slough, (b) Greythorpe Road and 168 Sinclair Road, Aberdeen, (c) Tangley Place, Worplesdon, Guildford, (d) Pocklington Industrial Estate, East Yorkshire, (e) 130 Hyndford

  Property

  Central Science Laboratory, London Road, Slough

  First offered for sale in November 1998. The property was sold in July 1999

  Greythorpe Road and 168 Sinclair Road, Aberdeen

  First offered for sale in August 1998. Missives will shortly be concluded, after which the purchaser will apply for detailed planning consent

  Tangley Place, Worplesdon, Guildford

  First offered for sale in January 1997. This property was sold in January 1999

  Pocklington Industrial Estate, East Yorkshire

  First offered for sale in June 1997. This property was sold in June 1998

  130 Hyndford Road, Lanark

  First offered for sale in January 1995. This property was sold in February 1998

  Gravel Pit, Hertford Road, Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire

  First offered for sale in January 1995. Sale delayed while appropriate planning consents were sought and access problems resolved. This property was sold in October 1999

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates the properties at(a) Tattenhall Road, Tattenhall, Chester, (b) Little Glen Road, Glen Parva, Leicester, (c) Kendal Road, Harlescott, Shrewsbury, (d) Trentside, Gunthorpe, Nottingham, (e) Caton Road, Claughton, Lancaster and (f) Nant Alyn Road,

  Property

  Tattenhall Road, Tattenhall, Chester

  First offered for sale in August 1995. Planning difficulties resulted in the sale being postponed. Currently let on short term lease pending re-assessment of development potential

  Little Glen Road, Glen Parva, Leicester

  First offered for sale in July 1995. First prospective purchaser unwilling to agree detailed terms. Contract for sale with new purchaser about to be exchanged

  Kendal Road, Harlescott, Shrewsbury

  First offered for sale in January 1997. Currently awaiting outcome of appeal against refusal to grant planning consent. When this is known the site will be re-marketed

  Trentside, Gunthorpe, Nottingham

  Not offered for sale on the open market. Negotiations under way for a sale to the successors of the former owners under the terms of the Crichel Down Rules

  Caton Road, Claughton, Lancaster

  First offered for sale in February 1996. Little realistic interest from potential purchasers. Offer to purchase has recently been accepted and legal documentation is now being prepared

  Nant Alyn Road, Rhydymwyn, Mold, Flint

  Not yet offered for sale. The site is believed to be contaminated as a result of the use made of it during the last war. The need for decontamination is being assessed

  Chlormequat
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the use of chlormequat in the United Kingdom(a) over the last five years and (b) at present. [103292]

  Ms Quin
  Chlormequat is approved for use in the UK on various cereal and oilseed crops, beans, peas and ornamental plants. Data on pesticide usage in the UK are collected by the Pesticide Usage Survey Group (PUSG), within the Government's Central Science Laboratory.

  The PUSG's data for 1995 to 1998 show that around 98 per cent. of chlormequat use in the UK is on cereal crops. This is equivalent to approximately 2.7 million hectares treated per year. The detailed figures for cereals and the other crops on which use is approved are given
  502W
  Road, Lanark and (f) Gravel Pit, Hertford Road, Hoddesdon, Hampshire, were offered for sale; and what is the current position with regard to the disposal of each property. [104683]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Rhydymwyn, Mold, Flint, were offered for sale; and what is the current position with regard to the disposal of each property. [104684]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:

  in PUSG reports numbers 136, 141, 151–153 and 159, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Results for 1999 are still being gathered and processed.

  Government surveys of pesticide residues in food, conducted under the guidance of the Working Party on Pesticides Residues (WPPR), have suggested that there has been some unproved use of chlormequat on fruiting pear trees in the UK by a minority of growers. An enforcement programme has been put into place. Results from surveys in 1995, 1997 and 1998 can be found in the WPPR reports for those years. Results from the first six months of 1999 were published in November via a pesticides residues monitoring information sheet. A copy of this and the WPPR reports for 1995 to 1998 are available in the Libraries of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what written material on the Human Rights Act 1998 has been prepared for judges; and if he will place copies in the Library. [103830]

  Mr. Lock
  The Judicial Studies board for Northern Ireland has held five lectures on several European Conventions on Human Rights topics since February 1998. The following material was provided:

  Incorporation of the ECHR—The right hon. Lord Irvine of Lairg.

  The Human Rights Bill: Its effect on Criminal Proceedings— Ben Emmerson

  The European Convention on Human Rights (as amended by Protocol No. 11) booklet—European Treaty Series, No. 5.

  The Human Rights Act and Commercial Law—Michael Smyth.

  ECHR and Judicial Review, Briefing Public Policy— Incorporation of the ECHR—The Implications for Business— Murray Hunt.

  The Board's programme for 1999–2000 includes a series of three case study events covering civil law, family law and criminal law. A comprehensive pack of reading materials (including case studies, publications and other reading materials) have been issued, in order that the judiciary may prepare for the seminars. The materials included in the pack are as follows:
  The Margin of Appreciation, The 'Horizontal' Application of Human Rights and Proportionality—the right hon. Lord Justice Sedley.
  The Human Rights Act and the Civil Courts—Richard Plender QC.
  Human Rights Act 1998 (Blackstone's)—John Wadham and Helen Mountfield.
  Human Rights Law and Practice—Chapters 1 & 2 of Lester and Pannick (Butterworths).
  Family Law and the Human Rights Act 1998—Michael Horowitz QC, Michael Nicholls and Geoffrey Kingcote.
  Archbold Chapter 16—Ben Emmerson.
  Civil Law, Family Law and Criminal Law case studies and Notes of Cases relevant to the Syndicate Exercises.

  In addition, steps are being taken to ensure the availability of European Convention on Human Rights case law and textbooks in all court offices before the Act is commenced and the Northern Ireland Court Service intranet will have a Human Rights section which will permit the judiciary access to Northern Ireland judgments, judgments from England and Wales and Scotland and access to Human Rights websites. The purchase of subscription based Human Rights internet products is also being considered.

  A complete set of the material issued to date by the Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the budget is for judicial training in Northern Ireland on the Human Rights Act 1998. [103829]

  Mr. Lock
  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review allocation, the Northern Ireland Court Service received (in the 1999–2000 financial year) £100,000 to fund judicial training on the Human Rights Act 1998. The 504W
  allocation was in addition to the Judicial Studies Board annual budget of £30,000, a substantial proportion of which has been used during the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to fund the Board's programme of Human Rights Act training.

  Consolidated Legislation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in each year since 1991 how many(a) Parliamentary Counsel, (b) senior draftsmen and (c) other draftsmen have been engaged at the Law Commission on consolidation work. [105646]

  Mr. Lock
  The numbers of Parliamentary Counsel on secondment to the Law Commission, other senior draftsmen employed at the Commission and other draftsmen seconded to, or employed at, the Commission engaged on consolidation in each complete year since 1991 are as follows:

  Parliamentary counsel

  Other senior draftsmen

  Other draftsmen

  1992

  4

  1

  2

  1993

  3

  1

  2

  1994

  2

  1

  4

  1995

  1

  1

  5

  1996

  2

  1

  5

  1997

  1

  0

  4

  1998

  1

  0

  4

  1999

  0

  0

  3

  Service Discipline Acts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in the consolidation of the three Service Discipline Acts commenced in July 1991; and when he expects the work to be completed. [105645]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him on 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 318W. Consideration is now being given to the approach to the consolidation of the Acts, in the light of changes to them envisaged in the current Armed Forces Discipline Bill and the probability of further change in the next Armed Forces Bill, and in the light of plans for a tri-Service Act.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average age of the magistrates who sit on the(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster bench. [105168]

  Jane Kennedy
  The average age of the magistrates who sit on the Barnsley and Doncaster benches is 55 for each.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) women and (b) disabled magistrates sit on the (i) Barnsley and (ii) Doncaster bench. [105167]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are currently 66 women on the Barnsley bench and 89 on the Doncaster bench. No formal records are kept of those who are disabled on either the Barnsley or the Doncaster benches.

  Judges (Conduct)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for the period since May 1997 the cases he has investigated involving the conduct of individual Judges and the action taken as a result. [105335]

  Jane Kennedy
  The principle of judicial independence, which is central to our constitutional arrangements, means that it is not open to the Lord Chancellor or his Department to consider complaints about judicial decisions. However, as Head of the Judiciary the Lord Chancellor does consider complaints about the personal conduct of individual Judges and other judicial office holders. The names of the complainant and the Judge are confidential. However, in the period between August 1998 (when new internal arrangements for handling such complaints came into force) and December 1999, the Lord Chancellor received a total of 3,903 complaints about members of the judiciary. The majority of these related to judicial decisions. Of the remainder, 367 related to personal conduct and were taken forward for investigation by seeking the complainants's consent for the complaint to be copied to the Judge. In 282 cases, consent was received and the Lord Chancellor then approached the Judge concerned for his or her response to the allegations and relayed these to the complainant. On 13 occasions, he saw fit to take further action, either by writing to the Judge or by arranging for him or her to be seen by officials. Comparable figures for the period before August 1998 are unavailable.

  Departmental Consultation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what bodies his Department has consulted on each of its programmes since May 1997. [105242]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department consult widely on proposals across the diverse range of policies for which it is responsible. There is no central record of consultees, and one could be assembled only at disproportionate expense.

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people have

  Religious breakdown by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)

  1999

  1997

  1995

  1992

  NO

  ORG (%)

  SOC (%)

  NO

  ORG (%)

  SOC (%)

  NO

  ORG (%)

  SOC (%)

  NO

  ORG (%)

  SOC (%)

  SOC1—Managers and Administrators

  Protestant

  182

  27

  69

  191

  29

  69

  198

  29

  70

  192

  28

  72

  Roman Catholic

  78

  12

  30

  78

  12

  28

  79

  11

  28

  66

  9.5

  25

  Non Determined

  4

  6

  1

  6

  9

  2

  7

  1

  2

  9

  1.3

  3

  SOC2—Professional Staff

  Protestant

  4

  6

  57

  2

  3

  50

  1

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Roman Catholic

  3

  4

  43

  2

  3

  50

  1

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Non Determined

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SOC3—Associated Professional

  Protestant

  1

  15

  100

  1

  1

  100

  2

  0.3

  100

  —

  —

  —

  Roman Catholic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Non Determined

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  506W
  been promoted within the Northern Ireland Court Service in each of the last three years; and what is the religious breakdown of such promotions. [105345]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer the hon. Member to the following table:

  Number of promotions

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  1997

  11

  9

  2

  1998

  0

  0

  0

  1999

  6

  4

  2

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people are employed in the Northern Ireland Court Service. [105324]

  Mr. Lock
  There are 668 people employed in the Northern Ireland Court Service.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current religious breakdown at all levels of staff in the Northern Ireland Court Service; what were the figures for(a) 1992, (b) 1995 and (c) 1997; and if he will make a statement. [105344]

  Mr. Lock
  For the purposes of consistency and fair comparison the Equality Commission requires all organisations to present their data in Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Groups.

  The table represents the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Groups used by the Northern Ireland Court Service and shows the religious breakdown for each SOC Group within the Northern Ireland Court Service for 1999, 1997, 1995 and 1992.

  The Community Background information is presented in terms of Numbers within the Organisation (NO).

  These numbers are then shown both as a percentage within the Organisation as a whole (% Org) and as a percentage within each SOC Group (% SOC).

  The following notable trends are apparent from the table:
  The representation of Roman Catholics in SOC 1 has increased from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. since 1992.
  The representation of Roman Catholics has also increased in the Recruitment Grad (SOC 4) by 5 per cent. since 1997.
  SOC 6 and 9 are mainly representative of our Security Grades and we continue to work with the Equality Commission towards fair participation.
  507W

  Religious breakdown by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)

  1999

  1997

  1995

  1992

  NO

  ORG (%)

  SOC (%)

  NO

  ORG (%)

  SOC (%)

  NO

  ORG (%)

  SOC (%)

  NO

  ORG (%)

  SOC (%)

  SOC 4—Clerical and Secretarial

  Protestant

  192

  29

  62

  186

  28

  64

  193

  28

  66

  155

  22

  61

  Roman Catholic

  105

  16

  34

  84

  13

  29

  88

  13

  30

  74

  11

  29

  Non Determined

  13

  2

  4

  21

  3

  7

  13

  1.9

  4

  27

  3.9

  10

  SOC6—Personal and Protective

  Protestant

  18

  2.7

  75

  21

  3

  75

  25

  3.6

  78

  26

  3.7

  72

  Roman Catholic

  4

  6

  16

  3

  4

  11

  2

  3

  6

  3

  0.4

  8

  Non Determined

  2

  3

  8

  4

  6

  14

  5

  7

  16

  7

  1

  19

  SOC9—Others

  Protestant

  49

  7.3

  79

  52

  7.8

  75

  54

  7.8

  74

  85

  12

  64

  Roman Catholic

  8

  1.2

  13

  8

  1.2

  12

  10

  1.4

  14

  18

  2.6

  14

  Non Determined

  5

  0.7

  8

  9

  1.3

  13

  9

  1.3

  12

  29

  4.2

  22

HEALTH

  Haloperidol
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Haloperidol is available for prescription on the NHS; what steps he has taken to ensure adequate supplies of Haloperidol; and if he will make a statement. [104625]

  Ms Stuart
  Haloperidol is available for prescription on the National Health Service. We have received no reports of supplies being inadequate.

  Health Call Service
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who assesses the quality control of the out-of-hours Health Call service for Medway-Swale; [104692]

  (2) what was the average call-out time for the Health Call service for Sittingbourne and Sheppey in the last year for which figures are available; [104694]

  (3) how many on-call doctors there are for Sittingbourne and Sheppey in the out-of-hours Health Call service. [104693]

  Ms Stuart
  Seventeen doctors are registered with Health Call, which covers the out-of-hours service for Sheppey. The average call out time is just under one hour and everyone is seen within two hours.

  All 28 General Practitioners in the Sittingbourne area are registered with Medway Doctors On Call (MedDoc). Call-outs are assessed by a nurse triage and are prioritised according to clinical need.

  The patient's GP is responsible for ensuring the quality of care for the patient. Complaints can be made about out-of-hours either directly to the out-of-hours service or via the patients GP. GPs have a contract with the out-of-hours service to provide a certain quality of care. Any complaints are managed through the National Health Service complaints procedure. Where the complainants are not happy with the response they receive through local resolution they will be given the opportunity to write to the local health authority for an independent review.

  Isle of Sheppey Hospital
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the minor injuries clinic hours at the hospital on the Isle of Sheppey to 9 pm. [104691]
  508W
  Ms Stuart
  The plans to extend the opening hours of the minor injuries clinic at the hospital on the Isle of Sheppey are currently a matter for discussion between the West Kent Health Authority and Thames Gateway National Health Service Trust.

  Jehovah's Witnesses
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Jehovah's Witnesses died as a result of refusing medically advised blood transfusions in each of the last five years. [104764]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not hold this information centrally. Clinicians are required by law to respect the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses who do not wish to receive blood transfusions. In some cases, there are acceptable alternative medical interventions. For instance, for surgical operations, we asked NHS Trusts to consider the introduction of perioperative cell salvage by March 2000. This process retrieves the patient's own blood cells during surgery, which may be acceptable to some Jehovah's Witnesses.

  West Sussex Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on the NHS waiting list for treatment in the West Sussex Health Authority area on(a) 1 November 1999 and (b) 1 December 1999. [104888]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest figures available show that as at the end of November there were 19,783 people on the National Health Service waiting list for treatment in the West Sussex Health Authority area.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting for 13 weeks or more for a first appointment with a consultant in the West Sussex Health Authority area on(a) 1 November 1999 and (b) 1 December 1999. [104887]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of people waiting for 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment by health authority area is monitored on a quarterly basis. The last available figures for West Sussex are as at 30 September. At that date, there were 8,350 people waiting 13 weeks or more for a first outpatient appointment.

  Flu
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on hospital waiting list targets of the recent influenza outbreak. [104898]

  Mr. Denham
  During the winter, and particularly over the extended Millennium holiday, the National Health Service has quite rightly focused its attention on the high numbers of emergency cases, including those resulting from the current influenza outbreak. At this time of year, the NHS plans to treat fewer waiting list cases because of expected pressures, and the waiting list normally increases slightly. A seasonal rise in waiting lists is expected over the next couple of months, reflecting the planned priority the NHS has given to winter emergency admissions. This will not affect the achievement of the waiting list target.

  Dyspraxia
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been diagnosed as dyspraxic since May 1997. [104860]

  Mr. Denham
  There were 62 admissions for dyspraxia by age (0–16 years) in National Health Service hospitals in England for the financial year 1997–98.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care groups have applied to become primary care trusts. [105506]

  Mr. Denham
  Primary care trust applications are locally driven. We have received 63 applications (covering 68 primary care groups) to move to PCT status in April and October 2000. A further 140 PCGs have expressed interest in moving to PCT status from April.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Harborough of 22 November 1999, on behalf of Mr. L. W. Bennett of Oadby, Leicestershire. [105789]

  Mr. Hutton
  I replied to the hon. Member on 17 January.

  Dentistry (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) average and (b) maximum waiting times have been for treatment for patients using each of the first two dental access centres. [104776]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, at the Cornwall dentist access centre, protocol is that people presenting with a dental emergency are seen on the same day or the following day. At the Shropshire dental access centre, protocol in both cases is that a patient with a swollen face will be seen the same day and that patients presenting with pains, considering themselves to be in need of urgent treatment, are seen within 24 hours. Patients with minor ailments and suffering no pain will be seen within a week.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105313]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department, including its agencies, has no properties which are wholly or mainly unoccupied.

TREASURY

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105309]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is given in the table.

  Location

  Date unoccupied

  Buildings wholly unoccupied:

  Inland Revenue

  Bradford

  7 July 1997

  Glasgow

  1 June 1999

  Southampton

  29 September 1999

  HM Customs and Excise

  Hull

  1 August 1996

  Lisburn

  28 February 1997

  Newcastle

  14 August 1998

  St. Albans

  31 August 1996

  Southend-on-Sea

  4 October 1999

  Weymouth

  1 March 1997

  Valuation Office Agency

  Eastbourne

  May 1999

  Office for National Statistics

  Fareham

  August 1999

  Building mainly unoccupied:

  Inland Revenue

  Poole

  1 April 1996

  Valuation Office Agency

  Doncaster

  November 1998

  Leamington Spa

  April 1999

  Company Voluntary Arrangement
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications of a company becoming the subject of a company voluntary arrangement under the Insolvency Act for that company's ability to compete for public contracts. [105296]

  Mr. Timms
  Companies which become the subject of a company voluntary arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986 would not automatically be barred from bidding for public contracts. The objective in public procurement is to secure value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. To achieve this, purchasers need to assess the financial and economic standing of potential bidders and to satisfy themselves that they meet the
  511W
  requirements for the particular contract. Where the EC rules apply there is specific provision which allows purchasers to exclude potential bidders who have an arrangement of this type. It is for the purchasing authority to decide whether to rely upon this provision in any competition.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the uptake of the child care tax credit by parents with children below the age of one year in a steady state and (b) the cost of providing that credit. [104864]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is estimated that in 2000–01, the first full year of the Working Families Tax Credit, about 11,000 families with children aged under one will have eligible child care costs for at least one child and will hence be in receipt of the child care tax credit. It is not possible to identify the cost of child care for children aged under one but, if these families no longer received the child care tax credit for any of their children, the cost of the Working Families Tax Credit would reduce by about £35 million.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by constituency the(a) number and (b) proportion of households with at least one member in work and qualifying for Working Families Tax Credit which are receiving Working Families Tax Credit in the UK, ranked in descending order of the proportion of households. [104917]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  LSVTs
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised annually from stamp duty on large-scale voluntary transfers in each of the last five years. [104795]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Transfers of properties to charities are exempt from stamp duty. About three-quarters of registered social landlords are charities, but figures are not readily available on the amount of stamp duty paid on large-scale voluntary transfers from local authorities to non-charitable registered social landlords.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [104017]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of staff in post in the Treasury on 1 April 1999, broken down by gender and standard age group, are provided in the table. Information on this basis for 1979 is not available. The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" provides a departmental breakdown of staff by gender for the year in question and service-wide information by age.512W
  Information on average age by responsibility level and gender is also provided in the "Equal Opportunities Data Summary 1998".

  HM Treasury staff by gender and age as at 1 April 1999

  Age group

  Men

  Women

  15–19

  2

  1

  20–24

  45

  28

  25–29

  95

  77

  30–34

  119

  64

  35–39

  85

  52

  40–44

  77

  50

  45–49

  63

  34

  50+

  84

  69

  Total

  570

  375

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of fraud and irregularities reported by the United Kingdom in 1998 under Regulations 1681/94 and 1831/94, set out in Official Journal C350, 3 December 1999, page 97, with reference to the increase in sums involved. [105670]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The increase in the level of Structural Funds fraud and irregularities reported by the United Kingdom in 1998 is primarily the result of specific efforts to improve detection and reporting systems during this period, and the detection of two substantial fraud cases.

  It is essential that Structural Fund moneys are spent properly and efficiently, and that frauds and irregularities are detected and dealt with appropriately. We are continuing to improve financial control and management systems towards this end.

  EU Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1999,Official Report, column 318W, if he will list those elements of tax harmonisation which have been identified by member states. [105613]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My answer of 2 December 1999,Official Report, column 318W, concerned Council discussions on tackling harmful tax competition.

  Charitable Giving
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the extent of charitable giving is calculated; how much charitable giving there was in(a) 1998, (b) 1978 and (c) 1988; and how the age, gender, race and occupational profile of charitable giving has changed over this period. [105476]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the full extent of charitable giving is not available from administrative sources. The Charities Aid Foundation estimates overall income donated by individuals to be around £5 billion to £6 billion per year. Research on donations to charities by individuals or households has been carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies
  513W
  (using the Family Expenditure Survey), and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, from which further details are available.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of preparedness for the introduction of the Euro among(a) small and medium-sized enterprises and (b) other enterprises on (i) 30 June 1999 and (ii) 31 December 1999. [105814]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury has commissioned a number of surveys of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to measure the level of euro preparations across the UK. The most recent survey, carried out in April 1999, shows 27 per cent, of SMEs with European Union trading links had prepared for the euro.

  The Treasury does not carry out euro preparations surveys of larger companies. The surveys focus on SMEs because they are the prime target of the Treasury's euro preparations information campaign to help businesses prepare for the euro.

  Taxpayers (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers there are in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire. [105524]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest estimates for the number of income tax payers in Shrewsbury and Atcham and in Shropshire are 47,000 and 204,000 respectively. The estimate for Shrewsbury and Atcham is uncertain because of the small survey sample size.

  These estimates are for 1996–97 and are based on the Inland Revenue Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) nominal and (b) market value of central Government gross debt was on the latest date for which information is available. [105838]

  Excess winter deaths by underlying cause of death, England and Wales, winter 1993–94 to winter 1997–98

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1993–94

  Number of deaths

  All causes

  22,900

  47,680

  40,190

  27,290

  25,900

  Influenza

  30

  370

  250

  50

  110

  Pneumonia

  5,800

  15,290

  11,080

  6,260

  6,550

  Acute respiratory infections

  80

  180

  150

  100

  110

  Other respiratory diseases

  3,850

  7,640

  6,320

  3,950

  3,830

  Other causes

  13,150

  24,200

  22,400

  16,930

  15,300

  Percentage of total deaths

  All causes

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Influenza

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Pneumonia

  25

  32

  28

  23

  25

  Acute respiratory infections

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other respiratory diseases

  17

  16

  16

  14

  15

  Other causes

  57

  51

  56

  62

  59

  514W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 19 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on central government gross debt.
  Monthly data for the nominal value of central government gross debt are published in Table 18 of the Bank of England publication Monetary and Financial Statistics (the December 1999 edition providing data up to end-November 1999). At end-November 1999, it was £388.7 billion.
  The market value of central government gross debt can be estimated from Quarterly balance sheet data published as part of the National Accounts dataset (in Financial Statistics and United Kingdom Economic Accounts). Market value of central government gross debt at end-1999 Q3 was £427.1 billion (nominal value at that date was £395 billion).

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 436W, on winter deaths, if he will assess the contribution of influenza and related conditions to the statistics for excess winter deaths. [105432]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 19 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question, pursuant to my answer of 20th December, Official Report, column 436W, on winter deaths, to assess the contribution of influenza and related conditions to the statistics for excess winter deaths.
  A breakdown of deaths by influenza, and other selected causes, is given in the attached table for the last five winters for which final figures are available. Influenza activity is known to lead to an increase in respiratory deaths generally, and not just influenza deaths.
  The figures presented are for all deaths occurring in England and Wales. These include deaths of non-residents, which were not included in the regional figures provided in the previous response.
  Excess winter deaths are defined by ONS as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).
  515W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 436W, on excess winter deaths, if he will provide a breakdown by age for each year of data. [105431]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 19 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question, pursuant to my answer of 20 December 1999, Official Report, column 436W, on excess winter deaths, to provide a breakdown by age for each year of data.
  The information requested is provided in the attached table for all deaths occurring in England and Wales. These figures include deaths of non-residents, which were not included in the regional figures provided in the previous response.
  516W
  Excess winter deaths are defined by ONS as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  Excess winter mortality, winter 1988–89 to winter 1997–98, England and Wales

  Year

  0–64

  65–74

  75–84

  85+

  All ages

  1988–89

  1,720

  4,260

  8,090

  7,100

  21,160

  1989–90

  3,930

  8,580

  18,510

  16,180

  47,200

  1990–91

  2,960

  7,070

  14,660

  13,250

  37,940

  1991–92

  2,740

  6,360

  13,500

  12,250

  34,850

  1992–93

  2,120

  4,720

  9,330

  9,490

  25,650

  1993–94

  2,120

  4,160

  9,290

  10,330

  25,900

  1994–95

  2,200

  5,490

  9,700

  9,910

  27,290

  1995–96

  2,900

  7,070

  14,370

  15,850

  40,190

  1996–97

  3,040

  6,970

  17,540

  20,140

  47,680

  1997–98

  1,700

  4,200

  7,870

  9,130

  22,900

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

Kosovo: Payments to Armed Forces
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What bonus payments are to be paid to members of the Armed Farces who have served in Kosovo.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, no specific bonuses will be paid to service personnel who have served in Kosovo. However, on 20th December 1999 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced enhancements to the payments available during separation. These are to be introduced shortly and I am happy to tell the House that all those who served in Kosovo on paid, separated service will be eligible for them.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is it not the case that the Government have pressed the pay review body for a payment of £1,000 to all personnel who served in Kosovo; that the review body has insisted that that money should be paid to all servicemen and women serving overseas; and that the amount involved will be taken away when a full-scale pay review is carried out in the course of this year?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, I do not believe that that is quite right. The expected cost of the provision for the previous two years—the payments will be backdated—all the way across the three armed services is something in the region of £6 million. Of course, those payments directly attributable to service in either Bosnia or Kosovo will come out of the central reserve. It is a complicated formula; backdating is involved. I believe that the Armed Forces will be pleased to receive the bonus payments as well as the backdating and the shorter period of eligibility introduced by my right honourable friend.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I am totally and utterly confused. Does the Minister not agree that, as a matter of principle, it is entirely wrong that soldiers, sailors and airmen should be paid more for doing their duty under active service conditions? Surely the whole principle is that they should be paid a proper wage with an "X-factor" to take into account the dangers they may meet and the discipline they endure and serve under. Therefore it is quite wrong to say that they would receive extra money. Of course they must not receive less money, and I hope the Minister agrees that if there was a difference between what they were paid
1110
in Germany because of a local overseas allowance and what they were paid in Kosovo because that local overseas allowance had been removed, that difference should indeed disappear. But I hope that the principle that they are paid to be fighting soldiers, sailors and airmen will not be forgotten.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, says. The fact is that what is known as the X- factor is taken into account in service pay. The noble and gallant Lord will know that that amounts to about 12 per cent of the pay of our servicemen and women. The enhancements announced by my right honourable friend were to the allowances made for paid, separated service. It is not a question of paying our servicemen and women when they are on active fighting service, but of paying them when they are undergoing the particular problems of being separated from their home base. As I hope I made clear in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, the payment is not directly attributable to service either in Kosovo, Bosnia, or anywhere else where servicemen and women may be actively engaged; it is because of the separation from their home base.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister, but does the X-factor not take into account an element of separation, of which I certainly experienced an enormous amount during my service in the forces?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the X-factor takes into account the fact that servicemen and women throughout their lives may be disrupted; they make have to work in a number of different bases. It does not take into account the fact that, from time to time, they may be separated from their current home base. It is for that reason that the payment, now enhanced by my right honourable friend the current Secretary of State, was introduced on 1st December 1997 by my former right honourable friend George Robertson, now my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen.

New Agenda Coalition Resolution
2.40 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Which elements of the New Agenda Coalition resolution, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 13th October 1999, they found unacceptable; and why.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the resolution to which my noble and learned friend refers contains many elements that we strongly support, including its calls for faster progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament. But it also included proposals which go beyond the

1111
internationally agreed way forward; for example, the conclusion of a treaty giving negative security assurances to all non-nuclear weapons states, before that issue has been properly discussed in Geneva.
We had a specific difficulty with the proposal that nuclear warheads be removed from delivery vehicles. We examined that question in detail in the Strategic Defence Review and concluded that it was incompatible with a credible submarine-based deterrent.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which was substantially more informative than the uncharacteristically dismissive answer which she gave me last week. Does she appreciate that at stake is the confidence of the non-nuclear powers in the whole non-proliferation process and that at the forthcoming review conference, the whole process may collapse? Even if the Government are undismayed that 121 countries disagree with us, will they, in future negotiations, at least consider it possible that the American Senate may be wrong?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say straight away that if I appeared to be dismissive to my noble and learned friend, then I wholeheartedly apologise. All noble Lords will know that my noble and learned friend must be commended for the resilience and persistence with which he has pursued this quite right issue. But I must reiterate that Her Majesty's Government are entirely committed to disarmament. We have made that absolutely clear in what we have done. It is of great sadness to us that the New Agenda resolution contains so many issues with which we agreed, but a number with which we disagreed and, therefore, we felt obliged—honour-bound—not to vote for it. That does not in any way detract from our total commitment to pursuing nuclear disarmament with vigour.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the matter is becoming disturbingly urgent? The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is effectively no longer supported by the United States. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will be reviewed in April this year, and there are some worries about whether it is likely to be renewed. We now know that the Start II Treaty is still completely stuck in relationships between Russia, the United States and others. In addition, the first conversations are now starting about the possibility of a major amendment to the ABM Treaty, which some of us regard as almost the last real obstacle to proliferation. Can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government are addressing this whole group of issues and, if so, what opportunities there may be for later discussion and debate on this crucial matter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly raises all those issues, which are causing us a great deal of concern and, if I may
1112
respectfully say so, frustration. We all had hopes and aspirations that the process would be more quickly addressed. As I have said previously to your Lordships, the reality is that we need to take our partners with us. However, agreement is necessary for negotiations. We cannot negotiate with ourselves; we need others to engage in the process. Therefore, we are taking all the opportunities available in Geneva and elsewhere to push the issue and to encourage all our partners to look at the matter in a way which will be most conducive to bringing about the long-term aim; that is, nuclear disarmament in an environment which guarantees international safety.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is no more than prudent for the Government to take note of the fact that, many years on, the Russians have still not signed the Start II Treaty, that they are producing new nuclear weapons, and that they show no sign whatever of taking proliferation seriously? Will the noble Baroness agree that in those circumstances the Government are behaving with the utmost prudence?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the last statement that we are behaving with the utmost prudence. However, we hope that the new Russian Duma will at last ratify Start II, opening the way to early negotiations with the United States on a Start III Treaty. We are very keen to obtain an early agreement on a work programme in the conference on disarmament so that negotiations can finally start on a fissile material cut-off treaty. We are working with our key international partners for the success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review at the conference in April to which I have already referred.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister agree and, if so, will she underline in the interests of clarity for everyone concerned that our nuclear deterrent now consists entirely of Trident submarines? We have no other nuclear delivery systems. Will she agree that to remove the warheads from those missiles would make the whole Trident system incredible and virtually useless?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand when I say that I support what he has said. I underline that the strategic review was very clear that Trident is the most effective way to guarantee our security and that any signature in relation to the New Agenda will make that less easy to deliver.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's initial response. Can she go further and agree that defence policies cannot be decided upon by anyone other than the states concerned? Does the Minister agree that resolutions such as the New Agenda Coalition, which could result in members of the international community determining the defence needs of others, risks contradicting the United Nations Charter, which acknowledges the right of all states to

1113
self-defence? Will she give an assurance that the Government will not allow our defence policies to be decided upon elsewhere?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. Her Majesty's Government will continue to put the needs and security of this country at the centre of their policy and development.

Suspected War Criminals: Entry into UK
2.47 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to prevent suspected war criminals from entering the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, in appropriate cases those convicted or suspected of war crimes may be prevented entering the United Kingdom in accordance with powers in Rule 320 of the Immigration Rules. We are considering the scope for obtaining better information on those who may be war criminals so that those powers can be used to best effect.
Lord Janner of 13raunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. However, I am sure that he will recognise, as the Home Secretary did, that Konrad Kalejs should never have been allowed into this country after the judgment of the United States court against him and after he was deported from the United States and Canada as a war criminal. As my noble friend may recall, the Home Secretary promised an inquiry into how that happened and how it can be prevented in future. Is the inquiry being set up? How will it be constituted and when will it report?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his questions. I am grateful to him also for the way in which he has raised these issues. An inquiry is being set up and will be looking at the way in which the rules are interpreted. As I am sure that most noble Lords will be aware, the ports warning index had not picked up the fact that Mr Kalejs entered the United Kingdom. We are now reviewing the way in which that index works. We shall review the information currently held about convicted or suspected war criminals and shall consider how best that can be brought up to date. That will, of course, involve obtaining information from other jurisdictions. We shall also consider what standards of evidence are appropriate in deciding whether to exclude someone who may be a war criminal.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as regards suspects who may have entered this country in the past, was it not an omission, after the top Nazis had been tried in Nuremberg, to have no system in the UK until 1991 for trying any suspects who had concealed
1114
themselves among the many thousands of post-war refugees from eastern Europe whom it was impossible to screen thoroughly at the time?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. He is clearly very expert in these matters. We should be grateful to the last administration for putting in place the War Crimes Act. We should be grateful too for the way in which the police service conducted its very thorough investigations following the passing of that legislation.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, whose responsibility is it now to make sure that the list of undesirables that is carried by immigration officers is up to date?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it must be for the Immigration Service to ensure that the list is updated. It will mean that we must work closely with other jurisdictions and increase the level of international co-operation in this field so that we can have an effective and active suspects list.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister's last answer is very welcome. Does he agree that given the creation of the War Crimes Tribunal and now the International Criminal Court, it will become even more important to have international and, in particular, European Union agreement on such matters of commonality when such people appear at our frontiers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness said. That international co-operation is essential. For that reason, the recent Dutch initiative is to be warmly supported and our Government are playing a very active part in that. Such co-operation will be essential for the future if we are to bring to book war criminals and suspected war criminals.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is widespread concern about the way in which the case of Konrad Kalejs was dealt with and, in particular, the evidence that he was interviewed by the police but only to ask him how he had got into the country and when he proposed to leave? At no stage was it ever put to him that he had been deported from the United States because it was believed that he was an officer in one of the worst, nastiest and most vicious extermination squads during the last war. Given that background, will the Minister give us an assurance that the suspect list is now up to date, with characters like Konrad Kalejs included on it, so that if such an individual were to come to our shores again, all the necessary authorities would be notified?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his extensive question and I agree that it is a matter of concern. Clearly, the Government are very concerned. As I said, we must work with our colleagues in other countries to ensure that the suspects list is kept up to date. I know that officials

1115
here are busy working to ensure that that is the case. No system can be absolutely perfect. Eighty-four million visitors to this country go through our entry regimes every year, 12 million of whom would be checked against that index. We have to conduct an extremely extensive operation. With the best will in the world—and we have that will—we cannot always get it right.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, was the information about Mr Kalejs entered on the Schengen Information System? If so, is not that a strong reason for us to be part of it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not clear that I can answer the first question. It is obviously of tremendous importance that we have proper data entries on the index of the ports warning system so that we can properly fulfil our obligations in ensuring that people who are suspected war criminals are effectively brought to book, not just now but also in the future.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, will the Minister answer the supplementary question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, about the inquiry? The Minister acknowledged that there is to be an inquiry, but he did not tell us its terms, who is to be on it and when it will report.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for reminding me of those parts of the question which I have not covered. I shall need to carry out some further research to fully answer the question. I shall be happy to write to my noble friend Lord Janner and place a copy of that correspondence in the Library.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answers. I recognise that during the eight days or so of the holiday period, the British police did not have sufficient opportunity to make proper investigations. However, will my noble friend assure the House that he will do everything possible to encourage the Australians, who have Konrad Kalejs there permanently, and the Latvians, in whose country he was the officer in charge of that horrendous death squad, to take action? Will he assure us that our authorities and our police will do everything that they can to assist such inquiries?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his questions. I assure him that contact continues with the Latvian authorities, which are expressing increased interest in pooling information from all relevant sources. I assure him also that we have made known to the Australian authorities that the Metropolitan Police Service is willing to share available information which it has on file. We continue to press those matters and shall continue to do so with all the vigour that is necessary.

Care for the Elderly
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Seccombeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether present levels of care for elderly people in the National Health Service are adequate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are committed to a programme to ensure fair access to consistently high standards of care across the NHS. For older people, we are currently engaged in identifying where improvements are needed.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But does he agree with what I perceive to be a frightening practice of asking elderly patients entering hospital whether they wish to be resuscitated in the event of their heart stopping?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question concerning the information which is made available to patients and the desires that patients are able to express about the treatment that they are to receive. It is right that we should listen to what patients say in those circumstances.
I suspect that the noble Baroness raises a wider issue concerning the withholding of treatment and she will know that BMA guidelines are available which make a thoughtful and useful contribution. At the end of the day those matters lie within the clinical responsibility of clinicians. At times they have to take extremely difficult decisions and it behoves us all to support them in that.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that the Minster will agree that the availability of high dependency and intensive care beds is of crucial importance to the care of older people. Indeed, they claim to have increased the numbers of high dependency and intensive care beds. Why is it, therefore, that they have held back the results of their own internal review into those beds? Is that the Government engaging in deceit or is it the product of ignorance?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is neither. We have indeed set up a national beds inquiry to look at the NHS as a whole to see whether the distribution and number of beds are appropriate and adequate to the needs of the health service. My understanding is that work on that inquiry is still ongoing but is nearing completion. We should certainly hope to publish the results shortly.

1117
As regards the noble Lord's suggestion concerning the number of intensive care beds and high dependency unit beds which are available, I reiterate the point that the Government have already made. We have made available 100 extra beds this winter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a place for community cottage hospitals in the nursing of elderly people near their homes when they have conditions such as chest infections and flu, as has been experienced lately? Does he agree also that some elderly people become confused? It is difficult to nurse them and nurses should be trained to give a little more TLC to those who are elderly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, nurses do a magnificent job. While we are committed to improving the education, development and further education of nurses, we owe a lot to them and the contribution they make, often in difficult circumstances. I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not invite me to visit a community hospital, as she usually does on these occasions. I acknowledge the enormous contribution that they can make. Where they have the support of local primary care groups, GPs and other staff, they also have a valuable contribution to make.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister return to the first answer he gave to my noble friend regarding the question that is sometimes asked of elderly people when they go into hospital? I understand that the Minister cannot discuss personal cases, but will he accept my assurance that my mother was not simply given advice? When she arrived in the A&E department, after having been told that she had not suffered a heart attack, she was asked whether, if her heart stopped during her overnight stay, she wished to be resuscitated or whether she should be left. Does the Minister agree that that is a frightening question to ask an elderly lady? Does he accept also that, after protesting in writing, I received a letter from the hospital to say it was national policy to ask that question?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am always prepared to investigate individual issues and will be happy to do so in this case. I am not aware of a national policy as to how these matters should be approached and am prepared to look into that, though I am surprised by what the noble Baroness was told.
Delicate issues surround this area which have to be dealt with sensitively. That is why the BMA guidelines on the withholding of treatment are an important contribution to that debate. It is right also that every adult with the mental capacity to make their own treatment decisions should have the right to refuse medical treatment if they so wish. However, the question as to how they discuss that with clinicians must be handled with care and sensitivity.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the progress made in the
1118
elimination of mixed wards for older people? Is he confident that that progress will be maintained in the future in the light of the review that he mentioned in his Answer to the initial Question?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am aware that for older people, as well as for most patients in the NHS, mixed sex wards have proved to be wholly unacceptable. We are committed to ensuring that those wards completely disappear by 2002 and are working towards that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Prime Minister at the weekend said that he would bring health service funding up to the level of the European Union, was that a promise or an aspiration?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government gave a clear commitment in their manifesto to increase investment in the NHS in real terms year on year and put that money towards patient care. That is what we have done. The Government acknowledge that levels of investment and intervention are not up to the levels of our European neighbours. The Prime Minister clearly signalled his readiness to tackle that and honour the commitment made. Already next year the proportion of national income spent on the health service is set to rise to 6 per cent for the first time ever.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in England and in Scotland, and possibly also in Wales, elderly patients occupy hospital beds because they are not able to afford nursing home fees and there is currently not enough money to service them in their own homes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am aware of those problems. That is one of the reasons why the Royal Commission on Long-term Care was set up. We are considering its recommendations and the financial implications of those recommendations.
A number of factors lead to difficulties of discharge of patients from hospital, partly to do with problems in ensuring that the right community services are available. The co-operation now taking place between the NHS and local government is bearing considerable fruit. From April of this year the use of pooled budgets and new flexibilities will lead to improved co-operation and enable us to ensure that the services required in the community are available. Thus some people will not to have to go into hospital in the first place; but those who do will be able to be discharged as soon as they are able.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate on Pakistan, my noble friend Lady Farrington of

1119
Ribbleton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Patten Report.

Deafblind Persons Bill [H.L.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision for the welfare, care and assistance of deafblind persons. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Weatherill set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Earl of Sandwich to two hours.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pakistan
3.7 p.m.
Lord Weatherillrose to call attention to the situation in Pakistan; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I should perhaps start with an explanation of my interest in Pakistan. Also, I ask for the indulgence of the House in allowing the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who is to speak last in the debate before the Front Benches, a little tolerance to answer some of the points that arise. After all, he is from Pakistan and I am only Pakistani by association.
From 1942 to 1946 I was privileged to serve in an Indian cavalry regiment, the 19th King George V Own Lancers. After partition in 1947 our PM squadron formed the nucleus of the present 19th Lancers in Pakistan while our Sikh squadron became Shinner's Horse and the Jat (Hindu) squadron, the Central India Horse.
Those noble Lords who have served in a cavalry regiment will know of the bond of pride and affection that exists, a genuine family spirit that is deep-felt and remains for life—in Urdu, a bhai-bundi; a brotherhood. Thus it was when I let the commandant of the 19th Lancers know that I was to be in Pakistan last August with a CPA delegation. He immediately replied that if I was unable to meet the regimental "family" in Multan, they would meet me in Peshawar. And they did.
1120
At that party, among those present was General Pervais Musharraf. As a former Speaker of the House of Commons I am not in favour of military coups. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated in his outstanding speech on Wednesday last,
"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".—[Official Report, 12/1/00; col. 629.]
Sadly, that is the truth. Indeed, when General Musharraf took over on 12th October last year it was not as a military dictator but as chief executive, and there was general rejoicing. Many critics with little or no knowledge of Pakistan have decried his actions on the basis that he overthrew a democratically elected government.
Several points need to be made regarding the election which brought Prime Minister Sharif to power in 1997 and his subsequent misuse of office. Vote rigging was rife. So was the use of forged ballot papers and multiple voting by women, covered from head to foot, who managed to vote several times because they could not be recognised. Even so, the turn-out at that election was a mere 32 per cent of the total electorate. It was, sadly, very much a case of the old adage:
"Democracy is not just about one man one vote—it depends too often on who counts the votes!"
It would be possible to give numerous other examples of the misuse of power during Nawaz Sharif's time in office: his curtailing of the powers of the president; his politicising of the judiciary; and, when the press became critical, his freezing of bank accounts and imprisoning of the editor of the Friday Times. Prime Minister Sharif's regime has been accurately described as "kleptocracy masquerading as democracy." It is worth saying that today, by contrast, the Pakistani press is free, and free to comment critically, as it frequently does.
So enter General Musharraf, who had been sacked while out of the country on an official visit to Sri Lanka. It is known that the civilian flight on which he returned to Pakistan was refused permission to land, despite having only seven minutes of fuel left when it eventually put down in Karachi after the army had taken over the airport. In General Musharraf's own words, this was not so much a military coup as a counter-coup—the army's reaction to a reactive event.
Despite Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth and blacklisting by other members of the international community, accurately headlined in a leading article in The Times at that moment as "Harsh and hasty", General Musharraf has not sought to isolate his regime but has made efforts to ensure that his country is a responsible player on the international stage. He has announced a unilateral military de-escalation on international borders with India in an attempt to defuse tension between the two countries and has called for,
"unconditional, equitable and a result orientated dialogue",
in seeking to resolve the core problem of Kashmir and Jammu.

1121
Prime Minister Sharif openly courted Taliban and other extremist elements in the region. General Musharraf has behaved quite differently. He has sought to stem the growth of militant Islam and has made genuine indications that he is committed to the principle of good government. At his first news conference he pledged to set up a national accountability bureau which would embrace all sections of society, including the army, and stated his intention to protect the rights of minorities and to promote religious tolerance in Pakistan. He has said that he wishes to re-establish democracy in the spirit of the founder of the nation, Quaid-i-Azam; that is, respect for the rule of law—one must bear in mind that Mr Jinnah was a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn—respect for human rights; respect for minorities; and respect for the rights of women under the Quaid's slogan of faith, discipline and unity.
General Musharraf has inherited a country which is virtually bankrupt; a country whose foreign and domestic debt is almost equivalent to its GNP; and a country in which the payment of taxes has been pretty well voluntary and in which vast sums have been borrowed (as much as 4.8 billion US dollars) by a few powerful people, and never repaid. All this is well documented.
General Musharraf needs help and support in overcoming vast problems—not condemnation, but practical and positive support. I say that because I believe the alternative would be chaos and highly dangerous to us all. Pakistan is surrounded by a number of other highly volatile and unstable "Stans". We surely have a vested interest in seeking to ensure a strong, friendly and responsible Pakistan within the Commonwealth, a rock of stability in a very unstable part of the world. The alternative is a fragmented and irresponsible Pakistan with a nuclear ability. Think how dangerous it would be to India and, indeed, to the rest of the world if the Taliban had access to nuclear weapons. To those who say that we have no direct interest, I respond that 1 billion people in 55 countries are Muslims and that there are in this country over a million citizens, many of whom have strong links with Pakistan.
Kashmir will remain a dangerous flashpoint until a just and equitable solution has been found. It has already been the cause of two wars between India and Pakistan and the cause of some 25,000 deaths. Unless one has been to Pakistan it is difficult to appreciate how passionately this is felt.
We have both an interest and, I believe, a responsibility because the matter was not fully addressed in 1947 when the Maharaja of Kashmir (a Hindu) opted to remain independent rather than—at that time—join India or Pakistan. We should bear in mind that most of his subjects were Muslims. It may be that the Maharaja was right and that the only solution is an independent Kashmir with its boundaries guaranteed by the international community. However, that is a matter for another day.
My purpose today is to urge Her Majesty's Government to give General Musharraf and his government—a government of "all the talents" in
1122
which, incidentally, there is only one military Cabinet Minister, apart from the general himself—encouragement and support in helping to overcome the inheritance of massive economic problems. It is pointless to refuse to do so until a date for democratic elections has been announced. That would merely ensure a repetition of the bad old days of corruption, which has been a major cause of Pakistan's problems, with all the dangers and the consequences that I have outlined.
It is impossible to be absolutely certain that General Musharraf will succeed, but my reason for initiating the debate today is to draw attention to the potentially disastrous consequences if he fails. It is for that reason that I submit that he must be helped and not hindered in putting Pakistan on its feet and, thereafter, reestablishing democracy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing this extremely important subject. We do not give enough time to discussions of Commonwealth affairs and, given the fact that 1 billion people live in south Asia, it is really important that we pay attention to the region. I cannot claim the noble Lord's long and deep associations with Pakistan, but the one thing I can claim is that I was born in undivided India. Therefore, I regard myself as a citizen of undivided India since birth, as well as of this country.
It is important to remember that Pakistan has had a great deal of bad luck from its beginning. I was involved recently in contributing to a report on south Asian human development, devoted to a discussion of the crisis of governance in south Asia. There it was pointed out that Pakistan's main creator died soon after Pakistan's creation, while India had the benefit of 17 years of the Prime Ministership of Pandit Nehru. Mr Jinnah died within 13 months of independence, and Pakistan's first Prime Minister was assassinated soon after.
Pakistan has had a series of incidents involving bad luck; again and again the attempt to create a stable, democratic polity in Pakistan has met with many problems. We are going through another phase in which there is a hiatus, an interruption in the democratic polity in Pakistan. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in that although I would oppose a military coup and would not want to see a permanent non-democratic regime in Pakistan, I think that we could for the time being suspend judgment and scrutinise the actions of General Musharraf quite closely to see what his policy turns out to be.
Pakistan has had a series of regimes that have failed to tackle the basic problems of literacy, social reform and land reform. Pakistanis one meets, either in Pakistan or abroad, agree that there is a big feudal overhang in Pakistan society. The need to remove feudal elements and to make the Pakistan elites abide by the rule of law—pay taxes for example, and behave as if they were like all other citizens—is extremely urgent.

1123
It must be said, rather sadly, that the democratic regimes established since the death of General Zia-ul-Haq in 1988—Ms Bhutto as well as Nawaz Sharif—have failed to inculcate democratic habits in the population or to do very much to correct any of the anomalies that Pakistan faces.
I think that what is currently going on in Pakistan is, first, a quick emergency attempt to restore fiscal credibility in Pakistan. That is extremely important, as the noble Lord said. Pakistan has problems of both internal and external debt. There is a failure to collect taxation, and, as the noble Lord also pointed out, the elite who borrow money from banks habitually do not pay it back. The lists are public, and heading the list of people who do not pay back bank loans is the former Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, as well as the man who headed the anti-corruption bureau. Therefore, there is not much to be said about the pretensions of the previous government to fight corruption. It was a purely partisan effort to get at Ms Bhutto.
We have not only to suspend judgment, but to be very attentive to what happens in Pakistan. For example, I am very heartened that the legal procedure that has been followed to bring Mr Nawaz Sharif to trial is proceeding normally, as it should. We have to watch it very carefully. It could easily be that the court is not convinced that Mr Sharif has done anything very wrong. If that happens, it will present the crucial test of General Musharraf—whether he allows Mr Sharif to he free to live in Pakistan; if Mr Sharif is not convicted by the special court, he has every right to stay there.
I agree that this is all hypothetical, but it could happen. If the ex-Prime Minister is not convicted of the charges against him, the question will arise as to how General Musharraf deals with the case. I should like him to say, "That is fine, and until such time as I think that elections can be called in Pakistan the ex-Prime Minister is free to live and conduct himself in Pakistan, but he cannot have the job back". That was the whole point of the interruption.
Something will have to be done if that contingency arises. Although many of things that the noble Lord said against Mr Sharif are true, and I could cite more examples, none of them is an indictable offence. He tried to bully the supreme court; he had his own person as president and made him sign over some of the powers; and he is corrupt. but none of that is an indictable offence.
Therefore, we must be very careful and watch the course of events in Pakistan. I hope, for the sake of Pakistan and the sake of south Asia, that General Musharraf will set an example of being as subject to the rule of law himself as he would like everyone else to be. The principal lack in Pakistan is of the rule of law, or at least in terms of members of the elite behaving as if they lived under the rule of law. That is very important.
1124
I also hope that while he is in charge General Musharraf will not only clean up the outstanding debts owed to commercial banks, as well as the outstanding tax, but will also put in place institutions and practices so that payment of due taxes becomes a routine habit and does not depend on how large a landlord one is.
On a previous occasion Moeen Qureishi was briefly brought in to, as it were, manage the transition. He made a condition that any candidate for election had to settle all his or her debts. Reports are that Ms Bhutto went to the bank with a billion rupees in cash to clear her debts. I think that many more billion rupees need to be paid by Mr Nawaz Sharif and the entire Cabinet, which has been sacked, before we can have any confidence in them.
I do not want to go into the question of Kashmir or south Asia. As the noble Lord correctly said, that is for another day. If I start speaking on that, not just nine minutes, but nine hours will not be enough. I want only to say this: Kashmir is not just part of south Asian politics; it is part of British politics. It is our problem and not just south Asia's problem. Many, many citizens of this country are deeply concerned, and they have different views on it. There is no single agreed line on Kashmir. Even historical facts can be disputed again and again. It is very important that Her Majesty's Government keep an eye on this problem and do anything they can to help solve the burning problems in south Asia.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing the debate on Pakistan, an area in which my organisation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, has been working for many years.
Although problems abound, after talking to our Pakistani colleagues both in the United Kingdom and in Pakistan, we believe that there are some grounds for optimism and some developments that can be encouraged, many of which have been outlined already.
For example, at the first news conference after the coup General Musharraf pledged to set up a national accountability bureau to attempt to rid the country of the corruption that beset it during previous administrations.
Secondly, General Musharraf has had talks with human rights groups, including our own contacts, and has consulted Asma Jahangir of the Pakistani Human Rights Commission.
Thirdly, General Musharraf appears to be distancing himself from the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. He has respected the recent UN sanctions imposed on that regime, and he has ordered the closure of Afghan banks and frozen Taliban bank accounts.
Perhaps most encouragingly, General Musharraf has promoted tolerance in Pakistan along the lines of the constitution, which was designed to be a model for

1125
democracy by its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who made the following eloquent and famous declaration:
"You are free: you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the State. We are all citizens and equal citizens of 3ne State".
The developments I have mentioned are worthy of encouragement. If General Musharraf is genuine in his attempts to move Pakistan towards implementation of a human rights-based constitution, he could prove himself to be a leader indeed worthy of support and there could be a window of opportunity to help Pakistan to move towards democracy.
However, there are continuing problems. I shall concentrate briefly on two areas: first, the rights of women and their quality of life; and, secondly, religious freedom. The Hadood laws represent a significant departure from the vision of Jinnah's constitution. These laws illustrate how the constitution of Pakistan has been changed so that women suffer discrimination within the legal framework. For example, in 1979 promulgation of the Hadood Ordinance introduced the so-called "Islamic punishments" for crimes including slander, theft, drunkenness, bearing false witness, rape, adultery, fornication and prostitution.
I give one example concerning rape. The law requires four male witnesses to testify that an unlawful act has occurred between a man and a woman. In Pakistan this instruction has been applied to rape. If rape is not proven, the accuser—a woman who may already be the victim of that rape—is charged with adultery. The punishment for adultery is death or imprisonment. The result is that thousands of women, unable to defend themselves in a court of law, are serving sentences of various terms, accused of adultery when they themselves have been the victims of rape. Thus a large number of rape victims do not take recourse to the law but suffer their fate in silence.
Such practices and policies associated with the Hadood laws and the Shariah laws of evidence, which make such stark distinctions between men and women, are gross violation; of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which affirms that human rights should be granted to,
"all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".
It would be a good indication of General Musharraf's commitment to human rights if he were to find an opportunity to bring Pakistan's legal provisions into line with international law and convention in these areas.
I turn to the area of religious persecution, beginning with the treatment of the Ahmadis. In 1952 the Ahmadis were declared not to be Muslims, because they reject the principle of jihad and they recognise an additional Prophet, Mirza Ghirlam Ahmad. This declaration resulted in a wave of destruction of Ahmadi property and their mosques. In 1974 they were "officially" declared non-Muslims by an act of parliament. Since then the systematic persecution of the Ahmadis was formalised in the 1984 penal code
1126
under sections 298B and 298C which forbade the Ahmadis from describing themselves as Muslims, from using any Islamic terminology to describe any of their buildings, from using the public call to prayer, and from propagating their faith.
Many Ahmadis have also suffered under the blasphemy law. Amnesty International estimated in 1995 that over 130 Ahmadis faced charges of blasphemy which carry a mandatory death penalty. As recently as September and October last year, police took no protective action against the fatwas which were issued, offering rewards to anyone killing human rights activists, journalists and religious personalities, including the head of the Ahmadiyya community.
I turn from Ahmadis to Christians. Despite their crucial vote in the establishment of Pakistan, the Christian minority began to face persecution in civil and political life as early as the 1950s. Article 20 of the 1973 constitution protects the freedom to profess religion and to manage a religious institution. It states:
"Subject to law, public order and morality, every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion, and every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions".
However, the right to change religion is not protected and apostates are particularly vulnerable to attack. Although the penal code does not list conversion from Islam to Christianity as an offence, a judge's decision may be made on the basis of his own interpretation of the constitution, which states,
"No law shall be repugnant to the teaching and requirement of Islam as set out in the holy quran and sunna, and all the existing law should be brought into conformity therewith".
The law and the culture which in recent years have been endorsed in Pakistan endanger individuals who dare to consider religions other than Islam. I mention one illustrative case. In June 1997 a 17 year-old girl, Saleema, and her pastor were arrested for allegedly converting Saleema's friend, Rahela, to Christianity. Both Saleema and her pastor, Salim, were tortured. Saleema was whipped 16 times while in detention. On 8th July 1997, after repeated attempts by family members to force Rahela to recant her Christian faith, she was killed by her brother, Altaf, who claimed that she had brought "dishonour" on her family.
I have tried to illustrate how the constitution and legal framework in Pakistan have changed since the original constitution, and how these changes have brought enormous suffering to many people. I have highlighted a few areas in which some legislative revision would greatly improve the plight of both women and religious minorities in Pakistan. I therefore ask the Government to capitalise on General Musharraf's apparent openness to change and to prevail upon him to ensure that the constitution of Pakistan is reformed to a healthier state for its people. If he does so, he will have made a valuable contribution towards the establishment of democratic values and policies as a basis for the eventual return of civilian rule. In doing so he would perform a great service to his people, to the Commonwealth and to the international community at large. We wish him well in so doing.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I add my thanks to those that have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for initiating this debate. I warmly agree with his endorsement of the remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a week ago today when he said that we should suspend judgment on the coup, taking into consideration the abundant evidence of large-scale corruption within both of the political parties. It is indeed wicked for those in power to have enriched themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people. The Government of General Musharraf evidently had the support of the vast majority of the people of Pakistan when the first item on his agenda was to punish those who had stolen the country's money. Under Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan was sliding into bankruptcy, but his predecessor had also allowed her cronies, and especially her husband, to profit from their hold on the reins of government.
The establishment of the National Accountability Bureau, which has already been mentioned, and the Speedy Trial Courts, which were announced by General Musharraf at the first press conference he held on 24th November, were right and proper measures to deal with the cancer in the political system. Already some progress has been made in getting bank loan defaulters to pay up and that has helped the Economic Revival Plan, under which there has been something of a turn-around in economic conditions. The recovery of the bank loans has clawed back 8 billion rupees out of a total that is estimated to be outstanding of 240 billion rupees—that is some £3 billion—which are reported to have been illegally siphoned out of the banking system by political crooks and their cronies in the form of loans that were never going to be repaid.
The second main plank of General Musharraf's policy was to investigate the former Prime Minister. As has already been said, in that regard the law is taking its course. The Foreign Secretary has expressed concern that there should be no "show trials" and in a letter to my right honourable friend Menzies Campbell he stated that the handling of this process would provide a test of Pakistan's military in their commitment to democracy and the rule of law. That has been repeated this afternoon. Do the Government therefore agree that there has been no interference with the courts and that the proceedings against Nawaz Sharif and others are being dealt with strictly in accordance with the laws of Pakistan? Only today the full charges have been made against Mr Sharif and seven others in the so-called "plane conspiracy case"—they include the serious charge of murder against Mr Sharif—so there may be quite a lengthy trial. I understand that matters are proceeding in accordance with the normal rules of the courts in Pakistan and that the press and the public are freely admitted to the proceedings.
The need to allow the defence its full rights is one of the reasons why it is not possible to have a full timetable for the return to democracy. General Musharraf has committed himself to handing over to an elected government, but the trials of those accused of embezzling the wealth of Pakistan have to be
1128
completed first and the political system has to be cleansed of the kleptocracy to which reference has already been made.
At the same time, democracy needs to be rebuilt, starting at the grass roots. That process has already been started with the setting up of the electoral commission and the decision to hold district-level elections this year, as announced to a visiting delegation of US senators in Islamabad on 14th January. This is also in accordance with the General's undertaking to create a much more decentralised system in which decisions are taken at district level wherever possible and as close as they can be to the people.
Next, the Chief Executive undertook to try to settle outstanding issues with India, a task which has always eluded his predecessors. He has reiterated that he wants to resume talks based on an equitable solution. There is no doubt that if this could be achieved it would transform the relations between India and Pakistan and the whole atmosphere and development of the subcontinent. It would end the nuclear arms race and free for peaceful development the immense resources that are now wasted on excessive armed forces.
On the other hand, India has ruled out bilateral talks unless Islamabad desists from cross-border terrorism. That guerrillas do cross from Pakistani territory and into the Valley and Jammu, where they engage in gratuitous killings, is a certain fact. Indian forces have killed many of them and have found identification papers on them to show that they did come from Pakistan. But that does not prove that the state of Pakistan is involved in these activities. The only way of settling the matter beyond doubt would be by means of an investigation under international auspices, for which purpose it would be necessary to increase the United Nations monitoring force, UNMOGIP, on either side of the line of control and to persuade the Indians to allow it to operate on their side of the border. At the moment it operates only on the Pakistan side.
When General Sir Charles Guthrie visited Pakistan last week he said that Britain was willing to assist Pakistan and India to resume their dialogue and to resolve bilateral conflicts, but only if both countries wanted it. That has always been the problem. Your Lordships will know that as recently as 11th January India said that it would not resume bilateral talks as long as Pakistan is involved in cross-border terrorism. The Indians claim that they have publicly presented all the evidence for these allegations and for their assertion—for which I have seen no evidence—that Pakistan was involved in the hijacking of the Indian Airlines aeroplane. Can the Minister say whether the Foreign Office has seen any of the evidence? If so, will she place copies of it in the Library? It certainly has not appeared in the media.
There have also been counter-allegations of Indian-sponsored terrorism in Pakistan. An official at the High Commission in Islamabad was arrested yesterday in possession of an explosive device, and a bomb outrage in Karachi is now being laid at the door

1129
of the Indians, by some commentators at least. Perhaps Britain could help both countries by providing anti-terrorist experts to review the evidence and to publish a report so that at least outsiders may be able to evaluate the case. I know that we can do only a limited amount because the Indians are always so keen to uphold the principle that it is a bilateral dispute between themselves and the Pakistanis, in which no outsider has a role.
Finally, I should like to draw attention, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to the Chief Executive's condemnation of intolerance and bigotry in his televised address to the nation on 17th October last. He urged scholars to curb those who were exploiting religion for vested interests and bringing a bad name to Islam. He said:
"Islam teaches tolerance, not hatred; universal brotherhood and not enmity; peace and not violence; progress and not bigotry".
In the new Pakistan, with a genuine system of democracy, that spirit of tolerance, so powerfully articulated originally by the Quaid-I-Azam when Pakistan first gained its independence—we heard earlier the powerful statement that he made—there will be no room for laws discriminating against minority groups. It would be enormously welcome if the Chief Executive repealed the iniquitous sections of the penal code which discriminate particularly against the Ahmadis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said.
The government of Nawaz Sharif let loose extremists who relentlessly persecuted and prosecuted Ahmadis all over Pakistan, but the evil forces of bigotry that they unleashed had even more harmful consequences. Sectarian violence was spreading across Pakistan. An attack on a Shi'a mosque in Karachi, for instance, resulted in the deaths of nine worshippers—and the person charged with that offence proved to be the head of an extremist Sunni party. Pakistan badly needs a powerful law against hate speech and against incitement to acts of discrimination against members of a particular religion. I respectfully hope that the Chief Executive will consider that, as well as the repeal of the infamous Ordinance 20 and its successors.
Let us give Pakistan a breathing space to reform the law, to reconstruct true democracy and not a mechanism for rotating corrupt feudals masquerading as democrats, and to sweep away the cobwebs of corruption and nepotism. Why not go a little further and offer technical help to Pakistan, both in drafting laws to eliminate religious discrimination and in establishing fair and effective procedures in the National Accountability Bureau?
3.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, as the House knows, the background to the creation of Pakistan was the feeling of a minority—that is to say the Muslim community in undivided India—that it was being oppressed. The reason, as Professor Akbar Ahmed, who is in the Gallery, has pointed out, was the revival of a particular kind of Hindu nationalism in the 1920s and the 1930s in British India. It was for that reason that the founders of Pakistan were determined that those who are now in the minority in the new state
1130
should not suffer from a similar feeling of oppression; hence the quote we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of the state.
Having said that, it is also true that Pakistan was created primarily for the Muslims of India. It is reasonable, therefore, that Islamic beliefs, values and traditions should influence law, policy and other measures in that state. But this should not exclude respect for the contributions of minorities. Indeed, it should make room for them. On the eve of the Wakeham commission report, perhaps it is pertinent that this is how the Church of England views its service to the nation and to the House. The Christian tradition, perhaps in its Anglican form, will of course be influential, but that should not be seen as in any way exclusive.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that time should be given to the new government. At the same time, we need to ask questions. What is it that we are looking for in this time of grace afforded to General Musharraf? First, it is open and accountable government through democratic processes at every level, not only at the national level, and an independent judiciary. The higher judiciary has often saved Pakistan from the fate that has befallen countries like Afghanistan and Iran. Furthermore, the country needs impartial ombudsmen so that ordinary people have access to speedy justice.
Like other speakers, I welcome the desire of the new government to maintain an effective fiscal policy, and I welcome moves to tax both wealth and income above a certain threshold, in particular that of the feudal classes. However, I am concerned about indirect taxation—a blunt weapon that hits the rich and poor alike. I am concerned to see that, under pressure from the world financial institutions, Pakistan is now placing an emphasis on this area of taxation. It is important that indirect taxation should not harm the poor who are already under tremendous pressure in Pakistan.
Once again, I welcome the action against institutions and individuals who have been defaulting on their huge loans. However, this points to the need for a regulated banking system, an independent review of the lending policies of the scheduled banks, and a regular audit of defaulting loans and of the action taken by the banks, if any, in establishing a difference between legitimate banking charges—we call them "interest", but call them what you wish—and usury, the kind of charges that exploit the needy. The two are often confused in Pakistan.
We need equality of opportunity and access for all citizens to education, to public services and to employment. That is particularly true of the religious minorities, whether Christian, Ahmadis, Hindu or whoever. I welcome the Government's initiatives on the religious schools, the Madrassahs. There is a requirement that they should teach a wide range of subjects so that their pupils are prepared for contemporary life in this world.

1131
I would support a return to the 1973 constitution in its original form. It was the best constitution that the country had, a constitution of consensus. All sides agreed. A return to that constitution would have implications for legislation that has flowed from amendments to it. That would be a desirable result, achieving some of the aims asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
A unified electoral system should be put in place. That would allow minorities to participate at every level of political life, as they did in the past. The present system of separate electorates reinforces a form of social apartheid which is highly undesirable when trying to build one nation. It alienates minority communities from their constituency representatives. I am sure that many noble Lords will appreciate the value of people feeling that they belong to a particular constituency.
I turn to the issue of equality before the law, about which the noble Baroness spoke. In certain cases under Shari'ah, the evidence of a Muslim woman is half that of a Muslim man. The evidence of a Christian man is also half that of a Muslim man while a Christian woman has no legal standing at all in the law in such cases. That is clearly an absurd situation which must be addressed. Women and minorities should be equal before the law. Of course, there should be respect for Shari'ah, the accumulated wisdom of legal experience in the Muslim world. However, for almost 200 years now, Muslim reformers themselves have been asking for reform of the Shari'ah so that it can address modern circumstances. I could cite a long list of distinguished reformers: Mohammed Abduh in Egypt; Jamaluddin Afghani and Mohammed Iqbal. They have been asking for a radical Iftihad—radical research into the sources of Islam so that a new legal consensus can be built. Indeed, the principle of movement and of development is native to the existing schools of law in Islam, whether they be Hanifite, Malikite or Shafi'i. Only one school does not have any principle of movement at all.
In my articles in The Times, I have often referred to the blasphemy law as profoundly un-Islamic and against the practice of the Prophet of Islam. It should be repealed. However, there must be effective legal provision for the prevention of incitement to religious hatred. There might even be a law against insulting the founders of the various religions, while at the same time—this is also an important point—maintaining the freedom to criticise religions and religious beliefs.
Let us encourage the rebuilding of Pakistan according to the plan left by Iqbal, by Jinnah and by the first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, who was mentioned in an earlier contribution. However, none of this is achievable without a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It is urgent to address how the international community could facilitate negotiations between India and Pakistan and, indeed, also include the Kashmiri people.
1132
Long ago the poet-philosopher of Pakistan, Mohammed Iqbal, said:
"Thought of home has become a sadness without cause, sometimes an ache for beauty, sometimes an ardent desire for the unattainable. May it not be so".
3.56 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for initiating this debate. He has given us the opportunity to discuss one of the more critical areas of foreign policy today. At the outset, perhaps I may say that I love Pakistan and its people. That is because we are the same people. However, I must also say that I do not like a coup anywhere.
Noble Lords may not be aware that I have some personal experience of the current situation in Pakistan. On 12th October last year, on the very day of the military coup, I arrived in Islamabad representing this country as an ambassador for British business. So I had a unique, first-hand view of what took place during the first three days after the coup. I spent that time with the then acting UK Head of Mission, Greg Dorey, and his colleagues, at the British High Commission in Islamabad. I wish to commend them on their professionalism and courage in very difficult circumstances. That is not unusual. I have observed many of our overseas missions. They are doing outstanding work and we have every reason to take pride in the way our Foreign Office functions abroad. Perhaps I may request my noble friend the Minister to convey my appreciation to them.
During my visit last year to Karachi and Islamabad, it was my strong impression that most people in Pakistan were very unhappy about the political state, in particular the corruption. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in this House on 12th January that,
"both political parties in that country were corrupt, incompetent, unpopular and highly damaging to the welfare of the people of Pakistan".—[Official Report, 12/1/00; col. 629.]
However, I cannot share his conclusion that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was unwise to condemn the military coup. A careful reading of history, including that of Pakistan, will find a lot of support for the Foreign Secretary's statement that:
"There is no such thing as a good coup".
Surely, the answer to the problems of democracy is more democracy, not less democracy. If Britain, so widely recognised as the Mother of Parliaments, is seen to endorse the destruction of a democratic regime, it will send a sad message around the world. Anti-democratic forces, which threaten so many fragile democracies, particularly in developing countries, will be encouraged. This is why the Foreign Secretary's statement has been widely applauded by democratic and freedom-loving forces in the developing world.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Our argument is that it was not a democracy. It was a kleptocracy which was ripping millions of rupees away from the public exchequer.
Lord Paul: My Lords, yes, but is the answer a military coup? And what is the guarantee that the military men can solve those problems?

1133
One of the primary reasons for the international esteem in which Britain is held is our commitment to the rule of law, human rights and representative government. This is something about which every British citizen should feel proud. Your Lordships will forgive a personal, and perhaps emotional, note when I say that this is why I became a citizen of this country nearly 25 years ago and why I am happy that I did.
Millions of people everywhere look to Britain as a source of inspiration as they struggle to fulfil their democratic aspirations. We should never sacrifice this perception. The fact that we in this House accept the primacy of another place because it is an elected body testifies to our own endorsement of democratic principles.
On 20th April last year, in a debate on India and Pakistan, your Lordships may recall that I said that both these societies are capable of sustaining democratic systems of government. I also said that the most welcome contribution Britain can make in that region is to support and encourage democracy. Since then, developments in the political environment of the sub-continent make me even more convinced of this.
There is another practical consideration that I would like to share with your Lordships. Pakistan's most urgent need today is for greater investment in its infrastructure. Given the abysmal rate of adult literacy—somewhere below 40 per cent—the expansion of education is a vital need. The country has one of the highest population growth rates in the region; about 2.7 per cent per year over the past decade. About 40 per cent of its population is currently below 15 years of age. Surely, all that suggests that social and economic development is a critical issue.
As we look across the experience of nations, there is little to give us confidence that military governments will address these priorities; they are usually preoccupied with increasing the size and firepower of the armed forces; and that, of course, creates another unhappy spill-over impact on regional development. Last month, I was in India and fortunate to meet the Prime Minister Vajpayee and his senior Cabinet colleagues. Their concern is that events across the border will compel India to increase its own defence expenditures at some cost to the national development process.
We now have, in Pakistan, the first known instance of nuclear weapons under direct control of the military. All other nuclear states have had the insulation of civilian control over the final decisions about their weapons. It is good that our foreign policy keeps these broader considerations in mind as it addresses that situation.
Let me say a word about corruption. The present regime in Pakistan, and even some people here, suggest that corruption was the downfall of previous Pakistan governments. Perhaps that is so. But there are two observations that I think are relevant. First, where is the evidence that dictatorships are less corrupt than democracies? Dictatorships may, in that infamous phrase,
"make the trains run on time".
1134
But that they can transform or reduce corrupt politics into more honest politics is surely unproven. The answer to corruption is transparency, accountability and due process of law; to open up the system as much as possible rather than to constrict it.
My other observation is this: we must of course strongly condemn corruption wherever it exists, in Pakistan or elsewhere. It eats at the heart of any society, particularly a society that has few resources and great developmental demands. But as we do so, let us make sure that economically developed countries do not, inadvertently or otherwise, facilitate corruption in other regions.
I have avoided Kashmir and the Indo/Pakistan conflict because, as has been said, perhaps it is for another day. In conclusion, the decline of democracy does not contribute to the decline of tensions anywhere. I strongly endorse government policy in that it stands for encouraging the people of Pakistan to make their own choices through the democratic process.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, from debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, it is strikingly obvious just how many friends Pakistan has right across the political spectrum. For many years, one of the most consistent and reliable of those friends has been my noble friend Lord Weatherill. Anyone who has an interest in the affairs of Pakistan would do well to read his speech and attach proper weight to his remarks. The whole House is indebted to him for initiating today's debate.
I want to comment on two things: first, the military coup; and, secondly, the importance of creating a more tolerant, plural and socially just society in Pakistan which is better able to accommodate its minorities.
Just before Christmas, I had the opportunity to visit the small West African country of Benin. In 1990 its military dictator, Mathieu Kerekou, whom I met during my visit, became the first African military leader voluntarily to surrender power. He felt sufficiently confident about the stability of the country to call elections in which he was a presidential candidate. He lost those elections, but a peaceful transition to democratic government nevertheless took place. It is perhaps worth commenting that five years later he stood as an independent candidate and was elected by the people in open and free elections. There is a lesson there for General Musharraf.
Notwithstanding the deeply unsatisfactory nature of the government of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's friends would surely wish to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said, the creation of democratic government in Pakistan at the earliest opportunity. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to tell us what progress General Sir Charles Guthrie was able to make last week during discussions with General Musharraf. I should be interested to know in particular whether in those discussions there was any debate about outstanding military sales.

1135
Echoing remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Paul, and others, we are aware of the military instability of the region and the problems of nuclear weapons. But some 80 outstanding licences are pending. I should be interested to know what the Government's policy is towards implementing the sales that will go with the granting of those licences. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was right last week to say that we should suspend judgment. So perhaps it is also wise for us to suspend sales, at least for the time being.
I am not naïve about the previous government. I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. When the Government were elected in 1997, the turn-out was about 32 per cent. There were many allegations of vote rigging. Holding an election does not necessarily make a country truly democratic, especially when the party of government then seeks to subvert any legitimate opposition, interfere with the judicial process and stifle hostile comment in the media. Nawaz Sharif undoubtedly did all those things. He may also have been the principal author of the events which led to his undoing. If the allegations are proven that he gave orders refusing permission for an aircraft carrying General Musharraf to land in south Karachi, that is not the action of a true democrat. No democratically elected leader would seek to kill the head of the armed forces.
A good test of an administration's credentials is its human rights record. Sharif's flirting with Taliban-inspired Sharia law did not bode well. Paradoxically, as we have heard during the debate, it is General Musharraf who has invited the world to judge him by his treatment of minorities and by the yardstick of tolerance.
In that respect, many of us hope that the new government will repeal the blasphemy laws. I associate myself wholeheartedly with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said. Since their introduction in 1986 as section 295C of the Pakistan penal code, the blasphemy laws have been used as a weapon against both the Ahmadi and the Christian minorities there. I have corresponded with the government of Pakistan about this matter. On two occasions I have led delegations to see ambassadors and ministers to press for reform of the laws. Last year, I heard first-hand here, at a meeting outside your Lordships' House, from a group of Christians in Pakistan who came to give evidence of their systematic persecution.
In 1990 the federal court determined that the death penalty should be imposed on those said to be in breach of the blasphemy laws. That is an open invitation to any fanatical group to bear false witness. As we know, the consequences can be fatal. At least two Christians—Naimat Ahmer and Manzoor Masih—have been killed by fanatics because of false blasphemy accusations. Even those Christians who have eventually been acquitted have had to flee the country because of the threat to their lives.
1136
False accusations have, on occasion, sparked anti-Christian riots. On 6th February 1997, a mob of 30,000 rioters went on the rampage in the Punjab province, burning down homes, churches and shops belonging to Christians. The perpetrators of those events have never been brought to justice.
Blasphemy accusations are commonly used as a means of carrying out vendettas. In one case, Nelson Rahl, a stenographer at Rawalpindi general hospital, was arrested on 4th January 1997 and detained for allegedly burning some pages of the Holy Koran. He had been framed because of his refusal to participate in an embezzling scheme. Currently on bail, he and his family are in hiding because of threats to their lives.
Trials have frequently generated communal strife. On one famous occasion a mob erected a gallows outside a court where a blasphemy trial was taking place in an effort to intimidate the judicial authorities. Clearly, such actions and the existence of such laws impede the development of a more plural and tolerant society. Many of us hope for the early reform of those laws.
Later today, my noble friend Lord Sandwich will initiate a debate on contemporary slavery. Bonded labour continues to affect millions of people in Pakistan, India and Nepal. One submission to the United Nations estimates that some 20 million bonded labourers exist in Pakistan, of whom 8 million are children. In January 1999, Asma Jehangir, the UN special rapporteur for extrajudicial executions, estimated that there were 50,000 bonded labourers in southern Shindh alone. In a separate study, Human Rights Watch estimated that 1.2 million children were involved in carpet weaving in Pakistan and that many of them were bonded. In 1993 the ILO World Labour Report described the problem of debt bondage as being among the worst in the world.
Although legislation prohibiting bonded labour has been enacted in Pakistan, too little has been done to identify, release and rehabilitate labourers and prosecute those responsible for using bonded labourers. When the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, replies, I hope that she will tell us what progress is being made with the programme initiated by the European Commission in 1996 which pledged one million dollars towards the release of bonded labourers. By last year there had been no releases. I wonder how political developments in Pakistan have affected the programme, whether it will continue, and what progress the Minister expects in seeing the buying out of bonded labourers.
On those issues of human rights and social justice, General Musharraf has the opportunity to make useful progress. Many of us echo the remarks made during the debate about the links we all have with members of the Pakistan community in Britain. While I was in another place, my constituency chairman supported me loyally over many years. He had come from Pakistan, and he is one of the holiest, most resolute, devout and tolerant men I have ever met. He is the trustee of the local mosque, fully part of our society, and continues to have a great love of the

1137
country from which he sprang. People like him, who are representative of the best traditions of democracy from Pakistan, will wish for the day when democracy is created again in that country. I believe that if General Musharraf tackles the kind of questions outlined in our debate today, it will pave the way for the creation of democracy in Pakistan. Friends of Pakistan from across the political spectrum hope that it will not be too long delayed.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I join other noble Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, on initiating this important and timely debate.
My perspective is not, however, to enter the debate that other noble Lords have raised of how Pakistan might best be returned to democratic rule, nor on the justifiability of the coup. My perspective is how to reinforce and strengthen the institutions which are necessary now and which will enable the country, when it returns to democracy, to be, in the words of the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr Peter Hain, writing in an article in the Guardian,
"a genuinely new democracy; one that provides stability and sound government for the future".
My concern in particular is how to strengthen and reinforce the institutions of the legal system in support of the rule of law, both now, during the present regime, and when democracy is restored. My interest—and one which I should explain, if not declare—is that I am co-chairman of t he Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association. That association is the largest organisation of lawyers in the world. Through collective and individual membership, we can count 2½million lawyers in 183 countries.
The Human Rights Institute is a separate arm, with its own membership drawn from all over the world. Our objectives are to promote and protect the rule of law and human rights. We believe those are essential to stability, to a just and peaceful society, and indeed to prosperity because they provide the framework for orderly economic growth.
We pursue this aim partly through the traditional methods of trial observations, interventions and investigation of legal systems by international experts. We also believe that we have a special role to play through the richness of our resources of experienced lawyers in every part of the world, to help educate, to offer practical assistance, or procure practical assistance, to help build or reinforce structures which will support the rule of law.
It is in that connection that we have been working in Pakistan since 1997. In October of that year, a multinational mission went to study the workings of the legal system and to report on the rule of law and human rights. It held discussions in four main centres with Bar leaders, individual lawyers, representatives of government, human rights activists, judges, non-governmental organisations and the military.
The report, which was published a year later, following discussions on the draft with the Pakistani Government, constitutes a comprehensive critique of
1138
the state of justice and the legal system in Pakistan at the time. It also included a raft of recommendations for reform in relation to the legal profession. the judiciary, the criminal justice system, on gender and justice—I note with appreciation and admiration the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—and the approach to the prevention of terrorism.
These were serious criticisms of the justice system showing an urgent need for reform; exclusion of millions of Pakistanis from effective access to advice and representation; an over-politicised legal profession; deep concerns about the approach of the executive to the independence of the judiciary and, indeed, to some extent of the judges themselves to their relations with the executive. The latter led to the extraordinary events of late 1997, when different divisions of the Supreme Court successively suspended and placed under restraint the Chief Justice and suspended and restored part of the constitution.
We have pursued some of the recommendations since and carried out follow-up visits. I visited Islamabad and Lahore last year to discuss the report with government, Bar leaders and the judiciary. In Lahore we held the first human rights conference ever, which attracted a great number of lawyers and others.
We have offered technical assistance. Next week there is to be a mission concerned with legal education and judicial activism. We have been engaged in a programme that is designed to reinforce the structures necessary for a stable legal system based firmly on the rule of law. I say "reinforce" because the basic structures are there. There is an able and strong-minded judiciary and a large legal profession which includes many highly competent advocates and lawyers. The basic structure is based on the English legal system. When I visit the courts they are reminiscent of English legal procedures and proceedings.
It is not surprising that the basic legal structures are there. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, the founder of Pakistan, Mr Jinnah, was a firm believer in justice and the rule of law. He qualified as a barrister at Lincoln's Inn in 1895 and practised as an advocate and magistrate in his early years. But he would have been appalled to see some of the subsequent developments in the relationship between the executive and judiciary, such as the incident shown on television (reliably reported to me) when a Cabinet Minister, supported by his colleagues, physically set out to attack the Chief Justice. There is much to do in terms of the legal system and the laws. We in the Human Rights Institute shall continue our work and offer any help that we can. We are encouraged by some of the developments in the field of human rights which the present regime appears to be pursuing.
But there are two other areas in which we have been involved where we suggest that Her Majesty's Government may have a further role to play. The first is the encouragement and support of exchanges between the Pakistani and British judiciaries. As noble Lords may be aware, there are a number of countries with which such exchanges take place. Those

1139
exchanges are valuable in helping to find solutions to common problems and supporting and maintaining the culture of independence and justice.
It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who first explored the possibility of such exchanges with the then Chief Justice of Pakistan in 1993. The first such exchange occurred in 1995 when senior Pakistani judges visited this country. The second has not taken place, in part as a result of the constitutional crisis and in part because of financial constraint. I have been able to speak to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and Lord Justice Potter of the Court of Appeal, who is now responsible for those exchanges. Both have authorised me to say to your Lordships that they remain committed to the idea of a judicial exchange.
Another programme in which we have been involved is designed to gain support and help from the English legal profession. We have procured an agreement between the English Bar and the Pakistani legal profession which is intended to provide technical help and assistance in training, building legal aid programmes, pro bono schemes and other such matters. In both cases, however, while the Government have been morally supportive of what is being done a little more is needed in the form of material assistance. Not much is required, because the greatest resource is the experience and time of lawyers and judges, which is freely given. We shall continue to give any assistance that is requested in those areas, but I ask the Government to consider doing more.
I quote part of a letter that I received from Lord Justice Potter:
"The small amount of funds necessary to support a programme in this respect would not only pay enormous dividends; it would also be a particularly appropriate demonstration of support for the judiciary at a time of constitutional upheaval".
I emphasise the last point. It is especially important at the moment that the judiciary in Pakistan does not feel beleaguered and isolated. There are particular pressures at a time like this. Judges need strength and support to play their part in upholding the rule of law as far as possible. That is no less true of the legal profession. Whatever is done now to support those structures can only help to build a stronger system ready for the return of democracy. I respectfully ask Her Majesty's Government to consider whether an enlightened and flexible approach to helping this process would now be consistent with still maintaining their position on the need for a return to democracy.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I follow other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Weatherill for introducing a debate which has already proved to be remarkably thoughtful and, certainly as far as I am concerned, informative about the situation in Pakistan. There has been, perhaps less predictably, a high degree of unanimity about the attitude that Her Majesty's Government should take, with one notable exception.
1140
I intervene briefly in the debate to express the hope, which was also expressed by my noble friend Lord Weatherill and other noble Lords, that we shall not exacerbate the situation in Pakistan by taking diplomatic, economic or any other measures against that country without considering fully what the consequences may be.
I should like to take a slightly different line from that which has been taken hitherto by concentrating on the dangers of getting it wrong. In a brief exchange in the other place on 2nd November, the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary remonstrated with the Opposition spokesman and said that it would be wrong to give a signal that military coups are acceptable in certain circumstances. Whether, as the Foreign Secretary implies, all military coups are always unacceptable and there is no such thing as a good military coup is a matter of opinion. I hold a very different opinion from that held by the right honourable gentleman.
What is true is that military coups are sometimes understandable. If the elected government of a country prove to be corrupt, undemocratic and incompetent, as my noble friend Lord Weatherill said the sooner they are removed, the better. It would be best if that could be done by the normal democratic process. If that is not possible, as it certainly was not in Pakistan, surely it is better that there should be a temporary period of military government than the continuation of a situation in which the elected government produce nothing but misery and hardship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, demonstrated in her admirable speech.
It is desirable that the democratic process should be restored as soon as possible. I shall be grateful if the Minister can provide any information about the validity of the Chief Executive's promise that democratic government will be restored as soon as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and other noble Lords have suggested, we should at least give the military rulers a chance to put their country in order before contemplating draconian economic sanctions and bringing about Pakistan's diplomatic isolation.
There is also a practical matter to be considered. I refer to the possibility of increased regional instability. That is a matter which the Government to their credit now appear to have at the heart of their foreign policy. Pakistan is predominantly a Muslim country (97 per cent), as the design of its national flag symbolises. Pakistan has a high proportion of Islamic militants. It is a country with over half a million men under arms and the capacity to construct and deliver nuclear weapons. On its border is India with a reverse population: over 80 per cent Hindu and only 10 or 11 per cent Muslim. It has over a million men under arms. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, it has a long-running territorial dispute with Pakistan. These are key players in the stability of this region of central and southern Asia. We should do nothing that might damage the stability of that region which is already depressingly fragile.

1141
In that context, let me presume to utter a word of caution about the growing tendency of what is called the international community to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states. Mr Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, seems nowadays to be advocating the abandonment of the traditional United Nations doctrine of non-interference, enshrined in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, and replacing it with something that I can only call "the right to interfere". This new doctrine has already been seen in action in the Balkans and in south-east Asia and, from what one can see and hear, Her Majesty's Government seem to be strongly supportive of that new doctrine. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, articulated it recently as follows:
"Ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states can all lead to local and even regional instability and there remains the serious risk that such instability might spill over into the NATO area".
Instability seems to be the mantra, the key word.
As we contemplate the chronic instability in central and southern Asia, I conclude with another dangerous factor that we should bear in mind. It has not been mentioned. Pakistan does not belong to—it is not a member of—the International Missile Technology Control Regime. Pakistan, like India, has an active missile programme. It has recently flight-tested its GHAURI missile, an intermediate-range missile with a range of 1,500 kilometres. It has also tested a nuclear weapon and would be capable of producing one and firing it at short notice. Western intelligence reports suggest that in this programme Pakistan has had the strong support and assistance of the People's Republic of China. Those are important factors to bear in mind in conducting and formulating a foreign policy in this region.
Instability in the area is not like Kosovo or East Timor. We are dealing with countries which are, in military terms, almost regional superpowers. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said, generals are as a rule less likely to go to war than politicians. However, despite that, the sooner that nuclear weapons in Pakistan return to political control with the return of democratic government, the better. I do not ask the Government to say that military regimes are acceptable as a long-term form of government. I do, however, ask them not to be swayed by the demands of political correctness in their immediate reaction to the military coup so that they make the situation in that region worse rather than better.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we all welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in introducing the debate. Like the noble Lord, I had the good fortune to hold a commission in the cavalry regiment in the old Indian Army. That regiment, the 6th Lancers, became part of the Pakistan army after Partition. I have the honour of being that regiment's representative in Britain.
It is now some three months since we received the news that the Pakistan Government had been turned out by an edict of the army led by General Pervaiz
1142
Musharraf. Most of us who know and have an affection for Pakistan instantly, if perhaps inwardly, felt a sense of relief. We were only too aware of the deep corruption of successive governments over too many years. Naturally, we do not encourage the overthrow of elected governments, albeit Sharif s majority in 1997 was on such a low turnout of the electorate, and there was good reason to imagine, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, pointed out, that there were some shenanigans during the election.
At that election, Pakistan was striving to find a government to undo the political corruption of the past years. The low turnout was influenced by the fear that both parties were almost equally corrupt. 'That fear turned out to be only too true. Almost immediately, Mr Sharif and his colleagues started to feed at the same trough as their predecessors. The reaction in the streets in Pakistan to the army's action told its own story. There was almost universal relief and rejoicing, and the grassroots support has continued. Since then the stock exchange index in Karachi has risen from about 1,130 to 1,700 points, an indication of the greater confidence investors have in the new administration.
I make these points because those with perhaps little understanding of Pakistan were quick to criticise the move by General Musharraf. Perhaps with more thought it might have been seen as an almost inevitable event when one takes into account the fact that the political and economic situations were at such a low ebb.
As we have heard, the aeroplane in which General Musharraf was travelling back from Sri Lanka was deliberately barred from several airports and was nearly out of fuel when it was enabled eventually to land only because of action taken by the army. I imagine that being so near a crash must concentrate the mind more than somewhat. Nevertheless, apart from the arrest of Mr Sharif and some of his close colleagues who will later go on trial, General Musharraf has refrained from martial law or any of the other extremes that we have come to fear after a military coup. Indeed, we understand that the courts and judiciary are functioning normally. There appears to be a free press. I have seen articles written in the newspapers which confirm that.
It is all too easy to condemn a military coup. The last thing we want to do is to isolate Pakistan while it is trying to formulate its future. We must wonder with some doubt—some noble Lords will have different thoughts here—whether the suspension from the Commonwealth was somewhat premature and a little hasty. One result is that in a country in dire economic circumstances, General Musharraf's first visit abroad has been not to London—it would have been a natural reaction for a member of the Commonwealth—but to China to which he will look for help. Would the Foreign Office consider—it might be difficult politically—inviting General Musharraf to this country? At that time it could ask him more about his intentions for the future. Meanwhile, General Musharraf has sought to de-escalate the military confrontation with India, as we have heard, and, it is

1143
hoped, to diminish yet another Pakistan-India war. I do not need to remind your Lordships that those two countries have a nuclear capability.
General Musharraf has stated clearly that he wants to return to democracy. He has said that the armed forces have no intention of staying in power any longer than is necessary to find the path to true democracy in Pakistan. He has thus started off well. But it would be foolish to expect that there can be an instant return to democracy in Islamabad. Equally, I believe that a precise timetable for such a return is premature. Indeed, I think that the only result would be a return to corruption. We must remember that the two opposition parties—we know that they have been less than pure—have yet to cleanse themselves.
We must be patient and allow the process to devolve. Among other factors, it is important to allow the new administration to distance itself from fundamentalism. There is a tendency among people to identify all Islamic states as being both militant and terrorist. Certainly, under Sharif there was a disturbing closeness with the Taliban. On the other hand, General Musharraf has made it clear that he wishes to return to the tenets laid down by Dr Jinnah, who was a firm and open supporter of freedom of religion and of the role of women in Pakistan.
Britain's relationship with Pakistan goes back over very many years, both as an independent country and, formerly, as part of the British Empire. Thus we must surely help Pakistan in its hour of need with sympathy and understanding. We must offer Pakistan continuing friendship. We must not act hastily just because democracy is close to our heart and there is not yet a programme in Islamabad for a return to the ballot box; rather we should be thankful that there was no bloodshed or violence.
I end by saying that those of us who have had the privilege of travelling and living in Pakistan have the fondest memories of friendship and tolerance. So I ask that we show Pakistan's citizens the same friendship and tolerance at this crucial time in its history.
4.41 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I regret that Britain originally appeared to be out on a limb in her policy towards Pakistan, an aberration likely to be long remembered. The military did not act irresponsibly or against the interests of the people of Pakistan, who responded with widespread relief and celebration, or those of her allies. The Commonwealth, at Durban's CHOGM, was also right not to take punitive action beyond temporary suspension.
The internal affairs of Pakistan and the related complexities of Afghanistan and Kashmir require a more resolute appreciation and calculated approach by external decision-makers. The systematic dismantling of democratic institutions, the engineering of absolute powers over legislators, the removal of constitutional presidential mechanisms to dismiss a government, the subversion of the judicial process, the attempted manipulation of the military,
1144
the intimidation of journalists, including forays on press freedom, and, finally, presiding over breath-taking nation-wide corruption by all except the army, sealed his fate. Nawaz Sharif clearly had a political death-wish.
General Musharraf'should be offered a conditional tenure of no more than two years to accomplish the following far-ranging agenda before a general election commitment: the election of an independent electoral commission; fresh demarcation of constituencies, including the equal participation of minorities; mechanisms to ensure an independent judiciary; freedom of press guarantees; the safeguarding of minority human rights; a reassessment of intelligence agencies' charters of duties; revamping of the tax regime; and, finally, the protection of international investment commitments. All this must be accomplished within a programme of poverty alleviation through increased expenditure in social and education sectors and with transparency and strict accountability.
In addition, Pakistan is embroiled in two unsettling external situations, which must also be addressed—that of Afghanistan and Kashmir. Afghanistan's civil war has destabilised the region, for which Pakistan must accept a considerable degree of responsibility. It can and must now provide solutions in its own national interest. Failure to do so could see Pakistan's original involvement seriously backfire.
Afghanistan offers sanctuary, training and financial support through smuggling for militants from Pakistan, Iran, central Asian republics and the Xinjiang province of China. Afghanistan now produces three times more opium than the rest of the world put together. The Taliban have an agenda to overthrow neighbouring regimes, including that of Pakistan. I do not need to remind the House that the recent Dagastan débâcle is but one example of the devastating effects of Taliban insurgency. Worryingly, already neo-Taliban elements have become a major influence in Baluchistan and North West frontier provinces, together with increasing influence outside the Pushtun belt to Punjab and Sind.
What has been Pakistan's role in all this? —the preaching and training of the Taliban's extreme interpretation of Islam by Pakistani mullahs in Afghan refugee camps, the setting up of a strongly anti-American political party in Pakistan, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam—the JUI—which gained leverage under Benazir Bhutto, and the undeniable support by the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency—the ISI. The solution is for Britain and the United States to put pressure on Pakistan, together with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Uzbekistan to halt the supply of arms into Afghanistan and to curb drug exports. The Taliban would then negotiate an end to the war and deliver an immediate benefit by allowing Western interests, for example, to export central Asian oil and gas via Afghanistan and Pakistan, all of which is unrealistic without peace.
Finally, there is Kashmir. Pakistan's internationalisation and Islamisation of Kashmir is undermining Pakistan's interests and the Kashmiris'

1145
demand for self-determination. While the Kashmiris have a case to be answered, realistically, territorial integrity safeguards will never make for an acceptable solution to Pakistan and Muslim Kashmiris. I regret that the new regime in Pakistan has seemingly prioritised Kashmir, for two reasons. First, a large amount of essential internal state reorganisation must be implemented; and, secondly, an atmosphere conducive to successful negotiations with India will never be achieved by continued saber-rattling—this not withstanding the new nuclear threat, fanned by a hard-line Pakistan military and a Hindu fundamentalist Indian government. There has indeed been uncertainty as to who controls Pakistan's nuclear capability.
It is worth noting that the large majority of Pakistanis living in Britain are in fact of Kashmiri origin. This has enormous significance and, not surprisingly, even certain Ministers in the United Kingdom are deemed to have a jaundiced view of Islamabad as many of their constituents come from what is known as Azad or free Kashmir. Indeed, 31 new Labour constituencies are influenced by Kasmiri Pakistanis.
I have just one question for the Minister. Given the recent Lahore Declaration, affirmed by the June G8 communiqué of which the UK played a part and is a signatory, both accords acknowledging through the Simla Agreement that the Kashmir issue is to be resolved bilaterally between Pakistan and India, and given that the UN resolution, of which the UK was also a signatory, gave the Kashmiris the right to self-determination, will the Minister say today whether the Government support the successive accords or the UN resolution? The two are contradictory and therefore misleading and complicate a resolution.
In conclusion, the Chief of the Defence Staff has just returned from bilateral meetings, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What is the assessment, and will this lead to the necessary pragmatic assistance programme, with sufficient time and resources to right the many underlying ill-judged policies on a strict timetable? What is all too often forgotten, and what must not be lost sight of at this critical juncture, is that democracy is a process—evolving and enduring—not just an election.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I doubt whether many noble Lords would disagree with the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a week ago of the political parties in Pakistan. Of all the constructions made of the situation in Pakistan, I favour the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is feudalism masquerading as democracy.
I have listened to the debate with a sense of unease, and it was only following the intervention of my noble friend Lord Paul that my unease lessened slightly. It seemed that while we were not approving of the coup, we were pretty close to understanding it and accepting it. I share the view that there is no such thing as a good coup, but, whether we like it or not, the Pakistani
1146
Government had been democratically elected, even though the election was flawed. However, as my noble friend Lord Desai stated, we should suspend judgment. In a sense the realpolitik is that judgment has to be suspended because there has been a coup.
I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing the debate. He mentioned the tests that the new regime has to pass to restore democracy. They include demonstrating respect for the law and human rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, quoted General Musharraf's claim that he wants to remain in power only long enough to introduce true democracy.
I should like to introduce what some noble Lords may feel is a narrow point, but which I believe is fundamental to democracy. I refer to the issue of trade union rights in Pakistan. Trade union rights involve human rights and the law. The government of Pakistan have ratified Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organisation. I have the privilege of being the vice-chairman of the governing body of that organisation. The Sharif administration attacked trade union rights in at least two ways: by passing anti-trade union legislation and by attacking the trade movement. He interfered with the banking union by denying membership to certain categories of staff. He completely suspended WAPDA, the power and water trade union, for two years. He not only suspended the organisation and its right to represent all its members, but he took away the ability of its members to contribute to it. He thereby, at a stroke, crippled the finances of the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions, the democratic trade union centre.
When the coup occurred, one might have thought from the statements made by General Musharraf that action would urgently be taken to bring about normality and democracy and the legal process that had been violated by the Sharif government. I quote from a letter written by my good friend Kurshid Ahmed, the general secretary of the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions, stating:
"We were expecting that Government of Pakistan would review the situation on the intervention of ILO",
which had condemned the suspension. The letter continues:
"On the contrary, it has further extended the restrictions placed upon the WAPDA workers through a Presidential Ordinance issued on 24th September, 1999 for another two years and also allowed the WAPDA management to terminate services of WAPDA workers without assigning any reason".
This kind of signal runs counter to the appreciation that there may be swift moves towards democracy. Our Government were right to condemn the coup, and it is important that they put pressure from all directions on the government of Pakistan. It may take time to introduce local election democracy and to build up a true democracy, but it would take no time at all for the government of Pakistan to remove the restrictions that have been placed on the trade unions and to conform to their binding obligations to the International Labour Organisation.

1147
Independent trade union freedoms are fundamental to a true, free democracy. I go further and state that trade unions have a great part to play. They have a distinguished record and in the past decade have been a major player in bringing about democracy in Poland and South Africa. I ask, therefore, that the trade unionists of Pakistan receive no less support from the Government in all respects than the trade unionists in Poland and South Africa received from all sides of the House.
The test set out by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, could begin to be passed if the measures applied to the trade unions of Pakistan by the previous regime, but extended by General Musharraf, are removed at the earliest possible opportunity.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Weatherill for initiating this important debate on Pakistan, just as we are grateful to him for giving us such a lovely excuse to have a really jolly party last night in honour of his loving convenorship of the Cross-Benchers.
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I am not going to speak for anything like nine minutes. I have an interest to declare in that two of my sons are currently setting up an Internet start-up company, Ascot-Drummond, based in London and Pakistan. We therefore already have many friends in Pakistan and much goodwill towards her people.
We have heard so many good and meaty speeches today covering the situation in Pakistan from so many angles that there is very little for me to add. Although the new President of Pakistan, General Musharraf, has arrived there in rather an undemocratic way, the regime that he replaced, although democratically elected in the first place, had turned out to be not very democratic in practice, difficult to dislodge and gradually becoming more and more corrupt. General Musharraf has said that as soon as the country re-settles itself he will re-initiate democracy. Naturally, we are very anxious to see this happen. We are also anxious to see the lessening of tension towards Kashmir and other neighbours and a cessation of nuclear testing.
I should like to emphasise our close ties with Pakistan, both now and historically. We wish her and her new government well.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing the debate. I pay tribute to him and his unique and special ability to address matters in an impartial and neutral way. He is very well respected in both Houses of Parliament. I always say that the noble Lord is living history. He has had enormous influence and impact on my political experiences in this House and is without doubt one of my greatest mentors.
1148
I have listened with great interest to the speeches and should like to discuss a few of the concerns that have been addressed. The first issue is the imminent visit to the Indian sub-continent by the Foreign Minister, Keith Vaz, who is responsible for visa sections abroad. I understand that he will be visiting India and Bangladesh. However, unfortunately, he will not be visiting Pakistan. I express my concern about this matter, on behalf of over half a million British Pakistani Kashmiris and British businesses. The biggest problem in the world relating to entry clearance visas is in Islamabad. To alleviate these problems it is imperative that Mr Vaz visits Islamabad; otherwise, individuals and businesses from the British Pakistani Kashmiri community will be at a loss.
I am aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has seconded extra staff to cope with the long delays. My noble friend Baroness Symons has approved provision of extra entry clearance officers, who have achieved some progress. However, I understand that people are still queuing at midnight to apply for settlement visas; and they often have to wait for eight months before an interview is granted.
Britain and Pakistan have had a shared history of strong political and economic ties. I am most encouraged by the comments made by Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff. Following his recent visit to Pakistan, he was reported in the press as saying:
"We want to take Pakistan down a path that heads to democracy and peace and we are ready to help if the progress is maintained … Turning our back on Pakistan is simply not an option. The ties of history and friendship are simply too close."
In a recent article in the Guardian, which was referred to earlier, my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Peter Hain, stated that,
"Britain still seeks to provide funding and other practical assistance for reforms in the civil service, the police and the judiciary and in the management of public and private enterprise. For example, we are prepared to fund expert help in a fair voter registration system".
I welcome those statements and should like to ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government would extend help to fund and organise courses here in the UK for potential parliamentarians in Pakistan, because the real problem, as has been demonstrated in today's debate, has been with Pakistan's politicians as well as its institutions.
The foreign affairs debate has again been referred to. I concur with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in that debate, that in recent years Pakistan had become a dysfunctional and sham democracy—had in fact become a kleptocracy, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, earlier. Therefore, General Musharraf's action was clearly in Pakistan's national interest. The people of Pakistan have accepted and welcomed the removal of the previous government, and that is perhaps why there was no violence or bloodshed and why 80 per cent of the public supported the change. Not only should we suspend our judgment, as my noble friend Lord Desai suggested earlier, but right now we should be supporting Pakistan through this difficult time.

1149
It must be appreciated that Pakistan is a difficult country to govern. There are real problems; for example, the continuous existence of the oppressive feudal landlord system; the culture of tax evasion—which has been mentioned earlier—corruption; favouritism; nepotism; and political and economic mismanagement. There are clear signs that General Musharraf is committed to addressing some of those issues. However, I hope that the administration will either bring charges against Mr Sharif, Senator Asif Zardari and others or release them as soon as possible.
I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, regarding the rights of women and their quality of life. However, I am aware also that minorities have representation at local, provincial and national level, including a cabinet minister from a religious minority. I remind the House that, before Labour came to power, there were no Muslims in either the House of Lords or the House of Commons. I remind your Lordships that in France and Germany there are millions of Muslims but they still have no representation. That does not stack up the argument for Pakistan, but all I am saying is that it is a sad fact of life that the poor and the weak—Muslims or Christians—always suffer at the hands of the majority and the strong.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that Pakistan should have laws preventing incitement to religious hatred. I believe that we should have similar laws in Great Britain too. As your Lordships are aware, this country does not have religious discrimination laws. I hope that those noble Lords who have spoken in support of changes in Pakistan will support me when I introduce a Private Member's Bill on religious discrimination.
Pakistan has a real chance of becoming a genuine democracy. I have spoken with General Pervaiz Musharraf and he has assured me that the armed forces have no intention of staying in charge any longer than absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan.
General Musharraf's Government have so far taken some positive steps: they have reduced Pakistan's military budget by 5 per cent and initiated appropriate steps towards achieving economic revival. That is reflected in the confidence which the investment community has shown in Pakistan's economy, resulting in a 20 per cent increase in the stock market since 1st January 2000.
The Government are also moving towards transparent accountability, depoliticised state institutions, an improvement in the law and order situation and devolution of power to grass roots level. General Musharraf has announced that there will be local and district elections this year. That will pave the way for true, genuine and lasting democracy in Pakistan. General Musharraf's appointment of Dr Akbar Ahmed in London and Dr Maleeha Lodi in Washington has been welcomed by the masses. They are both highly respected in the Pakistani community and in the western world.
1150
On the issue of relations with India, General Musharraf has made positive moves; for example, he unilaterally implemented a military de-escalation on Pakistan's international borders with India. Pakistan would welcome unconditional, equitable and result-oriented dialogue with India to resolve all issues; especially the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. It is imperative that we put pressure on India. The United Nations resolutions on Kashmir are valid. No bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan can supersede the United Nations resolutions, because the United Nations is the supreme legal body.
I accept that Pakistan is currently not a democracy. However, that should not prevent the implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. Furthermore, India is not the great democracy it pretends to be. It has 700,000 soldiers committing gross human rights violations in Kashmir. India's Interior Minister, L. K. Advani, pursues fascist policies: he was responsible for the destruction and demolition of the Babri mosque and the slaughter of 2,000 innocent civilians. He continuously threatens to take Azad Kashmir, a beautiful heaven on earth where I was born.
Recently, when General Musharraf's envoy went across the globe to explain the situation in Pakistan, he was met by top politicians in Japan and America; in Washington, by the Assistant Secretary of State. However, we failed to produce a single politician to meet him. That policy of non-engagement at ministerial level has to change. I want to see more help and co-operation with Pakistan at the highest level. I understand and support Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy. However, I ask the Minister to understand the British Pakistani community and its expectations.
Finally, our foreign policy should be an ethical foreign policy based on moral values; that is, to help others who need our help rather than persecuting them. Pakistan is a poor country. It needs help and support, not isolation from the international community. That is why I am privileged to support the proposal moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. He matches his wisdom with his integrity, which is why so many of us take him so seriously. Pakistan is fortunate in having Peers of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and my noble friend Lord Sandberg so closely associated with it and so anxious to champion it in its time of need. It is perhaps one of the greatest pieces of fortune that a country may enjoy to have voices, such as those we have heard, in another country's Parliament, so determined to try to assist in every way that they can.
We have already heard a great deal in the debate—and there is no point in my adding to it—about the record of the government of Mr Sharif. One has to add to that the record of his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto. Both Governments did a great deal to erode

1151
democracy in Pakistan. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester pointed out, some of the most serious erosions of the constitution of Pakistan occurred with the acceptance of the 13th and 14th constitutional amendments. Those amendments literally swept away the right of people to express dissent, even in parliament itself, or to hold other religious beliefs, and they did so without a single hour of debate in the Pakistani parliament.
Even worse, or perhaps at least as bad, we now know that both Governments' elite ruling groups simply ripped off one of the poorest countries in the world. Its loyal and courageous people, to whom both the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Sandberg, have paid tribute, have been the victims of their own government. That is a terrible epitaph to any government of a so-called democracy. I agree with all of that. I believe that that has been in every sense a tragedy for a fine people.
However, I do not agree with those who said that it was wrong of the Foreign Secretary to make it clear at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference that he believed that a coup to overthrow an elected government should not be accepted by us without protest. I remind noble Lords that the Commonwealth is based increasingly on the concept of a mutual recognition of human rights and of democratic institutions. I believe that it would be an extremely serious step if the Foreign Secretary had simply disregarded that basic foundation and had done so in the face of the attitudes of those, for example, such as the Foreign Secretary of Canada, Mr Roy Axworthy, who, on behalf of the Commonwealth Secretariat, led the mission that went to Pakistan to meet General Musharraf to discover what were his commitments for a return to democracy. If one flew in the face of the committee, chaired by a Minister from Zimbabwe, which was set up to look into the matter, and if one behaved simply as though exceptions could be made because one had every sympathy with the reasons for that, I believe that, again, one would be taking an extremely serious step.
I believe that it is very reasonable to say that we must take a position with regard to the overthrow of democratically-elected governments, even though the democracy itself may be flimsy and shaky. Then we should explain why in that particular case we believe that there may be reasons why we should nevertheless resume aid to that country and resume support of the kind outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I say that for one other reason which I believe to be important; that is, that we should not go back on those commitments but, rather, strengthen them.
That brings me to my first question to the Minister. Would it not be better if the Foreign Office, perhaps together with the Commonwealth Secretariat, began to develop a somewhat richer definition of democracy: one that embodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the rule of law; one that embodies, as a number of other noble Lords said, the independence of the judiciary; and one that embodies the concept of accountability and transparency in government? I am
1152
not asking for a tome, but rather for a short paragraph which will make it much easier for governments such as our own to say, "This government have fallen short of the definition of democracy that the Commonwealth recognises". Quite frankly, to hang the idea of democracy simply on the process of elections on one day is a ludicrous misdefinition of a great institution.
I turn to two questions which I want to put to the Government. First, why did we suspend aid? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked that question because, like me, he is troubled by the fact that we have suspended aid but have continued exports of arms. Suspending aid, at least for more than a few token days, seems to me exactly the wrong thing to do. Pakistan is a flimsy democracy, partly because she is a desperately poor country and most of her people are becoming not richer but poorer. She will never establish a proper democracy unless her people have something to look forward to other than hunger. The right reverend Prelate made that point very strongly and very impressively. If in a country taxes are not paid by the wealthy, that country cannot provide education to the poor. Therefore, that is a very strong reason why I believe our economic aid should continue.
Incidentally, I should like to see that economic aid, as soon as possible, linked to co-operative endeavours with India. Last year I visited the north-west desert which lies between Rajasthan and Pakistan—a desert which on the Indian side is beginning to bloom and where I believe there is scope for major economic development along the lines of the Negev Desert in Israel, if only there could be co-operation between the two governments and support from the international community.
On arms exports, again, I have a question for the Government. Is it the case that we still rest entirely upon the old wartime emergency legislation with regard to the decision on arms exports? As Sir Richard Scott pointed out the other day, we still have made no changes, despite the strong recommendations of his report. Four years on, that appears to me to be a little casual, to say the least. Therefore, I should like to ask, first, whether any proposals are being made more rigorously to control arms exports to Pakistan, among others, and, secondly, to ask the Government whether, in the escalating current situation, it might not be wise to suspend arms exports for the time being while resuming economic aid.
My final point relates to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Paul. That is how we deal with a crucially insecure region of the world which is becoming rapidly more tense. Last year, following his election in India, Mr Vajpayee extended his hand considerably towards Pakistan with a view to de-escalating relations over Kashmir. Noble Lords will remember, for example, the establishment of a bus link between Pakistan and India, the decision by India to accept and agree to a natural gas contract, and various other extensions of friendship on, it must be said, the Indian side on this occasion. That was when Mr Sharif was the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I

1153
believe that the situation was made worse by the Lahore Declaration of February 1999. I believe that that was genuinely entered into by India. However, we now understand that the declaration was signed on the very same day as Mr Sharif gave the green light to what is known as the Kargil Incursion into Kashmir. The incursion was official and involved, among others, members of the Pakistani Army. It led to a great deal of distrust at a moment when it looked as though we might at long last gee some basis of trust over Kashmir. It is proper and right to ask Pakistan and India to resume their discussions. Indeed, I believe that it is vital for the world—otherwise, we may see an escalation into real danger in that region.
I conclude by asking the Government whether there is any truth in today's report in the Pakistan newspaper, Jang, that China has said that she will not allow any harm to come to Pakistan's security and national integrity, that she will not remain silent if Pakistan is made the target of aggression, but, perhaps more important, that she is willing to meet whatever defence needs Pakistan might have and, furthermore, that she reiterates Pakistan's position on Kashmir. I make no judgment about what China is alleged to have said. I state only that if that is true, as the Pakistani newspaper suggests, then we are into a much more dangerous period in the world's history than most of us would have believed even a week ago. Perhaps the Government can throw some light on that. Perhaps they can tell us what urgent steps they are taking to try to obtain the international community's support for a new attempt to resolve some of the terrible, long-lasting and increasingly dangerous problems of Kashmir.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for securing this debate at such a critical time in Pakistan's turbulent history. As a number of noble Lords have said, south-east Asia and Pakistan in particular have continued to feature prominently in the world's consciousness over the past months. Pakistan is a pivotal country in the stability of south-east and central Asia and that stability is currently hanging in the balance.
From these Benches, we join with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in calling upon the military to respect the safety and legal rights of those who were elected by the people of Pakistan. In particular, Pakistan must respect the rights of the ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and pursue any genuine legal case through due process with a fair and open trial.
Likewise, we share the Government's desire to work closely with our colleagues in the Commonwealth to press for an early and credible timetable for the restoration of democracy to the people of Pakistan. We agree that the international community should not accord any legitimacy to the military regime or provide any signal that it is willing to condone the overthrow of a constitutional government.
Yet this debate has been characterised by wise counsel from all sides of the House on the merits and characteristics of democracy in Pakistan, and the
1154
speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Sandberg, were noteworthy in that respect. I too wish to sound a note of caution which echoes the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the view that the international community must not be tempted to punish Pakistan disproportionately for that breach of democracy just because we feel we can, while larger and more powerful states are left unpunished for their violations because we feel we cannot.
Chechnya is a case in point. Although it is under consideration, after more than four months of war on its own citizens, Russia has not even been suspended from the Council of Europe, the very body which promotes the values of democracy and human rights in Europe. Of course, as this House well knows, not all elected leaders are democrats and not all generals are villains.
I make it absolutely clear that from these Benches, we do not condone or approve of the way in which the government of Pakistan was changed but there are certain matters of which we believe it is important that the Government take account and factor into their assistance to the people of Pakistan so that a truly democratic government, free from intolerance and corruption, can be elected.
The fact that the coup was bloodless and did not inspire widespread protest within Pakistan tells us what we already knew; that, in a worsening economic climate, Pakistan's previous elected government failed to provide transparent and good governance and thus lost the support and trust of those whom it represented.
Indeed, in its response to Pakistan's military coup, it is essential that the international community recognises what lies at the heart of Pakistan's political problems and does not compound them through its actions. Pakistan is a country that was created in the chaos of partition; nurtured in a cold climate of poverty and corruption; and torn, since birth, between conflicting cultures. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that Pakistan has been badly let down by successive governments, both civilian and military. Tragically for Pakistan, failures by both the Sharif and Bhutto governments have coloured perceptions of what democracy can accomplish in Pakistan. Two long periods of martial law in Pakistan have embedded the concept of military participation in politics and have inhibited the development of a stable, democratic, constitutional system.
So the challenge for the international community now lies in matching our goals for Pakistan's future with the tools that we have available. Those tools of persuasion are limited and we lack the calibrations of subtlety and balance for which the situation today in Pakistan calls. The tools of condemnation and isolation are too blunt and heavy for that country. They must be tempered by the tools of engagement and forbearance. To engage is not to condone. But to isolate may result in Pakistan's descent into further political and economic chaos which would cause ordinary Pakistanis, whose interests we purport to champion, to suffer the most.

1155
Likewise, regional stability is at risk if we do not continue to engage with Pakistan on core issues of international concern, be they counter-narcotics, non-proliferation, law enforcement, regional peace and security and counter-terrorism. Our own actions towards Pakistan in the days ahead should be guided by the steps taken by the new authorities. In that context, General Musharraf's commitments to a democratic future, to resolution of the dispute over Kashmir and to restraint in nuclear proliferation are most welcome.
Of course we wish to see General Musharraf take practical steps to acknowledge that democratic governance is not an experiment; it is a right accorded to all people under the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The sooner civilian, democratic rule is restored, the better. It is better for the ordinary people of Pakistan; better for Pakistan as a nation; and better for Pakistan's relations with her neighbours and the international community.
In that context, I wish to add to the questions put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the precise purpose of those discussions between Sir Charles Guthrie and General Musharraf, given the recent speculation over arms sales to Pakistan. The Minister will be aware that the Foreign Office Minister of State said that,
"we will consider any licences that we have in for arms exports on their merits as we have done in the past but we will not support anything which is used for external aggression or internal oppression, not least over Pakistan's activities in Kashmir".
Given that the Government fruitlessly proclaimed the very same gestures in relation to East Timor, what confidence can we have that those conditions will be respected in Pakistan?
Will the Minister confirm that there are at least 80 applications for export licences pending and will she clarify the Government's policy on applications for arms sales to Pakistan? In the light of the Government's strong condemnation of the coup in October and November and their ethical dimension to foreign policy, will she confirm that it is government policy that arms sales will not be reviewed until democratic guarantees are in place? If not, will she explain how the Government intend to demonstrate to the military government of Pakistan that there cannot be business as usual between them and the rest of the world, as the Foreign Secretary demanded in October?
I must say that it is difficult to see how the ethical dimensions of foreign policy have been served, when the Government are quick to suspend all bilateral aid to the government of Pakistan and when the Secretary of State for International Development says that,
"obviously, we cannot provide development assistance to the military authorities in Pakistan",
and when the Foreign Secretary said:
"We will not be doing business with the military regime",
yet the Government's policy on applications for arms exports to Pakistan remains far from clear.
1156
The Minister will be aware that in July, President Clinton, on the subject of Kashmir, said that he would take a personal interest in encouraging an expeditious resumption and intensification of those bilateral efforts to resolve all issues dividing India and Pakistan, including Kashmir, once the sanctity of the line of control has been fully restored.
Pakistan has interpreted that as an indication that America may be willing to play a mediation role in Kashmir, something which, as we have heard during this debate, India vehemently opposes. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that Kashmir is also our problem. Britain's position has always been that we are willing to act as a broker for peace if both sides request it, but that the impetus for a just and lasting solution to the conflict and the final settlement which involves and reflects the views of the people of Kashmir remains firmly a matter for India and Pakistan. In view of that, will the Minister say whether the Government have sought clarification of President Clinton's statement?
The state of development in the country of Pakistan has been made extremely clear by noble Lords during this debate, not least by the right reverend Prelate who referred to the importance of a grace period.
General Musharraf has pledged to revive the economy and indeed we should assist. We should assist because 36 million people in Pakistan live in absolute poverty; over two-thirds of the Pakistan adult population is illiterate; 60 million people do not have access to health facilities; 67 million people are without safe drinking water, and 89 million people are deprived of basic sanitation facilities. That is why it is incumbent on this House, indeed this Government, to respond positively to programmes of assistance for the development of Pakistan.
In conclusion, democracy will not take root if it is grafted on to corrupt and bankrupt institutions. Economic growth in Pakistan cannot be sustained without substantial investment in human development. It is from that development that in due course we will get the sort of democratic security for the people of Pakistan that is so essential. A simple adherence to the concept of democracy without recognising the fundamental importance of building the institutions of good governance and effective development programmes will simply not work. That is why we need to be sensitive to these issues when considering this question today; we need to be firm yet persuasive; robust yet sensitive to the new government of Pakistan; and resolute yet encouraging as we pursue our goal of the restoration of democracy.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this has been an interesting and high quality debate. I welcome the level of unanimity and understanding of some of the difficulties that in general has been expressed by so many noble Lords.
I wish now to conclude our deliberations on the Motion before us on recent developments in Pakistan. During last week's debate on the international

1157
situation, I also promised replies to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Janner.
I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for drawing our attention to the crucial issue of the future of Pakistan—crucial because Pakistan is undoubtedly at a crossroads. He and other noble Lords spoke of the military coup, economic and developmental challenges, tensions with India, and nuclear issues. At this early stage, I particularly want to thank my noble friend Lord Paul for his kind words of thanks to our staff in Islamabad who at present are facing such difficult times.
The British Government are watching developments with concern, but we are not yet ready to subscribe to the gospel of despair, as perhaps some believe we are. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Ahmed that we agree that Britain cannot and should not turn its back on Pakistan and its people. Pakistan is too important to isolate. That is why, despite our deep concern over the coup, the British Government will stay engaged. We have too much shared history and too many shared interests to do otherwise, as a number of noble Lords mentioned. In that context, as far as I am aware Ministers have never refused to meet any envoy sent by General Musharraf. I was surprised to hear mention of that.
The policy of staying engaged is why the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence agreed to the visit of Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff, to Pakistan on 13th January. He underlined to General Musharraf our concern at recent events in Pakistan and the necessity for him urgently to reassure the international community of his commitment to an early transition to democratic rule and to tackling tensions in the region, particularly with India.
To answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Alton and respond to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I say straightaway that the issue of arms sales was not on the agenda. Our policy on arms export licensing, as clearly set out in response to a Question in another place, is that we consider export licence applications for Pakistan on a case-by-case basis against our national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports. Applications for export licences can take some time to process, especially if the situation in the country concerned is fluid. The coup in Pakistan created many uncertainties and, in the circumstances, it is right for the Government to take the time necessary to assess the new regime's behaviour and intentions before deciding on outstanding export licence applications.
I shall try to respond to the questions in relation to bonded labour in my response to the debate of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I shall write to noble Lords in the event that time defeats me.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. On the last point, does that in effect mean that we will be suspending arms licences for
1158
Pakistan until such time as there is some assurance that Pakistan will be returning to a democracy, possibly on a timetable basis?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we will look at each application on its merits on a case-by-case basis. Obviously some considerations will apply more acutely to some than others. That is the fullest answer I am in a position to give.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that I cannot but agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Paul in his fine speech, my noble friend Lord Brett and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that there can be no such thing as a "good coup". We have made that clear from the outset. We are aware of the shortcomings of the previous government in Pakistan. We made no secret of concerns about their record on many issues: relations with India, economic reform and human rights. But they were elected and the Pakistani people had the right to challenge them through the ballot box.
Military intervention is an unacceptable response to dissatisfaction with an elected government. Coups can only hinder the evolution of the democratic process. An apathetic response to a coup in a country of Pakistan's size and importance—it is the sixth largest democracy in the world—would have sent a destabilising signal to other fragile democracies throughout the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on an excellent speech. She raised an interesting point on the definition of "democracy" which merits proper and further consideration.
Pakistan is a proud country with a proud people. My noble friend Lord Desai rightly made reference to the bad luck to which it has been subject. But the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right when he said that it has been badly let down too by successive leaders, both civilian and military. As a result, Pakistan continues to struggle with deep-seated political and economic problems, including widespread poverty, as many noble Lords mentioned. Those trying circumstances help to explain the popular acceptance within the country of the coup to which the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Sandberg, and my noble friend Lord Ahmed referred.
We welcome General Musharraf's pledges to address those problems. But I beg to challenge the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that the military should work to rebuild and restore democracy only after it has solved them. It is clear from previous experience in Pakistan and elsewhere that the military cannot be expected to see this process through on its own. In the long term, it is only through public consent, rooted in a strong responsive democratic process, that those issues can be addressed. We urge the present regime to begin work on the transition to democracy immediately, in parallel with the wider agenda. It cannot expect us to give it a blank cheque.

1159
Since the end of the Cold War, the trend is undeniable. The world is moving in the direction of elected democratic government, and of professional armies under civilian control. We want to help to ensure that Pakistan is not left behind.
Democracy in Pakistan has suffered a setback. But we should not give up on the principle; nor should we lose hope that democracy in Pakistan can and will be rebuilt and restored, perhaps in an even healthier state than before. The Pakistani people deserve a new and better democracy—a democracy which is fair, responsive and transparent; a democracy which can deliver stability and national unity; a democracy which can bring security and prosperity to all Pakistanis, rather than a privileged few; a democracy strong enough to ensure that this military intervention is the last.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that General Musharraf has promised an early transition to a stronger democracy, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and other speakers. The British Government welcome this. We want to see him succeed. It is now up to him to convince us that he is taking steps in pursuit of this end. I should say to all noble Lords that we are ready to listen, engage and provide practical help as long as we see real and sustained progress. This approach applies equally to our policy on government-to-government developmental aid.
The Commonwealth is also committed to the same approach through the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group mechanism. We have no illusions about the size of the challenge facing General Musharraf. But that does not mean that benchmarks for progress cannot be set. If a realistic and publicly-announced timetable is drawn up, and this is demonstrated to be working, the British Government will respond constructively.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, rebuilding democracy is not only about what happens on election day. It also means restoring public trust in the organs of the state and the system of checks and balances on which all democracies, including our own, depend. In this context we cannot ignore the accumulated problems posed by poor economic management, corruption, weak rule of law, a "winner takes all" political culture and a poor human rights environment. We hope and expect that General Musharraf will be looking at these issues in parallel.
My noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Paul, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, all placed proper emphasis on the economic issues with which Pakistan is challenged. Without public trust in the management of the economy, any rebuilt political and institutional structure will have an uphill struggle for credibility. Economic reform is necessary to bring prosperity and to benefit the poor, but it can also encourage fairer and more transparent administration. Economic reforms are not just about the right to do business; they are also about the way in which business is done. It is in the
1160
interests of all to enshrine and enforce obligations to pay wages, taxes and debts. I agree with what has been said by many noble Lords in this regard.
Corruption has extended its powerful tentacles into all areas of national life in Pakistan. My noble friend Lord Desai gave us some graphic examples of this in his powerful speech. Other speakers also commented on it. This hurts the weak, curtails efficiency, checks economic development and sharpens the public's sense of alienation from the government.
Acting to stamp out corruption and encourage disinterested and transparent administration would benefit all Pakistanis. This process should apply equally to all sectors of society. Once those in authority are seen to respect the rule of law, it should become easier to demand that the public also do so. The law should uphold the rights of the weak against the strong. But, in parallel, there is a need for justice to be faster, firmer and fairer. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for his helpful account of the work of the International Bar Association in this field. We wish to look very carefully at his suggestions in relation to taking these issues further.
We also welcome the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lord Paul and other noble Lords on the importance of the rule of law generally, and the judicial process. That applies most particularly to the excellent speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. The tradition of "winner takes all" should and can be broken. For democracy to work better, a government should be able to take and respond to criticism and deal with their opponents in a balanced way. Political intimidation has no place.
In the immediate future, any trial of the deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif must be fair and open. I cannot but agree with the comments made in this regard by my noble friend Lord Desai, and the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Moynihan. A show trial to settle old scores would strike a sour note. In answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I can tell him that we have a hope and an aspiration that there will be no improper interference with the courts or with Mr Sharif's trial. We are watching closely the process of the trial, but our jury is still out.
Our dialogue on human rights with the previous government was wide ranging. We raised frankly our concerns over the position of women (Hudood Ordinances—honour killings), the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities (Christians, Ahmadis and Shias) and trade unions, as well as press freedom. Indeed, specific mention was made of the issue regarding the editor of the Friday Times. We welcome the commitments made by General Musharraf which were rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her sensitive speech. We also agree with the sentiments made in this regard by many other noble Lords.
However, General Musharraf has to respect fully the guarantees set out in the Pakistani constitution. We look to him to ensure that they are implemented. But with that constitution formally suspended, the

1161
climate is uncertain. We shall be monitoring the situation closely. It is hard for us to continue our pressure for the repeal of the laws, such as the blasphemy laws and the Hudood Ordinances, in the vacuum that currently exists. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, that we do not believe that the teachings of Islam or the people of Pakistan are anti-Western or that they embrace violence. There is a history of good relations between Pakistan and the UK, exemplified by the positive role of people of Pakistani origin in modern Britain.
As I said earlier, Pakistan does not exist in a vacuum. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in particular for his pungent and well-informed analysis of the challenges facing the region. Britain is committed to working for peace, stability and prosperity throughout south Asia. A Pakistan which is at peace with itself and its neighbours is a crucial element in this equation. We should be under no illusion: the situation in south Asia is worrying. A number of my noble friends were right to express disquiet about the summer's conflict in the Kargil sector of the Line of Control, especially as it came so soon after nuclear testing by both Pakistan and India. The recent hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft has further increased tensions.
We have urged General Musharraf to renounce the option of military aggression over Kashmir and to make early moves towards reducing tensions with India. We have also asked that Pakistan co-operate fully with international efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism. We remain deeply concerned about Kashmir, both as a potential flashpoint and for the sake of the Kashmiri people. Our position is well known: we call for India and Pakistan to reach a just and lasting settlement that reflects the views of the Kashmiri people and offers them the best hope of peace and security. We have reiterated our calls for Pakistan and India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and address the root causes of the differences between them.
On the issue of Kashmir, as I have already said, the British Government's position is very well known. We condemn terrorist attacks and human rights abuses alike. We stand ready to offer our good offices in any negotiation, but only if this is requested by all parties.
I have not yet seen the reports of General Musharraf's visit to China quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. If she will permit, I shall reply to her in writing.
To sum up, we want the best for Pakistan and its people. We firmly believe that that means democracy—a strong and resilient democracy that can guarantee political and economic security for its citizens, and work for peace in the region. We welcome the commitments that General Musharraf has given to work to that end, but urge him to reassure us with a time frame. If we see progress, we are ready to help. Pakistan is too important to give up on.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, this has been a very useful debate. In the last Session it was suggested that we might do away with Wednesday's debates in order to devote our time more frequently to looking at the Bills that come before us. I hope that today's debate and the debate last Wednesday demonstrate how very important these general debates are.
I should like to take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have participated. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Ahmed for his over-generous comments; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester—my personal bishop, as I am in his diocese—for his contribution; and the Minister for her comments.
I take issue with the noble Baroness on only one matter. If General Musharraf's were a purely military regime, I would not support it. But, as I sought to point out, it is not a military regime. It is seeking a government of all the talents. As I understand it, there is only one military cabinet minister, apart from General Musharraf himself. So it is not a purely military regime.
I thank the noble Baroness very much for her comments and for the helpful way in which she dealt with the subject. I pay tribute also to the noble Baroness for speaking in the next debate. As one who, in a past incarnation, had to sit on the Front Bench throughout the day, I know how tempting it is to put one's feet up on the table. But that is not a tradition we have in your Lordships' House.
In concluding what has been a valuable debate, I would not wish it to be thought that in being pro-Pakistani, I am anti-Indian. I am certainly not. I served in the Arakan campaigns with the Jat (Hindu) squadron of my regiment. I have an equally high regard, respect and great affection for India and its people. I have only one remaining ambition, and I hope it may be vouchsafed: to see reconciliation between India and Pakistan.
I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Patten Report
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the Government's decisions on the report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, known as the Patten Report after its chairman, Chris Patten.
"Of all the issues that have divided society in Northern Ireland, policing is probably the most controversial. In the last 30 years the Royal Ulster Constabulary has faced demands completely unlike

1163
those faced by any other force in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the developed world. I would like to place on record the Government's deep admiration for the courage, resilience and professionalism with which the RUC has met these challenges. The accounts I have heard of personal tragedy, pain and loss in the RUC family are profoundly moving and humbling. Three hundred and two officers have been killed, and many thousands injured. We all owe the RUC a huge debt of gratitude. The George Cross is a fitting acknowledgement of their sacrifice.
"But in rising to the challenge, the RUC has inevitably, if unfairly, become identified more with one side of the community than the other. It finds it hard to recruit from the nationalist community and—with 88 per cent of its members Protestant and only 8 per cent Catholic—is not representative of all sides of the community.
"This is not a desirable state of affairs. The RUC itself is forward-looking and accepts the need for change. It is eager to police a normal society in a normal professional way, but it is held back by the burden of history.
"The talks which led to the Good Friday agreement addressed but did not resolve these problems. Instead, Chris Patten and his colleagues were asked to design arrangements for,
'a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen to be an integral part of, the community as a whole.'
"The Patten Commission rose to this challenge and I pay tribute to them. Their report covers, among other things, composition, training, culture, ethos and symbols. My right honourable friend the Member for Redcar accepted the report in principle, and launched a period of consultation about the details. Since my own appointment, I have met all the interested parties and police groups and have listened carefully to what they had to say.
"The decisions which I am announcing today will be reflected in legislation which we will bring forward later in this Session. In reaching them, I have been driven by, and have tried to keep in balance, three distinct but interdependent considerations: representativeness; effectiveness; and respect for the sacrifices of the past. I say 'interdependent', because only a police service that is accepted and draws members from both traditions and is therefore accepted across the community can hope to be fully effective. And it is only by recognising the sacrifices of the past that we can move forward together to meet the challenges of the future. I am determined that the police in Northern Ireland should be modern, representative and effective, and no longer the fulcrum of antagonistic debate.
"However, Patten also points out that the implementation of some recommendations will,
'depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops'
1164
and that judgments will need to be made on how and when they should be introduced. That is advice which the Government will, rightly, keep firmly in mind as we take this process forward.
"Patten rightly places much emphasis on human rights. The Chief Constable and the new policing board together will be made responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive programme of action— including an audit to ensure full compliance with human rights requirements. We also accept a new police oath, as proposed by Patten, which will be taken by all new recruits to the police service. I do not believe it appropriate for already attested officers to take the new oath, which would in any case raise significant legal difficulties. All officers will, however, receive human rights training, and will be required to behave in accordance with a code of ethics. This code will be provided for in legislation, and will, like the new oath, emphasise the priority to be given to human rights.
"The Government accept Patten's recommendation for the creation of a new policing board, composed, as the report recommends, to replace the current police authority. The new policing board will be responsible for securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police service and holding the Chief Constable and the police service to account.
"I am sure the House will wish to join with me in paying tribute to the work of the police authority over the last 30 years. Many have served with distinction on the authority and were prepared to come forward even when there was a direct terrorist threat against them. Two members of the authority were murdered by terrorists. The contribution of the authority, members and staff, will not be forgotten.
"The report recommends clarifying the roles of the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the policing board. The broad thrust of the recommendations is that the policing board should play a more developed role—setting objectives, priorities and performance targets while leaving operational control and direction of the police firmly in the Chief Constable's hands.
"I entirely agree with the report that the new policing board,
"'should be empowered and equipped to scrutinise the performance of the police effectively'".
I therefore accept the recommendations and will introduce legislation accordingly, subject to the Chief Constable continuing to answer to me on all matters involving national security and the work of relevant agencies.
"Patten proposed the creation of district policing partnership boards to provide an element of local accountability. He envisaged that they should have a primarily consultative role with an ability to monitor police delivery against an agreed local plan, and I endorse this. He also proposed an additional community safety role, with powers to purchase services on top of normal policing. This latter

1165
activity is currently a subject being considered by the criminal justice review. Until decisions are taken on this review, which will be published shortly, I do not intend to extend their function in this way. It will be better, in any case, to concentrate initially on building up relationships at the local level in what I propose to call district policing partnerships. I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast where I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships.
"Progress of the style of policing and the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat and the public order situation. There will be no question of rushing forward with changes in the absence of a stable security environment. Subject to that overall proviso, in line with the report the Chief Constable has decided to reorganise the police service into district commands based on district council areas and geared towards policing in partnership with the community. District commanders will have much higher levels of devolved authority under the overall command of the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable intends that this structural reorganisation will be under way by November this year.
"The Chief Constable will also reorganise police headquarters to produce a slimmer structure. Headquarters will in future take a more strategic approach to management and Special Branch and CID will both be retained and placed under a single assistant chief constable, as the Chief Constable believes is desirable, when the security situation permits.
"The Government accept Patten's recommendations on the future size of the police service—that is, a regular complement of 7,500 full-time officers— provided, as the report says, that the security situation does not deteriorate significantly. We accept Patten's recommendation for the enlargement of the part-time reserve and the discontinuation of the full-time reserve—again, subject to the security situation.
"The severance arrangements to enable serving police officers, whether regular or reservist, to leave the police service will be generous and sympathetic. The Government are committed to finding the necessary resources. Negotiations with the police staff associations are currently in progress. I hope that these discussions will help all sides to agree arrangements which will address the concern which officers understandably have about their future.
"I attach particular importance to Patten's recommendations for action to transform the composition of the police service, which are essential to gaining widespread acceptability. I endorse the proposal for 50/50 recruitment of Protestants and Catholics from a pool of candidates all of whom—I stress—will have qualified on merit. We propose that the requirement for this special measure should be kept under review on a triennial basis, with rigorous safeguards to ensure that the, rightly,
1166
challenging targets for recruitment do not diminish the standard required of recruits. There will be no question whatsoever of ex-terrorists joining the service.
"Our aim is to develop a police service which is both effective and accepted throughout the community. This aim, as Patten recognises, also clearly bears on the name and symbols of the RUC.
"The issue here is not whether the name of the RUC is wrong or something not to be proud of. I understand exactly why serving and former officers, their families and indeed widows are proud of the RUC and its name. The issue is whether a change in name, underlining a new start, is a necessary and indispensable part of attracting balance in recruits. Of course, it is not the only barrier to recruitment. There has been at times disgraceful intimidation of nationalists who wished to join the RUC. But a change of name was, in Patten's view, essential, and I agree.
"That change is needed to signal the new beginning which will, in particular, be symbolised by the arrival in the new training environment of the first recruits entering through the new independent procedures and selected on the new balanced basis. That point will come in the autumn of next year. At that point too, I will therefore bring into force the new title, which will be the Police Service of Northern Ireland, a name which I believe is preferable to that proposed by Patten.
"At the same time, a service badge incorporating this title will be introduced, after the new policing board has had a chance to address the issue. In this context, the RUC will wish to consider how best permanently to record the award to it of the George Cross last autumn. And, finally, existing police memorials will remain as they are, and the colour of the uniform will not change.
"The Government also accept Patten's important recommendation for IT improvements to put the police in Northern Ireland at the forefront of communications and information technology, and for police training. I am also delighted to tell the House that we have accepted the case for a new police college, and appropriate resources will be provided. These are in addition to a range of other forward-looking recommendations on practical policing issues, which I will not detain the House by detailing here, which we will also be implementing.
"Finally, Patten recommends the appointment of an oversight commissioner to monitor the implementation of those changes agreed by the Government. This appointment will not in any way cut across the responsibilities of either the new policing board or the Chief Constable, and the accountability which I and my colleagues have to this House on policing issues will not diminish as a result. The oversight commissioner will help create a first-rate police service for the future.
"The implementation of these changes will entail a major and challenging programme of work for the Government, the Chief Constable, the police

1167
authority (and, in due course, the policing board) but, most of all, for police officers themselves. It is not an overnight event but a process of change which will extend over several years. I am confident that the police will meet the challenge of change positively and with commitment.
"For those in the unionist community who have fears, I urge them to accept the need for significant change to create a police service in which all can feel they belong and with which all can identify. To nationalists, who have for so long withheld their support from the police in Northern Ireland, I would ask them to reflect on the transformation that is planned and to reconsider their position. It is now time for them to support this programme of change; unambiguously to support the police; and to encourage young men and women from their community to join the police. The prize is a modern, effective police service drawing support and strength from all parts of the community. It is within our grasp. The proposals I have announced today should enable us to achieve it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place.
Before going further, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is in his place, for all the work that he has done and for his communication with us in this House over the past few years. The Northern Ireland problem is not over and it is sad that the Government do not see fit to have a territorial Minister in your Lordships' House.
I should like also to pay a serious and great tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, for the wonderful work that it has done over the past 30 years. It has protected us not only at home in Northern Ireland but in the Kingdom as a whole from the terrible outrages of the most sophisticated terrorism that the world has yet known. It has done a wonderful job and we should never forget it. I should point out—I hope the Minister agrees—that, while the Patten Report is a professional piece of work, it totally fails to pay adequate tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has listened to representations and is not implementing Patten en bloc and unedited. However, there are a number of areas where we disagree with the Government's approach. The Secretary of State, while accepting the need for a name change, has put back the change of name by approximately one year. Does the Minister accept that politically it will make no difference? Does she further accept that a survey of the Police Federation found that a change of name for the police force would have little impact on recruitment, would find little favour with the nationalist community but would cause considerable offence in the Protestant community?
1168
As regards recruitment, does not the Minister agree that the ratio of Protestant and Catholic recruits would change overnight if the SDLP and Sinn Fein were to encourage their constituents and the nationalist community as a whole to join the police force? I suggest that the name of the RUC is not a deterrent to recruitment. It is well understood, and was mentioned by the Secretary of State in his Statement, that the deterrent to the nationalist community joining the RUC is nothing other than intimidation by the IRA and Sinn Fein. It is worth noting that the IRA has no intention whatever of changing its name. We on these Benches believe that a compromise solution should be found to allow the highly respected name Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, to remain.
The Secretary of State refers to measures which are security sensitive. Under this heading, I must ask the Government for an undertaking that the police force in Northern Ireland will always be maintained and equipped at a level to allow it to combat both the threat of terrorism—which has not by any means gone away; there has not been any decommissioning yet from any terrorist group—and the rapidly increasing level of violent non-terrorist crime and disorder which is currently taking place. I think your Lordships know to what I am referring.
Does not the Minister agree that one of the objectives of Patten was to take the politics out of Northern Ireland policing once and for all? Surely making one of the first jobs of the new policing board that of agreeing the design of the new cap badge—which I understand is the Secretary of State's intention—is throwing politics into that boardroom before the board has yet sat.
Surely setting up the district policing partnership boards, which are likely to have terrorists among their numbers—let us not mess about with words; that is what will happen—is a recipe for disaster and will maintain the politics of the past in the police at local level. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has thought better of allowing rates to be raised in order to employ what would have been vigilantes.
Finally, despite these few criticisms of a huge report which will do a number of great things—and it is worth saying that much of the report was lifted from the Chief Constable's own review—I wish to make it clear that on these Benches we share the Government's objective of changing the policing environment. I hope that the Minister can agree that the only way to achieve that is for the terrorists on all sides to sign up to decommissioning.
Everyone, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, recognises that there must be changes. We all share the goal of building a police force that is genuinely representative of the whole community.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place earlier today, we on these Benches broadly support the Government's intention to implement most of the proposals made in the Patten Report.

1169
The report was an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement and, significantly, its proposals, taken together, are to be seen as a consistent and integrated programme to bring about the changes it perceived as necessary.
I am sure that the Minister will readily agree that effecting those changes will not be easy. First, there is the problem of timing: the momentum gathered from the formation of the Executive must be maintained, but without jeopardising the police function in Northern Ireland. Liberal Democrats reject those who call for a disbanding of all present arrangements, but we recognise the need for fundamental change of the kind that Patten proposes.
Secondly, there are the enormous human resource problems associated with the recruitment, retention and severance of the future force. Police forces across the United Kingdom have experienced great difficulty in attracting applicants from a variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Although less diverse, Northern Ireland is not unique in this respect—although the task is monumental if the proportion of nearly 90 per cent recruitment from only one side of the population is to be brought into a better balance. As Patten states, it will require concentrated and sustained appeals from both sides of the community to encourage much wider Catholic participation in the police service. Rigid 50/50 quotas introduced at this stage may be counter-productive. I ask the Government to look again at that particular issue.
Confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the police will be greatly enhanced by the provisions being made for greater local accountability and engagement. Of course, how this is introduced is fraught with difficulties. Great care must be taken to prevent any usurpation by paramilitary organisations. I am assured that in his Statement the Secretary of State showed that he is fully seized of these difficulties.
But these difficulties cannot be used to delay developments designed to foster a widespread degree of accountability and community ownership of the police. By the same token, the proposed independent commission on policing will need quickly to establish a close working relationship with local authorities and community-based organisations. Indeed, one of the great advantages that Northern Ireland enjoys is the strength of its largely non-sectarian voluntary sector.
There are other reasons for cautious optimism. I am sure that the Minister will concur that the RUC is one of the most efficient forces in the UK, having had some of the hardest tasks to tackle. It is fully capable of adapting to the changes recommended in Patten and now largely endorsed by the Government. Introducing the skills and competencies that are called for, shifting the focus towards community and neighbourhood policing and emphasising the concern for human rights are considerable challenges, but, again, they are not unique to Northern Ireland. Police forces in all the western democracies are having to face these and similar challenges. In Sir Ronnie Flanagan, it has a chief constable fully equipped to provide the
1170
leadership to bring about a transformation that will retain the best of the old while addressing the imperatives of the new.
In endorsing the agenda outlined by the Secretary of State, we also endorse his acknowledgement of the dedication, courage and resourcefulness displayed by most members of the RUC and not least to those who were injured or murdered in the course of their duties. Nothing detracts from that tribute in saying that the situation now needs to move on if more normal, peaceful conditions are to be allowed to develop.
Symbol and rhetoric perhaps play a larger role in the life of Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK. They are the outward and visible signs of the communal divide that has existed for far too long. They should not, of course, be exorcised, even if that were possible, but they do need to be placed in the proper perspective of a wider, inclusive sense of citizenship, which I believe the steps announced by the Government today will help to achieve.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in his tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs. All I can say to the noble Lord is that the department for which my noble friend was responsible is, of course, the department which is now—to his satisfaction and I know to the satisfaction of the whole House—part of the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland. However, I join with the noble Lord in paying tribute to my noble friend and I know that his work and commitment are widely respected right across the community.
I should also like to join both the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in paying tribute both to the Chief Constable and members of the RUC for the contribution and sacrifice they have made over the past 30 years. I agree—as I know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed—that, on reflection, perhaps the Patten Report pays an ineffective and inadequate tribute to their role and work.
A number of questions have been raised, but those questions have been asked in the context of an overall agreement with the main thrust of the Government's policy in this area. I welcome that most warmly. I believe that it is extremely important that we move ahead together on this issue.
I shall now turn to some of the particular issues that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked about the 50:50 recruitment policy. Patten said that change in this area is critical. I shall quote from the report:
"We take the view that … real community policing is impossible if the composition of the police service bears little relationship to the composition of the community as a whole".
We accept that this approach is not without difficulties and we will review this special measure on a triennial basis in order to maintain rigorous safeguards. Again, it is quite clear that the proportion of Catholic officers would more than double within four years and

1171
quadruple within 10. At this point perhaps I should make it absolutely clear that we believe that the future for those who will serve in the police service in Northern Ireland will be a better one if we achieve our objective in terms of recruitment.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that IRA intimidation is a feature and a cause of Catholic under-representation. However, while I do not think that they are mutually exclusive, another factor to be taken into account is the lack of identification with the RUC within the nationalist community. As my right honourable friend made clear in his Statement in the other place, the Government are calling on nationalists who have long withheld true support for the police service to encourage young men and women from their community now to join the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of vetting people who will become involved. His specific point related to those who would be serving on the local organisations. Perhaps I may assure him that not only will we continue to maintain strict security safeguards, but we will continue vetting recruits to the police service.
The Government recognise the issue of timing. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, pointed out, I accept that change cannot take place overnight. That is quite clear. However, we wish to move forward as quickly as possible.
As regards the issue of the change of name, following a survey from PANI, we believe that the Catholic community would support a renamed police service. Furthermore, in that survey the Catholic community revealed that they wanted equal recruitment, a factor that also received wide support within the Protestant community. A question was also raised about the need to judge the timing for the proposed change of name. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, the change is needed to signal the new beginning. For that reason we believe that, with the first recruits entering through the new recruitment procedures and selected on the new balanced basis, autumn of next year would be the appropriate time to undertake the change.
An extremely difficult issue relates to symbols, badges and the respect that is rightly due to the history and contribution of the RUC. The question has been raised as to whether it is appropriate to give the task of considering this issue to the new policing board. However difficult this may be, the Government believe that it is important to move ahead with support. Therefore it is essential that a consensus is achieved by the people of Northern Ireland, and in particular those on the policing boards who will need to take the project forward.
I hope that I have answered the points that have been raised. If I have failed to cover any issues, I shall write promptly.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, convention requires that my contribution should mainly take the form of questions. However, I feel somewhat reluctant to interrogate the Minister, for whom I have great respect—just as I respect and, I am sure, does the whole House, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whom I am glad to see is in his place in support of his colleague in this difficult task. I am also reassured by the presence on the Front Bench of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General who has a good deal of experience of the problems in Northern Ireland.
It has been said that there is nothing novel about today's events. As an old hand, I believe this to be merely a kind of re-run of many similar statements and events over the past 30 years, stretching back to 1969. There is nothing terribly new about the matter. However, despite my reservations about questioning the noble Baroness, will she concede that various side issues have been employed in the Patten Report—reflected to some extent in today's Statement by the Secretary of State—to conceal the true objective; namely, neutralising the Royal Ulster Constabulary as an effective counter-terrorist force? After all, that was the reason why the Patten Report was foreshadowed in the Good Friday agreement. At that time the matter was included in that glorious paragraph headed, "Reconciliation". I shall not be tempted to go further on that.
Is the Minister aware that the agreement was and will continue to be a blue-print for British withdrawal? We should remember that only last week Mr Adams announced that Irish unity—that is, complete British withdrawal—would be achieved before 2016. He chose that date because it is the anniversary of the Easter Rising.
I am reluctant to ask the Minister the next question because it may be difficult to answer. Can she confirm that British planners, not necessarily in the Cabinet, originally aimed for a withdrawal date of 2023, but that the timetable is shrinking rapidly? The principle of consent originally looked convincing, but it was greatly eroded by falsehoods and deceptions which influenced the outcome of the last referendum. We can take it for granted that all the same techniques will be wheeled out and used in any future test of opinion. I fear that we are on a slippery slope and there is no stopping place.
Finally, should anyone doubt the existence of that master plan, the proof lies in the acceleration of concessions to all the terrorist groups—Protestant and Roman Catholic, Protestant and Republican—concessions, mark you, on behalf of the law-abiding people of all religions, but no reciprocity whatever for many of the terrorist groups. It also lies in the planned fudge on decommissioning which is shortly to be unveiled; for example, we can predict with a fair degree of certainty the use of the phrase "putting weapons beyond use". Beyond use for how long and for what

1173
purpose? We can assume only that that will ensure that they become available when British restraint has been eliminated, as is currently being planned.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked a range of questions and I shall try to answer them as quickly as possible. The Government will not leave the people in Northern Ireland or in the United Kingdom as a whole unprotected from terrorism. The Statement makes it clear that, for example, progress on the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat and the public order issue.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made absolutely clear our commitment to the implementation in full of all parts of the Belfast agreement. Therefore, I cannot possibly agree with the noble Lord that the real issue, which he claims is hidden, of neutralising the effective anti-terrorist role of the RUC is a valid point of view.
Decommissioning is required under the Good Friday agreement and the Government want to see the implementation of all areas. The Patten Report also points out that the implementation of some recommendations will, as is mentioned in the Statement,
"depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops".
In conclusion, we believe that the situation on the streets of Northern Ireland for the men and women of the police service will be safer if the whole community feels supportive and with ownership of the police service.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, not least for her assurance that none of the Patten reforms will be implemented until after 1st May, which is the terminal date for the handing in of terrorist weapons.
On the difficult and sensitive issue of symbols and the name of the RUC, I regret that so intelligent and normally sensitive a man as Chris Patten made such recommendations. I also regret that the Government have felt obliged to accept them.
Is not the real reason for changing the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not that if we retained it we should fail to attract Catholic and Republican recruits to the constabulary, but because the word "Royal" indicates an allegiance to this country, this Crown, this Parliament and this Government? Is it not simply because Sinn Fein will not accept it? It is the bone in its throat and unfortunately, in my view, we have agreed to go along with it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by making clear to my noble friend that the Patten Report is not tied to other aspects of the Good Friday agreement such as decommissioning. Changes in policing need to be considered in their own right. In that context, some of the recommendations of the Patten Report were already being implemented by the
1174
Chief Constable in Northern Ireland prior to the publication of the report. The report contains a range of recommendations, many of which deal with issues that are good policing practice. We believe that the proposals will strengthen the role of the police.
My noble friend passionately raised the point of the name change. If we are to achieve peace and stability in Northern Ireland, it will be dependent on mutual respect for the opinions of both traditions within the community. That can be the only way in which we can move forward.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, will the Minister accept that if there ever had been such a plan as that adumbrated by my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead, it was successfully concealed from me during some five years as Secretary of State and nine years as a Law Officer? However, that may have been because those responsible for it hoped to confide it to someone more likely to be in sympathy with it.
Will the Minister also accept that I welcome in the response to the Patten Report the retention of a unified police service for the whole of Northern Ireland rather than the fragmented service which had been bruited and argued for in some quarters? I equally welcome the retention of a special branch within it. That is absolutely essential to the continuance of the RUC's ability to counter terrorism in Northern Ireland. I also welcome the fact that the police will not have to coexist with locally recruited bands of irregulars, at least for the present, and I hope that they never will.
I particularly welcome the properly generous tone of the language in which the Secretary of State pays a well deserved tribute to the members of the RUC, 302 of whom have died with some 9,000 injured. That generosity and warmth of tone was, as the Minister fairly recognised, sadly and inappropriately missing from the Patten Report; something which occasioned much hurt.
Finally, I welcome the recognition in the Statement that nationalists should support the police service in Northern Ireland. I also welcome what has been said about the desirability of their being encouraged to do so by their political representatives. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to add a gloss to that: it would be an enormous help and long overdue if leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were to indicate that it would be an entirely proper service for good members of their flock.
The Government know that members of the RUC, including Roman Catholics and their dependants, have a burning pride in the name of the RUC. The force has carried the name throughout the protracted period of valiant service, properly recognised now by the George Cross. If so prominent a Roman Catholic leader as Monseigneur Dennis Faul has recommended that the name of the RUC should continue in some amalgamated form—a recommendation which attracted instant condemnation from Sinn Fein, as the noble Lord, Lord Shore, will not be surprised to hear—I ask the Minister this question. Would it not be

1175
more compassionate and wiser, if the RUC is really greater than its name, for the Government to adopt that solution rather than to dismiss the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and send it to some unworthy discard pile where it does not deserve to lie?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I welcome the support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. While many people may have been deceived on many occasions in the past, I cannot believe that anyone would have got that kind of plan and scheme past him during his distinguished period of office.
On the issue of the name, we are sympathetic to both sides of the argument but have been persuaded, after considerable and careful thought, that the name is an obstacle to change. The RUC does not belong solely to those who serve in it, however gallant and distinguished that service has been—and it has. It belongs, as a public service without parallel in these islands, to all the people of Northern Ireland whom the police exist to serve and protect. We believe that the name should command the respect of all sections of the community.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The House will not be surprised if I give my support to the Statement by the Secretary of State today. Many members of the RUC who served bravely and steadfastly, in the most difficult circumstances, deserve to have some assurances about their personal futures. Some are liable to lose their jobs.
I ask my noble friend to give an assurance that the Government will give sympathetic and generous treatment to those members of the RUC who may have to lose their jobs as a result of the changes. I ask that they be given adequate training to prepare them for careers outside the RUC and that the Government consider possible opportunities for RUC officers to serve in other police forces in Britain where there are recruiting difficulties, such as in London.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Dubs that discussions have started. The Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have assured all concerned that arrangements will be generous and sympathetic. It is too early to say when the packages will be agreed, but discussions are already taking place with my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Detailed work by the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust and the Training and Employment Agency and LEDU will all offer assistance and advice and we will explore all opportunities to offer people the chance of moving to other police services.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords—
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords—
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the Cross-Benches.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, there are two issues I wish to mention. The Patten report and the Government mention the speed of implementation being governed by how the security situation develops. The yardstick for gauging the security situation seems to mean two entirely different things to different people. On the one hand, to most people who live outside Northern Ireland it means the level of violence and the number of terrorist incidents as portrayed on the news. To those of us who live in the Province, that is only part of the story. At present there is continued violence and intimidation on the same scale as prior to the cease-fire, instigated by those who are not on cease-fire and either instigated or previously set up by those who are on cease-fire.
Can the Minister give a reassurance that the Government will take fully into account not only the security situation as it hits the headlines, but also the level of organised crime, before they implement the measures, especially cutting the force by half?
The second issue is the name and the badge change. For many reasons, I do not support what is proposed; I am entirely against it. The Government say that it will make the force more acceptable in nationalist areas and encourage recruiting. I feel they are being a little economic with the facts. The Statement says that the RUC,
"finds it hard to recruit from the nationalist community … with 88 per cent of its members Protestant and only 8 per cent Catholic".
That is only part of the story. Your Lordships should be aware that the percentage of nationalists who came forward to be selected in the last so-called competition was over 20 per cent. The number of calls for assistance from the nationalist areas rocketed to 24 per cent from hard-line Newry, 22.7 per cent in Waterside and 12 per cent in Woodburn and others. I do not believe that the Government have justified the change of name. They should make more public the facts as they are and the facts that the police produce.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope I am able to give the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, the assurance he seeks. As my right honourable friend said,
"Progress of the style of policing and the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat",
and all threats, including the level of organised crime and the public order situation. There will be no question of rushing forward with changes in the absence of a stable security environment.

1177
I note the noble Viscount's point regarding recruitment. We must work to raise the level of representation in order to take forward the peace process that we all support.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I remind the House that no more than 20 minutes is permitted for discussion on Statements after the Front Bench interventions. We must therefore move on.

Bonded Labour and Slavery
6.48 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwichrose to call attention to the case for action, bilaterally, and through inter-governmental organisations, to end bonded labour and all other contemporary forms of slavery; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is an honour to introduce a debate on bonded labour and contemporary forms of slavery. I acknowledge the support I have received from my Cross-Bench colleagues. I speak as a council member of Anti-Slavery International, to whom I am indebted for many of the stat. sties, but I shall also draw on experience gained with other organisations.
Slavery is hardly a new subject to the House. The very name of Wilberforce is evidence of continuity in this and another place. I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend and to his forebears for the campaigns of the past, which we shall continue. But in our mobile society, the new slavery has some hidden but no less hideous manifestations.
I shall concentrate on the Indian sub-continent, if only to vary the prevalent image that we have of slavery in sub-Saharan Africa. A few weeks ago heard a bonded labourer from Maharashtra, Keshav Nankar, tell his story. He described how his father had removed him from school to make him work for his landlord, to whom he owed a debt. For years he toiled in the fields and received one meal a day, but the debt was never paid. Like his father, he was utterly dependent and destined to remain in bondage for life. When he tried to earn extra income elsewhere he was assaulted, abused and returned to the landlord. It was only when he joined an association started by a Mr and Mrs Vivek Pandit in 1983 to help bonded labourers that Keshav was able to break free and assert his rights under Indian and international law. The Pandits are the latest of a long line of recipients of the Anti-Slavery Award who have successfully campaigned against various forms of ignorance, abuse and oppression and secured the release of thousands of bonded labourers. While many countries have long ago passed legislation to outlaw slavery, the victims, by themselves, rarely have redress. It is often only a test case or a sustained campaign by their peers that finally secures their freedom, with, if possible, a rehabilitation programme which will secure their income in future.
I highlight bonded labour today as one of the extreme forms of contemporary slavery. But slavery comes in many disguises. Others will mention child
1178
labour, the trafficking of women, domestic migrant labour and the more traditional slavery which persists in West Africa. I should emphasise that Mr Nankar's is an average case. It is possible to imagine the more severe and inhuman treatment which many labourers, house servants and child workers receive simply because, as security for a loan, they have become a tradable commodity.
It is estimated by the UN Working Group on Slavery that there are over 20 million bonded labourers, most of whom are in the Indian subcontinent. In India alone there are at least 12 million (or about 6 per cent of all agricultural labourers), most of whom are dalits and adivasis. According to Human Rights Watch last year, the true figure may be nearer 40 million. Of those, the Indian Government had at the last count (the end of March 1998) identified and rehabilitated only 240,000. As we heard earlier today from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in Pakistan there may be 20 million, of whom 8 million are children. One survey showed that 51 per cent of farmers had taken out loans, in nine out of 10 cases from their own landlords. Seventy-five per cent of labourers at brick kilns are bonded. A study of child labour in the carpet industry found that nine out of 10 families were in debt. Many of the 1.2 million children involved in carpet-weaving in Pakistan are bonded.
At times it seems as though the evils of feudalism and the caste system are so endemic in society that they will never change. Recently, Sir Leon Brittan, now the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, in responding to the notion of an ethical foreign policy, said that today's Good Samaritans could respond only within their "circle of obligation". Presumably, that means that one can campaign against slavery only if one lives in a city like Liverpool or Bristol. We cannot pretend to fight every battle, whether in politics, diplomacy or international law, yet history shows that where clearly defined justice coincides with organised resistance and the determination of the people, oppression and immoral practices can be eroded; indeed, they are being broken down every day.
This debate gives me the opportunity to report on a visit that I paid to Nepal only two weeks ago sponsored by Anti-Slavery International and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The visit was organised by an impressive Nepalese human rights charity called INSEC founded only 10 years ago at the outset of Nepal's parliamentary democracy. With Swami Agnivesh, a veteran Indian campaigner on bonded labour, Dr Kevin Bales of the University of Surrey and two experts from Pakistan and Japan, I called on Nepal's political leaders to reinforce the need for legislation already identified by those Nepalese who were committed to a fairer and more democratic society.
In India, case law has been a helpful stimulus to change. A prominent decision in the Supreme Court by Justice Bhagwati in 1984 on behalf of bonded labourers in Haryana was a historic landmark in the campaign led by the Bonded Liberation Front. It is likely that a similar case brought before the Nepalese Supreme Court will have a catalytic effect. It is well

1179
known in Nepal and elsewhere that corruption pervades the political and economic system. The currents of international trade and investment, which are sometimes held up as liberating forces in a developing country, can have the opposite effect: they may reinforce a corrupt business interest which already has a tight monopoly of influence and employment rather than any responsibility to redistribute wealth.
Unwittingly, as consumers we often subscribe to a society in which bonded labourers such as child carpet-weavers and gem polishers who work in dangerous conditions are merely kept in their place. This system continues in Nepal in violation of the UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery 1956 to which Nepal is a signatory. This and the Slavery Convention 1926 were ratified in 1963 but there is no specific legislation on bonded labour in Nepal. Even the statutory minimum wage under the Labour Act 1992—which is another parallel issue—does not cover agriculture. Despite our efforts, Nepal has not ratified ILO Convention No. 29 on forced labour which includes an explicit ban on debt bondage. Even when Nepal has its own legislation on bonded labour the problem, as so often, will be its implementation. It will depend on education and public awareness of the existing law and the ability of individuals and small groups to resist landlords and vested interests, who in many cases maintain law and order and may even be its representatives.
Foreign governments and investors in developing countries like Nepal are rightly interested in the success of the democratic process which now depends on empowering informal sectors of civil society as much as, and alongside, the formal political system. As the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said earlier when speaking of Pakistan and India, it requires transparency, accountability and the due process of law. I believe that that applies also to Nepal.
During our visit to Nepal the new Prime Minister, Mr Bhattarai, undertook to appoint a commission on bonded labour which would report within two and a half months, after which the government would themselves sponsor a Bill. That was genuine progress. The Opposition Leader Madhav Kumar Nepal told us that his party had already condemned bonded labour and its members were committed to its removal. The Speaker, the Chairman of the National Assembly and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court all gave us their personal reassurance that legislation, drafts of which were already available through the human rights charity INSEC and its lawyers, would be enacted as soon as possible. I give the example of Nepal because it is a country with a genuine political will to abolish the kamaiya system and other forms of bonded labour which afflict over 100,000 families who live mainly in the south-western Tarai and many others elsewhere under the more widespread haliya system.
This brings me to the role of outside governments, in particular our own. I shall try briefly to outline our national responsibility, although I hope that others will ask more detailed questions. First, we have an
1180
obligation to ensure that modern forms of slavery do not occur in the UK and involve our own citizens. The Minister will be aware of legislation such as Part II of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and some of the immigration rules which in theory cover UK citizens who are involved in the international trafficking of persons in forced employment, such as prostitution or domestic servitude. I should like to ask the Minister whether the success of this legislation has been regularly monitored by the Home Office, and with what results?
Secondly, Her Majesty's Government also need to ratify ILO Convention 182 eliminating the worst forms of child labour adopted in June 1999. We have no right to talk of an ethical foreign policy unless we are prepared to ratify those conventions. The convention prohibits all forms of child slavery, including bonded labour as well as forced recruitment of child soldiers and the use of children for prostitution or pornography. Is there any reason for delay in the ratification process? Will the Government also press the Government of Nepal to ratify the ILO Convention 29, which I have mentioned?
Does the Minister agree that the UK could do more through the UN system; and that the issue needs to be addressed more directly within the anti-poverty strategies of donors? Does the noble Baroness support, therefore, as part of the UN's current review of human rights the fundamental reform of the present working group on contemporary forms of slavery—it has done valuable work but has perhaps fulfilled its work—and, better still, the replacement with a special rapporteur of the Human Rights Commission?
Thirdly, using Nepal as an example I should like to press the Minister on the role of the Department for International Development in removing bonded labour. The noble Baroness will know that the Secretary of State is concerned about the issue and that the elimination of poverty is high on the agenda. But adapting the DfID programme is a painfully slow process. I know that a new office was set up last April, and that many more staff have been recruited, but after conversations with the ambassador and DfID representatives in Kathmandu, I am not convinced that we are adequately supporting the active participants in the democratic process.
My main message to the Government is this. Please take advantage of the consensus which now exists between the political parties on the issue of bonded labour. It is an ideal time for Her Majesty's Government, with their historic role in the region, to identify the causes of poverty in Nepal and to become associated with the forces of change. As DfID knows, this has as much relevance to good governance at national level as to poverty alleviation on the ground.
One of the priorities in Nepal and similar countries is the need for comprehensive regional surveys which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, will know, can identify bonded labourers and help to establish government rehabilitation programmes—perhaps under ILO auspices. It is important to remember that those responsible for keeping people in debt bondage must

1181
be charged and prosecuted under domestic law. It cannot be right, as has happened in some countries, that sums of money are made available to groups which themselves claim benefits for acts of so-called liberation of their own employees.
NGOs today, like INSEC in Nepal, are valuable vehicles of democratic change. More and more they are not just human rights or development agencies but a means of encouraging governments through popular participation. I urge the Government to maintain their present support for civil society which is also a powerful diplomatic tool.
In conclusion, everyone knows how much this Government, encouraged by Churches and non-governmental organisations, have already devoted to the gradual cancellation of the official debts of the poorest countries—a main plank in their efforts to end poverty. It seems logical to pay equal attention to the plight of the very poorest people and to practical ways of relieving their debt and their freedom in the face of one of the most vicious and enduring forms of injustice the world has seen.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on arranging the debate. When I was in West Africa last year, I was not infrequently told that there was no slavery here, but there was over the border, in another country. However, a closer look at labour practices shows that these cruel forms o f exploitation are not only found in faraway places.
First, I should like to acknowledge the work of the most long-established of all the international organisations, the ILO. It was probably the first tripartite organisation, drawing on the experience of workers' organisations as well as of employers and governments, as my noble friend Lord Brett may say, with his great experience. The ILO's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work is supported by core labour standards, as well as various conventions, the implementation of which would eliminate the most prevalent current form of slavery—bonded labour—so comprehensively described in the sub-continent by the noble Earl. Implementation is, of course, the key word. Can the Minister tell us more about the Government's strategy for supporting the implementation of the core labour standards in respect of bonded labour? What prospect is there of European Union co-operation in the process?
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. I hope that we are on the way to ratifying it. However, to come closer to Europe, trafficking in women and children—it seems to appear wherever economic breakdown has propelled vulnerable people into illusory promises of work abroad—is, sadly, now found in many Balkan countries. When I had the honour to lead the UK delegation at the previous United Nations conference on women in 1995, one of the unanimously agreed parts of the platform we
1182
negotiated, signed up to by all governments, was to strengthen existing legislation and develop various other measures, including working with non-governmental organisations, to eliminate trafficking. That was not an easy task. But, five years on, can the Minister say how the Government have taken part in that united aim, in particular in relation to the new International Criminal Court?
Finally, over the years there have been instances in the UK of people brought in with special status as domestic employees of foreign nationals, a small number of whom were kept in conditions of slavery here in London from which they were too frightened to leave because of the insecurity of their entry status. When I was departmentally responsible for the issue several distressing cases came to light. However, the issue was not addressed until this Government changed the system to allow those domestic workers to change their employer without fear of deportation or of being handed back to him. They also made interim arrangements to safeguard the position of people who were admitted under the previous regime. In that, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—he is not in his place—in pressing for action to remedy the problem. I have met many victims. I am sure that this House will agree that it is an example of independent pressure from the Cross Benches at its best; and it is an example of a responsive government.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on initiating this debate on some of the most brutal forms of man's inhumanity to man. I shall focus on two areas where I have first-hand experience: Burma and Sudan. There are many excellent reports on Burma from human rights organisations, but sometimes individual stories speak most eloquently. In our visits to the Karen and Karenni people, we meet many men and women who give compelling, detailed accounts of their experiences of forced labour, often in situations so brutal that many die. I have time for only two examples.
First, We Zen Nyo, aged 25 from Tomalay village, Shadaw township, told us:
"I was driven out of my village because the Burmese had burnt all the village's rice and crops and destroyed everything. I and some other villagers tried to return to our village. However, we were arrested by Burmese troops and forced to become porters. This happened in 1998. We were forced to carry 35 kilograms of rice for the soldiers. During my time as a porter, I witnessed one old man being killed because he was too weak to carry the load assigned to him. We were made to work harder than animals".
Secondly, Abdullah, a 30 year-old Muslim mullah from Hlaing Bwe, described systematic oppression of Muslims and frequent interrogations by the SPDC regime. He told us:
"I was arrested for failing to report for portering and forced to porter ammunition, rice and beans. There was little food given to porters and any who were too weak to work or walk were killed beside the road and their bodies left there. I counted 29 porters killed during my period of forced service".
I could give many more such examples. Perhaps I may therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will press the SPDC to open up all of

1183
Burma to human rights monitors and humanitarian aid workers. In her answer to a similar question on Monday of this week, she implied that security problems are a legitimate reason for denial of access to certain areas. But these are precisely the areas where the SPDC regime is perpetrating its worst, most systematic atrocities, especially against the ethnic minorities. There are organisations which are prepared to take certain risks to reach people in need, my own organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide included. I hope that the Government will not support the SPDC in a cover-up of its heinous policies under the guise of security concerns. Instead, I ask the Government to do all they can to press the SPDC to allow access to all its citizens, for their humanitarian needs to be met, and for their fundamental human rights to be respected, including the right not to be subjected to forced or slave labour and porterage.
I turn to Sudan. Some forms of slavery have been endemic in much of Africa since time immemorial. But slavery in Sudan escalated in 1994 when the Islamist National Islamic Front—the NIF—encouraged Arab tribesmen in the borderlands between north and south Sudan to fight a jihad against the African people in the south. They armed the Arabs with Kalashnikov automatic rifles and provided tanks, horses and camels. The local African Dinka tribes could not defend themselves with traditional spears against such sophisticated attacks and the era of massive slave raids began.
We first encountered the effects of the raids in May 1995, visiting Nyamlell in Bahr-El-Ghazal—one of the areas designated as a "no go" region by the NIF for Operation Lifeline Sudan and other aid organisations. We found the township totally destroyed—with 82 men killed; 282 women and children taken as slaves; every building and all crops burnt; cattle stolen or killed. We met survivors and relatives of women and children who had been taken as slaves. We have returned many times to this area and others in the slave raid regions. We have been present when raids have been taking place all around us. We have walked through villages still burning in the aftermath, among the corpses of those who could not escape.
I offer one personal story. Abuk Keer is a young blind mother. When she heard the slave raiders advancing on her village, with pounding of horses' hooves and the shooting of guns, she tried to escape with her two children. Blind, she stumbled and fell. They were captured and taken north. She was abused on the way and abandoned, because, being blind, she was no use. But her children were taken on into slavery. When I met her, she was desperate. She said:
"I shall die. In Africa, if you are blind, your children are your eyes. I have lost my children and I cannot live".
There are peaceable Arab traders who come south to trade and graze their cattle in the dry season. Since the escalation of slave raids, they have agreed with the local Dinka communities to try to locate and to bring back women and children who have been enslaved. They charge a price as they cannot abduct the slaves from their owners. But many of the African
1184
communities have lost everything in the raids and have nothing with which to buy the freedom of their relatives. Abuk Keer was in this predicament. We gave her the money to redeem her children. With great excitement her brother came in from the bush; her mother prepared food and he went north. A few months later, we met a very happy Abuk Keer, reunited with her son and daughter. She said ecstatically:
"I'm so happy to have my children back, that I could dance, except I can't dance, because I am blind … but that doesn't matter, because we are together again as a family".
We have since met many hundreds of women and children who have been enslaved, rescued and returned to their families. We have helped local communities who have lost everything in the raids, by giving them resources to buy back their loved ones from slavery. For this we have been criticised—by those who have not been with us and who have not seen what we have seen.
The government of Sudan—the NIF—condemn us, denying that there is slavery; but there is enough evidence from other and diverse sources to enable the United Nations to include slavery as part of its general indictment of the NIF regime. David Hoile, in the publications of the pro-NIF organisation, the British Sudanese Public Affairs Council, which are distributed widely, including to many of your Lordships, attacks us virulently and me personally. Others condemn our policy of redeeming those who have been enslaved.
My Lords, if you had been with us, I suggest that you would believe that slavery exists in Sudan today; and I even dare to believe that you might not condemn us for helping to rescue those slaves who can be freed. If you had seen the evidence, such as African women with half-Arab babies fathered by their masters, or boys able to speak Arabic better than their native Dinka language, often with scars such as Achilles tendons cut so that they could not run away, you might feel that we were not doing such a bad thing when we help to enable them to be reunited with their families, in freedom.
It is said that we encourage the slave raids. That is not true. They would occur anyway as part of the NIF's policy of jihad. It is said that our intervention pushes up the price of slaves. That is not true. The price has gone down from an average per slave of five head of cattle to three. Is it not terrible way to talk like this at the turn of the new millennium; to have to say the words, "The price of freedom of a woman or a child in Sudan today is, on average, three head of cattle"?
Of course, the redemption of slaves is not the answer to the problem of slavery in Sudan today. It is only first aid. The urgent priority is for slavery to be abolished and for everyone currently enslaved to be freed. It is urgent, because for many it is already too late. On my last visit, talking to the Arab traders who brought back over 500 slaves, they told us that many other slaves had been sold to other owners in the north and then sold abroad, never to be traced and rescued. Therefore, will the Government please press the NIF regime to open

1185
all of Sudan to human rights monitors so that a slave-tracing programme can be undertaken as a matter of great urgency?
It is outrageous to have to talk in these terms at the beginning of this century. Can the Government, in the land where the name of William Wilberforce is now legendary—how good to see that name appearing on the list of Speakers today—please take a lead and do everything possible to prevail on the NIF regime to put an end to this abhorrent practice of the slave raids and to free all those currently enslaved? It is a great tragedy that this debate today is necessary. I hope that it will not be in vain.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for giving us an opportunity to debate this subject. I have lived in the Bristol area since 1941. Bristol is not proud of its association with the slave trade. Indeed, on one occasion I went to the city archivist to try to obtain material. It was like trying to open an oyster without any kind of tool. There was great reluctance even to acknowledge that the slave trade went on.
We need to remember that because on Sunday there was a programme on the BBC about the dispute in the Pennsylvanian anthracite field and the formation of the union there. It showed photographs of little boys aged 11, 12 and 13—the breaker boys—who sorted out the anthracite from the stone, slate and so on.
In our own country, when people, even young children, were working a 60 hour week, we were told this nonsense that the working week could not be cut because all the profit on the goods was made in the last few hours. We should remember that situation and, when we tell other people how to run their affairs, take care that these matters are not brought up so that we are accused of neo-colonialism. For example, on telling other people that they should not burn fossil fuels if they can avoid it, they may say: you have raised a very good standard of living over the years by doing it yourselves and now you are telling us to lay off. We should approach the matter with a certain amount of humility. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has given some very good illustrations and detail.
My interest in the Sudanese situation was such that an all-party group was formed a year or two ago and I was elected vice-chairman. I had a 100 per cent attendance record because that was the only meeting that took place. Towards the end of the meeting I was indelicate enough to ask who was supporting the British Sudanese Public Affairs Council. It turned out to be a PR front, funded by the Sudanese Government. They and the embassy here engage in a bombardment of literature giving their point of view. I am afraid that a good deal of the material is very questionable. I do not know who is advising them on public relations, but they ought to get the sack, because recently they have questioned the integrity, decency and honesty of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The situation is so bizarre that one wonders what on earth is going on. The noble Baroness has been upbraided for her work with Christian groups.
1186
I welcome the presence of two right reverend Prelates. The visit by the Primate to the Sudan was a seminal event for the Christian communities there and raised morale tremendously. We welcome the interest being shown by the Bishops' Bench.
There is not just the question of humanity towards other people. Christians have a very great vested interest. On 1st December 1997, at col. 1224 of the Official Report, I quoted the UN rapporteur on human rights in the Sudan saying that the persecution of Christians was thriving throughout the globe and that Christians were now the most persecuted group in the world. We should remember that fact and do what we can to help our brothers and sisters abroad. He said:
"In February 1996 there has been an alarming increase in the number of reports of slavery, servitude, the slave trade and forced labour. I regret the total lack of interest shown by the competent Sudanese authorities."
I have concentrated on the Sudan particularly because of my interest in it. In addition to addressing ethical foreign policies, we should also think about ethical economic policies. People who are conscience-stricken can invest in ethical funds and not in dubious funds, for example, tobacco. In the Sudan, investment from European countries and businesses has enabled a thousand-mile pipeline to be built from the south of Sudan to a port on the Red Sea in order to exploit the oil in the south, which is a cause of the civil war. This exploitation of the riches of the southern Christian and animist area is funding the government of the Sudan in the north. One of the uses to which the first tranche of revenues was put was the purchase of armaments and tanks in order to prosecute the civil war more effectively.
We should do as much as possible to influence the situation. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are seized of this problem, not only in the Sudan but in other parts of the world, and are prepared to work with our partners in other countries to resolve the situation as soon as possible?
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I add my voice to the gratitude already expressed by noble Lords that the debate is taking place at all.
I remind myself that Article 4 of the Declaration on Human Rights guarantees that:
"No-one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
In 1926 the League of Nations had defined slavery as being:
"The status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised."
In 1956 the United Nations added a supplementary convention that included
"institutions and practices similar to slavery".
These were described as debt bondage, serfdom, servile marriage and child labour. All governments that subscribe to that convention are under an obligation to take remedial action against these practices.

1187
There were good and bad slave owners, but it was slavery that was condemned, not just a misuse of powers. We have heard examples of flagrant abuses against human rights, whereby many hundreds and thousands of people are held against their will or in slavery. Some practices can appear at first sight to be benevolent, but they may be more insidious because they lead to such an erosion of human dignity and denial of self-determination that they become forms of contemporary slavery. I shall give some examples.
An agent offers to help with a pressing debt by arranging a loan. Only later does it appear that the loan comes with a repayment plan with binding force over the person's future earnings.
A parent has a number of children to feed and takes up the offer of a place in another family for a child, believing it is a way for that child to be fed, housed and educated, but the child experiences physical and often sexual abuse as a slave of the family.
An illegal immigrant accepts the offer of a place to stay and work, and is then held there by the threat or fear of exposure.
A migrant worker agrees to travel to another province or country in order to work. He then discovers he is expected to work unpaid on the basis that the cost of transport and accommodation must be covered. How can he ever get out of that situation? Some of these situations exist not just in other parts of the world but also here. Sometimes whole communities can be affected.
I remember sitting under the meeting tree with a group of village elders in El Salvador who were agonising over the future of the village. In a situation of need they had been assisted through a heifer project conducted by Christian Aid. Each family had been given a pregnant heifer and was able to produce a surplus of food and to sell it in the market. For the first time, they realised how working together could benefit a community and, in doing so, they were able to resist the approaches of a large company that had been buying up the land around the village in order to plant coffee. Then there was a grave suspicion that that company had flooded the market with cheap food, which meant that the surplus that the village provided was no longer sufficient or could be bought. What were they to do? They were promised work and their children were promised education, but they knew that the processing plant and access to the markets for the coffee were in the hands of the company. Their self-determination would be lost, their land and their traditional way of life would be gone and they would be at the mercy of the company. Was that a price worth paying?
But the debate calls not only for a repetition of the ills of society or evidence of corrupt and exploitative practices. It is to call attention to the case for action. Therefore, I ask Her Majesty's Government to press urgently for a permanent treaty-monitoring committee to be established in the way that has now been set up for the most recently adopted United Nations human rights instruments. Currently the only
1188
way of monitoring is through the reports made largely by NGOs to the annual meeting of the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, which then reports to the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. A permanent monitoring committee, or at the least the appointment of a special rapporteur, would discourage the persisting patterns of slavery-like practices.
One of the most powerful ways of combating such practices is by reducing the vulnerability, poverty and powerlessness of those most likely to be caught up in slavery. An effective legal framework and access to justice for all citizens should be universally available. Education, not only in marketing skills, but also in human rights and citizenship should be encouraged. Community development could give confidence and the ability to press for self-determination. Credit unions and small loan facilities prevent the decline into irreversible debt. New agricultural methods and co-operative ventures in processing and marketing make the most of resources. In that area, the debate which follows this one on the creation of sustainable livelihoods as the spearhead of the Government's anti-poverty strategy, will be extremely valuable.
With Her Majesty's Government's promise of the release of debt for the poorer countries, the time seems to be right for pressure to be brought to bear on the governments of those countries to put into effect measures to relieve the worst of the poverty within them. Again, a proper monitoring system, possibly with the aid of NGOs working with vulnerable groups, will be needed.
The particular case of child labour has already been mentioned. I am not convinced that the answer to that problem lies in sanctions, boycotts or trade restrictions. Instead, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to support child protection measures, including compulsory education and limited working hours. I plead also for ways to be found to encourage the sale in this country of fairly traded goods, particularly those which include a profit sharing scheme for employees and give assurances about the welfare of any children employed in them.
Until recently I carried responsibility for the work of the Methodist Church in our overseas relationships, both through the Missionary Society and the Methodist Relief and Development Fund. I am aware of the immense amount of work taking place through hundreds of local partnerships. That work is extremely valuable, but it must be of limited effect unless unscrupulous operators can be prevented from taking advantage of the vulnerable. There are contemporary forms of slavery today, but the worst slave master of all is that of basic human need which is beyond the means of the individual to satisfy. It is that which opens people to exploitation, and its alleviation must be the work of us all.
7.33 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will not find my speech unnecessary. I rise to

1189
support strongly the various suggestions that have been made for coping with the problem of slavery in the world. This is a wonderful debate. In my mind I mark it alpha beta: alpha for the quality of the speeches and for the—in many cases—heroic altruism so often described; and beta for the impact which may or may not occur. Therefore, I shall press the gifted Minister extremely hard to try to give us some impression that something will happen; that something will be done.
We have these high quality debates, we go away and we all feel better and say, "Oh yes, our debates are the best in the world". But our debate last week on international affairs was hardly mentioned in the press. Someone could do something about that. Therefore, I make the humble suggestion that someone, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, should ask for an interview with the Minister following the debate, to insist at close quarters that something actually be done.
I am such a humble admirer of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that I can hardly speak for admiration. I go to a prayer group and we pray for her, because she is usually delivering medical supplies in some dangerous area of the world. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is of course the son of ray old friend Lord Hinchingbrooke, who would have been proud of him tonight. Lord Hinchingbrooke made one mistake in his life—I still refer to him by that name—in deciding to leave this House, of which he was already an ornament, and go elsewhere.
There are wonderful people speaking in this debate. I am only rather surprised—although not terribly surprised—to find that in the List of Speakers the last on the list, apart from the Front Bench representatives, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I hope that there is nothing symbolic in that, if we have reached the point where we put last the descendant of the great Wilberforce. Perhaps someone will explain why he was put last, long after people such as myself who know nothing whatever about this issue compared to him.
We are discussing the problem of slavery. My qualifications are brief, although I am probably the only person here who ever met Lord Kitchener of Khartoum. It is always great to boast about something, but one could always find someone who says, "Oh yes, I knew Kitchener". However, it is not awfully likely because I met him 90 years ago and there are not many noble Lords here who would have been going strong at that time. I was a small boy at a great garden party given at Osterley Park by my grandmother, Lady Jersey. The great man came across to me, leant over and said, "And who are you, my little man?" I said. "I'm the grandson of grandma"—that flummoxed him, a t any rate. Otherwise, apart from that episode, for his many achievements he was deservedly known as Kitchener of Khartoum. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, agrees with me that I have had little connection with the country for which she has done so much.
What will be the answer to the problem? We have been given a horrifying picture of what is happening in the world, but how much can the people of this island
1190
do about it? We can make these speeches, but can we in Britain do all that much? At the end of the war, my political hero President de Valera made a speech in Ireland explaining the Irish mentality, which ended as follows, "We must try to do what one small country can do to bind the wounds of suffering humanity". This is a much larger country than Ireland, although Ireland has been extremely prosperous lately.
What can Britain do? That is what we shall hear tonight. I do not expect too much. If I were the Minister, in a way I should be rather sorry that so many suggestions have been made, yet in a way she might be glad because she could lose us by going into the detail. I have described her as the most skilful debater of our time, and I am afraid that she may befuddle us with her debating skills tonight. It all comes back to this: is anything going to happen; are we going to do more? Perhaps I may express it in the plainest possible way: will the noble Baroness be able to tell us whether this Government—this revered Labour Government—are doing anything more than was done by their predecessors?
7.39 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have listened to the earlier speeches with horror and concern—horror at the stories which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others have told; and horror and concern at my own inadequacy to speak in this debate. I had thought that it was a debate more about child labour, and I confess to being not an expert on slavery or exploitation. My only solution can be to be very brief.
I have one piece of evidence and information which I should like to place on the record. I refer to the official UNICEF statistics in 1998 which reported that the number of trafficked children who were being taken across into Gabon and were intercepted at the Benin border rose from 117 in 1995 to 802 in 1997. Most of those children were being taken as domestic workers, some to work for market traders as cheap labour. Thirty-seven per cent of the families who sent those children said that they could not earn enough to satisfy the essential needs of their families, and that was why they were sending away a child. Many of the children were maltreated and one or two died of hardship on the journey.
I shall not weary the House by repeating the concerns which other noble Lords have expressed. However, in the context of my intention to talk about the more modest problems of child labour, I should like to raise two caveats about our being too patronising or too inclined to interfere inappropriately in the affairs of other countries.
First, it seems to me that if we—one of the richest countries in the world—are going to criticise for their human rights record other countries which often are very poor, we should do well first to set our own house in order. I believe that that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe.
My second point is that I believe that, when looking at other countries' human rights records, we should be very careful to take into account the cultural norms of

1191
their society and the economic and social problems under which they labour. It has to be said that sometimes those problems are caused by trading patterns which we, the western countries, have laid down, and by economic constrictions that we have placed upon them.
I shall relate very briefly a personal anecdote. For 35 years I was chairman of a group of tea estates in Malawi. I remember one day walking into the office with the manager. I saw a little boy cutting grass and said, "Hey, why have we got young children working here?" The manager said to the lad in Chinyanga, "Why are you working here? Why aren't you in school?" The boy looked up with a great big grin spread across his face and said, "I would much rather be doing this than be in school". Of course, I immediately made a rule that no children should be employed during school hours. However, it was explained to me that if a child in Malawi was left an orphan, as there is no kind of benefits network the custom was that he was taken in either by his neighbours or by the extended family. However, the child was expected to contribute to family expenses. That issue concerns a lesser evil in that the child had a home and family, albeit he was expected to do some work and earn a living.
I go even further. I believe that appropriate work for teenage children for a reasonable number of hours, which does not interfere with their education, can be most beneficial. Indeed, I had that experience when growing up during the war. I used to spend half of every holiday working on a farm. I have to say that I am extremely grateful for that experience and would, if I had my life again, want to have it that way.
I return for a moment to Africa. The population growth in sub-Saharan Africa has caused the social and economic problems that we see today. In Malawi, which I know very well, the average age of the population is 14, and food production is no longer adequate to feed that population. The only solution is job creation. That point has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, and by others. However, who wants to invest in Malawi? Here I am trespassing on the next debate. It seems to me that one of the most essential tools we have for preventing the exploitation of children through child labour is to enable the grown-ups to be able to earn enough to support their families. In order to do that, we must help them to create sustainable livelihoods for themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said—I may get this wrong but I shall try to quote correctly—the worst slave master in the world is need.
Finally, I turn to the question of putting our own house in order. How do we have the crust to criticise desperately poor people in Benin for doing the only thing they know to make ends meet, while we in this country—one of the richest in the world—have accepted for decades a standard of children's homes in which children are abused and which are an international disgrace; while we accept that 20 per cent of our children grow up in homes without a father and 40 per cent in homes where they are in recognisable
1192
poverty? I could go on, but I shall end by asking whether our indignation about the infringements of human rights in other countries would bear more weight if we put our own house in order.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this debate, and I hope to respond to one or two of the points that he made. I am also moved by the words of the previous speaker—the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
It is easy to say that child labour is in some way better than no labour at all for children. That is not a view I share. Much of the child labour in the world is in jobs which did not exist 50 years ago. It is not true that carpet-making by children is historically endemic in Bangladesh, Nepal or India. It has become an imported form of child labour in substitution for adults.
However, whether the issue is child labour, slavery or bonded labour, four things are required for a country and for an international community to be able to resolve the problem. They are, first, a good legal framework, both nationally and internationally; secondly, good and effective policing of that; thirdly, resources—taking children out of jobs in India if there is no school available to educate them is not the answer; therefore, there must be education together with the removal of children from work; and, fourthly, and most important of all, political will. The state of Kerala in India seems to have achieved more in respect of education of children than the other 27 states around them. That has to do with political will.
I should like to deal with the three countries named by noble Lords; that is, Nepal, Sudan and Burma. I add a fourth, for which I believe we have a major responsibility; namely, Swaziland. I, too, have visited Nepal. I believe that there is political will there, and it existed with the previous government. All governments in Nepal are several shades to the left, to put it mildly, of new Labour, old Labour or any party in Europe that does not have "communist" in its name. Nepal has the political will, but it does not have the resources. Indeed, I believe that I can forecast that Nepal will eradicate child labour before India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. That is because, first, there are only 100,000 child labourers in the carpet industry and all those are in Kathmandu. Secondly, the employers of that industry have decided that the premium in the Frankfurt carpet market for being able to prove that no children are employed will give them a commercial edge over Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. The fact that there are only 100,000 such labourers makes it an easier problem to eradicate than in much larger countries. There is a very good, determined, employer-led, child labour eradication programme in that country.
The noble Earl made the point that Nepal has not ratified ILO Conventions 29 and 108. On previous occasions, I have declared my interest as the vice-chairman of the governing body of the ILO. The good news is that Nepal does not have to do that because, as

1193
the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, there is the ILO declaration on fundamental principles of rights at work adopted at the 1998 International Labour Conference. That now places on all member states of the ILO—which is every member stale of the UN and every member state that is reasonable in this world apart from North Korea—an obligation, irrespective of whether they have ratified the conventions, to honour the principles of the four core labour standards; that is, freedom of association and collective bargaining, eradication of child labour, eradication of forced labour and eradication of discrimination.
For the first time this year, the ILO will have a global report—and this will happen every year— on one of those four standards. So we shall have a spotlight on the world to see whether or not it is improving. Similarly, governments will have to respond to the ILO. Employers' associations and trade unions in those countries and, through them, NGOs will have the opportunity to make observations as to whether a government are being economical with the truth as to what the position is.
I believe that the Minister will support—perhaps she will confirm this— the idea of taking that declaration of the ILO and embedding it as UN-wide policy. That can be done at Geneva 2000, which is the social summit plus five to be held in Geneva in June. It would mean that that automatically applies to the World Bank and the IMF which accept that child labour and slavery are wrong but are not too sure about some of the other core labour standards. There is also the General Assembly Millenn um in the latter part of this year which is to deal with poverty eradication. Again, it seems to me that that declaration could be embedded or reinforced there.
I say that because those rights are enabling rights. They do not impose on a member state a minimum wage or a cost. But .any country should be able to allow its people to belong to trade unions and ensure that people are not discriminated against nor endure forced labour.
I know that the Secretary of State for International Development visited Nepal last year. I strongly support the present Government. What they and the DfID have done in the area of overseas development assistance is nothing less than magnificent. I have only one difference of vim which was mentioned earlier. I believe that had we taken a soft line on child labour 100 years ago, I am sure that the predecessor of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, would have met the argument that economic circumstances were such that children up chimneys was something that perhaps could be eradicated simply by education of parents and the employing of chimney sweeps. My view is that it is not done that way. It is done by setting targets, as have been set for primary education by 2015, and by the kind of sensitive bilateral policies that the current Government, through DfTD, are applying.
I believe that I can say with some certainty that the wish of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the British Government should ratify Convention 182 on
1194
exploitative forms of child labour may be granted because I know that the TUC and the CBI have been consulted by the Government in the past few days on the ratification of that particular convention. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that will be put into place very quickly. The United States has announced the ratification of it which, in itself, is something of a rarity as the United States does not ratify many conventions because of the federal nature of that country.
I turn now to Burma. I shall not regale your Lordships with horror stories similar to those told to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which are reflected in this report. This is the report of the commission of inquiry which cost 0.5 million dollars. Three world-class jurists looked at what happened in Burma. It is a horror story. I agree with those who say that the way through the problem is by assistance and persuasion and that, normally, sanctions are not helpful. But there are exceptions and situations in which sanctions are the only way forward, and I believe that Burma is such a case.
I agree that the regime in Sudan is terrible. But I become slightly unnerved when we seem to be posing Christianity versus Islam. I am sure that it is not intended but sometimes it sounds like that. The truth is that the Koran outlawed slavery in 1400, which is 400 years before the predecessor of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was able to achieve the same in this country. But, of course, there can be corruption of any dogma or belief. That is the problem, not the belief itself.
Finally, I turn to Swaziland. The Swazi national council, which is an hereditary council, and the king have passed an administrative order which says that the village heads in Swaziland will have the right, with fine or eviction as the penalty, to demand unpaid labour from Swazi villagers. That was passed in the last six months. It will be the cause of a complaint at the ILO. But as Swaziland is an area where the British have a traditional influence, I hope that we shall use our good offices with the king and government of Swaziland to seek the repeal of that particular legislation which is a 21st century form of slavery.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, the great advantage of being so low on the List of Speakers is that I have been able to listen to a number of very impressive and moving speeches before making my own. It is quite clear after the speeches we have heard, and no one can be left in any doubt, that bonded labour exists on a very large scale and is quite simply a form of slavery.
Perhaps I may quote a very wise French expert in this field who said:
"Slavery has not been ended, it has simply been modernised".
That is a chilling reminder of the fact that "modernise" does not always mean "improve". But it is surely the case that, although many of the classic forms of slavery—chattel slavery—may have receded somewhat, they have not been abolished; they still exist; and we must continue to fight them. But the

1195
modern form that has arisen from economic circumstances is that system of bonded labour, the existence and severity of which is not understood generally in the world. People tend to think of bonded labour rather in the same way as they think of the minimum wage or working conditions and not as something which is analogous to servitude or slavery. But, of course, in many ways, it is even worse than chattel slavery. In the case of chattel slavery, there is an owner. He feels that he is responsible for the welfare and, at any rate, the feeding of his slaves. As the noble Baroness said, there have been some good slave owners. But in the case of the landlord, as he is called, in relation to bonded labour, he has no such responsibility. He is simply concerned to get his money and after that he can and almost invariably always does leave his creditor in complete destitution.
In addition, it is true that it is more difficult to get rid of bonded labour than it is even chattel servitude. In the case of chattel servitude, you strike off the chains and the man is free. But in the case of bonded labour, you are up against a whole series, a whole complex, of economic and political considerations. You cannot just throw the child or the man out on the street. You have to provide a system of good employment, schools for the children and some system of land reform so that people can earn a living. Bonded labour certainly is servitude and in many ways it is worse. The more we can make it known to the outside world as such, the better.
I shall not expand on individual instances. I do not have the experience to do so. Everything that needs to be said on this matter has been said by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I want to expand on two particular aspects of the matter.
The first relates to human rights. Whatever can be said of the much-maligned 20th century, and much has been said, surely one of the very good things—and I am surprised that nobody has commented on it—is that it has been the century, or the half century at any rate, of human rights and the development of human rights as a movement, internationally and nationally. Of course, that was consequent upon the Nazi atrocities but, nevertheless, it took its roots from that and has brought to people's consciousness a whole new world of human rights and obligations.
As we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, the instruments of human rights all mention and include liberation from slavery and servitude as one of the important human rights to be preserved. The Universal Declaration, the covenants of 1966, the European Convention on Human Rights and others all include slavery and servitude.
It is a great advantage for those advocating the abolition of slavery to have it brought under the umbrella of human rights; but there are also disadvantages. All other human rights are subject to reservations and some derogations in specific circumstances. They tend to be discussed in a political atmosphere in which questions of western values are raised; divisions between north and south. It is said that those rights are not capable of being introduced
1196
and spread to other parts of the world, whereas the right to be free from slavery and servitude is an absolute value; it is not one for which exceptions exist. All the relevant instruments forbid any derogation from that right; it is absolute.
In international law it is what is called "jus cogens". It is recognised as absolute and not subject to derogation. Even the International Court of Justice in a case in Barcelona recognised slavery as being of jus cogens.
I am sure the Government agree that in all contexts in which human rights generally are raised, any issue connected with slavery should be separately presented with its own facts and supporting legal arguments, and not simply subsumed into a general human rights presentation. That that is necessary can be illustrated from a number of examples; I give just one. It has often been the case that in Commonwealth conferences of ministers and lawyers human rights are raised for discussion. They are in general form and seldom contain a specific reference to slavery.
The Bangalore principles—probably well known to your Lordships—were agreed in 1998 after 10 years of discussion in previous conferences. It was a case of judicial colloquium, not a meeting of ministers. It resulted in the formulation of the Bangalore principles which are well-known and influential throughout the world. They were formulated in 23 paragraphs which refer to different kinds of human rights—apartheid, women's rights, freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination— in comprehensive language. But there is not one reference to slavery or the deprivation of liberty. That is no reflection on the people who framed those paragraphs. They thought that slavery was a thing apart; that it does not enter into the general field of human rights. For slavery to be put in a category by itself as an absolute right and not simply mixed up with different and less grave abuses would be an advantage both in public relations and in negotiations.
I want to say a few words about enforcement and monitoring. Much has been said already and I shall not take up a great deal of time. It is worth remembering that there is an enormous apparatus of legal constructs prohibiting slavery and servitude. I believe 300 international instruments deal with it. Many states have passed legislation. Recently a working group of the United Nations—Anti-Slavery International—in which I am proud to declare an interest, submitted a paper showing what those mechanisms amounted to. That paper consisted of 92 pages of laws, covenants and conventions.
So there is no lack of legal foundation. What is lacking is the organisation for monitoring and checking. In the time available I cannot go into detail. I associate myself with what was said by other speakers. There is a great need to improve the situation. I hope the noble Baroness will give some indication that she is going to consider it.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked what we can do. But we are a great influence in the world. What we say matters a great deal. We must concentrate on the

1197
United Nations machinery which at present is defective and depends on staffing of the working groups. There are no powers working upwards to the Commission on Human Rights. The machinery takes years to go through and must be improved, either by a special rapporteur or any other means.
I have exceeded my time and conclude by joining with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Sandwich for introducing the debate. Where would this House be without his devotion and experience in these matters?
8.5 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for giving us the opportunity to consider what can be done to eliminate the practice of bonded labour and other forms of contemporary slavery. Many noble Lords highlighted the issues, about which there is no dispute. Once in a while we have a debate in this House where there is no disagreement whatever. It is a delight to hear so many noble Lords expressing their concern.
The worst form of slavery affects those who are least able to fend for themselves. Children are the most vulnerable group. It falls on all civilised nations to say that we shall never compromise on the well-being of children.
The issues affecting children are not difficult to identify. But before we touch on that subject, it is important to acknowledge the important work being done in this field by the Save the Children Fund and Anti-Slavery International among the many organisations that not only express their concern, but demonstrate in a practical way how to confront such issues.
Enslavement of children and young people takes many forms, including selling of children to work for others and in effect severing family ties; bonded labour, paying off their own or their families' debts; trafficking of children within or between countries for work for which they are then not paid. That is often under false pretences where they and their families are assured that children will do light work and be educated, whereas in fact they work within the sex industry or other forms of work such as domestic labourers, in industry or agriculture. Many child soldiers are forcibly conscripted into armies.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is right when he says that we should be aware of cultural norms in other countries. Its common practice worldwide for employers to give employees salary advances, and that should not necessarily be considered as bonded labour. It becomes bonded labour when there is no realistic prospect of paying off the debt.
In Pakistan's football industry, many families take advances from employers and then work to pay them back. However, the amounts are relatively small and can be paid back. None of the 428 families interviewed in the Save the Children Fund's research project in 1997 said that they were bound to their employers for ever. By contrast, many families migrate from the Thar desert of Pakistan to other parts of the Sindh Province
1198
for agricultural work. Their wages are so low that many families are unable to pay back loans, even with all members working, and they are effectively bonded labourers.
Experience in Nepal, which was explained earlier, shows that even where people have been released from debt bondage when their debts have been paid off through government or NGO programmes, many have taken up new debts within months because they are too poor to survive otherwise. Bonded labour therefore needs two key types of action—enactment and enforcement of law and skills training; and the provision of employment opportunities for business development so that livelihoods are secure and families do not have to send one or more members into bonded labour; for example, through community development work focusing on natural resource protection, livestock and credit within the Thar desert of Pakistan. Save the Children Fund's partner organisation, Thardeep, has helped reduce the flow of families migrating for work and getting involved in bonded labour elsewhere in the Sindh district of Pakistan.
I turn now to the trafficking of women and children into conditions of slavery. The 1999 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography drew attention to the trafficking of children in the south-east Asia region. The Special Rapporteur found that all six countries in the south-east Asian peninsula—China, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand and Laos—have been affected by such trafficking.
Anti-Slavery International has condemned the trafficking of children to the United Arab Emirates to be used as child jockeys in camel races. The trafficking of children is an increasingly global problem. The children, who are often as young as six years old, are sold by their parents or relatives, taken on false pretences or, in some cases, actually kidnapped.
The boys are often underfed and subjected to crash diets before a race so that they will be as light as possible. Some children have reported that they have been beaten while working as camel jockeys, and others have been seriously injured during races. It is illegal in the United Arab Emirates to use camel jockeys under the age of 14 or weighing less than seven stone. But, despite this law, there is evidence that the practice continues.
In August 1999, Gulf News reported that a four year-old camel jockey was found abandoned and close to death in the desert of the United Arab Emirates. The report of the US Department of State on Human Rights recently stated that,
"a significant number of camel jockeys are children under the United Arab Emirates' minimum employment age. Relevant labour laws often are not enforced".
Can the Minister tell the House whether the Minister of State, Peter Hain, MP, raised this issue during his visit to the United Arab Emirates last year? Can the Minister also give us details on how many people have been punished for either trafficking or employing under-age camel jockeys since the ban was imposed by

1199
the UAE in 1993? I understand that the statistical information may not be immediately available—even if she has the right folder this time—but I would appreciate it if the Minister could write to me on the issue.
I have not the least doubt that Gulf states are concerned about the use of young children. We must back them in ensuring that their laws are not flouted.
Perhaps I may briefly mention the problem of Trokosi, which is a form of slavery that has been practised by the inhabitants of the south-east Volta region of Ghana for many centuries. The practice deems it customary to send girls as young as seven to live in shrines with priests, as reparation for sins committed by a family member. Although the girl herself did not commit a crime, she works all day in the priest's field and provides the other services of a wife, including sex and child rearing.
Although a law was passed in September 1998 prohibiting anyone from being sent into ritual slavery, no shrine or priest has ever been prosecuted. International Needs Ghana estimates that there are at least 1,800 women and girls still subjected to this form of slavery in Ghana today. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Mercy Senahe is 23 years old and has had four children who were born in the Avakpe Shrine in Ghana's Volta region. She spent 12 years in the shrine until she was released by International Needs Ghana, and is now training as a dressmaker. She says:
"I was sent to the shrine when I was nine years old because my grandmother stole a pair of earrings. I was made to work from dusk to dawn in the fields and when I came home there was no food for me to eat. When I was eleven, the priest made his first attempt to sleep with me. I refused and was beaten mercilessly. The other girls in the shrine told that it was going to keep on happening and if I refused I would be beaten to death and so the next time he tried I gave in. The suffering was too much so I tried to escape to my parents but they would not accept me and sent me hack to the shrine. I couldn't understand how my parents could be so wicked".
Bonded labour is specifically outlawed in India under the 1976 bonded labour system. Nothing much has been said about that by other noble Lords. What we need is a commitment on child slavery, which is covered by Article 32 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, I understand, ratified by all but two countries—the USA and Somalia—and which states that children have the right to protection from economic exploitation. We must pursue this particular issue vigorously with the governments who have signed the convention. Governments have a duty to all children and young people to end both slavery and other forms of harmful work. Other key international instruments include a number of conventions that have already been mentioned.
On trade policy we need to ensure that British businesses operating internationally are not sourcing products through their own lengthy supply chains made with bonded child or adult labour, or involving other forms of labour abuses.
1200
I am aware that my time is rushing by, but perhaps I may endorse the plea that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It is a scandal that we have entered the 21st century and bonded labour and other contemporary forms of slavery have not been eradicated. The UN Secretary-General is right to remind us that now,
"is not a time for complacency in the fight against slavery. but a time for action".
8.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is still in his place because I, for one, can assure him that I never knew Kitchener of Khartoum and I believe that the same can be said for the Minister who is to respond to the debate this evening. However, in the same spirit of affection and respect for what he said, I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on tabling this debate. I have had the privilege now for a number of years of congratulating him on introducing important debates, and tonight is no exception. It has allowed us to spotlight the barbaric practice of slavery.
Although this inhumane and repellent practice is outlawed by a substantial body of international law—a point well made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—it is a widespread and persistent horror, which we have not yet eradicated in the 21st century. The word "slavery" covers a variety of egregious human rights violations. In addition to traditional slavery and the slave trade, tonight we have heard that such abuses include the sale of children, child prostitution, exploitation of child labour—and, indeed, there is the use of children in armed conflicts which has not, I believe, been mentioned—debt bondage, forced labour and the trafficking and enslavement of women and children.
According to Anti-Slavery International, to whose work I should like pay tribute, bonded labour or debt bondage is the most widely used method of enslaving people today. It has existed for hundreds of years and still continues to affect millions of people. Although it is specifically prohibited under Article 1 of the 1956 UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices similar to slavery, in its 1999 report the UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery noted that some 20 million men, women and children are still held in debt bondage and that the issue has not been effectively addressed at the international level.
In the light of the UN working group's conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister what action the Government are taking in accordance with the recommendation of Anti-Slavery International to work bilaterally and through the International Labour Office to help countries where bonded labour is still practised, to carry out detailed regional surveys to identify and rehabilitate bonded labourers?
Projects to combat the trap of poverty and to stop people being caught in debt bondage should be complemented by a commitment to implement laws which ensure that individuals who use bonded labour are charged and prosecuted. Can the Minister say what

1201
action the Government are taking at international level to urge all governments to ensure that they implement such legislation and to ensure that they monitor the number of people prosecuted for using bonded labour?
I should like to say a few words about trafficking in human life. This is a truly global plague, the victims of which can find themselves in London or Paris, as well as Laos or the Philippines. Traffickers deny that all persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights, as stated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. They deny their victims the most basic rights: freedom of movement, freedom of association, and, all too frequently, one of the most fundamental freedoms—the freedom to have a childhood.
Trafficking involves a vicious cycle in which victims are forced, lured or tricked into leaving their home countries, shuffled across one or more international borders and enslaved, with human rights violations occurring at every step of the way, their hopes and fears preyed upon and their hopes ultimately shattered.
It is to be hoped that globalisation will ensure that there are fewer dark corners in the world in which the perpetrators of this evil crime can hide. New technologies of communication are creating a world in which information flows more and more freely. As in all cases of slavery, human rights workers can no longer be prevented from bringing information out of oppressive countries, because they do not have to carry it physically across the border. This is one of the contexts in which our national response can be formulated. I look forward to hearing the Minister describe what policies the Government are pursuing in that respect.
A number of noble Lords focused on the trafficking of women and children and sexual slavery. The trafficking of women and children into different forms of slavery, including domestic and sexual slavery, is one of the most reprehensible and appalling forms of slavery. Therefore I ask what action is being taken to ensure that the victims of trafficking do not suffer and that those who are responsible are punished, for these women do not represent an illicit migration problem; they represent a human rights violation.
In this respect, the resolution condemning sexual trafficking passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE last July, which urges participating states to punish traffickers and which raises public awareness of the crime of trafficking, is most welcome. What priority are the Government giving to the need to combat this pernicious and odious form of slavery, which has become one of the fastest- growing criminal enterprises in the world, given that an estimated 1 million or 2 million women and girls are trafficked annually around the world, usually for the purpose of forced labour, domestic servitude or sexual exploitation?
In the short time available, I turn to child labour. Although the exploitation of innocents for personal and monetary gain must be regarded as one of the most invidious forms of evil that we confront today, the ILO
1202
in its good work on this subject recently estimated that 100 million children are today abused for their labour. As we all know, children are especially vulnerable to human rights violations. The noble Lord, Lord Brett, made some very important suggestions which deserve further consideration.
In that context, can the Minister bring the House up to date with the Government's position on the ratification of ILO Convention 182, on the worst forms of child labour? I understand that the Government have continued to indicate a willingness to ratify that convention, which was adopted unanimously at the ILO convention in June 1999. I may be wrong, but I think that the reason for the hesitation is that it would mean that boys, and indeed girls, could no longer volunteer for the army at 16. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond with good news for the House this evening.
My noble friend Lady Cox has moved to a higher status for the winding-up stage of the debate; she is now sitting on the Woolsack. But that in no way minimises the respect that I and the House have for the expertise that she brings to these debates. I pay tribute once again to my noble friend who, through her organisation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, has freed more than 1,200 slaves in the Sudan. We have heard from her again and note that there are still tens of thousands of people enslaved in the Sudan. Although Sudanese law prohibits slavery, the Government have done little to stop it.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that if it were not for the constant publicity, hard work and diligence of my noble friend Lady Cox, and of many others 'who have spoken in this debate and who work so assiduously on the subject, many of these issues would go by the board. It is important to hold these debates, even with such a small attendance and so little immediate press interest, to continue to pressure, to continue to raise these issues, to continue to make sure that on all sides of the House, in a non-partisan way, we work to resolve many of the appalling problems that we have heard about and that we are discussing this evening, because they are challenges to governments of all political complexions.
In that context, I would simply focus finally on the vitally important message that the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, gave this evening, that international action to address slavery will not be successful unless it tackles its root causes. Poverty feeds abusive labour practice. Poverty and the exploitation of desperation are at the heart of bonded labour. Poverty particularly affects women and is often at the heart of the exploitation of women. The poverty of parents is at the heart of the decision to sell their children. The victims of slavery-like abuses are generally from the poorest, the most vulnerable, social groups. The cancer of slavery is a symptom of the malignancy of poverty, and the two must be treated together.
There will always be those who are steeped in avarice, who are willing to exploit the vulnerable and the desperate, and in the process to rob their victims of their money, their livelihood and, most importantly,

1203
their dignity, and to live parasitically off the helpless. This will become more difficult when the war against underlying poverty, which gives rise to such practices in the first place, is won.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for opening this debate so eloquently, and to other noble Lords who have spoken in it.
I wish to respond straight away to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because he asked what we are going to do. I thank him for his flattering comments, but can only say that I shall try to bring clarity, and try very hard not to befuddle. The noble Earl's erudition and acute mind would not in any event fall prey to any blandishments made by me.
As to the position on the list of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, I remind the noble Earl that the best wine is often left to last. May I add what a privilege it is for me to respond to a debate on this issue in which the noble and learned Lord has taken part. History has perhaps in this House come full circle.
I am pleased to say that there is a huge similarity between the views expressed and those of Her Majesty's Government. I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in saying what a pleasure it is to see that that is so in a debate on such important issues. Let me, then, be quite clear about the Government's view. Bonded labour comes in many guises. But, whatever the terms, it is a form of slavery. It contravenes human rights. It is unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government, as it is clearly unacceptable to the speakers in this debate.
I agree that alleviating the plight of those trapped in such labour practices must be a priority for Britain and the international community, although the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was right to remind us of the importance of understanding the cultural norms that may be of influence.
Few would disagree that the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade represents one of the most significant human rights achievements. Regrettably, the forefather of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, did not, two centuries ago, put an end to the practice of slavery. As many speakers have said, slavery is no longer regulated or clearly defined, but instead exists in a range of different, sometimes hidden, ways that make it difficult to tackle.
We do not look for legal instruments alone. Practices such as slavery are outlawed by international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the European Convention on Human Rights; the Slavery Convention, as amended; and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. Ratification of those instruments demonstrates the commitment of states to address such abuses. We must now rightly focus on the practical implementation of these standards as a way to achieve real change.
1204
Let me outline what Britain is doing. First, we are addressing this issue in international fora such as the UN and the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and with our European partners. Many noble Lords have made mention of this. In our bilateral relationships we strongly support the efforts of certain countries to eliminate abusive labour practices. We are providing practical help to tackle the poverty which breeds such practices. The elimination of poverty and the fulfilment of human rights are comprehensively linked. A number of speakers have echoed that thought tonight. Many of the worst instances of bonded labour are found in poorer countries.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Brett, to mention a few, have spoken of the Indian subcontinent. In Nepal and India bonded labour has been outlawed in national laws, but we are aware that enforcement of the laws varies at grass-roots level. In Nepal, the British Embassy and DfID office in Kathmandu are involved in helping the Nepalese to address this issue. Earlier this month a workshop was held in Kathmandu, funded by the British Embassy, which involved Anti-Slavery International and Nepalese NGOs. The workshop concluded that new legislation was needed. The Nepalese Prime Minister has said that he would consider this favourably. We are actively working with NGOs in Nepal to identify further projects which we can support.
Britain is the second largest bilateral aid donor to Nepal. Our programme for 1998–99 was worth £16 million. The programme is poverty focused and seeks to promote good governance, human development and rural livelihoods. It also aims to build pressure for change through better awareness and more empowered communities.
In India we are supporting the Government of Andhra Pradesh in their efforts to address this issue and we are helping them to tackle the poverty that breeds labour abuses. We have provided £2.75 million over the period 1998–99 to 2000–01 for the work in India of the International Labour Organisation's international programme for the elimination of child labour. This has strong focus on issues such as bonded labour and other forms of forced labour.
We believe that the chances of success are greater when governments have an appropriate regulatory and monitoring capacity; when civil society is fully vigilant; when the private sector is fully involved; and when the work of international organisations is co-ordinated. These are principles on which our approach is based. However, we also recognise, with concern and regret, that not all governments are committed to tackling this abuse. The worst of governments use slavery as a political tool to enforce social exclusion, marginalisation and poverty.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have said, forced labour is one of a large number of human rights violations in Burma. A report by the ILO in 1998 highlighted the use of forced labour in Burma and made three recommendations for the regime to implement. Sadly, so far, it has not done so. We shall

1205
work with partners to co-ordinate further action in the ILO based on the Burmese regime's response to the ILO recommendations to stop forced labour. This will be discussed at the governing body meeting of the ILO this March. I a m happy to give noble Lords that assurance.
Her Majesty's Government have been assiduous in maintaining pressure on the Burmese Government to improve their dire human rights position. We also supported the renewal of the EU common position on measures against Burma in October for a further six months. We look forward to discussion with partners about what further measures we might take. We shall support any which are practical and effective.
We support a variety of projects in Burma promoting human rights, democracy and poverty eradication. These are carried out through local civilian organisations and NGOs. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for all the good work that she has done in these areas. We shall continue to support NGOs where appropriate, but we must bear in mind that some parts of Burma are not accessible to such groups, largely because of civil unrest due to the regime's continued oppression of ethnic minorities. Many have suggested that greater measures can be taken. I turn to the comments ma de by the noble Baroness in relation to Sudan.
We are concerned about continuing reports of abductions and abuses of human rights in Sudan. In April last year the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution which called on the government of Sudan to investigate reports of abduction. As a result the government of Sudan have established a committee for the eradication of abduction for women and children. We have been encouraged by the committee's work so far conducted in co-operation with UNICEF and Save the Children. On 8th December the presidents of Sudan and Uganda agreed on principles of good relations between the two countries. This includes a commitment to locate people who have been abducted and to return them.
Many have suggested trade boycotts as the answer to abusive labour practices. However, Her Majesty's Government believe that restricting trade is likely to lead to lower, not higher labour standards. The ILO has noted that sanctions can endanger rather than protect child workers by causing them to be dismissed from work and left to fend for themselves on the street, turning to more exploitative and harmful work. We cannot reduce poverty without economic growth which must also be sustainable and environmentally responsible. The poorest countries need more trade opportunities to reduce poverty, not less.
I turn to the work under way in various international fora and reply to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords in relation to this issue. The United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery is an important body, bringing together human rights experts, intergovernmental organisations, governments and NGOs. However, it may suffer from a lack of profile within the United Nations human rights system. I am
1206
pleased to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the human rights system is being addressed. We believe that its replacement by a special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights would increase the subject's profile. The rapporteur could also make country visits and take up individual cases. Creating a special rapporteur would be linked to a wider exercise of reviewing the UN's human rights mechanisms.
In the International Labour Organisation we are actively supporting the Director General's efforts to make the ILO more relevant, focusing on job creation and employability rather than the more traditional agenda of labour market regulation. We have welcomed his clear strategic objectives for the organisation and his plans for restructuring the secretariat and improving programme delivery. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked us about those standards. We continue to co-operate closely with the EU in international fora and on bilateral programmes. The EU has taken the lead in measures against forced labour in Burma and in highlighting concerns about slavery in Sudan.
I am also delighted to assure the noble Lords, Lord Brett and Lord Moynihan, that through DfID Britain is providing technical assistance to the ILO to encourage ratification of the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and to assist governments to develop national implementation plans. Work has also been undertaken to identify further ways DfID can support the implementation of core labour standards.
We continue to encourage advocacy and action in civil society organisations (NGOs and trade unions) and to encourage socially responsible business practice within the private sector. I give some examples. The DTI/DfID ethical trading initiative, which is worth £530,000, encourages British importers to adopt codes of practice and to take a constructive role in helping their overseas suppliers ensure that, where unacceptable labour practices are found, they will work together to find a solution.
The FCO has set up a global citizenship unit. The work of the unit includes liaising with missions abroad to help them assist UK business in adopting a responsible attitude on the ground, taking account of human rights, labour standards and the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Brett, raised the issue of Swaziland. In Swaziland we have given support to encourage democratic reform and have pressed the government of Swaziland to meet their human rights commitments. If the noble Lord will permit, I will write to him in relation to the more specific issues that he raised in that regard.
A particular focus of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID is to put an end to abusive child labour practices, including bonded labour and slavery. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, together with many other noble Lords, rightly emphasised the need to be assiduous when looking at this issue. At the International Labour Conference in

1207
Geneva in June 1999, the UK, along with the other 174 ILO member states, adopted a new convention to prohibit and eliminate the worst forms of child labour.
We welcome this new convention. We hope that it will prioritise national and international efforts to eradicate the exploitation of children. The International Labour Organisation is now campaigning for ratification and implementation of the convention by all ILO member states. We fully support its efforts.
I am pleased to inform the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we have announced the UK's intention to ratify both the ILO Convention 182 and Convention 138, which set a general minimum age for child labour, and aim to do so before the end of February. I hope that will be a welcome answer also to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
We have made clear that exploitative child labour is unacceptable. Child labour robs its victims of their right to childhood. A number of noble Lords have echoed that sentiment. It robs them of their right to education and their right to be protected from harm. In too many cases it also robs them of their right to grow up in a family environment. We are pursuing a range of practical initiatives to address all harmful child labour issues.
DfID provided considerable support to the ILO in the preparation and approval of the ILO convention on the worst forms of child labour in 1999 and continues to work with the ILO, national governments and NGOs to implement the convention. In 1998–99, the Department for International Development contributed 1 million US dollars to the ILO's international programme for the elimination of child labour. This programme has a strong focus on child slavery, bonded labour and other similar forms of child labour.
The Department for International Development has also provided funding for IPEC country programmes. I have mentioned already the support that we have given to India in this regard. Over the period 1997 to 1999, there was £160,000 for the IPEC programme in south east Asia, and technical assistance to the ILO programme for children working in the mining industry in Tanzania.
DfID is also providing £750,000 over the period 1997 to 2000 for a Save the Children Fund-run programme to tackle child labour in Pakistan. This is being run in conjunction with other organisations such as the International Labour Organisation and includes measures to tackle child bonded labour. We are providing in addition £4.3 million for a basic education programme in Bangladesh, targeting hard to reach urban children involved in exploitative and hazardous work.
Finally, in relation to children, perhaps I may turn to the issue rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in relation to under-age camel jockeys. The United Arab Emirates authorities assured officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Her Majesty's Embassy at Abu Dhabi in August 1999 that
1208
they are enforcing the existing legislation banning jockeys under the age of 15 and that they will prosecute offenders. The noble Lord asked me a number of specific questions, to which I do not have the answers. If he will permit me, I shall write to him. I am tempted to remind the noble Lord that today I do have my brief with me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the commitments made at the United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing five years ago. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with the UN on the convention against transnational crime, which includes the protocol on the trafficking of women and children. The UN convention should be ready for adoption by the end of 2000.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, also asked about our work with NGOs. Our work on child labour demonstrates that we support the work of NGOs such as Anti-Slavery International and Save the Children Fund. The UK has also been a significant donor to UNICEF through our voluntary and core contributions, some £13 million in 1999, and through many individual country-based collaborative projects. DfID is planning to co-operate with UNICEF to take forward a common programme of work in the area of child labour and juvenile justice. We are in regular contact with these and other organisations active in this field and are working to strengthen co-operation, both at the practical level and on policy issues.
Bonded labour and all other forms of slavery are categorically condemned by the international community. In almost all countries such practices are also prohibited under national law, yet the abuse persists and continues to distort millions of lives. We need to tackle the underlying causes of abuse. We have talked today about the many horrific forms of abusive labour in many parts of the world. What all have in common is that the victims are the poor and the weak; people without power or resources, and often without a say. Women and children are particularly vulnerable.
We recognise that we cannot tackle labour abuse in isolation; we must also tackle the poverty, ignorance and social exclusion which breed abuse. As I hope I have set out, this is very much the approach which the Government are pursuing, both in our bilateral activities and in our work with international organisations.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the minutes are few. I wish I could say to everyone individually how much I have appreciated the contributions they have made, which were based on preparation and experience—in many cases exactly the kind of experience that we now need. We heard from the Minister some very encouraging remarks about what the Government are doing. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that we should not let them off the hook. The Minister will know that, at the moment, there is a sustained campaign by Anti-Slavery

1209
International targeted specifically at bonded labour. That fits in with what the Government are doing. But we do not want them to forget about it and we shall be calling, if not on the Minister, on one of her colleagues.
Once again, may I thank all noble Lords for what has been said this evening. I am sorry that I have not had time to mention everyone, not even my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

International Development: Anti-Poverty Strategy
8.49 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenhamrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote the creation of sustainable livelihoods as the spearhead of their anti-poverty strategy in the less developed countries.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that we have the opportunity tonight to discuss this extremely important topic as set down in my Question. I am also pleased that a number of noble Lords have indicated their intention to speak. The House will appreciate their wide range of knowledge and experience along with their different and interesting perspectives.
I believe that the concept of sustainable livelihood creation is a valuable and relatively new organising paradigm for dealing with the scourge of world poverty. And a scourge it certainly is: up to 1.5 billion people inadequately fed and housed; subject to disease and early mortality; low on life chances and high on insecurity. That is a description of life for approaching one-third of the people who share this earth, living on one dollar a day or less. That is life for half the people who live in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, that describes not only relative poverty, as we have come to define the pockets of unacceptable deprivation and exclusion within our own affluent society, but absolute, grinding poverty, hunger and illness. One hundred and sixty million children are malnourished, 110 million children are out of school and hundreds of millions of women are disproportionately poor and at risk.
The challenge for those of us in the industrialised countries is not dissimilar to the challenge faced around 150 years ago by the middle and upper classes in this country. They had to combine rapidly accelerating prosperity, exciting new technologies, new buoyancy and optimism for the future with the devastating knowledge that a substantial minority of their fellow citizens were shut out and condemned to living on the margin.
We now have what Charles Dickens, who in his novels brought so brilliantly to life the cold statistics of Henry Mayhew's depiction of the London poor, what he might have called "A Tale of Two Worlds": one world of choice, of growing freedom, of greater health and longevity with expanding personal horizons; another world of bare survival. We have one world of
1210
the information rich and another of the information poor; one world of escalating obesity and another of endemic hunger.
In the end, conscience and common sense brought about one nation here—and in other European countries—so that nowadays such exceptional islands of exclusion in Britain disproportionately offend us. But out there today in that other world that I have been describing lie oceans of poverty which are lapping at our good fortune and threatening to engulf us. So even if conscience and common humanity are not spurs to action, I do not believe that any prudent leadership in the developed countries can afford to ignore the potential threat of the dispossessed in terms of migration and refugees, epidemics and disease, environmental degradation, conflict over limited resources and all the insecurity and instability that results from the division of one world into two.
Hence, we have put in place policies for development in the first world, and that is where the concept of sustainable livelihoods comes in. To quote the Department for International Development's own admirable guidance notes:
"The sustainable livelihood concept puts people at the centre of development".
That means development as if people mattered, not people as abstracted sociological and economic masses, but as individuals and communities in all their rich variety. For, as Mayhew showed so many years ago in his study of the London poor, the beginning of wisdom is to recognise that everyone has and does something—nobody has nothing. Skills are to be found among the least educated. Coping mechanisms are revealed among those most subject to strain. There are strengths among the weakest and glimpses of hope in the gloom. When it comes to reducing poverty—and I believe this to be one of the great insights of sustainable livelihoods— people are as much the opportunity as they are normally described as being the problem.
Perhaps I may give this working definition of sustainable livelihoods developed from the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, substantially modified by Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway in 1992 and again refined in recent years:
"A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living.
"A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base".
Key to that definition and at the centre of Caroline Ashley and Diana Carney of the Overseas Development Institute's recent overview for DfID of a sustainable livelihood framework is the notion of an inventory of livelihood assets. What does that mean? That inventory is human capital, natural capital, financial capital, social and physical capital, starting from a bottom-up perspective with people's community strengths and personal potential, not top-down, with the views of Washington or London economists of their generalised needs. Notable, too, is

1211
the commitment to the integration of social and environmental factors and the idea of inter-generational equity.
I must say that this is what has attracted me personally to the sustainable livelihood approach. Originally my interest was spurred by Gordon Conway, now president of the Rockefeller Foundation, when, as a director and now as an adviser to Rio Tinto, I was helping the company to identify a proper definition of its responsibilities towards the communities around the world where it operates. Subsequently, I have also been engaged, as chairman of the World Business Council's Committee on Social Responsibility and chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce Environment Commission, in trying to promote constructive partnerships on the part of the private sector with government, NGOs and local communities in fostering sustainable development. I should also declare that I am honoured to serve on the council of ODI, which has done considerable work in this area.
On the one hand, third world development is clearly helped and poverty to some extent reduced by the prosperity that comes from trade and investment. Human well-being, human health and human rights have all been shown to benefit from growing prosperity in general. But in the particular many are left behind—the poor whom we are discussing tonight. What is now needed is a conscious effort and global macro-policy changes to discriminate towards the poor and thus in their favour.
Business and the private sector have a part to play, both on the macro and the micro level, and in my view that potential for business to contribute is enhanced by the sustainable livelihood approach. That is because it moves the agenda away from the relief of poverty as a stated objective—something that businessmen tend to feel should be the concern of governments and charities—to the development of capacities and capabilities where they can more readily identify what they as businesses can contribute to local partnerships through training and the transfer of skills and technologies, through sub-contracting, sourcing locally and other specific programmes for socio-economic development.
However, business is only one piece of the jigsaw. What the integrating approach of sustainable livelihoods demands is to empower the poor so that they put themselves at the creative centre of broad-based partnerships for poverty reduction and eradication. Participation is an end and not just a means. This demands profound changes of culture and process on the part of all those involved: change on the part of donors, international agencies, recipient governments, foundations and NGOs. Change is demanded on the part of all the social partners.
Certain UN institutions, with the encouragement of Kofi Annan, notably UNDP whose adviser, Dr Singh, is attending the debate tonight, and certain governments—the British Government through DfID and also the Dutch Government—have been leaders in promulgating this new approach. They have asked the
1212
questions and examined the experience which can convert it from a paradigm into a process. For that, they are to be congratulated. The Rockefeller Foundation has enshrined sustainable livelihoods in its new mission statement and it, too, should be congratulated.
In conclusion, I have two questions for the Minister. First, knowing of her own commitment to this new way of thinking, what are DfID and Her Majesty's Government doing to promulgate the sustainable livelihood approach within the European Union and more widely to concert such policies with other countries? Secondly, how can the Government make development assistance, whether financial or technical, work better at the local community or sub-national level? Do they agree that the training of local leadership is the key element, particularly informing effective local partnerships for environmentally sustainable socio-economic development?
I look forward to the Minister's reply, but in the mean time I look forward with great interest to the contribution of other noble Lords.
9 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a privilege to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for having introduced the subject. As debates go, we have had a good day because all have been concerned with important issues. I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this issue.
By and large, the poor are women, children and old people in rural areas. Of course there are the urban poor, but most poor people are in rural areas. After 50 years of development thinking, we are at last stumbling on the right idea. Development should be about people, and unless we start with the people we will get it wrong. A number of development policies in the 30 years after the Second World War were wrong. Whatever their intentions, they were much too top-heavy. They were interested in hardware and they wasted a lot of money. They did not touch the lives of the poor.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, gave a definition of "sustainable livelihoods", but I understand it to mean something that the people can organise for themselves. They will use local resources, but sometimes they are brought in from other villages, regions or countries. However, by and large, it is down to the self-organisation of the poor. The poor people in developing countries are careful with resources. They recycle everything; they waste nothing. The way in which people in urban slums in Bombay, for instance, use space and resources is fantastic. They get value out of everything they have.
Our first duty is to understand how poor people live and organise their lives. Arbitrary poverty lines miss out the fact that those below the line still live—and live with dignity. The responsibility of policy makers and thinkers is, first, to understand and observe how the poor live. They live in an imaginative way. They manage their lives well. And they are good managers of time, transport and resources. Governments should

1213
be told not to make life difficult for the poor. The negative is much more important than the positive. There should be attempts to dissuade governments from pursuing misguided policies which harm the poor. If there is time I shall give examples.
Secondly, governments should try to build up enabling institutions; not give money for, say, micro-credit, the improvement of sanitation or the provision of clean water. They should make sure that local schools are functioning day after day and that both girls and boys attend. They should encourage girls to go to school. Such simple, small actions are not expensive. The important point is not the amount of money we give, but how it is deployed and where it is targeted. In that, the experts are the people. Consultants are often hired, but they know little about how the poor live. We must have schemes, perhaps with assistance from this Government or others, in which the people are consulted and participate. They must be able to help in constructing their own sustainable livelihoods.
We have little knowledge of the resources to which such people have access and their capacity to create things from what we might consider to be waste. I remember walking along a narrow, crowded pavement in Bombay and seeing a woman sitting perfectly relaxed, cooking. She had dignity as she cooked. She was sitting on the pavement and had a little stove. She was cooking and managing her life and no one was disturbing her. There was a dignity to it because she was managing wonderfully. I do not believe that I could manage living on the pavements of Bombay.
Finally, many governments have succeeded in abandoning bad policies. The point is to make them abandon micro-top-down policies and take up the participatory mechanism in which the poor construct their own lives. We should not get in the way.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for introducing the debate tonight. One of the aspects which strikes anyone who has been involved with development for a long time is the fact that we must go on learning. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, explained so clearly.
There is a real challenge to the industrialised countries—not only for governments to help but also for businesses to be involved. I have the privilege not only of serving as chairman of Unilever's External Affairs and Corporate Relations Committee, but also of being a member of a number of NGOs linked into a great deal of corporate social responsibility work, such as that done by Rio Tinto and many other large companies which are beginning to forget the big schemes and work with communities.
We in the United Kingdom are particularly blessed with our non-governmental organisations. They are both innovative and imaginative. One of the key things many are now trying to do is to stimulate non-governmental organisations in the developing world. That is the essential of having programmes which will
1214
meet the needs of local communities. It is no good our having bright ideas which may work but which are put into a village. By all means we should share the ideas, but let the village come up with its own solutions. They are far more likely to last and to bring an improvement in livelihoods.
We also have an important new opportunity as, through the Internet, we open up communications across the world. Although it may seem a far cry to talk of this at the moment, when fewer than 1 per cent of all Internet users are in Africa, it is an area of communication with which we should already be helping, whether it be to create in a community a centre which is not only the primary healthcare point of contact but also a learning centre. Perhaps it has one telephone line, one tap and a source of electricity provided by generator, but at least it gives the opportunity to download from satellite communications (or in some other way) the very learning which the rural communities so often lack. Without that learning they do not have even the first chance of developing a sustainable livelihood. I speak of the world space satellites of my own company, Freeplay, with its wind-up radios. They can bring that kind of education to communities; and, with it, people can then begin to use other skills.
I happen to be president of the British Executive Service Overseas, which sends rather older volunteers than VSO to many communities to stimulate particularly small, medium and micro enterprises. In doing that, BESO is sharing knowledge. The people involved are frequently retired from major companies and, in their active life after the age of 55 or 60, want to give to the developing world. We are well supported by DfID. We have our own new structure to implement. But we can share the knowledge which we have painfully and expensively developed with people who have basic learning, to help them to develop their own businesses and enterprises.
I believe that by partnerships between the public and private sectors, which the Department for International Development continues to try to foster, we can save much of the invention time that the developed world has experienced in the past century. We will not be able to give everything away, but we will be able to share skills. We badly need to pay more attention to that.
I turn briefly to some examples. We know that agriculture needs to be developed in practically every country to feed the growing numbers of people. But agriculture may be simple, as in Bangladesh where, as a result of an irrigation scheme to improve the quantity of rice grown, fish were introduced into the paddyfields, because they did not eat the rice. Those fish bring protein to the village. With the benefits from the sale of the fish, the women of the village bought chickens, sold eggs and gradually began to get into livestock, eventually to raise money to build clinics and schools and to employ trained people to help them to combat the diseases which so often beset mothers and children in rural areas.

1215
Send a Cow is another British NGO much involved in agriculture and nutrition, when the Bishop in Uganda sought help from a West Country farmer. The first 32 Friesians sent to Uganda (and many more to other countries) have given to women-headed households a real chance to have a sustainable livelihood, which they have never had before.
There are many other examples, but whether it be in the work of AMREF fighting AIDS and malaria in Africa or any of the other marvellous NGOs, we know that to work with the village to produce a change in the outcomes of people's lives is the most fruitful way to proceed. It is not something that attracts the newspapers because it is good news. It is not something that often attracts the Chancellor, although I believe he thinks that if there were better sustainable livelihoods, we would have more success. I have seen that to be the truth all over Asia, Africa and the rest of the world. I hope that the department will continue to make the creation of sustainable livelihoods an absolutely key part of its development policy. DfID has excellent people and good ideas. I hope that it will continue to allow the NGOs to join local NGOs to develop such projects to the hilt.
9.13 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I am full of admiration for the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, introduced this Unstarred Question. It is quite clear from what he said that it is for him a matter of heart, hands and head brought together effectively. It is also humbling to follow someone like the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who has played such an important part on the world stage on the subject of development.
I very much hope that this short debate will provide the Government with an opportunity to give us some good news. It is two years since the White Paper Eliminating World Poverty encouraged us to believe that government thinking and planning were contained in targets that were both obtainable but also ambitious. Rightly, the White Paper stressed that economic growth was absolutely critical for sustainable development, but that all of that had to be achieved by policies and programmes which integrated the poor themselves in the revitalisation of production.
In this context, I have two questions to put to the Government, each preceded by an example. The first example and question derives from the policies outlined in the White Paper about the establishment of macro-economic stability and assisting with asset redistribution and legislative reform which, for example, gives women farmers equal access to land and markets.
Against that background, I draw the attention of the Government to Phyllis March, a dairy farmer in Jamaica who can no longer sell the milk that her cows produce. In August 1999 her cooler was overflowing and she had to throw away 1,000 litres of fresh milk. She is not the only farmer who has difficulties selling produce in that part of the world. In Jamaica today,
1216
subsidised European milk powder replaces locally produced milk as the input into the Jamaican dairy industry. While hundreds of thousands of dollars of aid are still being spent to support the Jamaican dairy industry, the EU spends 4 million euros in export subsidies, thus undermining the effects of the financial aid.
Jamaica is not an isolated case. Many farmers in dozens of developing countries have to compete with subsidised products from the European Union. Other examples include Italian tomato concentrate that undermines local tomato processing in Senegal and the dumping of surplus pig meat in the Czech Republic.
The common agricultural policy of the EU thus disrupts growth and opportunities in the agriculture of the developing countries. In addition, many developing countries have opened their markets and reduced support for their own farmers as part of the conditions attached to IMF and World Bank loans. What part are the Government playing to influence EU export subsidies which damage rather than enhance agricultural enterprises in developing countries? What kind of accountability can be exercised over the IMF and the World Bank?
My second example and question derives from the White Paper's declared intention to provide lines of credit and expertise to establish small businesses in developing countries. The Diocese and County of Durham has a well established link with the Kingdom of Lesotho. One of the ways in which we have provided aid is through a micro-enterprise project in Maseru which aims to help those who are not normally accepted by conventional funding organisations to obtain funding to start their own businesses. Frankly, it is one of the most difficult ventures that we have ever started. We have made lots of mistakes and had many failures. It is difficult to keep track of a highly mobile population when it has a bit of money in its hands. It is also difficult for those people to make the best use of training and to absorb what we can offer when perhaps they lack many of the basic skills.
But we have had sufficient success to make us persevere. Where such small businesses take off, they make a real difference; they create wealth, employment and needed products. Examples include battery-charging businesses, propane gas outlets, poultry enterprises, and one business run by a lady who makes dresses by copying materials and patterns that she finds in magazines. She employs a sales person to go into the countryside. She has more customers than she can handle and sells what are believed to be the latest fashions.
The question that arises from that example is: what economic aid can the Government provide, totally consonant with their White Paper aspirations, to encourage small business enterprises in the developing world? We are all aware that there is no blueprint for poverty eradication—certainly one that is applicable to all countries—but it is clear that policies must include empowerment to overcome powerlessness, redistribution to overcome inequality, and effective global governance to overcome the adverse effects of globalisation.

1217
The poor need to own the development process. Solutions lie in increasing people's participation in decision-making and strengthening the capabilities of the poor to achieve sustainable livelihoods. I look forward to the Government's response to these questions and to the intentions expressed in their White Paper becoming a reality in practice.
9.20 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has raised the issue of creating sustainable livelihoods in poorer countries; and I appreciated his eloquence on the subject.
It is a timely Question: the Department for International Development is currently preparing its target strategy papers. I shall refer to the recently published consultation document, Better Health for Poor People, as an example of target setting and strategic planning to help create sustainable livelihoods.
I must declare an interest as I work as a consultant to health and education programmes in less developed countries and countries in transition, mainly in the former Soviet Union. Those programmes are funded by DfID among other donor agencies, such as the EC.
I shall give examples from my own experience, and that of colleagues working in poorer societies, to illustrate some of the barriers and opportunities which exist in the effort to create sustainable livelihoods. Your Lordships will recall that the challenge of development was addressed by the DfID in the 1997 White Paper which made a commitment to the elimination of poverty,
through support for international sustainable development targets and policies.
The elimination of poverty in poorer countries is not, of course, a new concept. Since a Ministry of Overseas Development was created in 1964, successive governments have grappled with ways of tackling poverty. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was highly respected both in the United Kingdom and abroad for her commitment and energy in that area.
I am not talking about crisis intervention in response to disasters, important thought that is. I am focusing on the need to be strategic and to help people to help themselves. Poverty is not romantic. It is not dignified, although, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, some poor people do maintain dignity. Poverty means misery, degradation, lack of opportunity, ill health and often early and painful death, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said earlier.
Tackling poverty is difficult for many reasons. It cannot be done by what Clare Short has criticised as "dollops of charity" It requires a strategic approach in collaboration with other donor countries and aid organisations. It requires negotiations with countries seeking aid and a commitment from their governments to eliminate poverty. There are poor people in non-poor countries, such as parts of South America, and there are rich people in poor countries. I know of countries where corruption at a national and local
1218
level has benefited a small section of the population to the detriment of the poor. In some other countries, the top 20 per cent of the population do not need aid. They may well need technical assistance to improve internal structures and systems, for example, in healthcare. Very poor countries, however, may need long term financial support from donors to support systems and structures which will help to eliminate poverty.
We have to ensure that aid benefits the poor and does not get stuck in hierarchical ladders of bureaucracy. Direct work through non-governmental organisations or community organisations at a local level can sometimes avoid that. And government policies and commitments across ministries both in donor countries and in countries receiving aid must be emphasised. Value for money is important. Those of us who have worked in the field of international development for some years could give many examples of programmes which have not succeeded in their intentions either because they were ill-conceived or poorly implemented.
I should like to give an example of the planned approach, which is important, by drawing on the DfID consultation paper on health. The paper has clear development strategies. First, it is made clear that the DfID will not be the only player in setting and implementing strategies. It will communicate and collaborate with such organisations as the WHO and UNICEF. There will be a commitment to strengthening systems in poorer countries through public and private ownership; commitment to targets; involving private sector organisations; and setting priorities.
Health is only one strategy, but an important one. It is obvious that poor health may engender poverty and that poverty may engender ill health. In any society health strategy also highlights issues which are important: gender differences; the need for accurate statistics, effective management, and the setting of targets.
In my experience, there are factors which contribute to successful aid programmes. First, there is the imperative to assess real needs. Then there is the imperative of planning against targets and objectives, checking plans with local stakeholders for feasibility, establishing local steering committees drawn from communities, involving values systems and religious groups, informing and collaborating with other donors, and, most of all perhaps, by reviewing and monitoring what is going on.
Of course, there are barriers such as lack of internal government commitment, interpersonal rivalries, language and cultural issues, and difficult infrastructures and chaotic systems. We need to anticipate these, as well as being realistic about opportunities. We need to work with what is there rather than imposing a pre-conceived package of aid. Importantly, we must learn from failure as well as success.
I believe that the new DfID strategy papers recognise this and that the commitment to poverty elimination, through international development

1219
targets, does have a planned and focused basis. I know that your Lordships will follow progress with interest. I would ask my noble friend the Minister how monitoring strategies will be carried out.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holme for introducing the debate and for the manner in which he did so. One of the key questions arising from the debate is the future of agriculture in the developing countries. I want to make two points which may seem somewhat controversial. First, one of the main contributions to solving the problems we are discussing lies with the development of genetically modified crops and their rapid application. Secondly, the contribution that can be made in that way is, however, imperilled by the increasing monopoly powers of a small number of multinational companies.
On my first point, what I shall say is very much based not only on a number of articles in Nature but on the excellent, detailed and meticulous report of the Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics, which contains the most exhaustive examination of the issues involved with genetically modified crops. There may well be risks to biodiversity. They have not been proved despite a large number of field trials, but they are possible. We certainly need more field trials and each case will have to be judged separately. However, in the balance of potential risks against potential benefits, the benefits hugely outweigh the risks, particularly in the developing world.
Let us consider for a moment the scope of the benefits. I shall name only some. The technology can enhance the resistance of plants to pests and disease. It is likely that it will be able to fix nitrogen in the roots of plants, thereby avoiding the use of fertilisers. It can reduce the use of chemicals, thereby reducing the pollution of groundwater. It is likely that it will be possible to engineer crops which are resistant to drought, heat and cold and can grow in arid regions of the world where nothing grows now. It can help with the fight against hunger and disease. Only recently, we had a very notable example of that; namely, the success of a Swiss scientist in transplanting the vitamin A gene into rice plants. It also seems possible that heavy doses of iron could be transplanted into rice plants.
Much has been written about this technology in Nature. It potentially means that the lives of millions of children can be saved and that help that can be provided for the 3.7 billion women who suffer from anaemia as a result of iron deficiency. If in the West or in the developed world there is concern about the risk of damage to biodiversity, which has not yet been proved, that may seem irrelevant to some extent in the developing world where the new technology is needed now.
What, indeed, is the alternative? The green revolution is running out of steam. In the 1970s, cereal production rose by about 3 per cent a year. In the period between 1983 and 1993, it rose by 1.3 per cent
1220
a year. The only ways in which by conventional means one is likely to achieve higher yields is through the use of more fertilisers, marginal land and more irrigation, all of which have disadvantages, even if the fertilisers could be afforded by local farmers. There is competition for scarce urban water resources, and already water tables are falling.
The advantage of the GM technology was cited by Florence Wambugu, who is director of a leading institute in Nairobi concerned with the application of agro-biotechnology. She made the point that it can provide a "packaged technology in the seed" which ensures the technical benefits to farmers without changing local cultural practices. However, there is a snag: much of the technology is controlled by a relatively small number of multinational agro-businesses. Most of their development crops are aimed at the developed world because that is where the profit is to be made, and not all of their activities in the developing world are beneficial.
I am in favour of free trade, but one of the more justified protests in Seattle concerned the destruction of local property rights, laws, customs, communities and activities, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, stated, provide a sustainable livelihood and protect the environment.
The patent laws are being extended. They endanger the benefits enjoyed by local communities because there are patents over plants, genes, particular forms of treatment, and seeds. We have to accept the need for patents because innovation is not possible without them, bearing in mind the vast sums that have to be invested. The extension of patents in the field of knowledge has brought clear dangers. The balance appears to have shifted in favour of monopolies and has often led to a limitation of innovation and dissemination of knowledge, particularly in American universities, which depend on sponsorship. This is highly relevant to the developing world, to the future of agriculture, and to the issue of poverty. For example, the patents over seed have led to protests by half a million Indian farmers.
I conclude with two propositions. We do need the new technology. Anyone who discusses this issue should read the report on bio-ethics by the Nuffield Council, because if they are not prejudiced in their views I defy anyone to read that meticulous report and then avoid the conclusion that a vital contribution to the issues of this debate can be made by genetically modified crops. The benefits of this new technology can be limited, frustrated or even imperilled by the growing monopoly of a few companies.
We should look again at the agreement on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. It is critical that governments provide incentives to multinational companies to direct more of their research and development at the needs of the developing world.
9.35 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for initiating

1221
the debate and for highlighting the inextricable links between poverty elimination and sustainable development. Development cannot be sustained unless poverty is eradicated, and it is unconscionable that 1.3 billion people—nearly a quarter of the world's population—live in absolute poverty.
Government commitment has been demonstrated by the fact that the international development portfolio has for the first time been given Cabinet status, and that is making a huge difference to getting these issues on the agenda of the Cabinet and the nation.
I declare an interest as chair of an organisation that is committed to sustainable development, Voluntary Service Overseas. I am fully aware of the practical ways in which the Secretary of State and DfID are avidly pursuing this aim.
I should like to deal with two areas of immense concern, HIV and education, and encourage the Government to make even greater efforts on the debt crisis, which is central to success in these areas.
HIV is a major threat to livelihoods and inevitably to development in many parts of Africa and, increasingly, Asia. HIV makes more difference to families' ability to look after themselves than any amount of investment or development projects. Ninety-five per cent of all people with HIV are in developing countries and it is spreading fastest in the poorest countries. It means loss of breadwinners and a huge increase in the number of dependants per breadwinner.
I welcome the British Government's commitment to fight HIV, including the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of £23 million additional funding, which—I am pleased to say—includes £1.2 million to VSO. HIV is so pervasive, it is import ant that it is not treated just as a medical issue. It should be integrated into every business activity and every development project.
In VSO, the approach is to provide a variety of professionals to work specifically with organisations working on HIV. But VSO also trains all of its 350 skilled volunteers in southern Africa—who are involved in all aspects of development—to promote a sensible approach to AIDS in their place of work. I should encourage such an approach being integrated into all development activities funded by DfID or through investment by British companies.
The statistics show us just how crucial that is: there are 1,500 new infections per day in South Africa; life expectancy is falling from 60 towards 40 in many countries in southern Africa; AIDS affects around 25 per cent of Zimbabwean adults, resulting in huge numbers of orphans; and in Zambia, development indicators are worse than 20 years ago.
I turn to my second point: education. Improved education levels are a prerequisite to giving poorer people the opportunity, as others have said, to earn their own living. The nature of all employment is such that those with more education produce and earn more. I welcome the adoption of the DAC targets by DfID, but investment and aid to education are still not
1222
high enough. I urge still greater international support, possibly linked to debt relief, for the provision of quality educational opportunities at all levels, but especially for basic education.
I linked my points about education to debt relief. The debt crisis undermines investment in national infrastructure and production, as well as social services, including education. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to lead the way on that issue—it seems to be a real alliance of government and people. But what more can Government do to push the international community along more quickly? Many of Britain's closest economic partners are dragging their feet. There is more rhetoric from the USA, for example, than action and not even much rhetoric from Japan or Germany.
We must recognise the potential and risks of globalisation and do all we can to ensure that the poorest are included and not further marginalised. We must ensure, for example, that trade liberalisation really works for the benefit of countries such as Bangladesh, which have benefited so much from a supportive trading environment.
We must shape our vision from international legislative environments down to micro action in individual communities. I welcome the contribution of civil society groups, including the rich and skilled involvement of British-based NGOs, in doing so. I welcome DfID's work on socially responsible business. We need this House and the Government to give a higher profile to those efforts and to encourage consumers and high street stores to do the same.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my former noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for initiating a debate on the Question, which simultaneously hits three nails: sustainability, and poverty of both nations and people within nations, on the head. Sustainable livelihoods are the heart of the matter. Too often steps taken by the World Bank to help the economies of less developed countries have served to throw people out of work, thus following the inexorable path of free trade, which is to make the poorer countries, or people within those countries, poorer, and the rich, richer.
So much of the problem arises from arrogance. We believe that we know best. There are those who will say, not always for the purest of motives but none the less wholeheartedly, that we have no business at all telling less developed countries what to do. But that is a principle taken to idiotic extremes. If I see my neighbour drowning, am I not to come to his rescue? Should the Good Samaritan have defended the right of the traveller to lie bleeding in the ditch, unmolested by do-gooders? The question answers itself.
None the less, it raises another question which involves the necessity of our consulting the victim as to what treatment is likely to suit him. That question was

1223
raised in its most bitter form at Seattle by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of St. Lucia:
"How can we be expected to come here, to this WTO that was supposed to be the epitome of democracy, to put the seal of approval on a declaration that has been developed by Green Room procedures to which we have had no access; to discussions in corridors to which only the economic power blocs are privy; to texts from which are expunged every vestige of the concept of development with no sensitivity to the plight of the poorest and the smallest among us? No, we cannot!"
It is not only that we believe that the Cartesian economics make us arrogantly sure that we know best; it is that we even believe we know what is best biologically. In a major work coming out of the American National Academy of Sciences, The Lost Crops of Africa, we are reminded of the food crops which have fed Africa for ages—sorghum, millet, teff and others—and which are now neglected because they do not fit in with the pattern of international trade. And we would surrender those traditional foodstuffs for genetically-modified crops, chiefly benefiting multi-national corporations and rich farmers. I pay tribute to what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said about the drawbacks to the way in which genetically-modified crops are being promoted at the moment.
This is the right time for debate. In the ensuing two weeks we shall be coming up to the summit at Montreal. It is good news that we are sending a Minister. It is even better news that we learn—and I hope that this will be confirmed this evening—that the Government seem likely to take a sensitive line which will separate the hard-nosed monetarist bullies from those sensible enough to try to find a way through the problems and help the poor.
It was Gandhi who told us that in every action we take we should always look at the effect we have on the poorest man we can imagine. But that is not only a matter which affects the poor; it affects all of us. The benefits of globalisation are not confined to making fortunes on the Internet; they also include bringing us to understand that we must "all hang together if we are not to hang separately."
On behalf of the Green Party, I wish the Minister well at Montreal. I hope that he fares well and I hope that he does good. Let us hope that we look back on this first quarter of a year of the 21st century as the moment when an uncertain flame lit at Seattle became a blaze at Montreal so that that unfortunate capital does not go down to history only as the place where:
Stowed away in a Montreal lumber-room
the Discobolus turneth his face to the wall,
Where beauty crieth in an attic
And no man regardeth.
O God! O Montreal!"
At Montreal it is important that the cry of the poor is regarded and our Government have their part to play. I hope to heaven that they will play that party fully.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in his
1224
remarks in opening this debate. Indeed, I share the views of many of those who have spoken this evening who have made it clear that there is no one strategy and no one solution to the problem of sustainable incomes.
I hope that nothing that I say this evening may be taken as critical of those who have spoken in the debate. However, I take the view that perhaps of greater importance than aspiration and good wishes is how aspiration is translated into action. There is no shortage of concern or compassion. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if the rhetoric of good intentions could fill empty bellies, the impoverished children of less developed countries would suffer from obesity.
I give a quick example of how the homily of content is not being carried through.
The House will know that for many months there have been negotiations between the European Union and South Africa over a comprehensive trade and development agreement. Agreement was finally reached in March of this year and signed up to in October, but there was still further haggling. It was agreed that the main part of the trade deal would begin on 1st January.
It has not. Why not? Because Italy and Greece refused to ratify unless South Africa stopped using the terms "ouzo" and "grappa", of which it produces minuscule quantities. The situation is that nobody knows what should happen. Although the Greek and Italian representatives signed the agreement in October, the agreement cannot come into being. The European Union is in chaos because it does not know what will happen now.
That is naked self-interest. It seems to me that we must do something about that. I know that Ministers were extremely supportive in trying to bring about an agreement. I ask the Government two questions. First, when will Her Majesty's Government ratify the agreement? What plans do they have and what is the timetable for ratification? Secondly, what are Ministers actively doing to end the impasse and to find a way forward? There is no point in using fine-sounding words, as was done at the Berlin conference after Mandela was released and at the Cardiff summit, if nothing then happens. The whole of the European Union should hang its head in shame at that behaviour.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, went down the road of GM crops. I want to go in the opposite direction and deal with organic produce. My attention was drawn to an item on "The Food Programme" on Radio 4 last week about organic crops. I am very grateful to the programme both for transmitting the item and for letting me have a copy of the tape. I must quickly enter the caveat that if there are errors in my summary, that is my fault. The conclusions I draw are mine and not that of the programme. I believe that it did us a tremendous service in drawing attention to the fact that there is an immense interest in organic foods. It is a vastly growing market.

1225
Importers would like to import organic produce from Africa but there is a severe difficulty in obtaining certification.
One reason for that is the cost. The Soil Association, which is Britain's leading certification organisation, charges £250 per day for a specialist to visit farms, plus the cost of travel. That may add up over a period of time because, paradoxically, small farmers can farm over large acreages. It may add up to many thousands of pounds and the certification must take place annually. It is prohibitive, except for very large farms which can bear the cost and where the cost of certification does not add up to much when the customer buys the produce in the shop.
One of the representatives from—and it is reasonable to name it since I have no interest—Marks and Spencer said that it would be happy to accept local certification if it were carried out to the same standard as exists in this country. I do not want to use that dreaded word "harmonisation", which I hope has disappeared from our vocabularies, but every single country in the European Union has its own certification system, as indeed does the United States. I certainly do not suggest that we should try to achieve common agreement among the states of the European Union so that there is one simple certification system which everybody would accept. That would simply lead us down the road of prevarication.
I do not expect a definitive answer this evening from the Minister, but I hope that the Government will look at finding a way of helping to train people locally for the certification of organic produce. That is one way in which we can help with development for the poorest of farmers. If we believe what we say, that trade is more important than simply giving money and if we really believe that the prime objective of aid and development is that people should become independent and self-sufficient and able to look after themselves, then it is necessary to take every step possible to help them to develop different markets.
This has been an important debate. I hope the points I raised, especially in relation to organic produce and certification, will be considered. We heard many examples this evening of how the poor and dispossessed need our assistance, and not just in words.
9.50 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for introducing this debate. Let me say clearly that if he and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, are able to persuade business to take a real interest in the plight of the developing world, that will be a major achievement. In the end, if one-third of the world is increasingly poor and desperate for any kind of economic future, the role of business itself will be at risk in the medium and long term and it is in its interest to involve and commit itself to sustainable livelihoods.
Over the past 10 years there has been a change in the pattern of poverty in the world. But, as my noble friend and others said, there is not much difference
1226
in the proportion. It is estimated that the proportion of those living on less than one dollar a day declined from 28 per cent in 1988 to around 24 per cent in 1998—not much change over a decade. What has altered is the pattern regionally, in the sense that we have seen some improvement in east Asia, despite the recent problems; a little improvement in south Asia; a very small improvement in Latin America; no improvement at all in Africa; and tragically—a lesson we should learn—the emergence of real poverty in central and eastern Europe on a scale that has not been seen for a long time. Quite bluntly, we in the West have not handled the transition well and those areas have not responded to our mismanagement.
The second point I want to make—one made by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Hughes, and my noble friend Lord Taverne—is that there now is a symmetry of language and system between the poor one-third of the world and the better-off two-thirds. By that I mean that our systems increasingly reject the ability of the developing countries to deal with their poverty.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the problem of the certification and approval of goods, which has become increasingly sophisticated because of consumer organisations in the western world. That is a good thing in itself, but difficult for the third world to meet.
Another example follows on directly from what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey said; that is, that it is vital to identify non-governmental organisations in the developing countries. That is absolutely right. But one of the great problems they face—I should perhaps declare an interest because I have been involved with an Indian organisation called Seva Mandir which tried to develop afforestation in Rajasthan and the development of small improvements among the tribal villages, some of the poorest people in the world—is that they cannot begin to meet the requirements of foundations and charities in the rest of the world for the small sums they need to do their work. We are talking of tens of thousands of pounds at the most. The requirements that are laid upon them to meet the application's criteria are such that they would have to hire somebody to do that job, and they are not in a position to do that. In the central and eastern European region, similarly, the extraordinarily complex requirements laid upon them by PHARE, TACIS and other aid agencies of the European Union are so complex that many local NGOs simply give up before getting to the end of the process.
I want to flag up briefly three issues. One is the environmental issue because, as was said in DfID's excellent work, sustainable livelihoods do not necessarily include the issue of environmental sustainability. In that context, it is important to say that environmental sustainability is part of the battle against poverty. The gradual spread of housing into wholly unsuitable areas—swamps, edges of mountains, desperate, tiny villages clinging on to wholly unsuitable terrain—is beginning to create what are described today as "unnatural disasters" on the sort of scale that we have seen in Venezuela,

1227
Honduras, Brazil and elsewhere. They are created, partly, by the sheer pressure of demand and density in unsuitable areas. Therefore, one cannot exclude the environmental factor; neither can one exclude the nature of governance itself.
A great deal of aid is simply wasted by governments run by élites who do not care about the poor, or who do not actually see their way to actually trying to improve their lives. Of course, one further aspect of bad governance arises in situations where what one ends up with are people fighting for power in some of the most pathetically impoverished parts of the world. Indeed, Angola, Mozambique, Zaire and many other parts spell for Africa a tragic destiny, where most of the money gets spent on arms and not on economic development.
I should like to refer for a few moments to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Taverne. I have in mind one special aspect regarding what he said in relation to biodiversity. I have with me a magazine or, if you like, a leaflet called Kuarup. Rather amazingly, it is produced by the Xingu tribes of the Matto Grosso, one of the most remote parts of the world. They have a number of plants that are grown in the rainforest that have immense and exciting medical qualities. Those plants are now being licensed and patented by multinational companies, although they could be described as "gifts of God" and not the products of such companies. The battle among such Indian tribes to try to patent plants with which they have worked for centuries against the pressure of huge multinational companies is one of a very small David against a very powerful Goliath. One knows what the outcome will be.
I conclude by thanking DfID because I believe that it has already had a very great impact in terms of the new attitudes of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other organisations which are beginning to put poverty at the centre of their considerations. I very much hope that it will continue with its work. Above all, I hope that it will get the great organisations of the world to listen to what we now call "the stakeholders", those whom the noble Lord, Lord Desai, called, more attractively to my mind, "the people" who live in these countries.
9.57 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for the characteristically capable and dedicated way in which he introduced his Unstarred Question tonight. I trust that the Government will pay due attention to all the important points that the noble Lord made, as he has a deep understanding of this extremely complex and sensitive subject.
In the short time available to me this evening, I should like to make a few observations and ask the Minister some questions. As I said, the subject is a sensitive one because, as the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Desai said, it involves people—a growing number of people living on the very edge of survival.
1228
Promoting sustainable livelihoods has proved to be both difficult and complicated. There are no easy answers to the problems faced by these people. They constitute a majority of the people on this earth at the turn of the new millennium.
Anyone reading DfID's last departmental report could easily be lulled into a false sense of security. The report is magnificently produced; indeed, it is bulging with good intentions and apparent British successes in support of international development. However, I am not sure that it either reflects reality or that it focuses on some of the principal issues underlying the Question put so ably by the noble Lord. Nor am I sure that it even describes what is happening with a major part of the tax revenues raised in this country that should be dedicated to development assistance. I refer, of course, to the fact that more and more of our assistance is ceded to Brussels, with the results that we heard about from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and which were so rightly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Unfortunately, we have less and less say today over the direction of an ever larger part of the assistance that we provide.
Furthermore, a greater proportion of the budget over which the Government do have control is being allocated to causes which are more often extolled on the soap boxes of Hyde Park than in the fora attended by those whose professional life has been dedicated to the issues fundamental to attaining the sustainable livelihoods of the disadvantaged. I refer, of course, to the portion of the assistance budget that goes on matters relating to good governance and civil society.
I would urge the Government to pay particular attention to the long-term implications of the Question raised by the noble Lord. There are some tremendously exciting and new initiatives taking place in the development field that will no doubt lead towards long-term sustainable solutions to the issue raised in the Question. At this late hour I shall take only one example, and ask what the Government are doing to assist in the development of the recently announced breakthrough in rice breeding, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. As your Lordships will know, rice is the staple crop of approximately two thirds of the world's population, especially those living at the edge of subsistence.
Vitamin A deficiency causes possibly 2 million deaths each year among children under five years old whose family livelihoods are clearly unsustainable. The rice breeding discovery is a result of a sustained effort, led on the funding side by such institutions as the Rockefeller Foundation, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned, following the great developments of the so-called green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. This breakthrough introduces into traditional rice varieties genes that are converted into vitamin A in the body.
I would like to ask the noble Baroness whether there is a proper balance in the allocation of funds, and sufficient attention to such initiatives, as in the support given by DfID to the soap box policies. I specifically draw her attention to this matter, as, despite the

1229
valiant efforts of the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Robert May, many are saying that not enough is being done by the Government's assistance programme.
These are very serious issues relating to the GM question, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. They could put at risk unnecessarily the effectiveness of the new "golden rice" to which I have just referred to.
Finally, why has the NGOs' care support from DfID been squeezed? We in the democratic, free world have a responsibility here. After all, as Bernard Shaw said, "Liberty means responsibility."
Our distinguished former Minister, my noble friend Lady Chalker rightly stressed the importance of innovation. The innovation and thinking the unthinkable, which is the hallmark or the NGO sector, are essential, but, sadly, they are being curtailed at a time when we should be searching for ever more new solutions as an alternative to old, tried answers which have yet to crack the problem.
Why is so much attention being given to the headline-grabbing issue of debt forgiveness? As we have heard this evening from most noble Lords, no amount of debt forgiveness in itself will improve the chances of a sustainable livelihood for those at the bottom of the pile.
10.5 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in the whole area of sustainable livelihoods and thank him for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House this evening.
This is not the first time the noble Lord and I have participated in a discussion on sustainable livelihoods. We both attended the meeting organised by the Rockefeller Foundation in Bellagio, Italy, last September on the theme "From Extreme Poverty to Sustainable Livelihoods." It seems to me that we are now developing a very good partnership.
As we often see when we discuss development issues in the House, the debate has been characterised by in-depth knowledge, a great deal of consensus and commitment from all sides of the House.
I shall endeavour to cover the points which have been raised but I undertake to write to any noble Lords whose points I have not been able to address in detail. I know that all noble Lords who have participated in the debate are aware of the Government's commitment to the international development targets, including a reduction by one-half in the proportion of people living in absolute poverty by 2015.
In 1990 some 1.3 billion people, or almost a quarter of the world's population, were living on less than a dollar a day. Some 70 per cent of these were women. I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai that poverty has a female face. Achieving the target will require that some 1 billion people are lifted over the poverty line by
1230
2015. We believe that that is achievable, but only with the full commitment of governments, the private sector, civil society and development agencies.
My noble friend Lady Massey spoke of some of the target strategy papers which DfID has recently produced. I assure my noble friend that DfID is also developing a performance reporting and monitoring system which will allow us to track progress against each target strategy paper. A recently produced strategy paper concerned economic well-being. It sets out how the target for poverty reduction might be achieved by the international community as a whole and also sets out the role that DfID can play. The document makes clear that the challenge will be met only through economic growth, improved income distribution and a reduction in the vulnerability of national economies and poor people to physical and economic shocks. In addition, countries need to develop strong foundations of governance and institutions with transparency and low levels of corruption. That point was powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. However, the core message of the paper is that the livelihoods of poor people must be at the centre of any strategy for poverty reduction.
We see the creation of sustainable livelihoods as a key element in helping to reduce poverty. Over the past two years we have worked with development agencies in the UK and overseas to develop and apply the livelihoods approach to development. We are working with partners to create sustainable livelihoods in almost 20 countries and we have committed £193 million to livelihoods programmes over the past nine months.
Our approach to the creation of sustainable livelihoods comprises a set of principles based on our knowledge of what works. It represents a different way of thinking about the priorities for development and it puts people at the centre of development. People, rather than the resources they use or the governments that serve them, are the priority concern. Poor people themselves must participate in identifying and addressing their livelihood priorities.
As well as being people-centred, the approach is holistic. The livelihoods concept is also dynamic. It recognises that poor people simultaneously undertake a range of different activities and seek to achieve a range of livelihood outcomes. These will evolve over time and the approach seeks to reflect this dynamism. I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai on the need to recognise the ways in which the poor live and organise themselves.
The livelihoods approach also links policy level and community level activities. We seek to draw lessons from the local level and bring these to the forefront of development policy. The creation of sustainable livelihoods also requires that the public and private sectors work together—a point made powerfully by a number of noble Lords.

1231
Finally, if poverty is to be eliminated, livelihoods must be sustainable. There are four key dimensions to sustainable development and to sustainability: economic, institutional, social and environmental. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we cannot ignore the environmental element.
In support of these principles, DfID, in consultation with a range of partners, has developed an analytical framework to help us to understand the livelihoods of the poor. However, we do not see livelihoods as a fixed concept. It is an evolving approach that offers a practical way forward. We are continually building on experience and bringing together good practice.
One of the strengths of the livelihoods approach is the way in which it helps to achieve practical outcomes. In India and Bangladesh, for example, DfID-supported programmes have achieved direct and significant improvements to the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of poor people. Incomes have increased, household food security improved, vulnerability to shocks reduced, primary school enrolment increased and environmental degradation reversed. We have also seen in some instances the status of women enhanced.
These programmes are being expanded to work with many more poor people. However, many challenges remain. Perhaps the most important of these is ensuring that the voices of the poor are able to influence policy change, nationally and internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, raised the questions of training and of local leadership. Participation is one of the core principles underlying the sustainable livelihoods approach. The DfID has developed programmes with the full participation of local stakeholders. One of the principles of the approach is that it builds on people's strengths; in particular it assists in the development of human and social capital. Training and development of local communities are important elements in forming effective local partnerships.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, spoke of the importance of working with NGOs. I entirely agree with her. One of the key and core strategies in terms of the DfID approach is a need to work in partnership. We are working with international agencies, including the World Bank and United Nations agencies. We feel that we need a co-ordinated approach which considers the impact of all global policies on poor people, particularly in the areas of trade, investment, financial regulation, the environment and debt.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also asked specifically about what the Government are doing to promulgate a sustainable livelihoods approach within the European Union. We have been working with the European Commission on sustainable rural livelihoods. The latest draft of its rural development strategy places livelihood improvements for the rural poor as its principal objective. We are helping the Commission to convert the strategy into actual programmes for several developing countries.
1232
I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that we are seeking to influence European Union policy and practice in other areas. We have developed an institutional strategy paper which sets out the reforms that we see as being required at European Union level. I shall happily send the right reverend Prelate a copy of that paper.
In addition to working with our international partners, the private sector also has a vital role to play, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. We recognise the important role that companies are playing as they take their corporate responsibilities more seriously. We are already working in a number of ways with the private sector to create sustainable livelihoods. Our country programme seeks to promote the growth of small, medium and micro-enterprises, another point raised by the right reverend Prelate. In addition, we are about to launch a number of competitive challenge funds. Again, I shall write to the right reverend Prelate with more information on that area.
I turn to other points that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside mentioned the EU-South Africa trade deal. The United Kingdom strongly supports the EU's trade development and co-operation agreement with South Africa. This fulfils the EU's post-apartheid commitment to help build a stable and prosperous South Africa. We are urging Italy and Greece to work with the European Commission and South Africa to find a sensible way forward instead of trying to reverse the application of the agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised the matter of the biosafety protocol negotiations at the Montreal conference. The Government are strongly committed to securing a successful outcome to those negotiations. We see one of the main benefits of the protocol for developing countries as being the provision of channels for financial and technical assistance to help them build capacities for the safe use and development of GMOs. DfID is ready to help developing countries ensure that GMOs are used appropriately and effectively to bring real benefits to poor people and to provide sustainable livelihoods. We feel that it is important to assist developing countries themselves to ensure that they have the capacity to do so. That was one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
As regards organic foods, a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, perhaps I may say that, on his point of certification, it may be that the certification process itself proves to be an excessive barrier to developing country producers when trying to access organic markets. If that is the case, DfID would be willing to consider funding the initial transaction costs of establishing local capacities for certification through training and accreditation schemes. Again, should my noble friend like more detail, I shall be happy to have a meeting or to write to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also spoke of plant sciences and research. Substantial amounts of DfID research funds are directed to the plant sciences

1233
and crop protection research programmes, plus funding and collaborative work with the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and associated international centres in India and Bangladesh. Again, should the noble Baroness require further details on those points, I shall be happy to supply them.
I should like to make a few further points. As regards HIV and Aids, an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, I agree that special endeavour is needed in recognition of the magnitude of HIV and Aids. We are already integrating elements of HIV/Aids in our projects in Africa, for example, a project in Mozambique. I do not have time to go into the questions raised on education, but again, in Jamaica, we have linked debt relief to education through the Commonwealth debt initiative.
1234
In conclusion, the sustainable livelihoods approach puts people at the centre of development. It focuses on the priorities of the poor and builds on their strengths and opportunities. It seeks to achieve practical outcomes for poor people. That is why DfID is at the forefront of applying the sustainable livelihoods approach. It represents a real means of achieving international development targets.

Alliance and Leicester plc (Group) Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.

  Indonesia: Arms Embargo
  Indonesia: Arms Embargo
  Western Sahara
  Western Sahara
  Yugoslavian Anti-Milosevic Refugees
  Yugoslavian Anti-Milosevic Refugees
  Sierra Leone: UN Mission
  Sierra Leone: UN Mission
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme
  Data Protection Act 1998: Subordinate Legislation
  Data Protection Act 1998: Subordinate Legislation